How do you feel about cheating in school?

[gfd43tg]

Interesting to think about grading and testing that way. A couple of the courses that I learned the most from were ones in which I earned only C's.

That's what I'm saying. You got a C and learned a lot, but that's a sub 3.0 GPA which means your resume is thrown into the trash as soon as it's seen by HR

 

[symbolipoint]

That's what I'm saying. You got a C and learned a lot, but that's a sub 3.0 GPA which means your resume is thrown into the trash as soon as it's seen by HR

The chief's discarding a résumé depends on who is the organization. Some employers (you used "HR" in your post) care very much about GPA, and many do not. Also, much may depend on how the courses for your C's relate to the position that human resourcers are trying to fill. Someone with related experience for an open job position would likely be judged more by his experience and any grades from school could be unimportant.

 

[BobG]

That's what I'm saying. You got a C and learned a lot, but that's a sub 3.0 GPA which means your resume is thrown into the trash as soon as it's seen by HR

Possibly. If you're talking about a person fresh out of college with no job experience, GPA might be the only thing that separates him from another person fresh out college with no job experience. I'm not sure how many HR departments actually review transcripts (since they're not the people actually making the hiring decisions - they're the people screening out clearly unqualified candidates to at least make the pool of applicants small enough to be manageable). I think most are only concerned with proof an applicant actually has the degree they're saying they have - and given the scandals that can occur when a person lies on an early resume about a degree and somehow gets locked into repeating that lie over and over until they're a finally caught in the lie years later, I'm not sure how many HR departments do a good job of even verifying a person actually has a degree.

You've got to love HR people. At many companies, they'll willingly tell you that the only information they can give out about employees is whether they were actually employed there or not. They can't give out information on a past employee's performance. And then they'll also tell you that they diligently call all of applicant's past employers and ask about that applicant's job performance. When you ask them if they really expect more than verification that the applicant was employed there, they just frown and say "We might get more information".

 

[1MileCrash]

How is this even up for discussion?

 

[JonDE]

By time I was in high school, I realized that the best way to take tests was just to skip the questions I didn't know and move on to the next question. Then, having read the entire test, I'd go back to the questions I hadn't answered yet. The answers to many of those questions tended to be in other questions later in the test - or subsequent questions at least eliminated some of the choices on multiple choice questions to the point where at least I had a 50/50 chance of getting the question right.

Is it cheating to use the test as your source of answers? Or is that just lousy test writing?

I've actually been taught that this is the proper way to take test. When it comes to multiple choice, always eliminate as many answer as you can. In fact, in one of my current classes, after the first quiz, the professor went over the quiz and pointed out that many of the names he inserted were former football players, so were obviously not the correct answer. While this is not exactly the same as using the test for answers, in this class at least, the professor was acknowledging that using other knowledge to eliminate answers was acceptable, maybe even encouraged (which does seem strange).

 

[Medicol]

...
You've got to love HR people. At many companies, they'll willingly tell you that the only information they can give out about employees is whether they were actually employed there or not. They can't give out information on a past employee's performance. And then they'll also tell you that they diligently call all of applicant's past employers and ask about that applicant's job performance. When you ask them if they really expect more than verification that the applicant was employed there, they just frown and say "We might get more information".

I think it depends, if you take the whole country's companies, then it'll be too many for HRers to be "connected". But in a city, the probability for HRers of one company to be friends or past colleagues of those of another is much higher. Private information about the employee in question being spread via skype or any type or messengers isn't uncommon. So it'll become harder for a candidate to lie about his qualifications. :(

 

[BobG]

I think it depends, if you take the whole country's companies, then it'll be too many for HRers to be "connected". But in a city, the probability for HRers of one company to be friends or past colleagues of those of another is much higher. Private information about the employee in question being spread via skype or any type or messengers isn't uncommon. So it'll become harder for a candidate to lie about his qualifications. :(

More likely, it will be people in the actual work area that are "connected" - hence the good old boy network. Since HR is so often such little help, the first thing you do with an applicant you don't know is start checking with other people you do know that worked in the same company.

If HR can't give out information, then other people in work center certainly can't give out info. But that doesn't carry much weight if you're talking about friends that have worked together in the past. They'll share a lot of information about people they've worked with because they're going to be in the same position you are sometime in the future - and you've got to get information from somewhere.

My favorite was a guy I used to work with. When he worked with us, he would sometimes log onto his work e-mail from home and pretend to be at work when he was actually at home. And then there came a time when he just stopped showing up for work at all. And stopped answering any calls from work. Our boss tried to fire him, but that was impossible when the guy wasn't coming into work and wasn't answering any calls from work. Our boss finally had the police show up at his door just to make sure he was still alive, seeing as how it was possible the reason he stopped showing up for work and answering calls was because he was lying dead on the kitchen floor.

After the visit from the police, the guy decided he better go to work. Except his badge had already been deactivated. He calls his work center, the boss isn't around, and no one in the work center wants to be the guy that goes out and tells him he's fired. They left him out there until the boss finally got back.

Fast forward ten years later. The company we worked for had been bumped off the contract and, as often happens, most of the workers just got hired by the new company that bumped the old company off the contract.

That guy that just stopped showing up for work? He applies for a job with the new company not realizing that he's actually applying for the same job he had ten years ago with quite a few of same employees still around, but now working for the new company. We had fist fights over who would get to do the job interview (only for our manager to cancel the job interview completely once he realized we were vying for cruel entertainment on company time).

HR may have rules about the info they give out. But somebody, somewhere remembers you and all the stuff you did at your old job(s) and they'll talk to their friends even if no one else.

 

[vela]

The WORKING of the problem is seldom identical!

Unless they cheated. ;)

 

[BobG]

I've actually been taught that this is the proper way to take test. When it comes to multiple choice, always eliminate as many answer as you can. In fact, in one of my current classes, after the first quiz, the professor went over the quiz and pointed out that many of the names he inserted were former football players, so were obviously not the correct answer. While this is not exactly the same as using the test for answers, in this class at least, the professor was acknowledging that using other knowledge to eliminate answers was acceptable, maybe even encouraged (which does seem strange).

This is the problem with college professors. Many of them have no training on how to teach or how to design instructional courses. High school teachers (and below) have to be certified as teachers. By time you get to upper level college courses, the material is so difficult that colleges just hope to find someone that understands the material. Finding a person that both understands the material and knows how to teach is a lot to ask.

What was the point of the quiz if the professor was using former football players for the "distractors"? This is the sort of practice that makes the quizzes seem pointless. It encourages cheating. Why should the students care any more about the quiz than the professor?

 

[symbolipoint]

This is the problem with college professors. Many of them have no training on how to teach or how to design instructional courses. High school teachers (and below) have to be certified as teachers. By time you get to upper level college courses, the material is so difficult that colleges just hope to find someone that understands the material. Finding a person that both understands the material and knows how to teach is a lot to ask.

What was the point of the quiz if the professor was using former football players for the "distractors"? This is the sort of practice that makes the quizzes seem pointless. It encourages cheating. Why should the students care any more about the quiz than the professor?

First paragraph is a good explanation.

Second paragraph we can't be sure about unless we know more details.

Professors who teach at universities and colleges can teach well if they want to. They should have no trouble understanding the meaning of and how to make a lesson plan, choose objectives, and design the lessons to reach those objectives, and to create good assessments. That is their job (some uncertainty here); that is why they are in a teaching position (which again has some uncertainty).

 

[symbolipoint]

Obviously no reasonable person approves of academic cheating, especially bold or devious, greedy cheating. What do you want be done? Stop all cheating? Punish cheaters?

Think of a way to give tests or quizes so that the students cannot cheat. Ideas?

Put individual different test items onto paper tickets and put into a baffled basket. Each student one by one, takes a ticket, not knowing what is on it until he pulls it from the basket. And then, the student responds and answers the test item as a live presentation. This take-a-ticket, student think, student respond as presentation, cycles through the class during testing period until sufficient. The method would work better in a small class than a large class. Much time, maybe, but not an opportunity for cheating.

 

[ChiralWaltz]

I do not endorse cheating. I turned in some incomplete homework today despite having access to copy the material.

It would not have felt right if I did. It could get me into the habit of not finishing my work and relying copying the solutions. It is frustrating to have classmates who turn in copied work when I'm busting my butt.

As for the Kobayashi Maru, I side with the Captian.

 

[vela]

Professors who teach at universities and colleges can teach well if they want to. They should have no trouble understanding the meaning of and how to make a lesson plan, choose objectives, and design the lessons to reach those objectives, and to create good assessments. That is their job (some uncertainty here); that is why they are in a teaching position (which again has some uncertainty).

At research universities, teaching may be part of their job, but I'd guess some see it as a nuisance and don't put much effort into learning how to teach effectively. Even if they want to, the university/department may discourage them spending time on teaching in lieu of doing research.

Another problem is that some faculty see teaching as trivial. In their view, they covered the material and presented it in a clear and organized way, and if the students don't get it, it's because they lack the ability or just don't work hard enough. As long as a professor doesn't recognize that he or she is part of the problem, there's not likely to be much improvement.

 

[Medicol]

...
Think of a way to give tests or quizes so that the students cannot cheat. Ideas?
Put individual different test items onto paper tickets and put into a baffled basket. Each student one by one, takes a ticket, not knowing what is on it until he pulls it from the basket. And then, the student responds and answers the test item as a live presentation. This take-a-ticket, student think, student respond as presentation, cycles through the class during testing period until sufficient. The method would work better in a small class than a large class. Much time, maybe, but not an opportunity for cheating.

I think it's time constraint that will almost reduce or limit their chances to cheat. I used to take tests that my teacher allowed us to bring all materials into the test room to look up details while writing the answers in the answer sheet. There was no need for cheating of course but those without regular class attendance would fail. Even the hard-working ones could hardly complete all the answers correctly.
Copycatting can be prevented by randomizing the test items for the five students sitting next to each other (square block) to not be able to share the same (ordered) questions.

 

[Entanglement]

Getting As or A+ by cheating is really disgusting.