Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!ucsd!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!utastro!nather
From: nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: A pesimistic sociological view of cheating
Keywords: Sociology, Anthropology of schooling.
Message-ID: <2935@utastro.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jul 88 21:27:11 GMT
References: <4513@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <25189@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 63

In article <25189@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, lagache@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Edouard  Lagache) writes:
> 
> 	   Jean Lave [...]
> 	saw that while students
> 	and teachers alike would both swear that they were learning from
> 	the teacher (when interviewed by the researchers), the fact of the
> 	matter was that the students were learning from each other far more
> 	than from the teacher.
> 

This says a great deal more about the vacuity of our school systems than
about the morality of the students.  Kids love to learn -- until we force
them into school systems that turn off their enthusiasm, and replace it
with a need to "get by" -- which often can mean getting a decent grade
by memorizing exactly what the teacher said -- and no fair thinking!

> 	  Our society has all sorts of "Okay" hypocrisies.  For example,
> 	when asked in casual conversation "how are you doing", the 
> 	appropriate reply is "Okay", or "Alright" etc.  (even if you
> 	just lost the love of your life the day before). 

Harry Truman, not well-known for hypocrisy, advocated exactly that response,
and justified it well: solve your own problems, and don't bellyache about
them in hopes society will solve them for you.  He did, however, use
"all right" as two words, not one.

> 	  A pesimisitic view of life?  Perhaps.  However, the life of
> 	young people is extremely pesimistic these days.  They are
> 	almost guaranteed a lower standard of living than their parents,
> 	a personal life filled with the uncertainties of illdefined role
> 	types and grim prospects for long term happyness, and a world
> 	that is both hostile and unforgiving.  With all that to look 
> 	forward to, wouldn't you cheat to survive?

No. You have set up a straw man and knocked him down, and therefore you
totally fail to convince.  This world, and our society in particular, is
the most benign in our solar system.  And we are not guaranteed existence
as a species, let alone comfort.  So what?  Life is a bitch, and then you
die?  Not if you have any real passion for something -- as most students
have. It is a quality of youth that sometimes gets lost in the aging
process.  But this has little to do with "cheating."
 
Academics often get lost in their own little world of classes, students
and grades.  They sometimes forget the obvious: that grades are a totally
artifical goal set up so we can pretend to measure the unmeasurable --
how much a student learned.  And we get annoyed when a student finds a
better way to get that bogus accolade without memorizing what we tell
them to memorize.  We call it "cheating."

But who is cheated?  Who is the "victim" of this "crime?"  Only the
students who come to a university, pay to get an "education," and
leave as ignorant as when they arrived.  I think this is stupid, but
I can't find it heinous.

And when we can learn to coax students into thinking, rather than into
memorizing facts, we will begin to do the job we're being paid for --
and we'll stop cheating our society.

-- 
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{backbones}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
nather@astro.as.utexas.edu