I gotta ask, why are you so confident about the dynamics of higher education when you don't really have the full grasp of the lay of the land? Chegg is a service where you pay $15 a month, and get to ask a bunch of experts (retired professors, adjuncts, people in the field, whoever) questions in the field and they'll get paid to write up an answer. If one adjunct doesn't know how to answer your question, another one will, and I have caught a number of students doing this throughout the entire semester, usually because they're writing in non-standard notion and or are using techniques above the level I've taught. But there are almost certainly some that I am missing because they adequately reflect the style of a higher performing undergrad. And pretending that this is "cool and good" is just edgy contrarianism. Similarly, pretending the onus is the professor to try to thread the needle between evaluations that are not Orwellian but also filter out this kind of cheating is just gonna end up with 80% of professors choosing the Orwellian route.
Generally if you have no competence in a job at all you can’t really do that job unless no one cares too much about it. It’s not that the best people end up there or that you have to be good to end up there, it’s just that people don’t get in there with just their uni grades and skills, these are very secondary.
You can only get away with this argument by working with some abstract general "competence" as opposed to looking at competence to the individual actual tasks at hand. An engineer who is 90% "competent" in your abstract measure can still do a word of hurt by misinterpreting an analysis he doesn't understand because he cheated in that section.
Like I've said, your arguments about the clown show that is higher education have merit, but the solution to that is not to make it even more of a worthless clown show where the grades become entirely uncorrelated with competence; it's the fix the actual problems. Your argument seems to me to be "Because there is often a difficulty of differentiating the signal from the noise in terms of academic success, it's better if we just boost the noise to the point we can forget about the signal entirely."
I gotta ask, why are you so confident about the dynamics of higher education when you don’t really have the full grasp of the lay of the land?
Chegg is not a thing in Greece my dude lol, I haven't studied abroad. I have a close friend who tells me a lot of stuff about studying in the UK but she hasn't told me anything about Chegg (yet). I generally don't like pay to win shit, it feels very exploitative.
usually because they’re writing in non-standard notion and or are using techniques above the level I’ve taught.
I do that tons and it's not because I cheat. Usually it's because I study things on my own on the Internet or books instead of the lectures. I wouldn't be too quick to assume that they're cheating just based on that.
And pretending that this is “cool and good” is just edgy contrarianism.
No, it really is cool and good because people gotta find work somehow and making far fetched arguments about how somehow these people will somehow end up making bridges and that bridge will fall because they didn't know something they would have known had they not cheated in a test as a 2nd year undergrad don't change that and aren't very convincing. Yes, it is not ALWAYS cool and good, neither is literally always cheating for every single exam. But that's not what the vast majority of cheating is like.
An engineer who is 90% “competent” in your abstract measure can still do a word of hurt by misinterpreting an analysis he doesn’t understand because he cheated in that section.
Or it could happen because that engineer passed the class but didn't know that particular thing which is not just likely, it is a fact that 99% of people won't know everything about the class but will still pass. Or it could be because it literally wasn't taught to them at that university, which is also very likely. Or it could be because they did learn it but completely forgot about it regardless. Or maybe they just had a brain fart. All these things are far more likely than it happening because someone cheated in undergrad. Regardless, even if this argument worked, it would only work for a select few professions. Alright, so what if I'm not gonna make a bridge? Am I allowed to cheat now? Because the vast majority of people aren't gonna build bridges.
Your argument seems to me to be “Because there is often a difficulty of differentiating the signal from the noise in terms of academic success, it’s better if we just boost the noise to the point we can forget about the signal entirely.”
No, I think the entire concept people have about that signal is kinda wrong and pointless.
I do that tons and it’s not because I cheat. Usually it’s because I study things on my own on the Internet or books instead of the lectures. I wouldn’t be too quick to assume that they’re cheating just based on that.
No that's true, but it does warrant further investigation, like checking Chegg myself, and when I find that exact same notation there, that's pretty conclusive.
No, it really is cool and good because people gotta find work somehow
Then push to fix the system, don't pretend hackneyed solutions like this are "cool and good", especially when it's literally a gamble that could get a student expelled. You can soberly acknowledge the reality of cheating in the current system without pretending it's the bees knees for internet points.
No, I think the entire concept people have about that signal is kinda wrong and pointless.
There's also plenty of merit to be mined out of this premise, but once again, that doesn't require celebrating academic malpractice.
Yes, that's obviously also a thing to do but until that happens people have to get a job somehow. Like, yeah, the ideal solution to poverty isn't stealing from supermarkets but if someone who is poor steals from a supermarket, that's cool.
If someone snitches or never ever helps anyone out ever even though they can, then these things are not cool or good.
especially when it’s literally a gamble that could get a student expelled
Well you can't really get expelled based on that here...
Anyways sorry for not being somber enough in this shitposting site I guess?
Anyways sorry for not being somber enough in this shitposting site I guess?
You're welcome to shitpost all you like, but there are lots of high schoolers and undergraduates posting here, and boosting cheating is setting them up for trouble if they get found out. I'm required by my contract to report academic misconduct, and so the last thing I want is for my students to make dumb decisions on with long-term ramifications on the basis of shitposts.
The same goes for something like shoplifting. Shoplifting is cool and good except for the fact it sets the stage for someone to possibly get shot. Which is bad.
I gotta ask, why are you so confident about the dynamics of higher education when you don't really have the full grasp of the lay of the land? Chegg is a service where you pay $15 a month, and get to ask a bunch of experts (retired professors, adjuncts, people in the field, whoever) questions in the field and they'll get paid to write up an answer. If one adjunct doesn't know how to answer your question, another one will, and I have caught a number of students doing this throughout the entire semester, usually because they're writing in non-standard notion and or are using techniques above the level I've taught. But there are almost certainly some that I am missing because they adequately reflect the style of a higher performing undergrad. And pretending that this is "cool and good" is just edgy contrarianism. Similarly, pretending the onus is the professor to try to thread the needle between evaluations that are not Orwellian but also filter out this kind of cheating is just gonna end up with 80% of professors choosing the Orwellian route.
You can only get away with this argument by working with some abstract general "competence" as opposed to looking at competence to the individual actual tasks at hand. An engineer who is 90% "competent" in your abstract measure can still do a word of hurt by misinterpreting an analysis he doesn't understand because he cheated in that section.
Like I've said, your arguments about the clown show that is higher education have merit, but the solution to that is not to make it even more of a worthless clown show where the grades become entirely uncorrelated with competence; it's the fix the actual problems. Your argument seems to me to be "Because there is often a difficulty of differentiating the signal from the noise in terms of academic success, it's better if we just boost the noise to the point we can forget about the signal entirely."
Chegg is not a thing in Greece my dude lol, I haven't studied abroad. I have a close friend who tells me a lot of stuff about studying in the UK but she hasn't told me anything about Chegg (yet). I generally don't like pay to win shit, it feels very exploitative.
I do that tons and it's not because I cheat. Usually it's because I study things on my own on the Internet or books instead of the lectures. I wouldn't be too quick to assume that they're cheating just based on that.
No, it really is cool and good because people gotta find work somehow and making far fetched arguments about how somehow these people will somehow end up making bridges and that bridge will fall because they didn't know something they would have known had they not cheated in a test as a 2nd year undergrad don't change that and aren't very convincing. Yes, it is not ALWAYS cool and good, neither is literally always cheating for every single exam. But that's not what the vast majority of cheating is like.
Or it could happen because that engineer passed the class but didn't know that particular thing which is not just likely, it is a fact that 99% of people won't know everything about the class but will still pass. Or it could be because it literally wasn't taught to them at that university, which is also very likely. Or it could be because they did learn it but completely forgot about it regardless. Or maybe they just had a brain fart. All these things are far more likely than it happening because someone cheated in undergrad. Regardless, even if this argument worked, it would only work for a select few professions. Alright, so what if I'm not gonna make a bridge? Am I allowed to cheat now? Because the vast majority of people aren't gonna build bridges.
No, I think the entire concept people have about that signal is kinda wrong and pointless.
No that's true, but it does warrant further investigation, like checking Chegg myself, and when I find that exact same notation there, that's pretty conclusive.
Then push to fix the system, don't pretend hackneyed solutions like this are "cool and good", especially when it's literally a gamble that could get a student expelled. You can soberly acknowledge the reality of cheating in the current system without pretending it's the bees knees for internet points.
There's also plenty of merit to be mined out of this premise, but once again, that doesn't require celebrating academic malpractice.
Yes, that's obviously also a thing to do but until that happens people have to get a job somehow. Like, yeah, the ideal solution to poverty isn't stealing from supermarkets but if someone who is poor steals from a supermarket, that's cool.
If someone snitches or never ever helps anyone out ever even though they can, then these things are not cool or good.
Well you can't really get expelled based on that here...
Anyways sorry for not being somber enough in this shitposting site I guess?
You're welcome to shitpost all you like, but there are lots of high schoolers and undergraduates posting here, and boosting cheating is setting them up for trouble if they get found out. I'm required by my contract to report academic misconduct, and so the last thing I want is for my students to make dumb decisions on with long-term ramifications on the basis of shitposts.
The same goes for something like shoplifting. Shoplifting is cool and good except for the fact it sets the stage for someone to possibly get shot. Which is bad.