Kids spread cheating methods on YouTube

College Life
41

<p>I haven’t read the entire thread, so my apologies in advance if something similar has already been discussed. I also won’t bother pretending it’s about my “friend,” because you’d probably see right through that. Anyway, here’s what I was pondering: I have a horrible memory. One of my high school friends has a photographic memory. We took almost all of our classes together in high school, and they were advanced level classes. We often studied together. We were both quite capable of learning the concepts and underlying patterns. For example, when we had our organic chem unit in chemistry, we both were quite familiar with how to name all the compounds. However, he had no problem memorizing all the little names and prefixes, whereas I had a ton of trouble.</p>

<p>So yes, I cheated, and I was plagued with guilt, but I did it fairly regularly throughout high school. I simply could not remember. So, to continue the example, let’s say I become an organic chemist, and let’s also pretend that my memory has gotten really, REALLY bad. Like, even though I am an organic chemist, I still don’t know the prefixes. I may face some criticism and ridicule, but if I know what I’m doing and I’m good at it, would it really demonstrate incompetency because I have to keep a little sheet around that says “methane, ethane, propane, etc”?</p>

<p>It seems that my friend has an inherent advantage with his photographic memory, while I am at a disadvantage because of my poor one, even though we both learned at similar speeds and seemed to have similar levels of intelligence. I never had to cheat because I didn’t understand the underlying concepts, and I doubt it would have helped, since the questions on the test will be different from questions completed in class or for homework, and thus would require that I have a good comprehension of those underlying concepts, rather than just excerpts from the textbook scribbled on a tiny piece of paper.</p>

<p>Does cheating due to a bad memory warrant the same severity of punishment and retribution as cheating due to a complete unwillingness to prepare and study for a test?</p>

<p>Also, I am not trying to make excuses for myself–I still struggle with guilt in college, despite the fact that I haven’t cheated since my junior year of high school. And I paid (and am still paying) the price with my grades. I knew it was wrong, and could no longer cope with a heavy conscience. I am just trying to raise a discussion point. Are we really siphoning out the most intelligent kids when we test more on memory than on comprehension? As long as those with bad memory don’t follow a career path where the well-being of others depends on those employees being able to recall facts and equations, I think it would be more important to have someone who can pick up on ideas quickly and adjust to changing environments with ease.</p>

42

<p>Cheating is really stupid. You either know the material or you don’t. It’s not that hard to just study.</p>

43

<p>I was part of the honor council (aka, if the student cheats- or is accused of cheating- we would hear the case and pass on our opinion) in high school. We’ve seen everything from networking methods to the pen to writing answers on a shirt. We had also kids ranging from pure desperation to “it was a pointless assignment meant to only take up my time” to just the ease of it. I certainly understood kids who felt the only option was to cheat. I have ADD and have certainly had my share of zeroes and F (during undiagnosed and basically wrong-med junior year- the most important year!) where my memory was so horrible that even with studying it would at most produce a D/C (in the subjects like history or biology.) Every assignment would take forever. It was so painful and embarrassing. Why didn’t I cheat? Because I didn’t put in enough time (according to my pace) in order to complete assignments or know the material. </p>

<p>Thankfully now, however, I am medicated and realize the methods and precautions I need to take in order to do well (procrastination is my doom, methods of studying, lower credit load, writing and comprehension over memorization balance, ect.) I want to earn my grades.</p>

44

<p>I think this girl may not have even been in school at the time of her video, otherwise it would make no sense for her to share it on the internet. In any case, now, all our pencils will be confiscated thanks to her, what do we use now to write?</p>

45

<p>

</p>

<p>The “fittest” don’t need to cheat because they are intellectually superior to those who do need to do so. What’s funny is that all the effort these kids expend in order to cheat could be put towards actually learning the material.</p>

<p>Meh, it always catches up with them in the end.</p>

46

<p>“Does cheating due to a bad memory warrant the same severity of punishment and retribution as cheating due to a complete unwillingness to prepare and study for a test?”</p>

<p>Very good question. Also one of note:</p>

<p>“Is lying to your teacher, i.e. cheating, acceptable in situations such as this?” </p>

<p>I think that you have to consider it as a breach of trust between you and the teacher, and to a lesser degree the other students. The latter certainly must be considered if the grading is on a curve.</p>

47

<p>Why do I have to prove morality is relative? It is by definition! The only way morality could be absolute is if you proved there was a God who wanted us to act in a certain way… good luck! Sure, some rules have to be enforced to keep order in society, and cracking down on (at least, blatant forms of) cheating is one of them. But people always have cheated, cheat today, and always will. Why do you waste your effort trying to condemn or justify it? It won’t change–despicable or not, blah blah, blah, people will do it. You can do your part to crack down on it if you so desire, and maybe you’ll even catch a few, but in the big picture this will change nothing. What am I saying? It doesn’t matter if you think cheating or angelic or despicable… it’s gonna keep happening. If it makes you feel better, you can try to catch those doing it, but most people won’t care, and you won’t be able to change this fact. There always have been people who were vehemently opposed to cheating and always will be, so you are simply one of them. It really won’t change anything.</p>

<p>Often, if not usually, cheaters will get away with it. It usually <em>DOESN’T</em> catch up to them. Look at the people running our country… lol. </p>

<p>Always go 60 on the highway? That’s nice. Most people don’t. Only the very right lane goes the speed limit where I’m from.</p>

48

<p>“Why do I have to prove morality is relative? It is by definition! The only way morality could be absolute is if you proved there was a God who wanted us to act in a certain way… good luck!”</p>

<p>Not true at all. Morality could be absolute at a certain moment, and then change over time. Again, a total assertion that you just bring out and attempt to link to cheating. How on earth is it relative “by definition?” One can embrace certain aspects of absolutism and relativism. I would appreciate a little bit more support for the idea that cheating is morally right for some and not for others. Note the difference between persons having different beliefs, and believing that they are both correct.</p>

<p>“Always go 60 on the highway? That’s nice. Most people don’t. Only the very right lane goes the speed limit where I’m from.”</p>

<p>Same here. We stay in the right lane.</p>

49

<p>How is morality not relative? Some people think the death penalty is right, others oppose it. Same for abortion. Same, as we see here, for cheating. What makes your views on any of those three more acceptable or “right” than someone elses. What sets apart right from wrong?</p>

<p>As for the second point–congrats.</p>

50

<p>As I see it, you are doing one of two things (please clarify if I am wrong):</p>

<p>1) Confusing the fact that people disagree with whether or not the actions are correct, i.e. saying that disagreement implies relativity (which is incorrect)</p>

<p>2) Saying that all moral systems are equally justified.</p>

<p>What sets apart right from wrong? The Nazis were justified, yes, because their morality system was just as valid as anyone else’s? Where do you draw the line? Where does the belief become more “right” than that of someone else? </p>

<p>You are familiar with Euclidean Geometry, yes? Morality starts out with basic assumptions, much like his geometry, that actually fall apart when you enter another “realm” (cf. the Parallel Postulate in spherical, hyperbolic, elliptical, etc. geometries). So, when discussing morality, we need to identify the basic assumptions that we’re making and then go from there.</p>

<p>Some assumptions will end up being wrong, which means that the values system in internally incoherent and therefore illogical. </p>

<p>Just because there is disagreement doesn’t mean that everyone’s beliefs are equally well-founded.</p>

51

<p>Cheating isn’t objectively bad, but it does speak volumes about your skill level (when applicable). Some things lack a “skill” criteria, so in these cases the concept of cheating can’t even be invoked.</p>

52

<p>Baelor, had you lived in Nazi Germany, would you have strictly adhered to Hitler’s anti-jewish rules?</p>

53

<p>“Baelor, had you lived in Nazi Germany, would you have strictly adhered to Hitler’s anti-jewish rules?”</p>

<p>I don’t know, and it’s not worth discussing whether I would have hypothetically. However, the relevant questions is, “Were they correct in killing people?” Am I stretching in saying that Piter would say “Yes?” Is this consistent with his moral philosophy? I don’t want to be distorting what people say.</p>

<p>People have beliefs that are objectively wrong, e.g. 2+2=5 or the Holocaust never happened. Just because someone believes it doesn’t make it true. So disagreement is not an intrinsic proof against absolutism. Rather, one must show that all beliefs are equally well-founded and that one’s personal convictions determine morality completely.</p>

54

<p>hm, another thread regarding cheating</p>

<p>another thread where nerds/uptight people denounce cheating as such a great evil</p>

<p>lather
rinse
repeat</p>

<p>cc is always the same</p>

55

<p>^ No kidding. I’m not even going to lie, I’m really uptight. It’s a great evil, just like everything else that’s a great evil.</p>

56

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

57

<p>Thank you for letting me know, that was interesting. I hope it comes up in Knowledge Bowl. </p>

<p>I would appreciate an answer, not an evasion.</p>

58

<p>For an answer:</p>

<p>In short, the “postulates” for morality seem to be that things like genocide and ritualistic murder are wrong. These are indeed accepted as postulates because you would be hard-pressed to find someone defending the Holocaust on CC. Things like abortion, the death penalty, and as shown by the fact that it is even debated, cheating, are not among these postulates. You can argue about it in absolute terms (“would cracking down on cheating in med schools save lives?”) but when you decide that cheating is despicable, heinous, etc., it means very little. Who delegated it to you to decide what is despicable and what isn’t? Do you speak for all of society? Do you just speak for the ethical people in society? Are the ethical people only those who always go 60 on the highway? Actually, since the majority of people seem to reject the postulate that going above 60 is immoral by actually speeding on a regular basis, it seems society as a whole does not quite agree with you on ethics (I’m not saying ALL of your views on ethics are rejected–just some of them). So then who made you the one to decide cheating is despicable? That’s your opinion, and it has been noted. People are gonna keep cheating. Clearly, cheating on your college app isn’t something universally viewed as despicable (I’m simplifying a bit when I say no one will defend the Holocaust, but I think 99.9% or so against qualifies as close enough). </p>

<p>There are two possible sets of ethics: the law, and universal public opinion. The latter changes over time–we view many routine aspects of life 400 years ago as despicable, and the same will be true in 400 years. The former also changes, and we today view many laws from previous eras as despicable. So does morality consist of simply conforming to your time, then? With full knowledge that you will likely be judged harshly in 400 years? The set of things that has consistently been viewed as “wrong” is very small–murder, etc. People disagree even on the implementation of this (the death penalty, anyone?), so it’s really even narrower. In short, many people reject most of your postulates, and there is no universal force that sets you apart and allows you to decide it should be otherwise.</p>

59

<p>I will answer if your promise to take this to PM if you want a further conversation, especially because we are so off-topic.</p>

<p>“In short, the “postulates” for morality seem to be that things like genocide and ritualistic murder are wrong. These are indeed accepted as postulates because you would be hard-pressed to find someone defending the Holocaust on CC.”</p>

<p>But they are exactly, that, yes? Postulates, and thus unable to be taken as fact? It doesn’t matter that many people accept them, at least according to formal logic.</p>

<p>“Who delegated it to you to decide what is despicable and what isn’t? Do you speak for all of society? Do you just speak for the ethical people in society? Are the ethical people only those who always go 60 on the highway?”</p>

<p>Ah yes, here we are. No one has delegated me. That is the thing. I am simply a spokesman for my moral philosophy; I didn’t establish it myself. But that is honestly a discussion for another time. The point is this: In my opinion, cheating is awful. In your opinion, it may not be. But have you noticed that no one has actually presented an argument that it’s okay? The only persons who have remotely done so have shared stories of cheating incidents that resulted in massive guilt, despite the fact they got away with it. Again, stop saying that my philosophy as a whole is flawed when we are talking about a specific issue here, which you refuse to debate in particular.</p>

<p>“Actually, since the majority of people seem to reject the postulate that going above 60 is immoral by actually speeding on a regular basis, it seems society as a whole does not quite agree with you on ethics (I’m not saying ALL of your views on ethics are rejected–just some of them).”</p>

<p>Again, where is the relevance? Unless you subscribe to a psuedo-Nietzschean philosophy, your statement is simply an obviously fallacious argumentum ad numerum.</p>

<p>“So then who made you the one to decide cheating is despicable?”</p>

<p>I’m not deciding. Again, too complicated for a discussion here. Your brand of relativism is veiled absolutism in that it only accepts relativism as a tenet; moral absolutism in the strictest sense is false because it goes against relativism fundamentally. But then, why is absolutism not correct for the people who believe in it? </p>

<p>Look, this is so irrelevant that we need to stop. I implore you to continue this discussion by PM if you feel compelled to discuss this further; I wouldn’t mind at all. However, this thread is about cheating, so let us stick to that.</p>

<p>Question: What makes cheating okay? Would anyone like to argue that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it? If not, how dire is it? Can it ever be justified? In other words, as I asked earlier, “Is lying to your teacher, i.e. cheating, acceptable in some situation?” What would that be?</p>

60

<p>

Re-read post 48. Baelor is correct. You are still clinging very strongly to the argument from apparent disagreement for your justification of moral relativism. It is true that we disagree on many moral judgments about actions, but there are tons of underlying moral principles that are unequivocally consented upon, which is relevant. Relativism’s main crutch, disagreement, is hyperbolized in the examples you give like abortion or cheating because it is admittedly difficult to find the moral principles that underlie the judgments in disagreement about those specific actions. To reject objectivity, deny agreed principles, and say something is right (or wrong) only in the context of what is legally or customarily prescribed in a particular system based on disagreement is foolish. </p>

<p>And the thing is, *true moral relativism<a href=“which%20I%20assume%20you%20sympathize%20with”>/I</a> precludes any form of moral progress. Period. Relativism is not a moral theory, rather it is an objection to moral theory. Rightness or wrongness must have qualification according to relativism thus moral relativism does not, in any circumstance, permit saying that one point of view is better than the other. Therefore, moral progress is impossible is the relativist system. </p>

<p>As for the Holocaust thing, a true moral relativist would say this: “The Holocaust was morally right relative to the norms of Nazi Germany circa 1940” and he would also say this: “The Holocaust was morally wrong relative to the norms of the United States circa 1940” and also this: "The Holocaust is morally wrong relative to the norms of the current worldview circa 2008 BUT a non-relativist would say: “The Holocaust is always wrong. Period.” </p>

<p>And regarding your previous comment about God, it is completely acceptable, logically, to be an atheist and a moral absolutist. Not believing in God does not preclude some sense of moral absolutism.</p>

<p>Much of the problem here comes from your inability to distinguish circumstantial rightness from moral relativism. There are circumstances where it would be absolutely right to do action x and absolutely wrong to do action y.</p>

<p>This doesn’t mean relativism is categorically wrong, however, it is beyond foolish to claim that moral relativism is categorically right.</p>