Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!princeton!notecnirp!mc
From: mc@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Cheating on Programming Assignments
Message-ID: <4385@princeton.Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21-Apr-87 09:06:07 EST
Article-I.D.: princeto.4385
Posted: Tue Apr 21 09:06:07 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Apr-87 05:32:13 EST
References: <250@rruxa.UUCP> <11370002@hpldorp.HP.COM>
Sender: news@princeton.Princeton.EDU
Reply-To: mc@notecnirp.UUCP (Mara Chibnik)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University
Lines: 26

To: kens@hpldorp.HP.COM
Subject: Re: Cheating on Programming Assignments
Newsgroups: comp.edu
In-Reply-To: <11370002@hpldorp.HP.COM>
References: <250@rruxa.UUCP>
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University
Cc: 
Bcc: 

In article <11370002@hpldorp.HP.COM> you write:
[ . . . ]

>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.
>
Not really.  We're interested in determining standards that we can impose on
other people whose notions of personal integrity might differ from our own.
Suppose we fail to make perfectly clear what lines we draw:  at what point can
we say that someone else has clearly overstepped generally accepted bounds?

But I agree that it's sad to spend so much time thinking about it.

Mara Chibnik
mc@princeton