As I was reading through the section on the difficulty of catching cheaters, I got to thinking whether the process of submitting a paper might be better done through something like GitHub, where you then have a record of the person's commits, whether that be new sources found, time spent researching, a section written/edited. It then allows the professor to grade the process, not just the result.
I mean, when I'm hiring software developers, and they send me a link to a site that they made, i find that basically meaningless, because it doesn't tell me how they work, when/where they decided to incorporate external resources, and how they collaborate. It also doesn't guarantee that they actually made the site.
A link to a github repo doesn't automatically solve all of those problems, but it solves a lot of them, and it would be almost as much work to falsify well as it would be to just do it correctly.
I don't think it would be difficult to falsify. How thoroughly do you go through the commits of candidates? My guess is it's only a cursory glance which would be pretty easy to fool.
It makes me wonder though, could a pull request contain changes to previous commits to a project and thus "steal" credit from other authors?
For papers, Google Docs basically does this — except that the revision history isn't as accessible as it is with Git.
I think this would be a good idea to implement, but it still doesn't solve the main problem that this article presents, which is contacting out the entire research/writing process itself.
I have seen the end of the line for this kind of corruption and it is not pretty. Once it starts it spreads like a cancer.
After some years we'd have doctors, engineers, lawyers, banker, nurses, safety inspectors, police officers who got into those positions by cheating. Then because they did it, they don't mind hinting and advising their children to do the same, and so on.
That's a great point. It was educational to read an article from one of those high-brow economics or policy journals after the housing crisis warning about regular citizens noticing that banks and other institutions are happily using bankruptcy as a strategic option. The fear was that people with underwater properties will stop feeling guilty about bankruptcies and will walk away from their mortgages. Basically making the same calculated business decision that bankers make. Paraphrased the message was "careful, or the plebeians will start doing what we are doing"
That's an entirely separate issue. Exercising your contractual right to default on a mortgage is not corruption or cheating. It's all out in the open and recorded in public records.
> Exercising your contractual right to default on a mortgage is not corruption or cheating
But most American believe it wrong and there is a mixup between what is wrong and what is legal. Keeping it that way is a very profitable thing for financial institutions.
GP post brought banks as an example of corruption. And many would agree. However it can still be legal. At that level, those player are basically writing their own laws and regulations.
No, they do not all do that, and not even most of them do it, or yes the sky would fall. We wouldn't, in fact, have the civilization we have. The choice is to have strong anti-fraud funding to find, catch, and prosecute most of these sorts of things; or to go back to feudalism/law of the jungle/might makes right.
Because two wrongs don't make a right. If you believe cheating is wrong, start by not doing it. There's no path to eliminating this behavior that does not start with people saying it's wrong and backing it up with an alternative example.
You not cheating will not lead to the powerful being less corrupt. It will actually reward them for being corrupt. In a prisoners' dilemma, they are constantly defecting without cost, and you are refusing to defect on principle. That makes you a sucker.
The way to eliminate corruption is to overthrow those who are corrupt.
If you believe in western civilizations' principles, there's two ways to handle corruption. The day to day type of corruption is usually treated as a crime, it requires laws, and funding investigations and prosecutors and courts, etc. Some corruptions of civil officers are so bad they qualify for impeachment, one important consequence of which is being barred from holding any elected or appointed office again. So there is a mechanism, if you think civility is busted then a.) help work to fix it, b.) be prepared for violence. Because the only antidote for violence we've come up with so far is civility.
Violence isn't inherently wrong. Nonviolence is less important than ending injustice and continuing to innovate, such as building megaprojects, forming new states or restructuring existing political systems. Those who say otherwise are conservatives or benefit from continued injustice.
This seems to assume a binary choice between non-violence and violence. As noted in the parent there is a range of effective responses to cheating in particular and corruption in general.
Also, violence does not necessarily lead to less injustice. The French Revolution (and countless others) provide rich counterexamples.
Would we really? I mean once you really get into your field, someone is going to notice the guy talking Ralph's tests for him .. isn't Ralph.
Doctors especially are pretty tight knit with their group. Even if they buy answers for tests, they still have to do real clinical work and residencies with real doctors. There's a limit on how much they could fake.
It depends. It differs between countries. I have heard in Eastern Europe doctors buying their diplomas just as public prosecutors, judges, and so on.
Another example: someone I went to school with has bought himself a "public prosecutor" title. He doesn't work as one, but it gives him a higher rank than any of the traffic cops he encounters daily. So he basically speeds and drives recklessly around the city like an idiot. When a cop stops him, he pulls rank tells him to fuck off, and they all do. He out-corrupted the corrupt cops. If it wasn't tragic, it would be funny.
That is just an example of an end-game for when cheating and corruption spreads completely throughout the society. And it always, in a person's life starts with education. That is where they learn and internalize how to cheat and how to game the system using it.
Honestly, when I submitted this, this comment is what scared me the most. A tinpot intellectual economy is what I fear when I teach my kids to play by the rules (and watch them struggle.)
There's this hacker tension: teach them to hack the system (and effectively teach them to cheat) or recognize the disease and do things ethically. It's an easy decision to focus on doing the right thing, but it's hard not feeling like a sap if the world goes the way of some libertarian Nirvana where cheating is just survival of the fittest by any other name.
Getting my first job in Silicon Valley, I assumed that all jobs asked technical questions when hiring to see if the candidate was fit. I later found out that while this "work sample" test is common here, it's much rarer in other industries.
Why doesn't every industry use such a test? You can't fake your way through an in-person technical interview.
Seems like teachers aren't spending enough quality time going over the assignments with students. When I was teaching a Java class last year at a community college, I had students present their homework in front of the class. It was very easy to figure out who was cheating and who wasn't.
Quality time costs money. A potential problem is that the majority of teachers are adjuncts who are not full time employees, and who are likely to be working multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. Not only does catching cheaters take effort, but pursuing it to the point of disciplining a student can be a nightmare for the teacher if their department doesn't support them.
When I taught an electrical engineering class, the prof with whom I shared a syllabus and exams, made the exam problems look a lot like the homework problems. The kids who (probably) cheated on their homework lessons paid for it on the exams.
Perhaps likewise for the humanities courses. In my own experience, writing essays and term papers for the regular course assignments was what got me so I could write a decent essay quickly during a "blue book" exam. I don't know any way other than sheer physical practice, to learn how to do that. You can't pay someone else to practice for you.
I put it in my syllabus and run it by the department head before each quarter that anyone caught cheating in any way will immediately fail the class and be reported to the administration. I also emphasize it to the students at the start of each quarter.
I've caught a few people cheating, but I usually fail them for the assignment instead of the class and spend extra time working with them to get their grades up. I've only had one repeat offender and I enforced the rule. The student came up to me a few months later and thanked me. Said it made him re-evaluate his commitment to school.
One issue is the fear that if the student decides to lawyer up, then the adjunct will be completely outgunned, and there is no clear indication of the extent of their liability. As a former adjunct, I certainly would not have gone there. The department was probably making the same calculation. In addition, as a temporary worker, an adjunct can easily be blackballed, so their strategy is to be as docile as possible.
My mom is a retired high school teacher, and it's a completely different story. Among the "perks" in her contract were legal representation and liability coverage.
It all depends on the school and the crazy politics.
When I was an undergrad, certain ethnic groups were untouchable on the campus. There was also a lot of paperwork involved and cracking down on cheaters would focus attention on the department.
Unless someone is paid to take the entire class. If it's not in your subject (a big 200 person Chemistry 101 class), how would you even know? A Chemist could just show up for the tests and earn $1k for 4 ~ 5 days of work.
Obviously this will be a problem for massive lecture classes, maybe those should be graded heavily on attendance with mandatory id inspection. But you're right, in the conditions you describe, this problem is not solvable.
I don't know about higher education, but my aunt teaches K-12 in San Diego. She says that over a period of about 8 years, her class size tripled, making it impossible for her to spend the same amount of time with each student as she used to.
Well, sadly this does seem like the logical result of college being a purely commercial endeavor for all concerned.
Colleges are closer and closer to the situation where they don't care about being anything but skill-certifiers, certainly they don't worry about becoming places where learners begin maturing and taking their place in an enlightened society.
In this environment, what will make the student respect the university's requirements?
The reason this type of cheating occurs is that a college degree has external value. If the cheaters aren't even the ones doing the learning, I doubt that the quality or nature of the college's education would affect their behavior. So I don't think that colleges are really at fault here (besides not putting enough effort into catching cheaters).
>>The reason cheating occurs is that a college degree has value, and cheaters would like to obtain that degree through money rather than effort.
I don't follow your logic at all. They earn that money through effort, so at the end of the day it comes down to the same thing. The article specifically gives the example of someone who has a full-time job plus a commitment to the National Guard, and doesn't have any spare time for 15 credits worth of class and its associated work.
a full-time job plus a commitment to the National Guard, and doesn't have any spare time for 15 credits worth of class and its associated work.
Well, back in the good old days, people in similar situations took 3 credit hours at a time. It took them almost forever to get their degrees, but at least they obtained them honestly.
The world doesn't owe anyone a shortcut to an education. No matter how inconvenient the honest path might be.
Ah yes, back in the good old days, when college was super cheap, when everyone with a college degree was guaranteed a job, and when wages were increasing steadily so that they didn't need a college degree to get a pay increase.
I imagine they cloak themseleves as a "tutoring service". They know exactly what they are doing. It is a bit like when during Prohibition companies would sell grape juice, yeast, and other ingredients needed to make wine and then put a label on the kit saying "Just to let you know, it is illegal to mix the contents of these ingredients, let them sit for X amount of days at T temperature, and then consume the resulting product".
What I gathered from the article is that some of the services maintain a public posture they are doing what amounts to contract research, and they make the customer agree that the material won't be used for cheating. Ethically, of course they know what's going on, but they seem to have sheltered themselves from a legal perspective.
There's no excuse for cheating. But part of the problem here is that most desirable jobs require degrees, yet vast portions of the time it takes to get degrees are spent satisfying general education requirements. A huge part of college is simply proving that you can follow instructions and do large amounts of busy work.
A couple years ago as I was finishing my CS degree, I often wondered about this. I knew lots of my classmates were cheating with stuff like this, or even just buying whole zipped archives of past student's work to pass off as their own.
Cheating of this nature is really is getting quite rampant, and you can definitely notice it when you get to higher level CS classes and have to do projects with other students who have basically just cheated, coasted, and freeloaded of off other students for years. I had to do a capstone Software Engineering class project with a student who could barely write anything past a HelloWorld program in Java.
I wrote a very candid evaluation of that student and personally spoke to the professor but nothing came of it. I'm sure he still passed the class, and perhaps even cheated his way to graduation.
Are there any good services like this, but for tutoring? I'd definitely pay to have someone answer all my ridiculous questions as I work through material. (Assume that I'm not able to get enough quality time with my real instructor/TA.)
There probably is a market: graduate students. I am one.
I'd rather tutor 12+ motivated-to-learn people 1hr than an uninterested kid with helicopter parents.
The only reason hours are the unit of measure for teaching/tutoring is for practical purposes. But knowledge is not poured into minds through time as much as by clever guidance. Like defusing a bomb, but the opposite.
Some online courses make it easy to enable cheating with weak authentication. For instance, rather than course specific login, if it were authenticated by your real one and true prized Google account, would these students be so eager to give up credentials? Of course merely changing to Google authenticated accounts isn't enough, just get a throw away Google account for the cheater to use. But there should be some chain of trust that enables authentic authentication. What's going on here, aside from the cheating, is inauthentication.
But on the other side of the medal, there are a lot of people who gets paid to study no? If I was a poor student I'd try to get hired in one of these business and start going to school while being paid.
"It’s also not surprising that winner‐take‐all competition would breed cheating in another area ‐‐ in the classrooms of elite high schools and colleges. These days, even the smart kids who already have everything going for them often cheat to guarantee their success. When I was writing my book, I spent some time looking into the cheating problem at Horace Mann, which is one of the top prep schools in New York City.
Students there are from extremely well off families. In the grand scheme of things, if you’re a student at Horace Mann, you’ve already won the game of life. Paying $20,000 per year for their children to attend, parents of these kids are loaded. And yet cheating is common at the school. Why are the most privileged kids cheating?
There is no single reason why students cheat. But in this case, certainly one reason is the intense desire to be a winner, to get the rewards at the top. The Horace Mann kids are remarkably worldly.
They know what partners at big name investment firms make. They understand just how just big the rewards are if you’re a winner and make it to the very top of American society. Many feel entitled to those rewards. And these students come to believe from early on that a key to being a winner – perhaps the key – is a degree from a prestigious university, the ivy leagues. And some of them will cut whatever corners are necessary to attain that goal.
Now, of course, the obsession with winning is not the only reason people cheat. A lot of people aren’t out to strike it rich or become a big shot. They just want to lead a comfortable and secure life. But increasingly, that is not something one can take for granted, and more people are afraid of falling behind, and not being able to lead that comfortable, secure life. This brings me to a second reason people cheat, which is fear.
Things are tough out there. Jobs are less secure, and even the best white collar jobs are now getting outsourced to China or India, disappearing just like that. 45 million Americans lack health insurance, which makes us unique among advanced nations. We just don’t look out for our fellow citizens like we once did. And
a lot of middle class Americans who should be feeling secure are instead feeling
anxious. And their kids are growing up around this anxiety. I think there are a
lot of young people who go through life, thinking “I better not screw things up. One lost scholarship, one flunked exam, if I take one wrong step, get one blot on my permanent record, I’ll end up living at home for the rest of my life.”
When you make the rewards for being a winner and the concomitant punishments for being a loser so large, don't be surprised when people start cheating en masse.
Very insightful. Cheating's most likely to be worth the expense and risk when the marginal compensation for each iota of (perceived) performance is large, so those at or above that inflection point are likely to cheat the most. We hear constantly how governments are corrupted by power and thus markets are preferable; it helps to be reminded sometimes of how certain kinds of markets are prone to their own forms of corruption.
Not only the jobs, but the resources to properly afford their own family. A place near their job (thanks NIMBY for cutting down on denser housing and urban environments).
Not to mention time away from 'the job'. Technology is supposed to liberate us to work better, and less often; while still improving our quality of life.
I had the same reaction. It might not be reasonable to ask for something like that overnight, but with a month or more of notice that seems like it should be No Big Deal. That's less than a page a day, on average, so the actual writing is almost trivial. A page's worth of thought and research doesn't seem like an unreasonable daily burden except maybe for something like a dense mathematical proof.
I mean, when I'm hiring software developers, and they send me a link to a site that they made, i find that basically meaningless, because it doesn't tell me how they work, when/where they decided to incorporate external resources, and how they collaborate. It also doesn't guarantee that they actually made the site.
A link to a github repo doesn't automatically solve all of those problems, but it solves a lot of them, and it would be almost as much work to falsify well as it would be to just do it correctly.