Exam cheaters...

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Condor

Well, that's because you evidently assume everyone is as lacking in integrity as you. Perhaps you could tell us what saintly, self-abnegating vocation you follow

that's wrong man, and you distorted this whole discussion.

Even your own comment is contratictory to itself.

I'm trying not to hit on you hard, but those 2 statements are not right.
How so?
I think your comment is directed to my post, although I'm not sure because of the way your post is structured.
If so, I don't get what you're saying. What did I distort? Mr. Rogers made the blanket suggestion that everyone here cheats or does something similar. I responded to that. He then made a fairly infantile remark implying that my profession as a lawyer disqualifies me from having an opinion about cheating (the implication being that lawyers by definition are unusually lacking in ethics or honesty). I, in turn, asked him to identify the moral high ground from which he purported to be speaking.
I honestly don't see how those two comments are contradictory, unless you read the obvious irony out of my characterization of his hypothetical vocation.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by quid

i agree with this entirely.

there was however one time where i reported a person that was cheating. the classroom was stadium style probably 300 sutdents. The test was finishing up, and i look about 5 seats down in my row and 2 girls have their notebooks on the floor flipping through pages. So when i turned my exam in i just said you may want to take a walk through the rows, and i left the room. i dont know what if anything happened to those girls, and i wouldnt have said anything if it wasnt so blatant. a few postits or a note or 2 on your hand ok, at least youre being discrete, but your ******* notebook on the floor, c'mon. they were asking for it.
So then it's really an aesthetic issue, yes? Inept or flagrant cheaters should be reported, but not those with a bit more subtlety or panache?

 

[Condor]

I am absolutely sure none of my comments were directed at lawyerdad....

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Condor

I am absolutely sure none of my comments were directed at lawyerdad....
Ok, then I misunderstood based on the quoting. As Gilda Radner used to say:
"Never mind".

 

[Liberty Ship]

Originally Posted by mano

Amen!

Success in life is showing up regularly, doing the work well and reaping the reward. All successful students tolerated lousy instructors, boring lectures, irrelevant assignments and unfair tests. In the end, you have the degree, along with the integrity and discipline to know you can handle the crap that life sometimes hands you.

Does the system need changing? Probably. But it's not likely to change because the schools realize, "so many people are cheating, maybe we're demanding too much of them."

Re: the people who report cheaters, they have to accept the consequences of their actions, as well. Whistle-blowers in business and government are largely ignored and then ostracized when taken seriously. They often lose their jobs and have difficulty finding another. Many look back and regret their decision, indicating they wouldn't do it again if they knew how it would turn out. Students who report cheaters are considered tattle-tales as the responses on this thread bear out.


Here's what a lot of people like you, who have never lived under a "single sanction, turn in violators" honor system don't understand. When someone cheats, steals or lies within the boundaries of the System, they are putting at risk anyone who might become aware of the transgression.

To put it simply, by consciously deciding to violate the Honor Code, someone has decided to put everyone else at risk. By "risk" I mean anyone who might become aware of their trangresssion is faced with a horrible choice: Turn in the violator, or risk being turned in yourself. Personally, I have a great degree of contempt for anyone who, out of narrow self interest, sees fit to put me or anyone else in that position.

I am grateful that no one in my circle of contacts ever violated the Honor Code to my knowledge. If they had, I would have been faced with a soul-searching decision. I hope I would have done the right thing and asked him to turn himself in. (At which time, by the way, he could have still requested an Honor Trial, presented his case, and still have been acquitted.) If he had not been willing to do that, I would have had to turn him in. It would have been messey and painful and possibly personally damaging and embarassing . And, still, he could have requested an Honor Trial, presented his case, and been acquitted. Scary and dangerous, yes; just like the "real world" we were supposedly being prepared for.

But you know what? The system yielded a student body where, if there was cheating, no one knew about about it. And, honestly, I believe very few, hardly any, of us cheated. And the academic standards were, and are to this day, very high. I read here about classroom envoronments where cheating seems rapmant and people aren't inclined to do anyting about it. Cheating is like inflation. It's like a tax on your grades, with the benefit defaulting to those who did not earn it.

 

[mano]

Originally Posted by Liberty Ship

Here's what a lot of people like you, who have never lived under a "single sanction, turn in violators" honor system don't understand. When someone cheats, steals or lies within the boundaries of the System, they are putting at risk anyone who might become aware of the transgression.

To put it simply, by consciously deciding to violate the Honor Code, someone has decided to put everyone else at risk. By "risk" I mean anyone who might become aware of their trangresssion is faced with a horrible choice: Turn in the violator, or risk being turned in yourself. Personally, I have a great degree of contempt for anyone who, out of narrow self interest, sees fit to put me or anyone else in that position.

I am grateful that no one in my circle of contacts ever violated the Honor Code to my knowledge. If they had, I would have been faced with a soul-searching decision. I hope I would have done the right thing and asked him to turn himself in. (At which time, by the way, he could have still requested an Honor Trial, presented his case, and still have been acquitted.) If he had not been willing to do that, I would have had to turn him in. It would have been messey and painful and possibly personally damaging and embarassing . And, still, he could have requested an Honor Trial, presented his case, and been acquitted. Scary and dangerous, yes; just like the "real world" we were supposedly being prepared for.

But you know what? The system yielded a student body where, if there was cheating, no one knew about about it. And, honestly, I believe very few, hardly any, of us cheated. And the academic standards were, and are to this day, very high. I read here about classroom envoronments where cheating seems rapmant and people aren't inclined to do anyting about it. Cheating is like inflation. It's like a tax on your grades, with the benefit defaulting to those who did not earn it.

Your response is very helpful, for in the post you quoted, I'd originally written something about the honor system you described, but I took it out for the very reason you mentioned. I'd never lived it and what I wrote sounded awkward and uninformed. In other words, I wanted to make the point you made so well.

I do know some families who have their own honor code. Depending upon how it's applied, the family members are happy, centered, strong, trustworthy, have high self-esteem and take into account the context of how people behave. I know of at least one family which practices an honor code where they are scared, angry, self-rightious and rigid.

 

[rdawson808]

I haven't been around in a while but I thought I would add my 2 cents to the original post (and one that followed).

Yes, you should turn in cheaters. The system is based on people actually knowing what they are doing. So if someone is cheating, while it may not effect your grade directly, it will water down the value of the degree you earn when that cheater goes out into the world and turns out to be a doofus. That then reflects on you and your degree from the same school (and same department maybe).

Not all grades are curved as another poster indicated. I have taught a number of courses where I felt no compulsion whatsoever to curve the grades. I work ****** off to teach them. If they have failed, it is their own doing. I won't award poor performance. Even my curves are such that the failing students are not pushed up to a passing grade and those in the D-range see very small increases in their grades.

bob, the now-former professor

 

[MrRogers]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Mr. Rogers made the blanket suggestion that everyone here cheats or does something similar. I responded to that. He then made a fairly infantile remark implying that my profession as a lawyer disqualifies me from having an opinion about cheating (the implication being that lawyers by definition are unusually lacking in ethics or honesty). I, in turn, asked him to identify the moral high ground from which he purported to be speaking.
Christ, 2 weeks later and your're still quoting me? lol I chose not to respond because you still don't understand my point and I got tired of repeating myself. The moral highground from which I am speaking???? I said, many times over that everyone, INCLUDING MYSELF, cheats somehow, even if its once in their life. I think a handful of times at my last job I rounded an hour and fifteen minute sessions up to an hour and a half when I billed (I'm a therapist to answer your second question). I'm a very honest person. My point is that unless you are mother theresa you cannot make alot of the statements that are being made in this thread. Most of the guys applauding the original poster would be calling "rat" if someone blew the whistle on them. Lawyers are allowed to use styles of questioning and suggestion that are proven many times over in the research to influence eyewitness testimony, often enhancing perception of events in their favor. IMO this is much more harmful to the parties involved compared to someone cheating on an exam in college. Again, I have nothing more to add to this thread, if people are not willing to be honest with themselves, replying in this thread is like banging my head against a wall MrR

 

[Huntsman]

In other words, if you have ever done something 'wrong,' you are insufficiently holy to call any one to account for a similar transgression, even if an order of magnitude more premeditated and overt?

Ridiculous, especially for a therapist.

Regards,
Huntsman

 

[mano]

MrRogers is a therapist? What sort? Licensed psychologist, social worker...?

IMO, the three most important rules of psychology are:
1. Context
2. Context
and...
3. Context

The hard cold fact is that even the most honest people do dishonest things once in a while, but they're fundamentally honest.

The context of exam cheaters is that they are manifesting dishonest behavior that requires planning and forethought; it's premeditated and of significant consequence if they're caught. As folks here pointed out, the context of their cheating extends to others who don't cheat.

If Mr. R. is a therapist, please check out the work of Lawrence Kohlberg and his stages of moral development.

The point Mr. R. is making is not point I would expect from a therapist. He's using absolutist/reductive type of logic that simply doesn't hold water.

The wall he's banging his head against may be the concretness of his own thinking.

 

[MrRogers]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

In other words, if you have ever done something 'wrong,' you are insufficiently holy to call any one to account for a similar transgression, even if an order of magnitude more premeditated and overt?

Ridiculous, especially for a therapist.

Regards,
Huntsman


No, that is not correct, nor is it what I am saying.

MrR

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by MrRogers

Christ, 2 weeks later and your're still quoting me? lol I chose not to respond because you still don't understand my point and I got tired of repeating myself.

The moral highground from which I am speaking???? I said, many times over that everyone, INCLUDING MYSELF, cheats somehow, even if its once in their life. I think a handful of times at my last job I rounded an hour and fifteen minute sessions up to an hour and a half when I billed (I'm a therapist to answer your second question). I'm a very honest person. My point is that unless you are mother theresa you cannot make alot of the statements that are being made in this thread.

Most of the guys applauding the original poster would be calling "rat" if someone blew the whistle on them. Lawyers are allowed to use styles of questioning and suggestion that are proven many times over in the research to influence eyewitness testimony, often enhancing perception of events in their favor. IMO this is much more harmful to the parties involved compared to someone cheating on an exam in college.

Again, I have nothing more to add to this thread, if people are not willing to be honest with themselves, replying in this thread is like banging my head against a wall

MrR
I didn't quote you, I only referenced your post in order to explain to someone else the context of my subsequent quote. Yes, lawyers are sometimes allowed to use certain techniques to convince the jury or judge to see things their way. That is, the rules allow this -- on both sides. And as long as both sides "play" within the rules, it's a fair playing field. This makes it like exam-taking or any other competitive endeavor -- it's perfectly acceptable to seek an advantage that is permitted by the rules, but not to seek one by breaking the rules. TV portrayals notwithstanding, the vast majority of lawyers I know scrupulously honor those rules.
If you're going to insist on being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest in your responses, then at least we agree you have nothing more to add to this or any other thread.
I would note for those who are interested that many studies suggest that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, and that during the period after perceiving event witness's will often unconsciously modify or exaggerate what they actually perceived to conform to additional impressions or information they have later formed or received. Thus many witnesses tend to convince themselves over time that their perceptions were more clear or more definite than was really the case. I"m not intimately familiar with the academic research in this area, but what little I do know of it is fascinating.
BTW, I understood the point you were trying to make. I just think it's fatuous. There's a difference.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by MrRogers

No, that is not correct, nor is it what I am saying.

MrR
Really? That's funny, because that's certainly what many people would take from a statement like: "My point is that unless you are mother theresa you cannot make alot of the statements that are being made in this thread."

 

[drizzt3117]

Originally Posted by Liberty Ship

Here's what a lot of people like you, who have never lived under a "single sanction, turn in violators" honor system don't understand. When someone cheats, steals or lies within the boundaries of the System, they are putting at risk anyone who might become aware of the transgression.

To put it simply, by consciously deciding to violate the Honor Code, someone has decided to put everyone else at risk. By "risk" I mean anyone who might become aware of their trangresssion is faced with a horrible choice: Turn in the violator, or risk being turned in yourself. Personally, I have a great degree of contempt for anyone who, out of narrow self interest, sees fit to put me or anyone else in that position.

I am grateful that no one in my circle of contacts ever violated the Honor Code to my knowledge. If they had, I would have been faced with a soul-searching decision. I hope I would have done the right thing and asked him to turn himself in. (At which time, by the way, he could have still requested an Honor Trial, presented his case, and still have been acquitted.) If he had not been willing to do that, I would have had to turn him in. It would have been messey and painful and possibly personally damaging and embarassing . And, still, he could have requested an Honor Trial, presented his case, and been acquitted. Scary and dangerous, yes; just like the "real world" we were supposedly being prepared for.

But you know what? The system yielded a student body where, if there was cheating, no one knew about about it. And, honestly, I believe very few, hardly any, of us cheated. And the academic standards were, and are to this day, very high. I read here about classroom envoronments where cheating seems rapmant and people aren't inclined to do anyting about it. Cheating is like inflation. It's like a tax on your grades, with the benefit defaulting to those who did not earn it.

What's sad is that certain colleges and universities that have Honor Codes are still having to take precautions against cheating. I heard recently from a professor at HMC (Harvey Mudd College) that a group of students had been caught cheating on a take home exam and they now gave in-class exams for that particular class. Sad.

 

[MrRogers]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Really? That's funny, because that's certainly what many people would take from a statement like: "My point is that unless you are mother theresa you cannot make alot of the statements that are being made in this thread."


many who have contributed to this thread are doing so from the aspirational moralistic viewpoint that they themselves have never cheated at all, at any point in their lives. These page long, self-righteous diatribes about honor and degrating cheaters of any kind are null unless that person has never done so themselves, to any degree.

I understand your point lawyerdad RE: courtroom tactics in that such behavior is allowed, however, it still just doesn't sit well with me. True EWT is often inncaurate, however, incorrect self-recall of a situation is different than an outside party using suggestions to enhance that recollection in their favor.

MrR