Exam cheaters... - Page 11

Can an exam cheater not be "fundamentally honest?"

Mrr

Perhaps you should explain how they might be. Try and expand your reasoning abilities.

For a good clinician, personal belief's never impact the manner in which they conduct therapy. Everyone has biases and belief's that are maybe not held by the masses, this does not mean they impact that persons ability to be truly objective and can not be set aside when appropriate.

And yes I am a therapist, working on my PhD to become a psychologist in the next few years. No, I have never cheated on an exam.

MrR

In response to mano's last post: Is she not fundamentally honest?? MrR

Really? How so? This is what you said, emphasis yours:


Therefore I said:

And, I believe this was your counter:


Confine this discussion to exams, because if we don't it gets messy (which I am certainly willing to tackle, however). I once checked a formula that was still on the screen of my TI from the night before in an exam -- it was kind of a spur of the moment thing and not planned (not an excuse).

However, I am not a member of the flock of people who beforehand program formulas into their calculators, put index cards of notes into the cases, text students for answers, leave their text in the bathroom to check during the exam, write on their bodies or otherwise retain notes notes, or who excuse themselves, go into the next door computer lab, and look at the pirated copy of the solutions guide they have on cd.

Why does my checking that formula once invalidate me from turning in people pulling all of these staggering well-planned instances of blatant cheating? Forget ad hominem, I am using myself as an example and I want to know why. Further, explain how any explaination which maintains that point counters my quote above.

Please bear in mind: I am an engineer, these are engineering exams, they are absolutely curved. Competition for scholarships is fierce, graduating with honors from here means a way better shot at more money/better job, good enough grades buy you a free ride for a semester, there are departmental awards and prizes which are predominately scored on GPA, and finals account, at a minimum, for 40% of your grade -- in engineering, they try to make sure you know the material before you go out the door.

Anyway, explain.

Point taken, but then your quarrel is really with the whole concept of an adversarial justice system. The fundamental assumption of the system is that by allowing both sides to employ the same tools and techniques the quasi-dialectic process will bring you, on average, to the closest possible approximation of the truth. If one assumes that accurate self-recall is on the margin more durable than inaccurate self-recall, then the offsetting efforts of opposing counsel will chip away some of the chaff of false recall on each side, hopefully leaving behind the purer "wheat" of true recall. Often, it is not so much the attorney at trial acting as the outside party to enhance the witness's recollection in his/her favor, but rather the trial attorney trying to expose or strip away the enhancements that have added by others or the witness him/herself over time.
An over-idealized analogy, admittedly, but the reality of any attempt to carve truth or justice from the miasma of human experience is always going to be less than perfect. The real questions is: what is the alternative? Insist that the testimony of anyone who purports to be an eyewitness to an important fact be taken at face value, without counsel being allowed to test the accuracy and reliability of that testimony? Again, it's a very imperfect system, but I don't know of a better one that could work in the real world.
I'd also note that this discussion started because you implied - albeit somewhat glibly - that an attorney is not entitled to speak to the question of honesty. Whether or not you agree with the way the justice system attempts to sort accurate from inaccurate recall by witnesses, I don't see how the realities of that system get you to the point you were suggesting. The reality is that I run into many more non-lawyer witnesses who lie through their teeth than I do attorneys who lie or violate the applicable ethical and professional rules. Litigation attorneys have extensive training and experience in detecting and exposing dishonest or honest but inaccurate testimony by witnesses, so it arguably would make more sense to suggest that members of my profession are more qualified to speak to the issue than others.

hmm. I'll have to think about your post huntsman. The scenario you proposed is certainly unique in that I've never heard of anyone "accidentally" cheating on an exam, however, it doesnt seem to different than picking up your head to stretch during an exam and seeing someone elses paper fully exposed and taking a peek. Both aren't premeditated and are certainly not as blatant as hiding notes etc. If i were in that situation, I would honestly clear it before i looked at it, if only for fear of somehow being caught and throwing away years of hardwork. Lawyerdad, I stand by all of my posts in this thread but will concede that my comment RE: lawyers=cheaters is not a generalization that can be made; at least not 100% of the time, I suppose. RE: Suggestive interview techniques, there are ways to ensure more accurate recall of a situation and be certain to not bias responses. I work with young children who are reported to have been physically and sexually abused and am extremely careful to not insinuate that any event whatsoever occured when questioning a client. I will respond at length to both posts, however, I'm out the door for holiday travel. Merry christmas MrR

First of all, take a few hours to check out Kohlberg and specifically give some thought to the Heintz Dilemma and see how it applies to this discussion and your question of Can an exam cheater be "fundamentally honest?"
If you really want to do it right, read about Turiel and Gilligan (not THAT Gilligan you nimrod! )

You'll be a better student for it and in all seriousness, you'll post much better stuff than what your dishing out now.


NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!

A good clinician realizes they have personal beliefs running through their heads ALL THE TIME! Try as you might, YOU CAN"T SHUT THEM OFF! They may be up front or hidden, but they're there. Like it or not, personal beliefs impact therapy to a lesser or greater degree, more than you may realize.


YES, then NO!
The good clinician is able to recognize many of the more obvious personal beliefs, identfy them as such. They weigh the efficacy and accuracy of the personal beliefs within the CONTEXT of the therapeutic situation and the therapeutic theory and modality you applying. The good clinician will then procede with caution.

Sorry to burst your bubble, bub, but people who are smart and think a lot "outside of the box" (therapists?? ) have so many deeply held and hidden personal beliefs that it's guaranteed their objectivity is skewed a good part of the time.

Speaking of cheating students. Check out this funny email exchange between a student and a hacker he is trying to employ. Can people really be that gullible?

http://attrition.org/postal/z/033/0871.html

Perhaps.

You're on the right track, but read about Heintz and determine where that type of reasoning places her in terms of stages of moral development.

Merry Christmas, and have a good trip. If you do return to this topic, I'd suggest one consideration is that what makes sense in terms of trying to extract accurate reclall in a clinical setting may be different from what makes sense in an adversarial courtroom setting, given the somewhat different institutional "goals".

First, let me say that I am enjoying this thread, including the opposing posts. It is causing me to crystalize my understanding of the issue. Certainly, when we get into the "real world," and out of academia, those of us, like lawyers, CEO's, and others who find them acting on behalf of others, as their representatives or champions, find ourselves in grey areas sometimes. I am often haunted by the dichotomy between, for example, Robert E. Lee's not wanting to use spys because of the fact he considered spys dishonorable, and the great quote from Ernest Borgnine's character in "The Wild Bunch": "It's not the word you give, but who you give it to!" I will say that the only way to honorably negotiate the often unclear waters that might arise later in life is to be firmly grounded in a black and white system. For an extreme example, Mr. Rogers, is it ok to lie to someone who is holding your family hostage, to tell them you won't contact the police, when, in fact, you fully intend to? Does that disqualify you from future judgements on the issue of honor. Issues of honor often involve what the Japanese call "on," or obligation. It needs to be reciprocal. In the case of an academic honor system, the reciprocity arises from your accepting the benefits of the system whose excellence is dependent on the honor contract. I will say that having lived under strict honor systems in acacemia, I take that predisposition with me into everything I do. I will say that if I have had to make a technical breach since then, it has been after extremely careful consideration and the application of a calculus of honor and morality that many people who have never experienced such a system seem not to be able to understand. The exam cheaters are operating out of pure self interest to compensate for their own shortcomings and to present an _unearned_ capability. And they are doing that at the expense of others. So, reducing the argument back to cheating on exams, at the schools where I attended, all course work including exams, required that the student write an honor pledge on it. Something like, "On my honor, I pledge that I have niether received nor given any unauthorized assistance on this exam." And you had to sign it. Instructors would not accept papers or tests without the Pledge. That bound "the contract." Everyone agreed on the first day of their first year to abide by the Honor Code. So, if some one cheats on an exam and still signs the pledge and you are aware of it, hell yes, turn him in! I can't see the problem with this. You are confronted with a choice, either you are part of a fraternity of honorable people, or a brotherhood of liars, cheaters, and thieves. The system is designed to sort them out and graduate honorable people. Give me a break, who is the real rat in the cheater/turn in the cheater scenario????

Basically, we have A LOT of really bright, successful people on this forum.

So...'exam cheaters' turns into things like oh what if your family was kidnapped, would you lie? What about rules of evidence, is that lying?
Etc etc.

Backing up a little, the real question is this
1. Is taking the work of others and calling it your own, right?
2. Is taking in notes/whatever into an exam, when others have
not done so, right?

This has gotten all twisted around to 'oh yeee brother, does thousest
cast the first stone, surely not' kinda thing.

Nobody is perfect. Nobody. I think everyone agrees on that.

Maybe I just live in a clueless environment. I honestly don't know.

But I can honestly tell you, as God is my witness, really, it took
9 years including military service to get my 4 year degree, but I
did it 100% myself, and 100% honestly, and 100% by my own work.

But I did do my own work. Most of those around me, did their own work too.

I'm not even sure where I am going with this post now.

Maybe the rest of the world didn't, and I'm just clueless.
I honestly don't know.