Cheating on tests, making up stories to tell the spouse about why you’re working late, lying about WMDs… It’s the American way of doing things.
A better way to prevent student cheating
As another academic year draws to a close, amid a rushed flurry of final exams and term papers, it’s time for professors to play their least favorite role: cop. With some surveys finding that up to three-quarters of college students cheat, faculty and administrators are making a bigger push for integrity. What most still lack, however, is a compelling moral argument against cheating.
Many young people take this bleak view. A 2004 poll of high school students found that 59 percent agreed that “successful people do what they have to do to win, even if others consider it cheating.” Young people believe in honor and value integrity; they also worry that living by these beliefs could mean ending up as a loser. In justifying her cheating, one student told a researcher: “Good grades can make the difference between going to medical school and being a janitor.” Few professors have a ready retort to this logic.
Appeals to self-interest only worsen the problem. If you tell a student that she shouldn’t cheat because she might get caught, or that she’s “just cheating herself” by not learning the material, or that integrity is an asset in life to be cultivated, she might respond – as the student I met in North Carolina did – by spelling out the ways that successful cheating could advance one’s self-interest, especially if “everybody else” is doing it.
What can faculty and administrators do to stem epidemic cheating? Their best hope is to cast cheating as an issue of justice.
As a Christian I’d like to belief that the increase in lying and cheating is a result of the decline of Judeo-Christian culture.
Except that our Christian-in-Chief is such a liar.
Dang!
One could argue that cheating would set up a instance where you are forced to perform above your abilities.
An example would be you’re hired for a job that requires some task that you have certification for, but that certification was obtained through cheating and you’re actually incapable of preforming the task.
Oh, wait. That’s what many people have been found out to do. Hmm. What’s Michael Brown up to now? (Yeah yeah, I know, not exaclly the same situation)
“Their best hope is to cast cheating as an issue of justice.”
Cheating is NOT unjust. Creating a value that cheating is “wrong” is unjust because it empowers cheaters who get to the top of the food chain while it enslaves the honest ones based on a society where the privelaged become ever more privelaged. Honest people do not stand a chance in a society built on corruption. Anyone who stamps a “cheating” tag on anything is trying to use that to empower themselves. A classic example are women who use “cheating” to get men to act the way THEY want, namely fidelity. Men, as suckers, cave in and comply AGAINST their own nature! And this is why today women find men objectional. Men are sissies. A man who can hold his own is seen as a ‘real’ man. So while your woman is married to you because you supply the $ecurity, she has always in her mind a fantasy of being dominated by a real man. Don’t worry, you are safe because there aren’t any. Just make sure, she doesn’t meet me. You don’t think she will “cheat” herself? HA!
It seems that traditional schooling is falling behind the times with its testing. Students should be given tests, in class with computers, and access to the web to see how the student locates “correct” information, and is then able to process this information. We no longer live in a vacuum, yet we’re still teaching as though we are. Certainly there are things that cannot be learned on the web, but a lot of those things are not taught in schools either. The “real” world uses these tools every day, why not schools? Lets not forget the vast majority of what we learn is not in school. (“For every hour of class, you should have two hours of homework.”)
You want to make the students learn? Simple, ask for the homework to be delivered handwritten rather than being printed, even if they copy the paper they DO HAVE TO READ IT WHETER T HEY LIKE IT OR NOT, and writing it also ensure that at least something will stick to their brains.
I guess lying about a blow-job from Monica just set the standard for Presidents to come.
Dang!
Cheaters don’t succeed in society david. Other characteristics of some cheaters such as ruthlessness might get them some ground but cheating precipitates dishonesty. A cheater can only progress from their cheating until they are exposed. Then they lose everything they cheated for/on. As a survival technique, it sucks. As for a women’s point of view, you haven’t factored society into the equation. Society is also a means for survival. Cheating undermines the stability of society. A woman prefers a man who is aware of this, can provide security through honesty (cheaters are losers) and be more of a man through his strength of will, morally and ethically.
Cheaters are the weanies ones that can’t handle the effort and determination required by a “real man” to provide a secure environment for a woman and her children.
Except that our Christian-in-Chief is such a liar.
You mean Jesus was a liar?
thats news to this christian.
#7. “Cheaters are the weanies ones that can’t handle the effort and determination required by a “real man” to provide a secure environment for a woman and her children.”
Why would they want to when they have guys like you to do the dirty work for them. Some of the history’s greatest Cheaters like Bush, Rumfeld, Cheney, et al run our country. And all of them are millionaires. Cheaters get all the way to the top. HaHaHaHa…
#7. “Society is also a means for survival.”
Society is a means to cookie-cut men and women so they are easy to control because they become predictable just like your comment. You suplicate! You bow to Cheaters and when they tell you to be ‘honest’ you become the greatest cheater of all because you cheat your own free will and desires.
waaaay back in college in the 80s, two of the guys in my microbiology class made it no secret that they cheated on the exams and had plans to do so again on the final. They thought it was a huge joke. My lab partner and I were appalled — (I think it was their brazenness that angered us as much as the cheating.) After some discussion we went to the T.A. The T.A. paled: “my God, what are they thinking? they’ve already been accepted to med school!” and promised to take care of it. At the final, where we were hoping to see these creeps mowed down, she took the chicken way out and just separated them. And they passed anyhow, and were on their merry way to their happy medical careers.
Just think, these bozos could be doing YOUR surgery next!
I agree with the other Aaron. Recently our 7th grade students had to take a writing test. There were given paper, pencil, and the prompt. Nothing else. I doubt many cheated, but why not give them the tools a professional writer would use.
Got to start teaching the kids how to learn and not regurgitating facts.
Hey Jim W,
I’m pretty sure the “christian-in-chief” #1 was refering to is good ole, G.W., not J.C.
Cheating is one of the results of the dependence of following a script. In school students are taught to memorize, not to think. In the work force, kudos in the form of sheepskin are rewarded, not thinking. Regardless of what it takes to get there, it is the getting there that is rewarded, not how one got there.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Honesty is the best policy,” but I bet he stole that quote from someone else (probably copied it from their paper). The fact is, ethics and honesty are nearly always disadvantageous when practiced in the extreme. If you can find a way to make them generally profitable, not just in an isolated instance, you’ll have solved one of the oldest problems known to man.
Catholic schools have always had a pretty good idea to deter cheating — nuns with large rulers!
Oh, I almost forgot something I came across a few months ago. There’s a website called eCheat.com with a lot of pre-written papers available. Their slogan is “It’s not cheating, it’s collaborating,” but that’s not even the funniest part. I found it because of something really strange I saw in one of my Google searches, and it turns out there was a paper on the site telling the life story of (I kid you not) “George Armstrong Custard.” At no point in the article did it spell our hero’s last name correctly. I just now checked, and apparently the paper has been removed. I just wonder how many idiots got caught in that little trap.
Ah, you never quite know what form poetic justice will take!
Jim W >> You mean Jesus was a liar?
Of course you knew I mean George W Bush who will go down in presidential history as being the most overtly Christian of our presidents and also one of the worst liars — so bad that he actually launched an unnecessary war with his lies.
I think we Christians — especially the evangelical conservative ones — have a lot of splainin’ to do about this. We get one of our guys in the White House and he ends up being worse than Nixon! What’s the deal with that?
PS: …. and yes, lying about a blow job is really bad but…. c’mon! You KNOW there’s no comparison! Don’t insult us by pretending there is.
lobbyist #1 walks into a Congressman’s office with a good idea for a new law. lobbyist #2 walks into a Congressman’s office with a bad idea for a new law and a big campaign donation.
who gets heard?
cheating? heck no – its protected by the First Amendment!
such a good example we set for children.
and since so much of education has little to do with real life – I haven’t had to do a quadradic equation or recite the state capitals from memory in my professsional career – it is tough to argue that cheating on those things actually leaves someone unprepared to enter the workplace.
#23, I agree with the first point but disagree with the second point. General knowledge might not get you the job, but you sure as heck need it in life. How can you make an informed decision on who to vote for if you have no idea about your country or its history.
The biggest lie of this decade: “Bush lied about WMD.”
Misinterpretation of facts is not a lie; Bush … and Cheney … and Rumsfield … and the generals in the field EXPECTED to find WMD. Being wrong is not the same as being a liar, but you folks know that so:
The biggest liars of this decade: Those that deliberately misuse the word “lie.”
But please, don’t let that stop you from lecturing students on ethics.
Deliberate “misinterpretation” is the same as prevarication, same as lying.
Just as what you’re practicing, Smith, is hypocrisy.
Moss, where did I say “deliberate misinterpretation?” What is your rationale for labeling me a hypocrite? Because I disagree with your statement of facts? Because I question your assertion that Bush lied about WMD?
If you have proof that Bush knew no biological weapons would be found in Iraq before we invaded, then please publish that exclusive for all the world to see. I’m sure it would make you very popular on the talk-show circuit.
But of course you have no such information; you just prefer to give labels to everyone that disagrees with your view of the world.
Smith, you’ll get a nosebleed up on that high horse.
What purpose is served by listing for the umpteenth time all the military and intelligence sources that have publicly detailed the deliberate mismanagement of pre-war intelligence for political ends. Your partisanship may be considered admirable by your peers — but falls concisely under the category of hypocrisy in any record of contemporary history.
Why present sources to a sophist? You will contiue your usual practice of simply denying the credibility of any source with data you can’t face. No different from the pathetic leftovers from the VietNam War who wish they had been “turned loose to win”. Baloney.
Same as it ever was. From the Civil War onwards. History classifies and categorizes the lies as lies — eventually — whether it’s the Reichstag Fire or the Gulf of Tonkin. You may never face up to the truth — but, the generations that follow always have to.
The grandchildren of the Good Germans from WW2 look back at their forebears with contempt. For the lies they accepted when they were being used to justify reactionary politics. For the lies they told to absolve their guilt in the years following that war.
24. I was thinking about all the pointless memorization I had to do back in school, rather than real understanding. that and math. 😉
I’m still waiting for data, moss. Cut the crap and provide me with JUST ONE SOURCE that proves Bush knew we wouldn’t find biological weapons in Iraq BEFORE we invaded. Give me a copy of the pre-war brief to the White House which states a CIA consensus that Saddam has no WMD. I’d even settle for a copy of the President’s directive to the CIA that required all intel reports on Iraq to be skewed in favor of a WMD conclusion — that would at least qualify as your “deliberate misinterpretation” of the facts.
Or are you incapable of backing up your position with an actual fact? Are “liar, liar, liar” chants your only weapon for argument?
You really are amusing, Smith. So, you don’t watch any major network news. Perish the thought you should stray into the realm of CNN or the BBC. And I guess no one’s shown you how to use Google. You really need me to repeat an item or two — from the many that have not only appeared on a daily basis; but, here in the pages of DU.
OK, here’s one.
One of the 1st hits on Google, a dangerously subversive source, the Sydney Morning Herald [don’t cringe too much] quoting the CIA official in charge of debriefing the prime mole in the Iraqi government before the invasion:
“Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the Iraq war, said intelligence opposing administration claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi official who provided the US spy agency with other credible information.
The source “told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs,” Drumheller said in a CBS interview to be aired on Sunday on the US network’s 60 Minutes.
“The (White House) group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested,” he was quoted as saying in interview excerpts released by CBS on Friday.
“We said: ‘Well, what about the intel?’ And they said: ‘Well, this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change’,” added Drumheller, whose CIA operation was assigned the task of debriefing the Iraqi official.”
He may have a book out, by now; but, you ain’t gonna read them there books, anyway.
Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/fsd73
But, really, if you’re trying to convince someone you have more integrity than the sleazeball in the White House — go out and look this stuff up on your own.
You can start tapdancing, now.
#31 And I suppose that qualifies as the consensus opinion of CIA?
Did the CIA director tell President Bush that it was unlikely WMD would be found in Iraq? Yes or no. I want a smoking gun here, moss, not the opinion of another agent-turned-writer who never briefed the President.
If all of that evidence proving Bush lied actually exists — as you claim it does — then why hasn’t he been impeached? And don’t give me any crap about a Republican Congress; they would impeach him in a heartbeat if they believed he lied to them.
Smith, obviously you must be one among that 31% that think Bush is doing an admirable job.
One name. Scott Ritter. A former CIA operative, former Marine Major, assigned to search Iraq under the UN inspection teams in the 1990s. Categorically stated before the Iraq invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
In the lead-up to the invasion, the UN chemical inspection team led by Hans Blick could find nothing and asked Bush to give them intelligence as to where the weapons were. They still couldn’t find anything. El Baribai (sp?) leading the UN Atomic Inspection team stated that his inspectors couldn’t find evidence of any activity banned by the peace agreement. Seymor Hirsh had written in the February New Yorker that the evidence being used by Bush to justify the invasion was fabricated. Then before the UN inspectors could find any evidence they were told to evacuate by Bush so he could start his “shock and awe” bombardment.
The “Downing Street Memos” have no evidence included stating that Iraq actually had any WMDs. Bush hasn’t produced anything since the invasion to demonstrate that there was evidence that there were any WMDs except for some corrupt ex-patriots who hadn’t been inside Iraq for over twenty years. The CIA had evidence that was ignored by Tenant and Rumsfeld. They passed the fake information onto Powell who introduced it to the UN Assembly. Tenant agreed later that it was wrong to let Bush state in the State of the Union Address that Iraq was attempting to import yellowcake.
OK, now YOU give some evidence that there were WMDs before the invasion and Bush didn’t lie to America for his own gain.
Fusion, I do not dispute the facts that Hans Blick was right and Bush was wrong — as was Blair and the general consensus of virtually all of the security agencies around the globe. But if your contention is that Bush lied, then you must back that up with proof that he knew there were no WMD in Iraq before we invaded.
In any large organization, including the CIA, you will find people who weigh the same evidence and come to differing conclusions. Perhaps those CIA analysts that concluded no WMD existed know their jobs better than most, but that has no bearing upon whether Bush lied or not.
Did the CIA tell Bush that it was unlikely Saddam had WMD before we went to war? Provide proof that they did, then you will be justified in calling him “liar” (and impeach him). Otherwise, you’re just spreading libel.
Like I said — sophistry!
http://tinyurl.com/nkrz2