This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
I understand cheating is shitty but it would make a lot more sense for the teacher to make this a teachable moment about cheating, and to promote collaborative solutions, but also checking work you get from others.
A huge part of development is copying code and reusing code from libraries. The important part is that you know how the code you copy works.
Their teachable moment is that plagiarism has consequences, and they earned that lesson entirely by themselves.
Sure, but as a general rule the carrot is a better incentive than the stick.
Let's not pretend these are kids who have a test for their first time. They all were told to not cheat and that cheating would lead to expulsion.
On the flip side, all threat of consequences works as a deterrent only when there's the expectation to be caught and punished.
By always catching but never handing out punishment to kids violating rules, you only teach them that consequences are inconsequential.
If you give cheaters too many chances, the other students will feel betrayed. And I guess rightly so.
It's not uncommon to get mails directly, or later in course evaluation, from students who complain about other students that didn't put in the work. I can only remember few cases where there were names involved. Typically it's some general complaint, but the frustration is obvious.
It sucks when you make an effort but witness other students cheating their way through the class. What are we supposed to tell them when the dishonest behaviour of other students doesn't cause any consequences?
It's University. If you don't know by 18-22 if cheating is bad, despite each class at the beginning of the semester explaining the penalties for cheating, you deserve to get expelled.
Surely these kids knew that cheating is bad before they enrolled in college.
"Teachable moments" are for freshmen. Cheating seniors can get fucked.
On a very related note, I actually earned my CS degree.
Believe it or not, one of the goals of a good university is to not graduate stupid people who don't know anything.
Keep in mind, it's likely that more people cheated, but the smarter ones changed just enough code to make it look "their own", or actually tested to ensure it'd work, and thus weren't caught. Those 22 caught are very likely the ones that copy-pasted verbatim.
On the one hand: awww, poor cheater world's smallest violin meme
On the other hand: expulsion from the university for a first offense seems... harsh.
universities take plagiarism very seriously. Friend of mine teaches stage craft (how to make sets, props, costumes, lighting and sound design/planning/execution/engineering)
First semester, first test, easy pass: Someone pokes their head into the class and my friend goes to the door to answer them, stepping outside for like ~30 seconds
comes to mark the papers:
"In a proscenium theater, what is the very front of the stage called?"
Real answer: apron
55% of the student answers: the same made up word that sounded vaguely Portuguese with no hits on Google.
even though it's super dumb and super easy and barely matters at all and is a one word answer to a basic question - the students ended up being investigated by the university and my friend had all his classes audited.
Cheating is taken VERY seriously at every decent University. As it should.
On the other hand: expulsion from the university for a first offense seems… harsh.
It's a masters program, I have no issue with high level cheaters getting slapped with consequences. When I was in undergrad, first offence was an immediate F in the class, with a second being expulsion. Given the requirements for masters/doctorate (my MIL got both while I was dating my wife), getting an F is probably going to bounce you from the program anyway, so it's not that much difference IMO.
when a professor does this they're "based" and "brainpilled" but when I pretend to sell crack on the benches outside, all of a sudden the judge claims it's "entrapment" and "illegal" smh....
Cheating in academia is the name of the game. There is a survivor bias here assuming the other 78 students didn't cheat. They're Learning how to not get caught. Building a better trap may simply yield a better better cheater. The proof ends up being in the work.
I still think honeypots are amusing AF.
i didnt have a big problem with cheating, except with the caveat if a test is weighted via averages, then it actively fucks over those who dont cheat, as the curve is set higher than it should.
I have average intelligence and maintained a 3.5 at a top bioengineering school. I barely went to lectures, and just made sure to stay on top of the material through online resources (we have literally everything ever available to us). Id say not being a dumbass is the name of the game.
It always surprises me when I interview new graduates now and they can't explain any of their projects or pass a basic software proficiency test that most intro classes should cover (I usually ask them to write code to reverse complement a DNA sequence.. just swap out some letters and reverse a string, I do include the rules in the prompt). I think cheating is really rampant in software students.
There was an early episode of Naruto that involved a test that was nigh impossible for someone of their grade level. The actual purpose of the test was to see how good they were at cheating without getting caught, which would translate to their ability to gather information in enemy territory. I think about that a lot.
At a certain point though, you've just plain done the work. If you jump through enough hoops to cheat then you have to know the material well enough. Like doing a bunch of editing passes on downloaded papers.
It's so much easier to just go to class and do the assignment work.
The same mentality that tries to cheat also doesn't understand that actually knowing the material is crucial to actually doing the job.
Sure, they'll argue that we only use about 2 weeks of accumulated college knowledge in our professional careers, and that claim apparently checks out; but it's the very last few weeks that we've built on the years of pre-req that we use later on. I.e it's just the tip of the iceberg, but it's the tip of a fucking iceberg.
This is just what happens when you send a bunch of people to higher education who didn't really want to go.
Well, if the piece of paper wasn’t necessary to make enough money to split an apartment with 3 other strangers, I’m sure fewer people would go.
Wish more teachers had that dedication to something, in general.
At university most teachers have serious dedication. It's just not for teaching, lmao.
But once you do your thesis, discussion in their respective fields of research or general expertise is really awesome.
It’s just not for teaching, lmao.
Exactly. The "Ugh, these annoying students are keeping me from doing something useful" is very strong with some of them.
What is TA?
Teacher's Assistant/Teaching Aide
Basically an older student helping teach the younger ones as a parttime job. Generally involves a lot of crappy work like supervising labwork, helping out with grading and answering the same question 18 times.
Can be real fun though and often you get deeper insight into the subject than just attending a class or gain valuable connections into the institute.
In my personal experience, it usually means doing 80% of the professor's work for minimum wage pay so the $140k/yr prof can fuck off and go brown-nose the school Board of Trustees all term.
This is equal part fucked up and you get what's fucking coming to you
Anon's prof is a G.
What is TA?
Teaching assistant. They do a whole bunch of stuff for professors like grading, teaching, and the like
