People not following the rules

[dotman]

It means equivalent to. What do I need to look up? You've been saying it's not cheating, and then when I catch you in a discrepancy, you want to play the semantics card.

I'm not debating semantics with you. It adds nothing to the discussion.

What's wrong with that? Please show me a link to where it says in writing that I'm not supposed to do that.

What's wrong is you aren't helping the OP, which means you're only arguing for the sake of arguing.

So like I said, unless you have some advice for the OP, please stop derailing this thread. If you want to discuss the actual points made in this thread, please do so.

To be honest, I don't even know what you're trying to say at this point.

 

[leroyjenkens]

What's wrong is you aren't helping the OP, which means you're only arguing for the sake of arguing.

How is it not helping him to critique what other people say? That's a very unscientific way of thinking.
Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean you can't know what the answer isn't.
For example, if someone posts a forum topic asking what kind of fats are healthy to eat and someone responds with "trans fat", is it not helping the OP for me to disagree with that person, even if I don't know what kind of fats are healthy to eat? I may not know what's healthy, but I know what isn't.
So your conclusion doesn't follow the premise. I'm arguing for the sake of arguing because I disagree with someone?

So like I said, unless you have some advice for the OP, please stop derailing this thread. If you want to discuss the actual points made in this thread, please do so.

Wow, that's what I was doing. I was discussing a point made in this thread. I guess what you mean to say is discuss OTHER people's points, since your points are the gospel truth and not up for debate.

To be honest, I don't even know what you're trying to say at this point.

Of course you do, since you just responded to what I said.
What that is is just a last little jab at me as if I'm some nutcase rambling on. You defeat the purpose of that comment by answering the very question you claim to not understand.

 

[ideasrule]

More succinctly, asking what would happen if everyone kept working is invalid, because everyone did not keep working. But clearly the OP could have, with no ill consequences.

...and not everybody is going to keep on working because many of the people would be done and would have checked it over 3 times, while many others have checked it over over 1 times but feel very confident

 

[ideasrule]

...Imagine that the OP is competing for a second year spot and he gets up and hands his test in ON time everytime. Another student who always answers one extra question or fixes one extra mistake on their test AFTER the given test time receives better grades by .5% (and the extra answers/corrections always are right) the OP followed the rules and maintain ok grades but doesn't make the cut the other person just makes the cut above him.
Is that fair?

If the OP is planning to go into anything remotely science-related, observing one's environment and drawing reasonable conclusions is crucial. Being able to look around, look at the teacher, and gauge whether he can continue writing isn't rocket science; the average person should be able to do this basic observation and deduction. Anybody who can't is definitely not well-suited for scientific research.

 

[Sorry!]

If the OP is planning to go into anything remotely science-related, observing one's environment and drawing reasonable conclusions is crucial. Being able to look around, look at the teacher, and gauge whether he can continue writing isn't rocket science; the average person should be able to do this basic observation and deduction. Anybody who can't is definitely not well-suited for scientific research.

Science means act immorally?

It would make sense if these people didn't KNOW it wasn't ok to continue writing for those extra minutes because then it would just be amoral.

What your suggesting though is that the OP blatantly disregards the instructions he's given because he's observed other people have done so without consequence?

If I were to observe people stealing candy from a store and not have any consequence laid against them would it be scientific to conclude that I too should steal the candy?

No- my ethics would lead me to exactly what the OP has done and gone to speak about it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't understand why this is so complicated.

Where I was an undergraduate, the tradition was that at 11:00 AM (or whenever), the professor picked up the pile of tests on the desk and walked out the door. If your test was still on your desk or in your hand, well, that's your problem now, isn't it?

 

[redargon]

50 minute exam for 20% of your year mark, haha. If you're good enough at your subject, you shouldn't have to worry about competing with the people that take an extra 5 minutes to finish, you should be worried about the guys that handed in their test 5 minutes early with a big smile on their face. The fact is, at uni or school, you should compete against yourself and not others. Who cares if some guy got more time to write a test, boo hoo, it won't change your own mark and it might give them, what, like 1-2% more in a test that counts for 20% of the course (so actually about 0.2-0.4% in terms of the course).

 

[Pattonias]

I don't understand why this is so complicated.

Where I was an undergraduate, the tradition was that at 11:00 AM (or whenever), the professor picked up the pile of tests on the desk and walked out the door. If your test was still on your desk or in your hand, well, that's your problem now, isn't it?

I like that. "Welcome to the real world!"

I always liked the teachers who didn't argue, they established the rule and there was no discussion.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Science means act immorally?

It would make sense if these people didn't KNOW it wasn't ok to continue writing for those extra minutes because then it would just be amoral.

What your suggesting though is that the OP blatantly disregards the instructions he's given because he's observed other people have done so without consequence?

If I were to observe people stealing candy from a store and not have any consequence laid against them would it be scientific to conclude that I too should steal the candy?

No- my ethics would lead me to exactly what the OP has done and gone to speak about it.

Well said.
This stuff about learning when you can and can't break the rules and learning the maximum you can push the limits without having any consequences is just crazy talk. I can't believe what I'm hearing.

 

[Sorry!]

So if the OP talks to the prof. or TAs about this and they tell him they don't mind the students writing for a few extra moments to finish up then by all means use up that extra time if you need it (as I previously pointed out in one of my first few posts though you probably don't need these extra minutes in the same way the other people do if you feel comfortable enough to submit your exam without frantically rushing answers towards the end). If the prof. says they will look into it or something along the lines of students are not permitted to continue to write then they should just continue submitting test within the allotted time.

Imagine that the OP decides one time to take 5 extra minutes to finish a couple questions he skipped earlier and the prof. suddenly decides to react. Bam he deducts the OPs exam by 5% per minute or something to that effect.
The OP can argue all he wants that he was just doing what a couple few other students were doing but I don't think this will excuse his actions at all and he'll have to live as the 'set example'.

 

[ideasrule]

Science means act immorally?

It means using observation and reason to make rational deductions about one's environment. If a teacher decides to allow extra time, that should be obvious. There shouldn't be any quibbling about "cheating" or "breaking the rules", because the teacher's implied rules weren't broken. I've had plenty of teachers who allow a lot of extra time, plenty who allow only a minute, and plenty who are very strict about the time limit. I can't believe that any reasonably intelligent person would have trouble distinguishing between the three types of teachers.

 

[dotman]

This stuff about learning when you can and can't break the rules and learning the maximum you can push the limits without having any consequences is just crazy talk.

Why is it crazy? People do this literally every day in nearly every aspect of their life. I could give a number of examples, but probably the best one is just about any sporting event-- I'll pick a professional basketball game. The players are constantly bumping, pushing, shoving, elbowing, and generally 'playing physically'. Strictly speaking, a team commits multiple penalties on nearly every play. But they're not called. The players develop an intuitive sense for how far they can push these rules, and base their decisions to bend or break them based on how badly they need to score, get the ball back, whatever. If they're ahead, they play it safe, and don't risk it.

 

[Moonbear]

Well said.
This stuff about learning when you can and can't break the rules and learning the maximum you can push the limits without having any consequences is just crazy talk. I can't believe what I'm hearing.

Why? That's how the world works. One needs to learn when a rule is hard and fast and when it is more of a guideline than a rule. If someone is always overly rigid about the rules, always stays safely inside the box, and never tests the limits, they will not get very far in life. It's the people who test the boundaries and break through them who make progress happen. And, if nobody is strictly enforcing a rule, it's usually because nobody thinks it's all that important of a rule.

Yes, there is always a risk of consequences when one breaks a rule. One needs to decide for themselves if they feel the risk is justified for the potential gain they could make. Where would society be today if Rosa Parks always followed the rules and never chose to break one she felt was unjust?

 

[General_Sax]

I think I'm just stressed about not getting into a program I want. Some of these kids are just ridiculously smart; doubling class averages and such.

She should write: "You have approximately 50 minutes to write this exam", on her exams.

 

[Sorry!]

Why? That's how the world works. One needs to learn when a rule is hard and fast and when it is more of a guideline than a rule. If someone is always overly rigid about the rules, always stays safely inside the box, and never tests the limits, they will not get very far in life. It's the people who test the boundaries and break through them who make progress happen. And, if nobody is strictly enforcing a rule, it's usually because nobody thinks it's all that important of a rule.

Yes, there is always a risk of consequences when one breaks a rule. One needs to decide for themselves if they feel the risk is justified for the potential gain they could make. Where would society be today if Rosa Parks always followed the rules and never chose to break one she felt was unjust?

This rule ISN'T unjust that's the difference. We won't have a student uprising against time based testings will we?

 

[rootX]

Well said.
This stuff about learning when you can and can't break the rules and learning the maximum you can push the limits without having any consequences is just crazy talk. I can't believe what I'm hearing.

I get very annoyed by people who tend to follow every single rule. It's just very hard to work with them.

 

[ideasrule]

This rule ISN'T unjust that's the difference. We won't have a student uprising against time based testings will we?

Actually, it isn't even the rule. The teacher decides the rules and in the OP's case, he/she decided to give everybody a few extra minutes.

 

[General_Sax]

If it wasn't a rule, she wouldn't have specified the time limit on the cover sheet of her exam.

 

[Sorry!]

Actually, it isn't even the rule. The teacher decides the rules and in the OP's case, he/she decided to give everybody a few extra minutes.

I was talking about the suggestion that other people have been giving that the OP should just disregard the rules that are stated before the test begins.

As well I'm sure you have to listen to your TA/prof when they direct you so that is a rule.

 

[Moonbear]

If it wasn't a rule, she wouldn't have specified the time limit on the cover sheet of her exam.

Consider it tolerance limits, sort of like setting the speed limit below what is a safe speed to drive on a road, or maximum recommended operating settings on a machine below what the machine can handle, knowing people will exceed any posted limit by some small percentage.

Besides, the person who makes the rules is allowed to change or waive the rules. If I tell my class they have an hour to take the exam, and at the end of the hour period, most of them are still working, I could yell at them to put their pencils down and anyone still writing will get a zero, or I could tell them they can have 5 extra minutes. It's at the discretion of the person giving the exam. I always have my exam rooms reserved for an extra 20 min longer than I tell the students they have for the exam. That mostly is just so I know I have extra time for giving instructions or clearing out of the room if there is a problem with the exam (including that we sometimes have a fire drill during an exam). But, it also means that if I entirely miscalculated the difficulty of my exam, I have some leeway to give the class extra time at the end.

 

[NeoDevin]

Consider it tolerance limits, sort of like setting the speed limit below what is a safe speed to drive on a road, or maximum recommended operating settings on a machine below what the machine can handle, knowing people will exceed any posted limit by some small percentage.

Besides, the person who makes the rules is allowed to change or waive the rules. If I tell my class they have an hour to take the exam, and at the end of the hour period, most of them are still working, I could yell at them to put their pencils down and anyone still writing will get a zero, or I could tell them they can have 5 extra minutes. It's at the discretion of the person giving the exam. I always have my exam rooms reserved for an extra 20 min longer than I tell the students they have for the exam. That mostly is just so I know I have extra time for giving instructions or clearing out of the room if there is a problem with the exam (including that we sometimes have a fire drill during an exam). But, it also means that if I entirely miscalculated the difficulty of my exam, I have some leeway to give the class extra time at the end.

Given that some students may have other exams/classes/commitments after the scheduled time, it is unfair to give unannounced extra time, after the time has been set. If you have made an exam too difficult for the time allotted, the only fair way to fix it is by curving the results (either of the exam or of the course).

At my university, it is against the code of conduct for a professor to alter the timing of a final exam in any way after it is set in the syllabus without written agreement of all students registered in a course. This includes granting extra time at the end of an exam (though I doubt it would ever come to anything for a couple of people who continue writing for a minute or two).

I did have one prof who awarded a mark of 0 to four students in my class who didn't stop writing after he called time. He made it clear before hand what the consequences would be; and despite their protests and complaints to the department, the mark of 0 stuck.

 

[Moonbear]

Given that some students may have other exams/classes/commitments after the scheduled time, it is unfair to give unannounced extra time, after the time has been set. If you have made an exam too difficult for the time allotted, the only fair way to fix it is by curving the results (either of the exam or of the course).

Curving is never a fair way to fix a difficult exam. I know for a fact that my students do not have other commitments after my exam, because even the extra time falls within their regularly scheduled lecture time (we have an hour and 20 min for lecture, and I only give them an hour long exam). I agree that if the exam were to run over into another lecture period, that could be a problem...though in my case it is not, because the only class it would run into is the lab portion of the course they have with me).

But, indeed, if students had to leave after the regularly scheduled time was over, that would be the end of the exam. The most fair thing is to just give them the bad grades they earned in such a situation.

We have university required final exam periods too, and any changes need to be approved in advance. But, even for that, I have a one hour exam, and they have a 2 hour period scheduled by the university for my exam.

As I said, there is a lot of discretion by the faculty and from university to university. There is no official advice we could give here that would apply in every case, which is why one must make the decisions for themselves about whether the rules are very strictly enforced or have some wiggle room for their particular class.

 

[NeoDevin]

I know for a fact that my students do not have other commitments after my exam, because even the extra time falls within their regularly scheduled lecture time (we have an hour and 20 min for lecture, and I only give them an hour long exam).

In that situation, I would agree that it is not unfair.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Why? That's how the world works. One needs to learn when a rule is hard and fast and when it is more of a guideline than a rule.

Well if it's a guideline, it's a guideline. If it's a rule, it's a rule. If you find out that it's a guideline instead of a rule, then you're not breaking the rule when you defy it.

And, if nobody is strictly enforcing a rule, it's usually because nobody thinks it's all that important of a rule.

Doesn't seem like they strictly enforce driving a few MPH over the speed limit, but then you'll find out one day that they do and regret it. I have two friends who found that out. One got pulled over once for going 5 MPH over and once for going 6 MPH over, the other got pulled over for going 7 MPH over.

You may think you can bend a rule, but then you'll regret it when you get caught.

If someone is always overly rigid about the rules, always stays safely inside the box, and never tests the limits, they will not get very far in life.

Honestly, not to sound rude, but that statement is really cliche. I've heard it before. I don't get it. What rules do you have to break to get far in life? Where are these rules that are restricting people from getting far in life? I never hear of someone working hard all their life, but not reaping the benefits because they're unwilling to bend and break a few rules to really take the bull by the horns and get to the next level.

Yes, there is always a risk of consequences when one breaks a rule. One needs to decide for themselves if they feel the risk is justified for the potential gain they could make. Where would society be today if Rosa Parks always followed the rules and never chose to break one she felt was unjust?

Well, that's different. Breaking a rule you feel is unjust is different than breaking a rule simply because you're sure you can get away with it.

 

[BobG]

If someone is always overly rigid about the rules, always stays safely inside the box, and never tests the limits, they will not get very far in life.

Honestly, not to sound rude, but that statement is really cliche. I've heard it before. I don't get it. What rules do you have to break to get far in life? Where are these rules that are restricting people from getting far in life? I never hear of someone working hard all their life, but not reaping the benefits because they're unwilling to bend and break a few rules to really take the bull by the horns and get to the next level.

I think that's a fair criticism.

There is a correlation between a person's willingness to take risks (including breaking a few trivial rules that a person knows will result in little to no punishments) and a person's likelihood of accomplishing something original.

It's obviously not the rule breaking that takes a person far in life.

It's that the people that are most likely to accomplish something no one else has thought of are people that don't take it for granted that a rule must always be correct and must always be adhered to.

The only problem with the cliche in this case is that turning a test paper in late usually isn't any more original than religiously following the posted time limit. It's a misapplied cliche in this case. (Successfully ironing your shirt while wearing it would be a proper application of the cliche - with "successfully" being the key word.)

 

[DanP]

Besides, the person who makes the rules is allowed to change or waive the rules. .

This is a very poor excuse. "Rules of engagement" aint to be changed during the game. If you think the rules are poor, change them for the next exam you keep, but as long you are in the game (i,e. exam running), rules currently in effect should be observed and not changed. First and foremost by the one who made them.

I have nothing against ppl testing the "limit of the rules", but then again, the person who conducts the examination should be prepared to enforce the rules. It is very unfair for an educator to willingly participate in a scheme which result in unfair advantages to a subgroup.

Also, the thing with 0 for all ppl who don't put the pencil down is forced. If the purpose of the examination is to test and evaluate the knowledge of the subjects, then evaluate the content of their work, don't give them a 0 for what can be a impressive display of knowledge.

If the numbers of ppl examined are small it's very easy to get all work collected. Just have your TA collect the work, or doit yourself.

 

[DanP]

It's that the people that are most likely to accomplish something no one else has thought of are people that don't take it for granted that a rule must always be correct and must always be adhered to.

Indeed , is so boring to respect the canon. Especially rules made by boring ppl, rules who so well reflect their personality :P

But the role of the educator is to enforce the rules. Anything else is to offer unfair advantages to a subgroup, and what's more, it teaches the students that the best way to progress is using unfair advantages.

Universities make such a big deal of "Academic Honesty". Well, the first to adhere to "academic honesty" should be the educators. Never give a person unfair advantage over another. Respect the rules. Respect your students.

 

[BobG]

But the role of the educator is to enforce the rules. Anything else is to offer unfair advantages to a subgroup, and what's more, it teaches the students that the best way to progress is using unfair advantages.

Universities make such a big deal of "Academic Honesty". Well, the first to adhere to "academic honesty" should be the educators. Never give a person unfair advantage over another. Respect the rules. Respect your students.

Before you start worrying about college educators enforcing the rules, and worrying about how that affects fairness, you should ask how many college educators have ever taken a course that teaches them how to create tests. A military instructor? Real good chance (well, at least part of the courses on how to develop courses includes test development). A high school teacher? Maybe - I'm not sure what's included in the mandatory certification they have to get. Your most esteemed college professors? Probably not, since their prestige comes from the research they've done; not from their teaching proficiency.

It might sound nice to say an instructor should be qualified to create a test before being allowed to teach a class, but it's not the reality and it means enforcing the rules could be grossly unfair to all of the students; not just a few.

 

[DanP]

It might sound nice to say an instructor should be qualified to create a test before being allowed to teach a class, but it's not the reality and it means enforcing the rules could be grossly unfair to all of the students; not just a few.

Well, they (the most esteemed college professors) are pretty intelligent and driven individuals. Certainly they have the capability to self-evaluate their teaching / testing abilities and improve.I don't believe in quantifying "unfairness" in terms of numbers. A situation IMO is not better if it's unfair to say 5 ppl than if it's unfair to 10 ppl. Granted, it's very hard to create something which is fair to all in whatever circumstance imaginable. However, some things are pretty basic, and letting someone compete for longer is unthinkable. Especially if the result of the competition are used , directly or indirectly, to qualify for a further position. I would never accept something like this. It;s also good material for lawyers IMO.

It's like sending a football team off the filed, but allow the opposing team to play another 5 mins before you register the score. Then say, they qualified to quarter finals. It's like allowing a 100m sprinter 1 sec early start , then motivate it with something like "Well, you know, the poor guy runs a bit slower than the other 9, so let's give him so advantage". What ? What is he doing here in the first place if it;s slow ?

 

[BobG]

This is a very poor excuse. "Rules of engagement" aint to be changed during the game. If you think the rules are poor, change them for the next exam you keep, but as long you are in the game (i,e. exam running), rules currently in effect should be observed and not changed. First and foremost by the one who made them.

I have nothing against ppl testing the "limit of the rules", but then again, the person who conducts the examination should be prepared to enforce the rules. It is very unfair for an educator to willingly participate in a scheme which result in unfair advantages to a subgroup.

Also, the thing with 0 for all ppl who don't put the pencil down is forced. If the purpose of the examination is to test and evaluate the knowledge of the subjects, then evaluate the content of their work, don't give them a 0 for what can be a impressive display of knowledge.

If the numbers of ppl examined are small it's very easy to get all work collected. Just have your TA collect the work, or doit yourself.

I agree that a professor proclaiming the punishment for turning a test in late will be a 0 is his first mistake. He's squeezed himself between administering a bizarrely inappropriate punishment or diminishing his own credibility because he can't really dish out that kind of punishment.

I'm not sure strict adherence to the rules is the answer when the instructor hasn't correctly assessed how much time is required to complete the test.

Assuming a course costs around $250 per credit hour (obviously there's a huge variation from university to university, so what can you do but assume some cost) and a course is 5 credit hours and there's around 50 students in the class. I guess having half the class receive a grade low enough to require them to retake the course is good for the university (the teacher's ineptitude in creating tests has netted the university over $31,000). It's not good for the 25 students forking out an extra $1250 in tuition, not because they don't know the material, but because the instructor couldn't create a fair test (okay, realistically, a few of those were going to fail regardless, so maybe 20 are getting unfairly abused).

You're talking about people's money, their schedule (since they've probably already scheduled next semester's classes), their time and lost income (delayed graduation). If Nissan sold you a lemon of a car, you'd want them to fix it. You wouldn't want to be forking out over a $1000 in repairs for something that should have operated properly in the first place.

A professor is going to have to have enough leeway to fix whatever mistakes they've made in assessing a test's difficulty or else the students are going to have a legitimate complaint about the university failing to deliver the product they contracted to deliver.

Not that a university would ever be held liable in a court - tradition says that part of what a student pays for is abuse from the university and that abuse is held pretty dear. Kind of like a fraternity pledge surviving the hazing of hell week considers being abused by his "friends" to be one of the most valuable experiences of his life. I think that abuse is part of what makes alumni so loyal to the university they graduated from.

In other words, you may be right since little about universities follow any sort of standards that would be applied to the usual consumer commodity.

 

[BobG]

Well, they (the most esteemed college professors) are pretty intelligent and driven individuals. Certainly they have the capability to self-evaluate their teaching / testing abilities and improve.

Aristotle was pretty darn smart. That's why people figured his model of the universe must be correct. Never mind that he had done almost no study or research of celestial mechanics or gravity. Those were things completely out of his realm of experience. None the less, that stuff can't be so tough that a person of extraordinary intelligence couldn't just sit down and reason it out in about an afternoon or so.

 

[DanP]

I'm not sure strict adherence to the rules is the answer when the instructor hasn't correctly assessed how much time is required to complete the test.

I agree, but the instructors usually have a lot of data about exams at the faculty. They have previous exams, previous results, average success rates and so on. It should be their responsibility to deliver realistic test scenarios. I think (I can be mistaken ofc) most of such cases of very hard exams come from overzealous faculty members, rather from a fundamental wrong approaches in designing tests.

Not that a university would ever be held liable in a court - tradition says that part of what a student pays for is abuse from the university and that abuse is held pretty dear. Kind of like a fraternity pledge surviving the hazing of hell week considers being abused by his "friends" to be one of the most valuable experiences of his life.

Tradition suxs :P World changes. If you pay a insane amount of money for education , you pay for a product to be delivered to you, not to be abused.

By the same token, it would be a invaluable life experience for a women to go to a fertility clinic, pay large amounts of money for whatever treatments, only to have her eggs removed and used god knows for what purposes. Abuse is plain wrong.

While "hell week" like experiences are very useful in situations where you have to craft indomitable individuals with extremely high tolerance to fatigue, fear and famine (military settings usually, but here they become mandatory part of the curriculum hence they can't be called "abuse") , IMO they have no place in academia.

 

[DanP]

Aristotle was pretty darn smart. That's why people figured his model of the universe must be correct. Never mind that he had done almost no study or research of celestial mechanics or gravity. Those were things completely out of his realm of experience.

Sure, but if for a educator balancing coursework and tests is "out of his realm of experience", his place is not in a university. Maybe the individual in question should seek employment at a private funded research institute , where he can focus on research and work with a insanely narrow group of overachievers.

 

[JasonRox]

Aristotle was pretty darn smart. That's why people figured his model of the universe must be correct. Never mind that he had done almost no study or research of celestial mechanics or gravity. Those were things completely out of his realm of experience. None the less, that stuff can't be so tough that a person of extraordinary intelligence couldn't just sit down and reason it out in about an afternoon or so.

I don't think he reasoned it out in one afternoon.

 

[ideasrule]

This is simply bizarre. I honestly can't understand why anybody would care if the teacher wants to give people a few extra minutes. (I agree, however, that cutting into a student's next class is unfair.) I also can't understand what's so hard about looking at the teacher, listening to him/her, and judging whether it's OK to continue writing. There has never been a problem in my high school; the teachers always made it obvious whether extra time was allowed.