Handedness is probably not (often) captured in healthcare records, but I'm wondering if epidemiologists could mine insurance claims (or some other data rich resource) to see if there's a correlation with serious outcomes (death, hospitalization, etc.) from venom and handedness.
That's a good idea, a very good idea actually, but I wonder about it's effectiveness due to a very small total number of snake bites nowadays, compared to the past.
Hundreds of thousands years in the past, hominids lived into much more tropical areas than today and there are a lot more spiders, scorpions, lizards and snakes in these warm places. It makes sense that insects and especially reptiles pushed the evolution of mammals in certain directions and the positioning of the heart in the human body might be one of them.
Today people live a much different lifestyle than having to deal with insects and reptiles all day long. I don't know if it is possible to decipher the past from today's data.
further, California is a big state. For the concept to work you'd have to split California lengthwise, the Western 1/3 would align politically how the op is assuming but the Eastern 2/3 would not. If the counter argument is majority rule then you're pretty much back to where you started with a divided population and 2 wolves + 1 lamb voting on lunch.
There will still be liberals in a new confederacy, and there will still be conservatives in a new union, we are only really talking about changing 50/50 into 60/40 on either side. BUT let's face it, our current equilibrium is not sustainable, this country can't survive another Trump, let alone the current one. Trump is talking about disenfranchising voters in blue states (because we must be cheating or we are illegal immigrants or something), I feel like that if we continue to union with these states, I will just wake up with a knife in my back someday.
Democracy works, we just have bad partners right now.
I was a grad student @ Princeton a handful of decades ago.
I was a TA for a few classes and, given the honor code, we did not proctor the exams for undergrads. We just handed them out (left the room) and returned to collect them at the end.
- One of the exams in a course that I TAed had 5 free-response questions.
- There were also 5 TAs in that class, so we un-stapled the exams and each TA graded one question (for consistency).
- We re-assembled the exams and returned them to the students.
- A few days after the exam, one of "my" students (she attended my recitation) came to me with her exam and explained that I had incorrectly graded question 2.
- I told her that I didn't grade question 2, so she had to go take it up with "TA # 2"
- A few hours later, "TA #2" pays me a visit and she (TA#2) is annoyed. She tells me, "Your student is trying to pull a fast one. She answered Q2 incorrectly. She erased her answer and put in the correct answer and she wants it re-graded"
- I briefly defended the student and said something like, "Why would she do that... and how could you even know?"
- "TA#2" responded with "... because I photocopied all of the student responses after I graded them."
- Then I felt like a piece of shit for doubting my fellow TA. And felt even worse being naive enough to not be suspicious.
- "TA#2" and I brought all of this info up with the prof. who was running the course.
- We were told that the situation would be handled by an Honor Committee or something like that. We forwarded the information to the committee, but no one spoke to us and we were not allowed to participate in the deliberations.
- After about a week, all we were told was that the student was able to explain the "discrepancy" between her exam and the photocopy.
To this day, I have no idea what that student could have possibly said to explain her actions.
After that, I started photocopying every damned scrap of paper that I graded.
edits for clarity. The student did not get a zero on the exam, nor was she booted from the course. I don't remember if she was given credit for Question 2, but the TA and I were both expecting her to be tossed, which obviously didn't happen.
Academic integrity committees at prestigious schools are horribly lax. They want these types of issues to go away quietly.
I have a friend who in college had another student take his test from the "complete" pile, erase my friend's name, and put on his own instead. It was only through blind luck that my friend figured it out. He, the TA, and the professor reported it – with smoking gun proof – but nothing happened.
The same laxness applies to academic research integrity. Universities rarely punish academics who are discovered to falsify data.
Not even prestigious ones. The school needs to sound like it has strong penalties against cheating, so there are really strict-sounding policies ("zero in the course"). But also, so many students cheat that actually enforcing these policies uniformly would hurt your graduation stats, make unhappy customers (students + parents), and hurt your revenue if you actually expel them. So the equilibrium is that the burden of reporting cheating is foisted upon professors, and it is understood -- though never explicitly communicated -- that academic integrity proceedings will be a huge administrative pain for you, the professor, and it is in your interest not to initiate them.
The outcome is predictable: unless there is a scandal of massive proportions, the issues just..."go away" on their own. With some discretion for the professor to either just look the other way, or ding the student enough to feel vindicated, but not so much as to actually hurt the university's interests.
The "compromise" that my university found was that if you were caught cheating in Science & Engineering school, you were given (informally) an ultimatum: either this can be escalated to the official channels, and you may be expelled (or perhaps nothing would come of it), or you can go be someone else's problem and transfer to a different subject. Typically the business school, because they're not big on ethics anyway.
As a TA, I once stumbled upon a bunch of students who had been copying each other's labs, because one student was brazen enough to turn in a printout with a the gmail header information across the top, indicating it had been received from another student. So I looked at that student's page, and noticed that they had somehow completely screwed up their rounding, and used way too many significant figures, which I recognized from another student's assignment. Digging through the pile, I found others that had rearranged stuff enough that I probably would have missed them if not for their exceptionally dull friend.
All told, 9 students had turned in the same exact assignment. 8 took up the offer to drop the course and switch majors, 1 faced the music, took their zero in the course, but did stick with the program.
> So the equilibrium is that the burden of reporting cheating is foisted upon professors, and it is understood -- though never explicitly communicated -- that academic integrity proceedings will be a huge administrative pain for you, the professor, and it is in your interest not to initiate them.
Not only that, but if you accuse a student of cheating and they are expelled, you have fundamentally altered their life forever. Talk about a burden.
It is not reasonable to expect a calculus professor to routinely decide if they want to derail someone’s entire future because, for whatever reason (a whole other discussion), they tried to cheat on an assignment. A lot of systems don’t have multiple strikes or are otherwise deeply flawed (as well as routinely shown to be ineffective). If you cheat and are caught, you are expelled. There is no sense of proportion or nuance to those kinds of systems and to ask faculty and students to voluntarily enforce that for your school is a ridiculous expectation.
If you’re asking me if there are situations where a student should be expelled because of cheating, the answer is yes. But I would say there are a lot of factors that have to be considered. It certainly can’t be one size fits all, which a number of institutions do. Otherwise it is not “justice” in the slightest. It’s taking a “tough on crime” approach to young adults in school enforced by their educators and peers, which is…well, let’s say “not effective.” At the end of the day these are institutions for learning. Plenty of people make huge mistakes, including massive breaches of trust, then learn their lesson and become better people for it. Giving a 0 on an assignment is often sufficient if we’re being honest. In a lot of cases that dig such a deep hole that your grade will never recover. If you want punitive measures, and one that hits where it hurts in a way that is relevant to the act of cheating, it doesn’t get much more appropriate than that. Not to mention the educator is going to watch them like a hawk for the rest of the semester.
I’m not even going to bother elaborating on how absurd it is to compare murder and cheating on a homework assignment or whatever.
The case of Katie Meyer at Stanford (not an academic integrity issue but a carelessly punitive disciplinary process nonetheless) shows that universities need to temper discipline with humanity and understanding, and to work for positive outcomes for all students.
> honor system has relied on individual accountability, with students pledging both to refrain from academic dishonesty and to report those they witness in violation
The last part is the weakness. As you note, nobody wants to potentially cause great harm to another student, even one who is guilty of cheating.
That being said, a cheating student should certainly not receive credit for the exam, as it is unearned, creates an unfair environment, undermines the assessment accuracy of course grades, and can disadvantage other students in courses with curved or grouped grade distributions. Widespread or prevalent cheating is particularly destructive because it creates bad incentives.
>That being said, a cheating student should certainly not receive credit for the exam, as it is unearned, creates an unfair environment, undermines the assessment accuracy of course grades, and can disadvantage other students in courses with curved or grouped grade distributions.
No one disagrees with this. No one wants to encourage cheating. The question is what works and/or are there any harmful effects of current systems
I know a guy who TA'ed at Stanford in the 1970's. He said his professor told him to give students “gentleman’s B’s” even when their work was not fully up to par, because many of them would eventually become part of the country’s future elite and power structure.
I've talked to instructors who've just given up. They know the students use AI. More and more of them do every year. The instructors can spot it easily, but if they brought them all into the academic dishonesty process, the department would grind to a halt. So they just let it go. They are all paying tuition, and they'll all get the credential they paid for.
I sympathize with the instructors to an extent, but the reality is that LLMs will be a pervasive part of life going forward. Schools need to completely reinvent their curriculum around that new reality. It's going to be a painful process for instructors accustomed to the old way of teaching.
A more accurate phrasing is: It's significantly less likely that one learns the portion of the work they offload to an LLM.
A random anecdote is that most of the people I know who went very far in theoretical math are relatively poor at basic mental arithmetic, because they always think in the abstract and offload addition and multiplication to the calculator. It doesn't mean they can't do it, they just aren't as practiced or as fast at it.
The difference is that at one point they could do basic arithmetic. They went through the fundamentals/building blocks to get where they are currently. Getting weaker at something is not the same as never having to put in the effort to learn it in the first place. Just because they’re not particularly good at it anymore doesn’t mean they don’t understand how arithmetic fundamentally works (which would be incredibly concerning). They can look at a problem on a piece of paper and completely understand what it means.
Also, they are leaning on a calculator, a specific tool with a proven use that literally everyone knows how to use. LLM’s are glorified beta tests where the VC-backed companies are begging the rest of us to figure out the billion dollar application for them. It doesn’t even remotely compare from a utility standpoint. I don’t need to promise you what a calculator will eventually do when it gets better or convince you of their usefulness. It is self evident and consistent
Just like how you significantly increased the difficulty of exams in "open book" exams in the past where the only way to pass the open book exam was to know the material well, you similarly need to increase the difficulty of other work where it won't matter if you have an LLM, because you won't pass without knowing your shit either!
The problem is that only works at the advanced courses. However people need to learn the basics before they reach that level, specially when they are starting and are in many regards below the LLM's baseline.
Need to type? Computer labs (“test taking labs” idk) are back baby. Simple machines, no Internet.
Pretty sure that solves 90% of the testing problem. If somebody is overly reliant on LLM’s and refuses to learn, they’ll pay with their grades on the big assignments. Bummer for teachers who don’t love blue books, but I’m sure it’s a hell of a lot better than trying to sniff out LLMs and constantly mistrusting your students.
Calculators were a part of life when I was studying math, but we used a pencil and paper because the answer wasn't the point, learning and practicing was.
Yeah because isnt it just about money and relationships? They have relationships to those student's families and need the networks. They realize too that its more about the credentials and networks and money comes in if that support those over academic honesty.
> Academic integrity committees at prestigious schools are horribly lax. They want these types of issues to go away quietly.
Yes, because the working model is that the students are there because they want to learn. And they are paying for the professors to teach them. If they cheat in classes, they are really just cheating themselves, and this should be no concern to the staff.
I would argue they are also cheating other students in their chosen field, and any future employers who place high value on prestige of applicants’ university, no?
If the only tangible, marketable value of graduating from a prestigious school was the raw knowledge and skill, I would agree with you. But it’s not.
Having worked with people who clearly got preferential treatment in hiring based on their school’s prestige, over more capable applicants from lower-tier schools, I absolutely lose respect for staff at universities who turn a blind eye to cheating.
And people respect certifications, if the trust in those pieces of paper disappears, then like you said, the trust in people with those certs disappears too. I used to think it was just about the knowledge but its not.
> If they cheat in classes, they are really just cheating themselves, and this should be no concern to the staff.
This is quite plainly not the case. If curve grading is used, cheating directly harms other students who aren't cheating. If curve grading isn't used, the university may end up handing out high grades like candy, and that's a problem for the university.
Higher grades can translate to better career outcomes even if undeserved. If it were clear that this wasn't the case, nobody would cheat in the first place.
I went to a school that actually tried to enforce it, and unfortunately it ended up being enforced wildly disproportionately along racial lines. My school had a very simple rule: if you were caught cheating, you were expelled. No strikes, no exceptions.
That is a massive burden to put on an educator.
Getting expelled from your university is a very serious, mandated fork in the road for anyone it happens to. So what do they do? If they relate to/empathize with the person, they try to handle it without reporting it. If they don’t, they reported and “let the system handle it.”
As any reasonable person would expect, white people were not reported and marginalized groups were. Privileged groups also got exceptions (the football team had a massive cheating scandal that should have expelled about 15 players, and the professor reported it! But mumble mumble uhh they learned their lesson).
After over a century they finally ended the system recently and honestly? Good. I appreciated what they were attempting to do, but it didn’t work.
You could just... make punishments more proportionate? If people are regularly circumventing your punishment system because they feel it's too harsh, maybe take that as a sign.
The elimination of personal racism in towns of less than 1,500 people in rural georgia isn’t a prerequisite to be skeptical of the claim that a university, which is subject to tremendous legal scrutiny and liability, is treating people differently based on race with regard to rule enforcement.
Especially so when you’re invoking the specter of racially discriminatory enforcement as a reason against rules that would be highly beneficial for everyone. You can’t invoke unproven allegations of racism to argue against having rules and enforcing them. That’s just a red herring for people who don’t like rules.
I’m an alum now, not a student, but even college students can submit a FOIA request. Additionally, the school can look in to it if it wants. The possibilities are near-endless for getting this kind of info. There’s also the simple fact that it’s not like it’s a secret when someone is expelled.
I don’t understand why you think it’s so impossible for people to prove this problem exists. For starters, they could simply survey the faculty and ask them how they handle cheating at the school to better understand how it’s reported. Which they did, and it was very revealing. Most did not feel comfortable reporting. They literally told the school. So out the gate you had less than half the faculty even participating, which immediately changes who is impacted (I.e. incredibly unfair enforcement). Before we’re even getting into race and other factors students are basically subject to a near-coin flip over whether or not their professors even report it. Then you have to take the professor’s own potential biases into account, since it’s basically all on them (and peers to a lesser degree. Do I need to explain 18-21 year olds can exercise poor social judgment and/or may not want to ruin someone’s life? Or worse, want to?) voluntarily report this.
Additionally, you could see the breakdown by race (and more) of people that were expelled. The numbers made no sense if you wanted to assert the system was fair - less than 20% of those reported or expelled were white at a school over 80% white. For emphasis: This was the case both for reporting them and verdict. It was common knowledge and over the years there had been several attempts by students to shut the one strike/expulsion only system down. There were also big gender discrepancies, with men being accused and expelled way more than women. Do you believe that claim?
The real issue here is why you immediately come from a place of “that’s impossible,” when it’s something that’s not actually very difficult to prove. That’s literally why it was removed. It was demonstrably discriminatory. Either way, this isn’t complicated and the data isn’t and wasn’t exactly hard to come by. So now it’s gone and the school is better for it.
Over half the faculty literally admitted they don’t report/don’t feel comfortable reporting in an anonymous survey when this was being more rigorously interrogated. It’s easy to infer “therefore a lot of cheating goes unreported” from that.
Second question: Because cheating is handled by a specific group and sexual misconduct/assault is a criminal offense that gets you arrested (it’s also handled at the school level by a specific group). They aren’t the same thing and they aren’t combined in reporting. I can’t imagine any school combines those two but maybe there are outliers.
The number of students expelled for cheating at my school was a concrete, annual number that was public knowledge.
So many of you keep asking all these random questions trying to poke holes. If you don’t believe me, just move on. I am giving you all the specificity I’m going to give you. You either believe me or you don’t. I have nothing to gain by lying on HN about a school I attended decades ago. I am relaying something I have a lot of firsthand knowledge of. You can find value in it or not.
There was a clear, demonstrable problem with the way cheating was handled. They've altered it because of this. That’s the story.
Unless I missed something, no one ever addressed the original question, which is how we know the policy was enforced along racially discriminatory lines. This requires knowing the extent of cheating in various racial groups and the extent of enforcement in each group. No evidence of the former has been presented.
Even if most of the people who were disciplined are from URM groups, that doesn't prove racially-biased enforcement.
Weirdly to you, perhaps, I am absolutely confident that there is a high degree of probability about your story (that expulsions for cheating were enforced along racial or gender lines) is accurate. Maybe I’m just overzealously arguing about the verifiability of it.
That’s fair. I’m also getting a fair number of responses from people who are clearly incredulous about what I’m saying, so I probably unfairly lumped you in with them.
I didn’t say it was “impossible.” I just asked you for your evidence. Do you have evidence similarly situated individuals were treated differently? Do you have evidence of events of cheating going unreported? I’m not saying you’re wrong about your ultimate conclusion. I’m asking about the type of evidence you believe is sufficient to support that conclusion.
The fact that most teachers were uncomfortable reporting might suggest enforcement was self selecting, but what makes you think it was the particularly racist teachers self selecting into enforcement? And under Title VI, which is what your allegation amounts to, disparate impact isn’t a valid theory of of discrimination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_v._Sandoval.
Again, strict rules against cheating are societally critical. Petty corruption and cheating is a huge tax on a society, and countries like Singapore and China have greatly improved the lives of ordinary people by taking draconian measures to stamp it out. So you have a very heavy burden if you’re arguing against such rules based on allegations of racial bias.
Why is multiple county and school district-wide segregation policies "personal racism" but as soon as it goes to a university it becomes "institutional"?
There were no “county and school district wide policies.” The segregated proms you’re talking about were planned by parents and held on private property. That’s a bad thing to do, but it’s not illegal. The schools had nothing to do with them—which would be illegal.
Your story, by contrast, is about a school enforcing honor codes in a discriminatory way. That’s something schools face tremendous Title VI liability over. It’s completely different.
> The segregated proms you’re talking about were planned by parents and held on private property.
... specifically because their school districts specifically voted to drop school sponsorship of proms because of desegregation, to legally insulate the schools and districts. Rather ignoring the concept of cause and effect.
I’m not going to doxx myself in a futile effort to convince you systemic racism is real.
Again, the numbers spoke to the truth of the matter. White people were reported and expelled at a rate that was so much lower than their non-white and international peers that it defied credulity. Men were also accused and expelled at a rate far higher than women were - something tells me you won’t push back against that.
The school didn’t end an over century-old practice that was a major point of pride for them because of vibes. It ended because it was harming only certain groups and was not effective at curtailing cheating.
It's a very different world from the exams I had in Denmark, both uni and high school:
* all exams were proctored
* the proctoring were done by external people hired to do this.
* you could not leave exam for the toilet without asking first and then being followed out by a watcher, which then would follow you back and check the toilet afterwards for notes.
* you were never handed back the papers you handed in.
* responses were judged both by your own teacher and by an independent teacher from another institution.
* you must use ballpoint pen (permanent) and not pencil. Pencil responses were ignored.
>you could not leave exam for the toilet without asking first and then being followed out by a watcher, which then would follow you back and check the toilet afterwards for notes.
That's not how you do it. The notes are in your pocket. You go to the toilet, read the notes, put the notes back into your pocket and go back to do the exam.
during GCSEs (nationally held exams at 16 for non uk people) i was sick in hospital for two weeks. when i came back i had to sit the missed exams in a special sitting.
exact same processes with external monitor etc. but with the backup exam papers that was different to the ones everyone else already did.
which is kind of in contrast to university (organised by the institution) where someone stole the exam paper for a difficult module in our final year. so they assigned one of the past year’s papers instead, as if everyone hadn’t memorised it already.
one of the benefits of scale with central organising bodies where you have to get things right (organising GCSEs nationally) is being forced to prepare for edge cases because they become a lot more common.
If you want rage bait, read the proceedings of honor code committees at your school. At least at Northwestern they were public record (sometimes with redaction of identities). The number of people who got off with obviously bullshit excuses was maddening even to read about.
When I was in high school, mad dad was subscribed to the California Bar Journal, and the discipline section was one of my favorite reads. The outrageous rational lawyers had for failing their clients or downright stealing from them was hilarious, and the rate they won their appeals was appalling.
Someone wrote a book about how organizations like state bars protect their members from clients, not the clients from their members as is the stated goal: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674295421
>Someone wrote a book about how organizations like state bars protect their members from clients, not the clients from their members as is the stated goal: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674295421
Every licensing organization does this to the extent it can get away with because it needs to provide value to its members otherwise it's members wouldn't constantly beg the state to do the licensing organization's bidding.
I once was accused and brought before the honor counsel for a really stupid innocent mistake.
Basically it was a history worksheet requiring written paragraph answers and I swapped around answers under the wrong questions so the teacher thought I cheated. It was a careless mistake I made because I had lost the original worksheet and was working off a loose leaf copy in the cafeteria at the last minute but it made it look like I copied someone else’s work.
I don’t known if the committee bought my story or was feeling lenient but I am very thankful for lax prosecution of these cases and think a lot of the value is in scaring people straight.
I guess so but was young and having to defend yourself before a committee that can expel you can be intimidating so there are many ways I could have flubbed the explanation and made myself suspicious. I do hope the standard is something like beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is this honour council I've heard in a few comments? I thought Princeton was unique in having and honour system as opposed to strict academic integrity rules.
My PhD was in mechanical engineering. I don't want to get more specific than that on the subject in case it identifies the lecturer. I guess I used the phrase "lecturer" to distinguish him from my PhD advisor.
That student was shameless for success. I’m sure she has navigated her way through plenty of institutions by now, confusing getting away with it for being clever.
If I ran HN this would be a bannable comment. I understand the importance of accountability - but we're discussing systemic issues, not an isolated memory from 30 years ago which is subject to the corruption of time.
I used to proctor accounting exams. It's insane to me that people would just leave the room to students. At the very least they might have questions and then they ask the class instead of calling the proctor
It makes some sense just to have a backup, especially if you’re dividing papers and recombining them. It’s not impossible that one could get misplaced or damaged.
Also, you could have an issue where the exam somehow becomes relevant again after you’ve handed them back, and some students may not have kept their copies (like if one student successfully challenges their grade and you realize other papers were also misgraded).
In my (German) university in the 00s we weren't handed back the graded papers, but there was an office hours slot where you could visit and take a look at yours (under supervision I guess). I don't think I did that even once.
I don't think you need to feel like a piece of shit for your brief defense of the student. Erasing and replacing the answer is unusual. As is photocopying all the tests.
Asking someone for an explanation of an unusual circumstance is perfectly natural. Perhaps TA#2 should feel like a piece of shit for her lousy explanation!
Honestly - the first thing that came to my mind is that the papers got stapled back together wrong, and her original correct answer was swapped with someone else's incorrect one. And instead of simply explaining that, she decided to just erase what was there and re-submit. But who knows?
Because colleges are paid by the student, and students who are expelled don't pay. Incentives explain outcomes, to quote a controversial public figure.
There is an easy solution to Princeton’s problem, and it’s to have an honor system with a backbone. The way honor historically worked.
At my private high school, and at my university (although they later gutted it), we had a “single sanction” honor code.
That is, if you were caught lying, cheating, or stealing - in any way, and in or out of school, though usually it was in - you were immediately expelled. No mitigating circumstances. No negotiation.
To many of my peers this sounded very harsh, especially since these were very good schools you worked hard to get to and succeed in. But part of why they were good schools was because of this.
We do zero tolerance for so many things but integrity is the one thing that misses it for some reason.
"Zero tolerance" policies like that are much more prone to the kind of excessive leniency in application that's described, precisely because the penalty for being found to have cheated is so very high.
In those cases, the academic integrity committee is much more likely to demand a very high standard of proof of cheating, and it can ironically result in more people getting away with it again and again, where, in a system with (say) a "three strikes" policy, they might be more likely to be expelled, because the committee would not hesitate to give them their first and second strikes—and after that, they're clearly a repeat offender.
You are equating “leniency” and “standard of proof” which goes against my every sense of justice.
You either did it or you didn’t. There is no small crime, they are all the same. That is honor- you have it or you don’t.
There is no “you were accused, but it’s minor so we’ll have to be more sure than usual.”
That would be as ridiculous as saying “you were accused, and it’s major, so if there’s any suspicion at all, you’re gone.”
I know that happens in practice sometimes (like to the lacrosse players at Duke, or to Phi Psi at Virginia), but it’s not just. And it’s not representative of a functional honor system.
You're looking at it in much too black-and-white a manner.
First of all, there's a difference between cheating on the big final exam that determines 40% of your course grade, and cheating on a quiz in week 3. A zero-tolerance policy has to make a decision: does the latter count as cheating? Is that really worth expelling a student over? A more nuanced policy can give that student a more nuanced punishment that may deter them from escalating their cheating—essentially, "scare them straight".
Second of all, there are absolutely degrees of cheating. For one, there's simple volume: did you cheat on one question, or all of them? For another, there's gray areas like "it was an open-book test, but I had also scribbled down some extra notes in the book" or "yes, I had my phone out in the test, but genuinely I was just responding to my parent/significant other/best friend who was having a meltdown". Or even "I had my phone in my bag, which I wasn't supposed to, but I never looked at it during the test; I just forgot to hand it in when I entered".
Your brand of "justice" would see many people who could absolutely be persuaded or shamed into good behavior, as well as actual innocents, lose the chance to ever get a decent education, and thus a decent job. (Particularly given the way the economics of it are going today—if you get expelled, those student loans don't go away, so how are you ever going to afford another university?)
What do you mean by this. What is the cost of one university expelling a liar? There is only benefit.
I am talking about a school like Princeton here. Not a for-profit degree mill.
The school with only honorable students is the most valuable school, all else being equal. All your students will be practically guaranteed jobs.
How much cheating is acceptable, from your wife? Do you have a sliding scale of punishment? I’d be curious to learn from you. Penalty for kissing another man. Penalty for touching another man. Etc.
> What is the cost of one university expelling a liar?
What is the cost to the student?
And you seem to have immediately glossed over the part where not all of these students are, in fact, lying, or cheating.
> The school with only honorable students is the most valuable school, all else being equal. All your students will be practically guaranteed jobs.
Where on earth do you get that idea?
No one in the corporate world really cares if you cheated on your exams. Plenty of them would brag about doing the same. They care about the piece of paper, and not much else, from the schooling itself. (They do care about what experience you have. In fact, they'd love it if, as 22-year-old college graduate, you have 15 years of experience!)
> How much cheating is acceptable, from your wife?
I don't feel like going too much into my personal life with someone like you, but oh boy, buddy, did you pick the wrong person to try that "gotcha" on X-D
> We do zero tolerance for so many things but integrity is the one thing that misses it for some reason
Look at the type of people in positions of power these days? If we enforced any kind of integrity they would be screwed, but since they're in charge they can undermine policies that would hold them accountable as much as they like
Having integrity in elite colleges helps society. If people graduate from these places by cheating, and they see others graduating by cheating, cheating becomes a norm in elite society. If students are observed to be honest, and those that aren't are usually caught and punished, the graduates leave with a norm of honesty.
I wish I as a student had this power. I took an exam once for a class I had taken before (transfer student woes). I went into the hall, took the easy exam, turned it in, and left. They lost my test.
I had no idea until 3 weeks later when exam scores were finally uploaded and mine was missing. The quarter was over and what the hell could I possibly do at that point? I had no possible evidence to give to show that I not only took the test but definitely passed because I've already taken the class
Similar story: I had taken a college level programming course before starting college. I reported this, and was told that it would either excempt me from an intro to programming class (if it was similar enough) or get credit for it towards my degree. Fair enough. After a while I was told it was different enough, and in the school software, it said I had a half-semester's worth of study point "in reserve" through all the years I studied there. In the final year, there was a small elective topic (something about engineering leadership) which seemed really uninteresting, so I thought, "it's time I finally make use of those banked points" and so didn't sign up for it.
Then after the semester was over, after a while I realized I'd only gotten a grades transcript, not a degree. Apparently I was lacking those 5 points from the elective course for that - the 40 points from my pre-college college course were mysteriously gone. Oh, and the mail I had gotten where they confirmed it counted? On the mail server, which we were mandated to use, and which they wiped the day we were done with our last semester.
When I was at university you returned the test and singed on shared list that you had participated. So if your name was on the list it was proof that you were at least in the room at the time. Probably more so done to track registrations vs participation but would also help in these situtations.
I mean I get that the student broke the rules, at least per this anecdote. And what was done is dishonorable and the student deserves what is coming to the student.
But, I think it gets to a deeper issue with education.
Like, the cynic in me will say that the student learned a new tactic, one that got rewarded, and they are likely to repeat it over and over.
But the teacher, the hopeful part of me, the one that wants growth and striving, that part of me says that the student learned a lesson and is unlikely to repeat that hack. That they got dragged about, told a lot of very tough stories, saw the consequences, and then saw the light, and they will never do it again. And that experience taught them more than the class ever could about life - a much more valuable lesson in the end.
I hope that is what occurred. I think that's probably what the many admins told themself what would happen. I have worked with Princeton grads though, and it is much more likely that nothing of the sort occurred.
Most 'elite' grads think they pulled it over on the school, like they always have, that they were cleverer, somehow. That they 'won', when they really lost and learned worse than nothing, they learned the wrong thing. And then they get out into the real world and they get a successful bigjob and a nice little manageable coke habit and a not as manageable addiction or two. Then a spouse when that time comes and that other line says something no-one really wants, but not with a person they respect or that respects them. And by the time the second kid is done teething, the divorce is done and they think they are 'free' again. So they dive off a cliff in some azure water as the grandkids aren't well taken care of by expensive as hell help.
The ayahuasca vomit dries on the corner of their mouth as they check their actually-personal account for the half dozen 39th birthday wishes, they wonder where it all went wrong. They decide that it was others, not themselves, surely, that can't be true, because Dad was an asshole and Mom really wasn't ever 'there'-there when you think about it.
Because they are still trying to pull one over, to be cleverer, to be the 'good' one at whatever life is in their mind: A long fucking ladder covered in degrees and accolades and tears and jackasses. They live in the derivative.
So, look, don't be butthurt about a jackass undergrad that is too blind and treadmilled to ruin their own life.
But do be butthurt that the system is too fucking tired and old to really deeply care anymore about the young and not just hurting their 'future' - as if that could ever be measured by only a GPA.
> Because they are still trying to pull one over, to be cleverer, to be the 'good' one at whatever life is in their mind: A long fucking ladder covered in degrees and accolades and tears and jackasses. They live in the derivative.
OP here. I think you're attributing relatively sophisticated motivations to cheating. I've seen it at elite institutions and those that were far less prestigious.
I don't think the motivations for cheating are different in the Ivy League compared to any other institution.
If I can speculate on most motivations (no particular order), they would be:
- Failing would be an embarrassment (to me, my family, etc.) and I probably won't get caught.
- The work for this course is completely irrelevant to my career path. They're just making me jump through hoops. I'll work honestly after I cheat my way through this course.
- I'm pressed for time or other there are other external issues fucking up my life, so I don't have time to study. I could definitely understand the course material if <horrible issue in my life> weren't happening right now, so cheating isn't that big of a deal.
I think most of this is excuse-making, but the human mind is capable of magnificent self-deceptions.
A couple more points (not really addressed to you).
I agree with many other commenters who say that the school admins do not want you to drop problems like this at their doorstep. The prof. usually has to navigate these waters on his/her own.
I've told this story many times over the years and the most common response (also given here) is something like "I'm sure she's put her talents to great use on Wall Street". Gives you a sense of public perception of Wall Street--which I believe is largely accurate.
it's my son. he's young, bright, but puts up defenses to protect his perceived vulnerabilities. I try to explain to him that exposing your vulnerabilities humanizes you... at least it does to the type of people I admire.
> You'll need to look for your own individual scheme, ethics be damned.... That's not healthy on an individual level or cumulatively at a societal level.
I was thinking about what you said w/r/t the proximal issue (gambling in prediction markets) and my 1st though was "why is this a big deal? If you're not an insider, just don't participate in these markets ... and then the insiders don't have a counterparty to fleece."
But I thought a little more about and I think you're right. Insider's fleecing others in prediction markets just erodes trust everywhere. And we need a considerable amount of trust in people we don't know for society to function properly.
I don't know the owner at my local hardware store, but I trust that he won't sell me shoddy tools. The same goes for every societal interaction. We need to trust people we don't know. If that gets eroded, we go back a several centuries.
you could have stopped at "Persian people shouldn't have to die for this."
The rest is irrelevant to what has been threatened.
edit. to be clear, the rest of your post is offensive in that it implies that under a different genetic lineage, the threats would be justified. I can't believe I have to even write this.
But what was his plan and how would you have proposed implementing it?
reply