Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
From: edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Cheating on Assignments (Grey ?)
Message-ID: <1404@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Apr-87 23:36:16 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1404
Posted: Mon Apr 20 23:36:16 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Apr-87 04:49:42 EST
References: <250@rruxa.UUCP> <11370002@hpldorp.HP.COM>
Reply-To: edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu.UUCP (mark edwards)
Organization: UW-Madison Academic Computer Center
Lines: 63

In article <11370002@hpldorp.HP.COM> kens@hpldorp.HP.COM (Ken Shrum) writes:
>With regard to `fractional cheating' - the manner in which a student
>performs/completes an assignment is either in accordance with
>instructions or not.  I see no gray area.  If the student isn't
>supposed to get outside help, use literature references, use
>non-textbook references, etc.  and then proceeds to anyway then
>cheating has occurred.

 So lets see now. If we get a student who has read a certain book
 before taking the class and comes to this assignment with those 
 stipulations, the student should disqualify himself and probably
 drop the class. To do otherwise would surely test his integrity as
 you put it. Once something has been read it quickly becomes meshed
 with other books. The only way to prove that the idea or whatever
 did not come from a certain book would be to reference the book 
 again. What if the reference that you read was in a passage in a
 completely different book? 

 The instructions are clear. There is no grey area. Following the
 instructions is not so clear. Humans are not perfect, their memories
 are not usually photographic, but reconstructive. If what you mean
 by no grey area, "doing the best one can to not violate these rules",
 then what you say is arguably possible. Then what you are doing is
 calling grey not grey. Meaning that you are redefining grey to mean
 something else. What I mean by grey is exactly "doing the best one
 can to not violate these rules". The instructions must be interpreted
 by everyone in the class, sometimes that means, even on the most
 integrity, as many ways as students in the class. At least it means 
 their is more than one interpretation.

>Taking a class multiple times (regardless of where), having better
>background knowledge, or being able to spend additional time on the
>class is neither cheating nor an unfair advantage over other students.

  Well, then I have to wish that all the classes that you take in the
  future, everyone in the class except you has taken it, that you are
  as bright as everyone else in the class, and the professor strongly
  believes in the bell curve grading system. I then wish that this
  luck follow you through your life. (Nothing personal, because this
  should not bother you. It is not an unfair disadvantage as you have
  stated above.)

>As a closing note, it rather bothers me that people are looking for an
>exact definition of what is cheating and what is not.  Is this so that
>they can abide by the letter of the law yet cheat anyway by finding
>loopholes?  We're talking personal integrity here, folks.

   The reason that we look for an exact definition is so we have a
   common ground on which to talk from. My definition of loopholes is
   fuzzy areas in the definition that could stand to be redefined. If
   we do not mean the same thing when we say a word, we can not argue
   and come to some ending point using that word.

   I try to use great integrity in everything I do. Of course it does
   not always come out that way, best intentions intended often have
   the worst results.

   Cheers,
   mark
-- 
    edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu
    {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
    UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706