Not a stupid girl

Thursday, May 11, 2006

If you're gonna cheat, at least don't get caught!

There are three types of people I absolutely cannot stand. Liars, thieves and cheaters.

We had a test tonight at school on our cardiovascular word parts. Not a hard test, plus it was multiple choice. We already had all the answers from the worksheet we filled out and graded. After our second break, our teacher came in and said she had some sad news, then asked us who had a purple pen. One girl spoke up and said she did, but the other girl who we all know has one and uses it all the time didn't say a word. Seems "someone" made themselves a cheat sheet and tried to get rid of it by flushing it down the toilet. Didn't work. It was found by the director of education, she actually fished it out of the toilet (gross I know, hopefully it was clean water) and gave it to our teacher. Amazingly, nobody claimed that cheat sheet, although we did try to blame it on the only guy in our class and accused him of using the girls bathroom. We told her to check all of our files and match the handwriting. Who knows if she will or not, but we all know who did it. And I hope she gets expelled from school. How sad is it to be so lazy you have to cheat on an easy test? This girl made honor roll one mod, now it makes me wonder how she really got that grade.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is this. If you're gonna cheat, make sure the evidence is gone. If you want to flush it down the toilet, make sure it goes down, or at the very least use an ink that will run as soon as water hits it. Better yet, just don't cheat.

posted by erica at 10:26 PM

1 Comments:

  • Wow, you're a real tightwad. I didn't think people like you still existed. You'd have made a great Soviet apparatchik. Never mind, there's always high school teaching: a great career for people like you, who enjoy telling people what to do, nosing around in students business, invading privacy, enacting fascist classroom rules and generally being a jerk.

    If McCain gets elected, you might apply for a job as a Republican Party official - they do the same thing.

    But to the point:

    If someone wants to cheat, who are you to tell them not to? I've got an exam tomorrow. I won't cheat because I don't need to. But if I did want to cheat, why would I be discouraged upon reading your site?

    Why do you care so much about what other people do?

    Is it because you're an envious, jealous, gutless coward? By which I mean, you'd rather cheat than slave away at work, but you're too scared to try, and it makes you angry that there are people who aren't scared, and who succeed and get top marks on their tests because they cheated. Is that right? I presume so, from your post.

    Let me tell you something, that you may not have previously been aware of. This may be the most important thing you'll have learned about exams in your whole life:

    An exam, just like a student, can fail or pass, on it's own merits.

    An exam that passes is one which shows and reflects precisely how well the course material has been conveyed and understood.

    What about one that fails?

    Well, quite the opposite. Rather than reflecting how well an individual understands the the course material, such an exam just shows how well an individual has memorised a portion of the course material.

    That is: the difference between a good and a bad test is that a good test shows a student's understanding and grasp, and a bad test shows only their awareness, or their memory.

    I can tell you quite easily that e=mc^2. I can even tell you the basic tenets of the theory. But I don't know what they mean and I don't know what the formula really means - I can't grasp it, I can't understand it, I can't truly know it.

    Because I can repeat it doesn't mean I know it.

    Because I can repeat the basic idea of the formula, doesn't mean I understand the basic idea of the formula.

    I can memorise 'the dots' and draw them in sequence on a piece of paper. But connecting them is a different matter. Understanding the relationship between one dot and another: that's learning.

    The thing is, not many people understand learning. You don't, or haven't yet. Not because they're stupid.

    But because they've been educated in a system that leaves little room for originality, fresh ideas, imagination: those fundamentals of true intelligence.

    Rather, Western education - especially primary and secondary, but tertiary as well - is based on the holy idea of the curriculum. In high school the teachers have the curriculum, they teach from it, they don't even need to know it as long as the text book is at hand.

    In University, the 'curriculum' is slightly different but still exists in a way: it is the literature and the most common bases of information on a subject (and this applies most especially for science subjects, or some more limited humanities subjects, like law). The Professor will select areas from this 'field', areas he or she believes are important, and he or she will teach from those selections. It's still a curriculum. Think about Anatomy for example: in the US, the UK and Australia, first year Systemic Anatomy and Anatomy/Physiology subjects are taught, in the vast majority of cases, from a range of maybe five texts.

    In something like Philosophy, Psychology or Creative Writing, depending on the lecturer, creative thought is encouraged, but when it comes to exam time, again, bang: essay.

    Let's say I'm doing an essay on Greek Philosophy. There's a question, something like, 'How does Platonic idealism relate to Aristotle's concept of catharsis? How did Plato's ideas influence Aristotle's? Argue the case that Platonic idealism was the primary influence for Aristotle's ideas on emotional purging, or argue against this proposition. Refer to 'Republic', 'Poetics' and 'Politics' as well as two additional texts.'

    Now, that is a pretty verbose question, and in fact, from my experience in Philosophy and Creative Writing courses, a pretty complex one - comparative to the questions asked of first and second year students at the least.

    Nonetheless, it may appear to require an understanding, but it doesn't.

    All I have to do to answer it is follow the holy 'exam format'. That is, I start with an introduction where I state the arguments I'm making. Then I have a body of text, in which the paragraphs are formatted in such a way as to reflect a singular argument or point. Then I conclude. Example: Let's say I'm arguing that Platonic idealism was the founding force behind Aristotle's ideas on catharsis.

    What do I need to do to get top marks? First, I need to answer the part of the question that said 'relate' the two ideas.

    That means 'describe them, show connections'. Easy: I 'list' in a way that doesn't look like a list, the concept of Platonic idealism. Same for Aristotle and 'catharsis'. I show how, say, two of the defining points of Plato's idealism, are similar to two defining points of Aristotle's conception of catharsis.

    Then I make my argument: Plato influenced Aristotle etc etc.

    Now keep in mind, the teacher will have talked about this, or covered it. Rarely in modern, Western University education, will a student be presented in an exam with a question they don't know how to answer.

    Sounds a bit silly to give them a question they don't know how to answer, right? Seems to defeat the purpose of a test, right?

    Wrong. This is the only test format that can possibly reflect a student's true knowledge. Because it puts a student off guard. It allows - no, forces a student to think. It does what a good test question should: it forces a student to use their memory, their imagination and their critical thought processes. It forces them to use these methods of thinking all at once.

    Let's say I'm given that Plato question without having been told how Aristotle and Plato relate (re: their ideas on ideals and emotional purging respectively).

    I'm forced to search my memory. What do I know about Plato's ideals? What are they? What do they mean? What about Aristotle, what was his concept of 'catharsis', what did it mean? Hmm, now, how DO they relate? How does one influence the other?

    Well, hmm, I know from Republic that 'sophists' and poets were, in Plato's mind, vastly socially inferior to philosophers, men of reason.

    I know that Aristotle's idea of 'catharsis' suggests that by seeing a poet performed by a sophist, I can 'purge' certain emotions.

    Watching a tragedy, I am overwhelmed by the performance and the content, I feel sad, I feel distraught, but I know I am feeling these emotions as a result of the performance. When I leave, I feel restored and revitalized because I have had an outlet for my emotions. Furthermore, I heard of characters whose lives happened to be much worse than mine and terrible things happened to them - so maybe my life isn't so bad after all.

    I know Aristotle's position is that this catharsis is helpful to an individual and to a society.

    Hmm.

    Well, by extension that means he's taking an opposing position to Plato. He's saying 'poetry is good for society'. Plato based a great portion of his philosophy on the 'perfect society' or the 'perfect Republic', and poets were not in that society - they encouraged hysteria, he said.

    So Plato says poetry is harmful to a society. Aristotle says poems encourage social wellbeing - sophistry is necessary for proper social functioning and indeed therefore anything but harmful.

    So they hold opposing positions. They relate. That's quite clear. I can also gauge from the method of expression in 'Poetics' that it is a response to the Platonic position.

    So therefore, Plato has influenced Aristotle. What was Plato's influence the fundamental basis for Aristotle's ideas?

    That's harder and hmm, I need to think again. (I don't know, let's say for the sake of the hypothetical, that Plato lectured Aristotle at the Academy and as such Aristotle was a student of Plato).

    I would need to think about this for a while. There's obviously no clear cut answer. I would need to refer to the texts. Nowhere in Republic or Poetics or any of either Plato or Aristotle's works does it say 'Plato's theory of realism/idealism/forms was the primary influence on Aristotle's theory of catharsis'. I have to make the connection - or make the disconnection as the case may be - myself.

    Now I won't write the essay here. But the point is:

    There's no correct answer here. No A or B or C or D, fill in the bubble, tick the box. There's no 'true' or 'false'. There's no answer that a lazy teacher can pick up, and compare the essay to - scan the paper, 'Hmm, oh, no, that's wrong, wrong position, poor mark'.

    The teacher can't even do as most humanities teachers do nowadays (or many at least), and go through the essay, make sure I've repeated the basic tenets of each philosopher, make sure I've repeated some 'conclusions' that were taught in class, tick tick tick, student gets an A.

    The teacher must think too. They must examine the essay.

    But what criteria should a mark be based on? How does the teacher evaluate the student's capacity to understand?

    Well - the criteria will differ from essay to essay. That's the point. In the example, the criteria would be a measurement of the student's ability to: know Plato/Aristotle (memory), describe the two philosophies referred to in the question (MEMORY), consider the philosophies (CRITICAL THINKING/IMAGINATION), refer to relevant parts of relevant texts (memory/reasoning), and most importantly, formulate a clear argument, take a clear position, and boldly, evidentially, lucidly make that argument.

    In the example, the student who understands will hopefully draw the connection quite easily. But even if he does not, he may understand the points differently and he may address the question differently. The exam needs to be flexible. The criteria needs to be flexible.

    Does that mean it will be 'easier' for a student? By no means. In fact, it will be much harder.

    It's easy to go home and memorise things. I can memorise 500 or 600 body parts for anatomy, and have done so with no real trouble. I'm not especially smart. I'm pretty average actually. But all I had to do was look at the parts as many times as I could on the models and cadavers and then, bam, memorised.

    Same with philosophy, for example: I can read Republic and have no fucking clue what it's about. I can go to lectures, write down what the lecturer says it's about, memorise that and then repeat it later.

    I can memorise HOW a body part works. I can memorise WHAT Plato meant by his theory of forms.

    I can appear, through memorisation, to have understood my course. Nearly everyone who passes a course is doing just that: appearing to understand. That is, understanding based on the university criteria: which is not understanding at all, only retaining information and repeating information as necessary.

    What takes more skill is to answer a question such as the one I posed re: philosophy, WITHOUT having been told about the connection between Plato and Aristotle.

    Lets use a scientific example: instead of giving a 150 multiple choice Anatomy exam, why not actually see if students understand the structures? This is equally if not more important than just knowing where they are.

    Why not have questions like, 'A woman presents with a pain in her right leg that is aggravated by cold weather. Diagnose and treat - describe your diagnosis and treatment, and why you diagnosed and treated the way you did.'

    The 'right' answer in the technical sense might be 'osteoarthritis' or Trochanteric Bursitis (a joint inflammation) or a number of things. The 'right' answer in the technical sense would probably entail a description of the diagnostic process, and the reasons behind the choices of treatment.

    A broader answer might allow students who considered different methods of examination and treatment. Who considered the resources of the hypothetical hospital or general practice. Who considered the time and money factor, the other patients, the medications available, referral to specialists, the ability to accurately diagnose such a problem, etc. It would also consider the immediate problem of the patient's pain, and the next question of imaging - but might consider other methods of analysing the source of the pain.

    If marks are based not on 'hitting a note', that is, repeating what the lecturer wants you to repeat - well, you can see surely that a broad approach can work for science and the humanities.

    Again - this isn't the 'easy' way.

    Consider the Anatomy question:

    A lazy student would be more inclined to answer along the lines of, 'Take X-Ray, examine X-Ray, offer initial diagnosis of osteoarthritis based on the effect of weather, question the patient some more, deliver NSAID treatment, book for further consultation after X-Ray imaging has been considered.'

    Very cautious. Very textbook. But wrong. Not wrong in the sense that the process is incorrect or dangerous.

    Wrong in the sense that it's a reptition of what a lecturer has said. It's not thinking. It's repeating.

    So this method of learning that I espouse can work for science and the humanities.

    Our education system in the West, however, is fundamentally flawed, as I've pointed out.

    And this brings me back to cheating.

    If a student can cheat on an exam, the exam was not worth taking in the first place.

    The exam was useless. It didn't examine understanding. It examined memorisation.

    A student cheats and passes with high marks. Are you angry because you feel he's less qualified, when he graduates, because he's cheated on exams? Does that mean he knows less, or is less disciplined? Or both?

    Maybe it means he locked himself out of his house the night before the exams. Maybe it means he lacks confidence. Maybe it means he was socially anxious during lectures and didn't attend. Maybe he didn't speak during tutorials and was scared to raise his hand. Maybe he found the transition from high school to university intimidating. Maybe he was sick but had too many days off and couldn't get a doctor's appointment.

    Maybe he was just too damned lazy to study.

    I don't buy this argument. Cheating takes ingenuity. It takes thought, reason, imagination - all those things that courses don't teach.

    A person cheating on a test wants to pass. A serial cheater wants to practice in his field of study.

    He's found a way to beat the system. He may or may not know that by beating the system, he's shown the system is flawed.

    Let's take an oral exam, or a defense of a thesis such as occurs during a pHD proposal.

    A student is required to research, prove or disprove, depending on the results, and document something new. Then the student is required to defend his method, discussion, results, limitations, etc., in front of a panel. He doesn't know what they'll ask. He prepares himself. But he knows he'll have to think. And when he's in that room, he does think.

    WHy, then, do first and second year students not? Why aren't they given credit enough to be able to be taught in a way that allows them to think for themselves?

    Is it because without student fees, Universities wouldn't have money? So they let people who can memorise but not think, in?

    I think if you think - about what I've said, then you'll change your mind.

    Forget all your moral qualms about 'cheaters' and 'cheating'. They've been drilled into you since Kindergarten. They do this to everyone. Cheats, thieves, liars - the scum of the earth, right?

    No. People cling to those ideas and ideologies they were indoctrinated into during childhood.

    'Cheating' is a big one. Cheating is perjorative. Why, when a student figures out a way to beat a system, is he derided?

    If a scientist performed a study on cheating in an exam, and showed the success rates of various methods and published them, he'd have contributed to human knowledge.

    When a student cheats, thinks their way around an age-old method of testing, it's 'wrong wrong wrong'?

    Ask yourself: why do these people harp on about how 'wrong' it is? This is a University, for crying out loud. To your left there's a hundred people learning about moral and ethical relativity. To your right there's people learning about high order Mathematics so they can go on to work at an intelligence agency.

    And in the middle, in the exam hall, they're trying to tell you cheating is 'wrong'?

    It's the same bullshit they've been harping on for years and years. Some people are smart enough to see through it - they recall that the first people to tell them cheating was bad was probably a parent. The second was probably a teacher.

    And, from then until now, they've been told over and over that cheating is bad.

    Well, while we're using blanket statements, I say cheating is good.

    If I use a nootropic like piracetam, hydergine, deprenyl to keep my mind sharp and clear and focuses and keep my memory working at it's peak, is that cheating?

    What's the difference between performance enhancing drugs on the sporting field, and performance enhancing drugs in the academic arena?

    If I use amphetamine or Ritalin or Modafinil to stay up, giving me more hours to study than those who don't take these drugs - is that cheating?

    What about US pilots who use Modafinil to stay up late on long bombing runs? Is that cheating?

    Do we define cheating by those who don't cheat? THat is, I'm a cheater if I take amphetamine for a test, because most people don't. Or some people don't. Unfair advantage. Is that how we define a cheater in this sense?

    So is the air force pilot a cheater, in comparison to those militaries whose pilots don't use such medications?

    Of course not. The militaries who do not use these performance enhancing drugs just haven't found out about them yet. When they do, they get them and they use them.

    What about a person who is naturally smarter than another? They have a natural advantage? Should the less intelligent kid have to work harder, spend more time memorising? Or can he cheat o make up for it?

    Lastly - I talked to my doctor a week ago. I asked him about an upcoming Anatomy Prac exam I had.

    He said that Systemic Anatomy was the most boring subject he encountered in Uni. He said it was rote learning. He said it was necessary, but that nearly every doctor forget first-year Anatomy a week after it was over. It's a course to 'test the mettle' of the entrants. The faculty pride themselves on their failure rate.

    Well - if the course material is useless, and the course is designed only to test the students...well, those students who manage to cheat on their tests and therefore pass with flying colours WITHOUT succumbing to the stress intentionally laid on by the Anatomy staff - well, more power to them.

    I suggest you reconsider your attitudes towards cheating: they're dogmatic.

    You think you're smart. You probably deride dogma.

    So think for yourself, and question authority. Be smart, be really smart - don't feel good because you've been told you're smart.

    If you make that mistake, you'll end up us a paper pusher in the academic world, whatever course you enter.

    Let me really wrap it up this time with a few quotes:



    Socrates, first:

    I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.

    And more Socrates:

    I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others.

    Now WC Fields:

    Anything worth having is a thing worth cheating for.

    Shakespeare:

    For nothing can seem foul to those that win.
    Elbert Hubbard:

    You can lead a boy to college, but you can't make him think.

    A great one from Mark Twain:

    I have never let schooling interfere with my education.

    And finally, to wrap things up, Mr. Burns:

    I've always felt that there's far too much hysteria these days about so-called cheating. If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them?

    Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!

    By Blogger h, at 1:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home