Thread: I'm thinking about cheating..

Originally Posted by sivason

My son tells me that they have a program at his high school. It works like this,,, all papers must be submitted typed in a standard font. All papers go through a check program. The program will bring up any matches on a search engine that are deemed 40% similar to any portion of the submitted paper.
The teacher can then scan the hits and decide if it is plagerism. Any material that is too similar, must have been sited as a refrene or the student is busted.

It wouldn't work if the actual assignments were private jobs, they would never be posted to the internet. Admins could deem any works proper, and nothing would ever reach the public.

I have been out of school for about 7 years (grad school) so I am not sure what it is. My son just told me it can catch most cheating.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

It wouldn't work if the actual assignments were private jobs, they would never be posted to the internet. Admins could deem any works proper, and nothing would ever reach the public.

I guess in High School, where people (at least here in the USA) don't have to turn in an online copy along with a physical copy, combined with the fact that teachers individually would have to grade 100s of papers (where they might skip a few sections in papers to save mental exhaustion on their end), they could get away with it. But if it's something of university/college/grad school/etc.'s standards, it's harder to find loopholes through what they use. But of course, that's dependent on the the systems these institutions implement to crack down on plagiarism (at least at the University I used to go to that was hard on science and research).

Literally every assignment I did that I had to turn in had to be done online along with a physical copy, and sites like turnitin.com and such contributed the numerous of cases where students' academic future was shattered completely from plagiarism.

But with the things Jeff did in the past (even though what I know he did is just conjecture), I felt like this would be child's play for him when he could make a system with article writing, copywriting (not copyright to anyone in confusion there), and associated content. Because then he'll be dealing with clients with businesses to sustain, and less moral concern with cheating when businesses and other small studios, etc. need to get their site launched in the right way or whatever purpose they have in mind.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

It wouldn't work if the actual assignments were private jobs, they would never be posted to the internet. Admins could deem any works proper, and nothing would ever reach the public.

But professional essay writer are notorious for re-selling the same essay.

Yeah, what sivason said, especially those "free" plagiarism check websites that ironically steal someone's ideas as well. That's how even those who don't plagiarize are accused of plagiarism before they even know it, and the best way to get out of those trivial things is to have some competence in essay writing and talking with professors face-to-face rather than other students, websites, etc. If people can do the latter and get away with it, more power to them, but it's not something practical for everyone, just those who have a brain with finding loopholes and taking a gamble.

Point being, even though the workings one goes through in universities/college/etc. won't really be required in all cases in the real world, it's just something to save face in the long term.

Originally Posted by sivason

But professional essay writer are notorious for re-selling the same essay.

Certainly true I guess. I suppose jeffs site could also cross reference the work before submitting it, to both outside sources and previously submitted work. I wonder would user security be valued higher than quick money making. If essay writers could submit the same essays multiple times, I'm sure the site would get a very notorious reputation.

The funny thing is, if students understood proper citation, then it would be almost impossible to get punished for plagiarism. Unless a teacher wants you to pretend you invented the information it is assumed you learned it somewhere. By simply giving credit where it is due you avoid any chance of penalties. My wording can be say 75% similar to a published papers wording for perhaps 30-50 words in a row, and all that is needed is to properly reference the original. However, many students are too lazy for that.

The moral implications were the most vexing ones. Though a site with the proposed model in place would be hated throughout the educational system worldwide, it certainly wouldn't be illegal.. at least not on a state or federal level (USA). Educational institutions can and do set their own rules that are used to fend off against this kind of thing, but cheating.. is still very much alive and rampant.

For the record, those saying Google would snitch on those seeking help on the site, in my mind, the site would have had privacy settings in place similar to Facebook and once a project was finished, it would have been deleted from the servers. Profits with no bread crumbs.

Jeff, you have some genius ideas, but I hope the wrong people aren't reading about them.

Grod, the more cheat material there is out there, the easier it is to cheat. Also, even if all of the options are already there, we should encourage people to be part of the solution and not the problem. It's a step in the right direction. But I do agree with your point that there are worse education problems than cheating. There are education problems many times bigger than that, but it's still a problem.

In your perspective Universal Mind (correct me if I'm wrong), cheating is negligible at best compared to the presumptions of education problems that are far more worse (which makes cheating an enticing option). People acknowledge it is a problem, and the only reason why cheating would even be considered in a person's train of thought is the workings of the education system itself.

It's clear that the more the workforce and other aspects of the real world demands for individuals to make some betterment of society, education institutions would obviously have stricter and more demanding standards from those individuals. However, it's not like all the people going to college/university/grad school/etc. are intellectual robots, these are human beings. Human beings with their own struggles and finding how to cope with them and still pull off a win by getting a degree or making the grade.

When you have an Education system that wants you to spew Nathaniel Hawthorne & Shakespeare like a pre-meal warmup, and embody all sorts of Scientific concepts, and so much more to promote people to be engaging and mentally sharp in the path they're choosing, it can become too much for one person to handle. Depending on the degree, some may not really have to think much or put more effort, but for those who aim for harder degrees, it's inevitable that their comfort zones will be challenged.

clearly with the attention span and varying competency levels of individuals, there can be some with great potential in a certain field, but they have to deal with a weakness in another field that obviously won't be efficient in producing something good for that career they're heading for. Simple example is someone good at math, but may not necessarily be proficient in essay writing. Sure, they can ask professors for help (who already have to deal with an overwhelming number of students on their queue list), but some people just don't have competence to finish assignments and get a decent grade in it.

And when it comes to money on the line with getting a degree, when it comes to societal expectations and other concepts to be intelligent in as many fields as you can in your career, when these things stack on and hit a person hard psychologically, they will reach a breaking point. To ignore behavior trends like this is just as naive as saying "this is more wrong than this."

And like what Jeff stated in his original post, it's not just essay writing, but hopefully something where there's tutors that won't spoon-feed you the answers. It's just a simple tactic of getting people of certain strengths instead of demanding one person to be good at tutoring in everything. Especially when in Universities themselves, there are small tutor businesses where a person has to pay just like they would online.

And like Jeff stated, it's not illegal to have those businesses within the University/college/etc., especially when it comes to capitalism and other forms of Economy, not just in the USA, in other regions of the world as well. He's already aware of the guilt trip you people are imposing on him with his idea of tutoring along with spoon-fed Essays, we don't need to echo this any further. As long as a person has money and finds the right sources, when they have dreams to sustain, they won't give two shits about the guilt trip people are going to give them.

Yes, it's an ethical and moral concern, and people will have their own veracity in their assertions, but when it's clear that all that matters is who can produce something for the betterment of society (money, advancement of technology, etc.), unless the education system has a better structure that can help those who can't teach by themselves in everything, the options for cheating or just getting private help will be considered.

My point on this was directed at anybody who wants to create a cheating service. I didn't post in this thread until after Jeff said he is not going to go through with it, so I didn't start posting in here to make Jeff feel guilty. I started posting in here to give a message about cheating services. I did say to Jeff in my last post that his ideas are so good that people reading this thread might use them and hurt society with them to some extent, but that is not my major message. I am mainly addressing anybody who is thinking about starting a cheating service.

The tough demands of school do not justify cheating even when it is in a subject the person won't use in a career. School is not all about getting a job later. School is also about learning how to function in society and how to make society better. Part of that involves getting less ignorant about the world. Do you think pre-calculus is a requirement at so many high schools because most of the students are going to be engineers? No, it's mainly about teaching people how to think logically and improve their general problem solving skills. It's about feeding people's heads and expanding their minds. Do you think Shakespeare papers are about turning students into Shakespearean theater directors? They are about improving reading and writing skills so people can better communicate with others and better understand what is going on in the world, and it is about giving people glimpses into history so that maybe they will look further into history and help at stopping bad history from repeating itself. History courses are primarily about exactly that. Not knowing shit about history is one of the worst social and political problems we have right now. Schools are absolutely sucking at meeting these goals, and I want to speak out against adding to the problem. Ignorance is an extreme social problem. Let's fight it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

History courses are primarily about exactly that. Not knowing shit about history is one of the worst social and political problems we have right now. Schools are absolutely sucking at meeting these goals, and I want to speak out against adding to the problem. Ignorance is an extreme social problem. Let's fight it.

I agree that not having some competence with the history of the country you're in is in a big deal, and most of my sayings with what a person would be required to do are things people would consider as unnecessary in terms of helping society in general in terms of producing things (technology, jobs, etc. rather than having certain types of intellect that isn't going to be applied). There's just different formats that are useful for a person's career (writing scientific papers that would want more simplicity vs. something with history, English, and other forms of literature that would have their own model of standards), and having to be competent in more things than one needs in their future job or career is what adds on to people being tempted to cheat even more. It's about being more realistic to what people actually care about (just getting a degree or passing and doing what is needed to reach there) vs. those who just go there for the experience and knowledge, or anyone with their own varied reasons.

But like I've stated with the example of people having to spew Shakespeare, I never stated it's training people to be Shakespearean theater directors, that same non-sequitur can be applied to basic humanities, communication, and other prerequisites that an education system deems would make individuals "improve" overall intelligence. And there are clearly better ways to improve reading and writing skills to communicate with others, there are other more practical and reasonable ways to understand what's going on in the world or to keep up with the times. The courses in general have their own varying levels of usefulness in increasing competence to do things and be more knowledgeable in things, but in terms of applying that knowledge into practical use, those types of courses are just there purely as a rote-memory trip. Some have use in terms of relating to real-world issues, and some don't, that's the point I'm addressing, and people will find ways to get those types of courses out of the way without them having exponential worrying on something they could learn through a different matter.

Wanting to assume people have equal competence and equal intelligence to have equal interest in all aspects of history or anything that's already been stated(when they can find it all through basic research on their own without educational means and methods) is just trying to make some naive model of reality more applicable to you rather than the majority of people. Yes, knowing things in those specific courses obviously is useful to some extent, but it's more important in getting people who can apply those things to make something new, that takes far more creativity and intelligence than just pure rote-memory courses.

I did not at all advocate pure rote memory courses. I am a big believer in teaching people how to become better at thinking. That is one of the major outcomes of a good education. Taking any course results in that for multiple reasons. There might be better ways to teach people to communicate than to teach them Shakespeare, but that is not the only purpose or outcome of teaching Shakespeare, for example.

I am not the least bit into Shakespeare myself, but I'm really glad I learned about him. By studying Shakespeare, I learned about his time period, social literary values, various literary elements, some artful language tricks, how English cities are commonly named, aspects of British royalty, principles of family rivalries, and how to fit in when I am around people who are discussing Shakespeare, among other things. Education is extremely valuable. Like I said, it's not all about getting a job. That's just one part of it. However, everything I just listed can help in a job hunt.

I wasn't saying you said studying Shakespeare is about becoming a Shakespearean theater director. I used that as an example of a job a Shakespearean scholar has an advantage at getting.

The history people need to know is not just their own countries'. People need to know world history. People's lack of knowledge about the changes that took place in Europe in the years preceding World War II is flat out dangerous. It is allowing the United States to drift in a horrible direction. Lack of knowledge about the history of socialism is part of what has allowed the U.S. economy to become a train wreck. It is stuff like that which frustrates me so much about lack of education. Those are just two examples among many.