Reusing Papers [Archive] - Freethought Forum

irukandji

01-18-2011, 04:24 AM

jesus tapdancing christ!

it seems that niggling "hey, you think it is ok to
resubmit a paper covering a discussion topic in
a different class?" feeling was appropriate, altho
nothing like "double dipping" was mentioned in
the student handbook in the section on academic
and scholastic integrity, just detailed requirements
for attributing quotes and citing reference materials....

Redundant publication has a direct counterpart in the area of academic dishonesty- it is referred to as ‘double dipping’. It occurs when a student submits a whole paper or a substantial portion of a paper to fulfill a course requirement, even though that paper had earlier been submitted to satisfy the requirements for another course taught by a different professor. Many college undergraduates and even some graduate students are not aware that this type of practice is a serious offense and constitutes plagiarism. Of course, as in redundant publication, submitting the same paper, or a large portion of a paper, to two different courses is entirely acceptable if the instructors of both courses were informed by the student of the double submission, and if both agreed to the arrangement. However, some institutions have specific policies prohibiting this practice.

http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/Academic%20self%20plagiarism.html

Ensign Steve

01-18-2011, 04:41 AM

Shit, does that count for code reuse, too? I always credit the creator if I use or adapt somebody else's code, but I reuse my own shit all the time, too, and I figure I don't have to say anything about where it came from since I wrote it. I've been hopping from school to school so I haven't been caught yet.

Qingdai

01-18-2011, 04:48 AM

I did it once, but I had a thesis and a qualitative methods class at the same time. I just cut out most of the research that wasn't qualitative and re-worked the bits to fit the class. Still the professor wasn't happy, but he never mentioned self-plagarism, I told him that was what I was going to do too. Think he might have mentioned it.

Now I feel dirty.

erimir

01-18-2011, 05:02 AM

On the other hand, more than one of my professors has suggested that we reuse ideas from class papers to expand into the master's project, or two papers on the same subject or using the same data, or that you can use a single paper for two classes, if you run it by them first.

He said "I don't have good ideas very often, so I try to get 8 papers out of every one."

Demimonde

01-18-2011, 05:15 AM

Also, good ideas become great ideas by being revisited, questioned, honed, and refined.

I think that originality is over-emphasized these days. Also, students frequently pick too broad a scope in undergraduate writing, crank out a first draft, and never revist those thoughts again. I think that is a shame. If more students spent more time questioning and refining their thoughts rather than cranking out something new, there would be better students all around.

I encourage students in my workshops and tutor sessions to focus on one aspect of a topic that interests them, and revisit other aspects later on. Or as one prof commented on a draft I submitted early on in my department, "save some for gradschool."

mickthinks

01-18-2011, 06:16 AM

Did you present the old paper that you re-used as new material that you wrote for the assignment you were handing in? Did you, by word, deed, or silence, create, foster, or encourage the perception that the paper you were handing in was written to fulfill the present assignment, when in fact it was written for a different, prior assignment? If so, that was academically dishonest.

Very, very few educational assignments are published. That does not relieve students of a duty to be academically honest.

Mmmm, I love it when you wag your finger, Chuckie!

:smitten::tsktsk:

ETA I don't see there's any ethical issue in a student submitting and a tutor accepting an earlier paper in part or in whole as fulfillment of a later assignment. What could an assignment be testing in a student, such that a previous piece of the student's work which appeared to the tutor to demonstrate it would in fact, by dint of having been submitted elsewhere, fail to demonstrate it?

Ari

01-18-2011, 06:29 AM

At the Academy of Art it was considered dishonest to use the same work for two classes and often teachers would assign Fs to those caught double dipping. Most teachers also requested that work be shot for the assignment. I certainly have used images shot for one thing as filler for an assignment or two that were going to be unfinished otherwise.

However it was allowed if you argued your case with the teachers in both classes and got it approved.

Angakuk

01-18-2011, 08:02 AM

I have repurposed papers on a couple of occasions, and experienced no sense of guilt over having done so.

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 01:26 PM

ETA I don't see there's any ethical issue in a student submitting and a tutor accepting an earlier paper in part or in whole as fulfillment of a later assignment.
Also, you're an anti-Semite.

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 03:42 PM

Srsly you guys? Re-use of your own work being viewed as problematic is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Talk about inefficient! Why should it matter if you wrote it super special just this month, or dusted it off from a year ago?

If 1 piece of work fulfills the requirements of 2 or more assignments (or jobs in my case), and it's my original work, fire up the mimeograph, that shit's getting duplicated.

Academia is weird.

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 04:25 PM

Yes, academia is distinct, and has its own set of objectives, expectations, and ethical mores which do not always overlap perfectly with those encountered in other domains. For example, in a business setting there is nothing wrong with entering into a contract with a third party to delegate a task or set of tasks to that party. Indeed, this is how much of the economy functions. In academia, however, hiring third parties to write papers is generally disfavored, and constitutes a serious breach of ethics that is generally accompanied by severe consequences. In business, it isn't unusual to reuse old work product. In academia, assignments are typically understood to call for new work product. Submitting old work and holding it out as new work is dishonest.

That is of course not to say that prior work cannot form a basis for future work and research, or even be submitted with consent of the instructor. This is how expertise is developed. As one specializes, one tends to write a great deal about a fairly narrow field, and it's inevitable that the same ideas and themes recur. As erimir mentioned, it's not uncommon in grad school to use one paper as a basis for further research. For example, my master's thesis was based on a prior seminar paper, and incorporated text from that assignment - with the consent of my advisors. But reusing old papers to avoid doing the new assignment that everyone else has to do is not that.

Demimonde

01-18-2011, 04:33 PM

When you consider that education and intellectual pursuit is mission of academia, it makes sense. Recycling ideas, even if they are your own, does not challenge the mind or the status quo. It isn't a matter of work, it is a matter of that pursuit. Resting on ideas already formed without reevaluating them is stagnant.

Also, as it has been said, republishing makes it appear that more work has been done by an individual than is actually the case. Same goes with unpublished coursework. I remember one English major who wrote the same damn paper over and over again for the same class. The Books differed, so the examples were different, but the thesis on Feminism and Post colonialism was exactly the same. She churned out that one thought and belief over and over again. That isn't what education should do. It should broaden perspective, not keep students pigeonholed into their own established ideas.

inland wave

01-18-2011, 04:52 PM

Self-plagiarism, oh how it has been preached at school. Yes, we have to cite and reference ourselves as well as others if the work is used in papers. It is a hot topic and have heard the speech throughout my academic career. At University of Phoenix it has been taken a step further. Starting this class session every assignment whether it be team or individual, must have a certificate of original work authenticity signed and attached before it can be graded. Every PAPER!!!!!!
Academia, got to love it.
I will say I have never reused my work, and I agree with Demimonde about doing research to broaden perspective. In core classes it seems that ideas are churned over and over again. I like a challenge, digging deeper into subjects allows me to be objective and learn something new.

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 04:54 PM

Thanks for trying to explain to me guys, but I am still a bit confused

She churned out that one thought and belief over and over again. That isn't what education should do.
But if her goal was not to become better educated, but rather to get a degree, or park her butt in school for whatever financial or personal reasons, then her "should" is different from yours. Her methods for reaching her goals will necessarily also be different than yours. I don't understand the ethical dilemma, instead I see simply differing values and aims.

Submitting old work and holding it out as new work is dishonest.
But reusing old papers to avoid doing the new assignment
Yes, misrepresentation is dishonest in any form. But why there is a distinction between old and new at all is what is confusing to me. If the assignment is to turn in your own work, why does it matter if it's old or new. You still did the work, correct? If the work is still valid and relevant (of course I completely understand the need to update if there is new data to be included) why is rewriting it an ethical issue at all?

PS: I am sorry I called the whole thing stupid and came across as petulant. This kind of thing is what has kept me out of school my whole life. I hate busy work, and I hate inefficiency, and so that's what I kind of hone in on and get rude about at times. I will try to keep it adult from here on.

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 05:06 PM

In my experience it's pretty rare that two assignments in two different courses will, by pure chance, be sufficiently similar to allow an old paper to be submitted. That usually happens when a student consciously chooses a topic that would allow that to happen. At least in American liberal arts settings, students often get substantial latitude in selecting their own topics for writing. So this issue crops up mainly when students make a conscious choice not to explore a new area in a new assignment, but rather to re-use what they've already done.

Dragar

01-18-2011, 05:16 PM

Why not just ask your prof?

You should also try to decide what you want out of this course you're doing.

If you want the certificate, there's little point making more work than you want for yourself.

If you want to learn something, there's little point dodging doing the study.

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 05:17 PM

That usually happens when a student consciously chooses a topic that would allow that to happen. At least in American liberal arts settings, students often get substantial latitude in selecting their own topics for writing. So this issue crops up mainly when students make a conscious choice not to explore a new area in a new assignment, but rather to re-use what they've already done.

That's a choice I can see one making for any number of reasons. Are you of the opinion that making that choice is unethical in and of itself?

If you want the certificate, there's little point making more work than you want for yourself.

If you want to learn something, there's little point dodging doing the study.

This is kinda what I was trying to say, only you did it betterer

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 05:24 PM

That usually happens when a student consciously chooses a topic that would allow that to happen. At least in American liberal arts settings, students often get substantial latitude in selecting their own topics for writing. So this issue crops up mainly when students make a conscious choice not to explore a new area in a new assignment, but rather to re-use what they've already done.

That's a choice I can see one making for any number of reasons. Are you of the opinion that making that choice is unethical in and of itself?

If the choice is undertaken specifically so the student can submit an old paper in order to avoid writing a new paper, as the assignment implicitly or explicitly requires, then yes, it is unethical.

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 05:32 PM

writing a new paper, as the assignment implicitly or explicitly requires

That's a factor I hadn't considered. Are assignments often given with the requirement that it be new? How is new defined? I sort of assumed a requirement for "original" work, but I might not necessarily define that as "new"

Also, what if one chooses to write the same new paper for two current assignments? Also problematic?

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 05:34 PM

writing a new paper, as the assignment implicitly or explicitly requires

That's a factor I hadn't considered. Are assignments often given with the requirement that it be new? How is new defined?
As I said before:
In academia, assignments are typically understood to call for new work product.
They are not typically understood to call for the mere re-submission of old work. This is why they are assigned at all, to have students research and write a paper. Assignments are not intended to allow some students to do less work than other students and receive the same grade, merely because they chose a topic that allowed them to re-submit old work.
Also, what if one chooses to write the same new paper for two current assignments? Also problematic?
Yes, for the same reasons. Submitting an identical or substantially identical paper for two current assignments, particularly when topics were chosen in order to achieve that duplication to avoid doing the same work that other students are expected to do, is unethical. Advancing a creative construction of the word "new" does not reduce the ethical problem.

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 05:37 PM

In academia, assignments are typically understood to call for new work product.
How does one come to that understanding?

Also, what if one chooses to write the same new paper for two current assignments? Also problematic?
Yes, for the same reasons.

It's a new paper, and was designed to cover the requirements for two classes. That is unethical?

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 05:44 PM

In academia, assignments are typically understood to call for new work product.
How does one come to that understanding?
I don't see how one can avoid it. I have never, in my fairly prolonged academic career, encountered an assignment asking, for example, that students research and write a paper or submit a previously researched and written paper. The very concept of taking a course presupposes that the student is seeking to learn something not presently known. Writing a paper is more than the ministerial submission of a certain number of pages.

Also, what if one chooses to write the same new paper for two current assignments? Also problematic?
Yes, for the same reasons.

It's a new paper, and was designed to cover the requirements for two classes. That is unethical?
Who "designed" it? Did the student select the topic specifically for the purpose of submitting a single paper twice, for two grades in two courses, without consent of the instructors? Yes, that is unethical.

I cannot imagine a student going to a professor and saying "Look, I'm writing a paper for my other class, can I just submit the same paper to you for this assignment?" and securing the agreement of the professor. Allowing the student to do so would allow the student to do less work than other students for the same benefit, and defeat the purpose of the assignment to teach the student something new.

I understand that you think this is inefficient. I agree that it is. But efficiency is not the animating principle.

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 05:56 PM

Yeah, I don't think it's possible for me to understand it in the way that you and Demi do. I don't see one student's designing their product or managing their assignments and time more efficiently than others do as being unethical.

As long as they are meeting the requirements of both assignments (explore and explain x or whatever) and the work is their original research and writing, then any problem with that comes down to some kind of value system I don't adhere to or even comprehend.

"Look, I'm writing a paper for my other class, can I just submit the same paper to you for this assignment?" See I don't even get why that would even be asked. If my paper meets the requirements of two assignments (which as you said is probably not common anyway in two different classes) then it meets the requirements of both. Why should the instructor know or care that I gave the paper to someone else as well?

Doesn't it come down to individual goals, again?

I should probably leave it to you students, I don't have a stake in this.

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 06:10 PM

If my paper meets the requirements of two assignments (which as you said is probably not common anyway in two different classes) then it meets the requirements of both. Why should the instructor know or care that I gave the paper to someone else as well?
Because, as I said, the professor's role is more than ministerial. She is not there to tick a box showing that the student submitted a paper in fulfillment of various requirements. She is there to encourage the student to engage in a learning process, which purpose is frustrated when the student circumvents the assignment by consciously using prior duplicative work.

And as I've noted, there is an issue of basic fairness that would reward this hypothetical student for his re-use of a prior work product, while other students who did new work - in keeping with the spirit of the assignment and education in general - would incur costs in time and effort.
Doesn't it come down to individual goals, again?
No.

Sock Puppet

01-18-2011, 06:17 PM

LS, I think you're seeing fulfilling the requirements of a class as the same as fulfilling the requirements of a job. If you see the primary function of the class as generating a grade and getting you closer to a degree or other piece of paper, I can sort of see your point. But in the view of academia, that's not the primary function at all.

In my very first semester in college, this point was drilled into my head rather harshly (but justifiably).

**ANECDOTE ALERT** One of my favorite teachers had assigned a paper. I didn't really understand what he wanted, so I put it off for quite awhile rather than just meeting with him (he was a bit intimidating and I was a shyish kid). Eventually he announced to the class that he would not be giving us comments on the paper if it wasn't turned in by a specific date. (That's where I should have gotten the hint.) So I knocked off a fumbling attempt at responding to the rubric.

He decimated the paper, of course. But what he said at the end was what stuck with me. "This is a thoughtless and perfunctory paper. If you needed more time to complete it, you could have asked me. You seem to want a C, so -- C. Let me know if you want a different letter."

The point is, he wanted us to explore something, learn something, and get feedback. He didn't give a shit about the grade. Obviously it's not quite the same issue, but imagine if I'd submitted a paper I'd written from another class. Even if it addressed the rubric much better than I did as a stupid freshman, I still wouldn't have gotten anything out of the assignment (maybe a little if his comments gave me new insights, but still).

I suppose this can be summed up with the old cliché "You're only cheating yourself." But that's ultimately what intellectual dishonesty does to a student, and to me is more serious than tricking some professor.

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 06:27 PM

If you see the primary function of the class as generating a grade and getting you closer to a degree or other piece of paper, I can sort of see your point.
I suppose this can be summed up with the old cliché "You're only cheating yourself." But that's ultimately what intellectual dishonesty does to a student, and to me is more serious than tricking some professor.

My point is that at least some percentage of students are in the class specifically to get a grade and get closer to a degree. They have different goals than others and they hold to different values. Instructors, as humans, also vary in their reasons for being there and in giving the assignments and their short and long term goals.

What I am hearing here is that different viewpoints are wrong, that choosing methods that meet one's personal goals or values, but that differ from others, are wrong. I take some issue with that.

But in the view of academia, that's not the primary function at all.
"Academia" holds a single view?

Sock Puppet

01-18-2011, 06:32 PM

I don't know if I'd call it a single view, but the view of schools as primarily grade-and-degree-generators tends to be from the outside, while that of schools as Institutions of Learning tends to be the inside view. The inside view is what will inform the attitudes of the establishment.

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 06:34 PM

If you see the primary function of the class as generating a grade and getting you closer to a degree or other piece of paper, I can sort of see your point.

My point is that at least some percentage of students are in the class specifically to get a grade and get closer to a degree. They have different goals than others and they hold to different values. Instructors, as humans, also vary in their reasons for being there, their short and long term goals, and in giving the assignments.
True. Some students and indeed some instructors may find it perfectly acceptable to re-use prior work. Some students and some instructors may find it acceptable to plagiarize. Some students and some instructors may find it acceptable to cheat. Some students and some instructors may find it acceptable not to cite sources. All of these things can help the student get a grade and get closer to a degree. They are highly efficient. But they are not ethical.

The reason for assigning papers, in addition to improving writing skills, suggests that there is some value in the process of preparing a paper. Otherwise, why not use a multiple choice test for all grading and evaluation? If we're not worried about original thought and insight, but are most concerned with completion of requirements and retention of a certain set of learned facts, just have the students fill in a Scantron. It's easier for the professor.

But many, many courses use writing and research assignments. Why? Because there is something valuable in doing the assignment. When students re-use prior papers, they don't do the assignment and don't get the value.
But in the view of academia, that's not the primary function at all.
"Academia" holds a single view?
In my experience, yes. I have never heard any other view advanced by faculty or policy, not in college, grad school, or law school. I would frankly be astonished to hear differently from any credible institution of learning.

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 06:55 PM

I don't see writing an original paper that does double duty, or reusing one's original work, as analogous to plagiarizing off others or cheating or not citing sources.

If you are still doing the research and work, then you are still benefitting from the research and work, and learning whatever it is you learn from that research and work. That's all I am saying.

Sure, you would probably* learn more by writing two different papers on two different topics, but, if due to time constraints, or limitations of individual ability, or any number of factors you choose to use one paper twice, then you have still learned the one topic. Maybe that's cheating yourself, or maybe that's being realistic with yourself. The outcome varies as well.

*Assuming that at least some people don't really retain all the information they research or write about, or learn much at all in the course of writing a paper.

livius drusus

01-18-2011, 07:11 PM

Chuck alluded to this but I think it's worth emphasizing that usually the instructions of the assignment require that a paper be written, not reprinted, not mimeographed, not retrieved from a hanging file folder. If the syllabus says "write a six to eight page, double-spaced paper on subject x" and you don't do that, then you're not fulfilling class requirements. So even if you take an entirely businessmanlike approach to the ethical question, you haven't done the required work, ergo you fail the assignment.

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 07:13 PM

I don't see writing an original paper that does double duty, or reusing one's original work, as analogous to plagiarizing off others or cheating or not citing sources.
All of these things are more efficient paths to getting a grade and a degree. They save immense amounts of time. They are not ethical.
If you are still doing the research and work, then you are still benefitting from the research and work, and learning whatever it is you learn from that research and work. That's all I am saying.
You are benefiting from the research once. If that were enough, everyone would write exactly one paper. Learning to write and research is a process - one that takes years if not a lifetime - and students should improve with each paper. Again, it is not about checking a box.
Sure, you would probably* learn more by writing two different papers on two different topics, but, if due to time constraints, or limitations of individual ability, or any number of factors you choose to use one paper twice, then you have still learned the one topic. Maybe that's cheating yourself, or maybe that's being realistic with yourself. The outcome varies as well.

*Assuming that at least some people don't really retain all the information they research or write about, or learn much at all in the course of writing a paper.
Well, again, you're doing the work and research for one class and getting grades for two. All students contend with time constraints and limitations of individual ability, or any number of factors. None of these things provide an ethical pass for handing in an old paper as though it were written for the new assignment. There is a mechanism for dealing with these things: grades. I don't see why students should be rewarded for defeating the purpose of an assignment by submitting prior work rather than completing the assignment like other students in the course.

lisarea

01-18-2011, 07:17 PM

Especially in liberal arts studies, though, the final product isn't the only point. Your course credits represent an expanding body of work, and an ability to consistently produce a certain quality. In a way, it's almost like accumulating flight hours to get a pilot's license.

And if some students are reusing their own work, they're creating an uneven playing field for the others, who are working under more constraints.

Nullifidian

01-18-2011, 07:20 PM

Sure, you would probably* learn more by writing two different papers on two different topics, but, if due to time constraints, or limitations of individual ability, or any number of factors you choose to use one paper twice, then you have still learned the one topic. Maybe that's cheating yourself, or maybe that's being realistic with yourself. The outcome varies as well.

To be absolutely blunt, most professors I know would say that if a student doesn't have time to do the course work properly, then that student shouldn't be taking the class. Most of them would probably phrase it somewhat more diplomatically, but that's what it comes down to.

If a student has to double-dip on a paper because of lack of time, then that's likely going to be a problem that arises again. So what are they going to do? Double-dip again for a paper topic? If you keep on using papers written for one class to fulfill the requirements of another class, then you might as well have never taken the other class in the first place and saved yourself the time.

So in fact, one can argue that efficiency—when defined as getting the most out of the time and effort you expend in attending class—actually implies that you should do different papers for each class.

And aside from that, there are the issues of fairness and honesty that Chuck has already discussed above. Letting a student get away with submitting the same assignment for two classes devalues the work of all the students who submitted separate papers for their classes. Furthermore, letting a professor believe that you have written a paper for his or her class, when in fact you wrote it for some other class that just happened to also be applicable to your current one, is a kind of misrepresentation.

Lastly, in practical terms, I couldn't recommend it. Many professors use Turnitin.com or some other plagiarism-catching sites. And I don't know about the others, but Turnitin.com does cache the work of students that is submitted to it, and you can never tell when a professor has made use of the system. So if one's previous professor has submitted one's paper to Turnitin, then it will show up as plagiarized if you turn the same paper into another professor, and he or she also submits it to the same site.

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 07:39 PM

ChuckF

01-18-2011, 07:41 PM

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 07:54 PM

It has been addressed, yes, and I thank you all for your patience. Unfortunately, it all sounds like some alien cultural mores with no rational basis to me. I think I just have no comparable frame of reference. I would like to understand, but I simply don't.

livius drusus

01-18-2011, 08:55 PM

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 09:07 PM

Demimonde

01-18-2011, 09:07 PM

I think it is the ethics of the thing that has you hung up.

So to get a grade, a student must complete x, y, and z, which they agree to do.

Student 1 spends their time doing the work, completes x, y, and z, and receives a grade.

Student 2 spends less time, completes x, x, and x, and receives the same grade.

Is that fair? Both students agreed to the terms that they were to do x,y, and z. Only Student 1 completed the work. Student 2 portrayed that they had done y and z, while in actuality they did not.

Now compound that over the four years and 120 hours it takes to get a degree. At graduation Student 1 did all the work for that degree. Student 2 only did a third of what Student 1 did, but is getting the same degree.

Is that fair?

Kyuss Apollo

01-18-2011, 09:21 PM

Also--a writing assignment is an opportunity for students to gain practice with the writing process and, in turn, the thinking process that should always accompanies said writing.

What thinking goes into recycling a paper for Round 2? How much practice at writing does it provide?

erimir

01-18-2011, 10:32 PM

If the syllabus says "write a six to eight page, double-spaced paper on subject x" and you don't do that, then you're not fulfilling class requirements..

But you did write the paper. Maybe you wrote it last month, maybe last week, maybe today and you print two copies, one for class x and one for class y.

How is writing a paper not writing a paper?
"Write a paper" is in the present tense. It means write something now, not gather material written in the past. It describes an action that the professor requires you to take, not a product to deliver.If the PE teacher tells you to run a mile, would you respond by saying that you ran a mile a week ago?

Obviously running a mile does not produce the same physical artifact that you could "turn in" to the PE teacher, but it's the same idea. They are asking you to run a mile now, not run a mile at some point in your life.

Also, theoretical question for everyone: What would be the ethics involved as a student if you were taking a course on how to cheat?

LadyShea

01-18-2011, 11:14 PM

If my PE teacher tells me to run a mile, and my doctor just told me to run a mile a day, is it unethical to count that PE run mile as my doctor prescribed mile for the day?

livius drusus

01-18-2011, 11:37 PM

It depends on whether your PE teacher tells you to run a mile a day or to run a mile during practice. What if you're on two teams that have back-to-back practice. Do you think the coach of your second team will let you sit out a mile run just because the coach of your first team made you run a mile too? All the coaches I've known would laugh in my face and make me run two miles for even suggesting it.

Demimonde

01-18-2011, 11:38 PM

There is a different relationship between the Doctor and the Teacher to you. If you want to count the mile run in class as your prescribed mile, fine. Just the same as if you wrote something independently which is unpublished. If you tell the Teacher, I already ran a mile this morning, that doesn't count.

Demimonde

01-18-2011, 11:41 PM

To use a business analogy, if a client hires you to create a design for them that is customized, it is unethical to present to them another design you did for another client as though it was made for them.

LadyShea

01-19-2011, 12:00 AM

There is a different relationship between the Doctor and the Teacher to you.

Right, I used it for that reason. If I can cover two differing assignments, perfectly, with the same work, and am inclined to do so, then I do not understand how that is an ethical question.

Just the same as if you wrote something independently which is unpublished.

Isn't that what we are discussing? Are all university writing assignments "published"?

If you tell the Teacher, I already ran a mile this morning, that doesn't count.
Not what I said at all. I simply use the same mile for two different assignments if I can do so. I have run the mile right then for PE. I have run a mile today as per doctor's orders.

You mentioned in chat a pertinent example, I think. You have two classes American Lit and Women's Lit. At the beginning of the courses you are told you will be writing a paper that semester and given whatever the parameters or guidelines or requirements of that paper are. You design a single paper that perfectly meets the requirements for both classes. You work hard and produce a well researched and beautifully written piece that would get an A in both classes. How is turning that paper in to both unethical or unfair?

You can make a case for it being icky to you. You can make a case for it not being in the spirit of the reason for education, or whatever, but I still don't think it can be deemed unethical.

erimir

01-19-2011, 12:21 AM

If my PE teacher tells me to run a mile, and my doctor just told me to run a mile a day, is it unethical to count that PE run mile as my doctor prescribed mile for the day?
No, but the doctor didn't tell you to run a mile right then, for him, he told you to run a mile each day. If he asked you to run a mile for a diagnostic, and you said you had run a mile earlier, it wouldn't matter. He would want one then, or on a different appointment if he was worried about the strain.

If your teacher told you to "write a paper this semester" without any further direction, then it would be equivalent. But your teacher doesn't tell you that, they tell you to write a paper for them, with a specific prompt.

You mentioned in chat a pertinent example, I think. You have two classes American Lit and Women's Lit. At the beginning of the courses you are told you will be writing a paper that semester and given whatever the parameters or guidelines or requirements of that paper are. You design a single paper that perfectly meets the requirements for both classes. You work hard and produce a well researched and beautifully written piece that would get an A in both classes. How is turning that paper in to both unethical or unfair?I think this would be acceptable if you discussed it with the teachers, and you went above and beyond what either prompt said individually.

But the fact is that you have avoided work by picking two classes with compatible assignments and have done less work than other students for the same grade. You also have purposely limited your educational possibilities by limiting yourself to generalities that can satisfy more than one class, when you could perhaps be better served by exploring things that aren't as compatible with other classes.

It's not unethical if you view school as a business transaction, but the school does not view it that way, they view it as a pursuit of learning. And as a student you are bound by their rules (and this is part of the price of attendance - you agree to follow their rules), and thus you are breaking the rules you have agreed to follow if you do that.

Perhaps you could argue that those shouldn't be the rules, but it remains that they are the rules and that students agree to follow them. Unfortunately, the rules are not designed to minimize academic work for the students, and I doubt they ever will be.

Also, you mentioned earlier that you have a dislike for busy work. I agree that I dislike busy work. Rote repetition may be necessary for some number of students, but I require much less than other students, and I don't think that all students should be forced to engage in it. Buuut, I don't think that writing papers qualifies as the type of work that you could consider "busy work".

ChuckF

01-19-2011, 12:57 AM

There is a different relationship between the Doctor and the Teacher to you.

Right, I used it for that reason. If I can cover two differing assignments, perfectly, with the same work, and am inclined to do so, then I do not understand how that is an ethical question.

Then you would very promptly face academic sanction and likely expulsion. I don't know how to make the underlying reasons any clearer than they've already been made in this thread. This is not a business arrangement where efficiency and the final product are supreme. Here the value inheres in the process. The final product is not the goal. In the overwhelming majority of cases, undergraduate students have no new insights to offer. Their papers are of no value to the scholarly community. Their only value is that which the student learns, in terms of facts and skills, from the process of writing them. Re-using prior work to avoid completing a new assignment, in addition to being a dishonest misrepresentation, adds no value and defeats the goal of the assignment and the process. Honestly I cannot see how this is not comprehensible.

lisarea

01-19-2011, 01:14 AM

Analogies really kind of suck.

I don't mean just these ones specifically. It's just the nature of analogies to fall apart, and I think a lot of the crosstalking right here is because of all the analogizin' going on.

Reusing papers is unethical in academics because academics have widely adopted that as an ethical guideline. It's cheating to reuse papers when reusing papers is prohibited, which it almost always is.

I'm kind of defensive about liberal arts education because a lot of people do seem to discount it from a vocational or directly practical perspective. You know, that stuff about English majors working at McDonald's and stuff. But the core of a liberal arts education is not vocational, and in some ways, it does seem inefficient and impractical. (I disagree with that.) The point, though, is that a liberal arts education is designed to teach you how to think as much as it is to teach the specific subject at hand. And the papers you turn in are really just examples and exercises that show how you're able to think through a topic. It's very important that you do a lot of different ones because the point isn't just to produce a work product, but as an exercise.

The reasoning behind their adopting that as an ethical guideline and as a spelled out proscription are probably:

1. Liberal arts education is at least as much about the learning process as it is about the final product. (lol it's a journey, not a destination!)

2. Academic credits represent in part a body of work and a learning progression. So if you have academic credits for a women's studies class and an American literature class, that represents two discrete learning processes, including original work in each. If you are getting unique credits for unique courses, it's expected that you've gotten those based on unique work, and for a school to allow students to count the same work toward multiple different credits would be a kind of implicit misrepresentation of that student's achievements.

3. Papers are assigned under constraints, not just on topic and presentation, but time. If you're reusing one paper for several classes simultaneously, or if you're resubmitting a paper you've already done in the past, you're not working under the same constraints as your classmates, which gives you an unfair advantage, and misrepresents your abilities. And that also reflects badly on the institution that would allow it.

Janet

01-19-2011, 01:29 AM

As fascinating as it has been to read, this thread seems to have reached an impasse. Time for some comic relief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTv5ckMe_2M

LadyShea

01-19-2011, 02:13 AM

But the fact is that you have avoided work by picking two classes with compatible assignments and have done less work than other students for the same grade. You also have purposely limited your educational possibilities by limiting yourself to generalities that can satisfy more than one class, when you could perhaps be better served by exploring things that aren't as compatible with other classes.

Yeah, well it's my money and my education, so how you feel about my choices is irrelevant (general I and you here, not personal you and I)

It's not unethical if you view school as a business transaction, but the school does not view it that way, they view it as a pursuit of learning.

Last I checked universities provide services in exchange for money. That is a business transaction.

And as a student you are bound by their rules (and this is part of the price of attendance - you agree to follow their rules), and thus you are breaking the rules you have agreed to follow if you do that.

We weren't discussing rules, we were discussing ethics. If the rule is "you can't use the same work for two different classes even if it satisfies the requirements for both" then that's the rule agreed to and I would not argue in favor of breaking it. The breaking of the rule is the unethical part.

ETA: Sorry I got interrupted in the middle of this post. Busy work is also subjective, but to me it's something redundant, unnecessary to furthering my goals, or serves no discernible purpose. You mentioned rote memorization as busy work for you, and few posts down I mentioned some circumstances under which I would deem paper writing as busy work.

Dragar

01-19-2011, 02:35 AM

You know, sometimes you sit a course just to get a certificate to show your employer you can do whatever it is your certificate says you can do. Learning is laudable; it's not always what you want.

Dragar

01-19-2011, 02:38 AM

It's not unethical if you view school as a business transaction, but the school does not view it that way, they view it as a pursuit of learning.

They don't all view it this way...

Dagon

01-19-2011, 03:54 AM

Why not take the middle ground and cover a different aspect of the same material. Cuts down your background reading and research and is much more ethical academically.

LadyShea

01-19-2011, 05:30 AM

Then you would very promptly face academic sanction and likely expulsion. I don't know how to make the underlying reasons any clearer than they've already been made in this thread.

Smoking marijuana is illegal, and many underlying reasons are presented for it being illegal. Many people feel that smoking marijuana is unethical, and offer many underlying reasons that they believe it is unethical. Does that mean those reasons are objectively rational or those opinions shared by everyone?

It certainly appears that you and others feel that the reasons presented make perfect sense and that the rules or agreements or understandings are acceptable and embraced. I simply don't find the arguments for there being a rule about it compelling or convincing.

If the whole discussion is that breaking agreed to rules is unethical, then I agree.

This is not a business arrangement where efficiency and the final product are supreme. Here the value inheres in the process. The final product is not the goal.

I thought I had been very clear about my objection to this line of reasoning, but maybe not. So I'll ask a question. How can you, or anyone, say what the value and goal is for someone that isn't you?

In the overwhelming majority of cases, undergraduate students have no new insights to offer. Their papers are of no value to the scholarly community. Their only value is that which the student learns, in terms of facts and skills, from the process of writing them. Re-using prior work to avoid completing a new assignment, in addition to being a dishonest misrepresentation, adds no value and defeats the goal of the assignment and the process. Honestly I cannot see how this is not comprehensible.

It's not comprehensible because writing papers is not the only way to learn facts and skills. For some individuals it may not be the optimal way. Some people have the facts and skills the writing process imparts, already, and would benefit more spending that time doing something else. For them writing another paper is redundant. *Writing is easy and enjoyable for some and they don't have to work hard at all to churn out multiple excellent papers, and it's a difficult and stressful struggle for others and they take a long time. Are those who find it easy and fast due to natural ability being "unfair" because they don't have the same issues with time management? *

It's not comprehensible because there is no reason for me to accept the assertion that the process is universally necessary, or universally optimal, or universally beneficial.

Again though, one should follow the rules they have agreed to.

* this also addresses this point of lisarea's
Papers are assigned under constraints, not just on topic and presentation, but time. If you're reusing one paper for several classes simultaneously, or if you're resubmitting a paper you've already done in the past, you're not working under the same constraints as your classmates, which gives you an unfair advantage, and misrepresents your abilities. And that also reflects badly on the institution that would allow it.

mickthinks

01-19-2011, 07:17 AM

There are two different claims here, and they are easily confused. One claim is that 'double-dipping' is unethical because it's against the rules. LS says she has no issue with that claim, and neither do I.

The other claim seems to be that 'double-dipping' is against the rules because it's unethical. In order to justify this claim it is necessary to explain what is wrong with it in principle. LS says she isn't satisfied by any of the explanations put forward so far. Me neither.

Several people have said that it is unfair on the other students. For example (and I'm not singleing Chuck out here, just using his post to stand for all):
And as I've noted, there is an issue of basic fairness that would reward this hypothetical student for his re-use of a prior work product, while other students who did new work - in keeping with the spirit of the assignment and education in general - would incur costs in time and effort.

If academic qualifications were merely a reward for effort, this would make sense, but they aren't. They are intended as a mark of attainment; a proof that a certain level of competence has been achieved.

Of course, in order to achieve the required level of competence the student must put in some time, and a first-class degree will require her to spend more time on her assignments than a third would. But that doesn't mean that it would be fair to withhold a first from a student who achieves that level, merely because she put in less time than one who has worked longer but has achieved less.

To put it in management science terms, there's a crucial difference between the inputs to and the outputs of the process of education. A wise manager will measure the outputs if she wants her process to deliver something of real value.

I'm not aware that British Universities award their degrees on the basis of the inputs to the process. Their exams and assignments are all designed to test the outputs, and the students get graded according to the standard of work they eventually produce, I think.

For this reason, it is often possible to submit a previously achieved qualification as an alternative to sitting one or more papers that other students are required to pass. No one suggests that this is unfair on those others. On the contrary, it would be unfair to assess them as highly as the previously qualified student unless they show they have learned the material she has already mastered.

I see this resubmission of previous work as being a parallel to the idea of course credits which gain exemption from attendance to certain classes and from sitting certain papers.

Are US Universities really so focussed on the inputs to their teaching process rather than the outputs, so that their degrees are awarded on the basis of time served rather than progress made? That seems to me to be the hidden implication of this "it's unfair to others" explanation.

fragment

01-19-2011, 09:34 AM

Last I checked universities provide services in exchange for money. That is a business transaction.
A large part of the service provided is the opportunity to receive a qualification from an institution with a reputation for high academic standards. A degree from Harvard is worth a lot more than from some unaccredited run-out-of-a-garage degree-by-mail scam. Ethics aside, from a purely businesslike perspective, I'd be pissed off if I found my university was devaluing the degree I've both paid and worked for by not maintaining the standards expected by academics, governments, accrediting agencies and employers.

viscousmemories

01-19-2011, 02:08 PM

What if the person writing the paper is a vegetarian pedophile who runs a puppy mill?

I kid! I just never expected this thread to get heated. Who knew paper writing was so controversial?

For the record I started this thread because I wrote a decent paper on the ethics of eating meat for an English Composition class and it occurred to me that it would also pertain to any class that covers ethics. I had heard of self-plagiarism before but I left it out of the title and OP because it seemed oxymoronic to me. However I understand the rationale now and it makes sense to me.

Some people have the facts and skills the writing process imparts, already, and would benefit more spending that time doing something else.
As I understand it writing papers is as much about research, composition and conforming to standards as it is about communicating ideas, and I don't think these are skills anyone is born with. I always thought I was a natural talent when it came to writing (I heard that often enough growing up) but frankly I didn't know what I didn't know until I took an English composition class. Now I'm looking forward to English Comp II.

How can you, or anyone, say what the value and goal is for someone that isn't you?
I think the point is that everyone who participates in academia agrees to adhere to certain standards of behavior, and that those standards are broadly, if not universally, understood. For example, my school expressly condemns "Academic Dishonesty" (http://www.austincc.edu/admrule/1.04.006.htm) (sec 2.A) but doesn't specifically call out double-dipping or self-plagiarism. Still, note that the description says these are "guidelines to assist students in avoiding academic dishonesty". The rule/standard is don't be dishonest and some examples of dishonesty are included. If I have any reason to believe that my profs will disapprove of my turning in the same paper for multiple assignments, I'm being dishonest.

Ensign Steve

01-19-2011, 02:16 PM

My point is that at least some percentage of students are in the class specifically to get a grade and get closer to a degree. They have different goals than others and they hold to different values. Instructors, as humans, also vary in their reasons for being there and in giving the assignments and their short and long term goals.

What I am hearing here is that different viewpoints are wrong, that choosing methods that meet one's personal goals or values, but that differ from others, are wrong. I take some issue with that.

Yeah, well it's my money and my education, so how you feel about my choices is irrelevant (general I and you here, not personal you and I)

It's not unethical if you view school as a business transaction, but the school does not view it that way, they view it as a pursuit of learning.

Last I checked universities provide services in exchange for money. That is a business transaction.

The university conferring the degree has a say in it, too, though. It's their name on that piece of paper you're waving around saying, "look, I have my degree!" They don't want a bunch of people who haven't learned to think or write or research thoroughly running around saying they were educated at their place. They're the ones who get to set the standards of what it takes to earn a degree from them.

You can certainly purchase a degree with cash at some schools like Excelsior, and those degrees are worth less in a business or employment setting than a degree from a "real" school specifically because people know that the person didn't have to work or learn anything to earn it. (Or, what fragment said.)

I think it is the ethics of the thing that has you hung up.

So to get a grade, a student must complete x, y, and z, which they agree to do.

Student 1 spends their time doing the work, completes x, y, and z, and receives a grade.

Student 2 spends less time, completes x, x, and x, and receives the same grade.

Is that fair? Both students agreed to the terms that they were to do x,y, and z. Only Student 1 completed the work. Student 2 portrayed that they had done y and z, while in actuality they did not.

Now compound that over the four years and 120 hours it takes to get a degree. At graduation Student 1 did all the work for that degree. Student 2 only did a third of what Student 1 did, but is getting the same degree.

Is that fair?

For me, I don't even care what's fair for the other students. Fuck them, it's dog-eat-dog out here. But I do care about being honest when representing myself. If I say I have a degree in X from Y university, I expect whoever is looking at the degree to understand that I did all the work required to get it, that I learned everything the university expected me to learn, and that I really earned it.

LadyShea

01-19-2011, 03:46 PM

The whole argument seems to have come down to "that's the rule/standard agreed to". I value integrity so wouldn't exhort anyone to be dishonest.

I also value autonomy and object to a standard that seems to me inflexible...that doesn't account for individual circumstances, abilities, or creativity...especially in an institution that supposedly fosters independence. The whole "unfair" argument is especially baffling, I don't even know how to address that.

I have never attended nor have plans to attend university, and those of you that have and do seem to think this is a reasonable standard to impose and adhere to. I think as Janet said we are probably at an impasse.

Nullifidian

01-19-2011, 05:06 PM

I also value autonomy and object to a standard that seems to me inflexible...that doesn't account for individual circumstances, abilities, or creativity...especially in an institution that supposedly fosters independence.

There are already systems in place to meet individual circumstances. If you're not going to be finished with a paper, despite the best will in the world, by the set date, then you can get an extension. If you can't think of an original thesis topic, you can see the professor during office hours. Most professors I've known would bend over backwards for their students to make sure that they can fulfill the requirements of the course. But fundamentally, they are all there to evaluate you on the work you do for their course, not for anybody else's. If you turn in papers written for other courses as if they were written for the current course, then you have a patchwork quilt of work instead of a barometer for your progress in the class.

fragment

01-19-2011, 08:03 PM

The whole argument seems to have come down to "that's the rule/standard agreed to".
OK, let's try a different example. Every course I've ever done is really strict about citing stuff correctly. I'm not talking about citing stuff at all, I'm talking about correctly and exactly following the stated citation style, down to having the right bits italicised and punctuation in the correct places. Why is this? If the ostensible purpose of citation is purely to show that the student has done some research and where they've used the material in their writing, then being so strict is unnecessary. The thing is, that's not the only purpose. Students are also asked to write in such a way that shows they can adhere to the accepted standards of academic writing. The standards might seem more strict than necessary for educational purposes because they were designed for published material. IMO it makes good sense to get students to work to the best practice and ethical standards that pertain in the fields they are heading towards.

The Lone Ranger

01-19-2011, 09:12 PM

Many students believe that the purpose of higher education is to learn a specific set of skills that will be necessary for future employment. This is not an ignoble goal.

But the overwhelming majority of academics see the purpose of higher education as improving the person -- teaching him or her to be a better thinker, for instance. In my experience, most 4-year colleges and universities will tell you right up front that the purpose of education is to improve the person. Heck, quite a lot of them feature this very prominently in their recruiting material.

As such, most academics find the "I'm in school so I can get a job" attitude in students to be intensely irritating. Relatedly, the attitude in some students that higher education is simply a series of hoops to jump through in order to get a degree is quite vexing to most academics. The reason such an attitude in students is so irritating is because academics regard such students as having missed the entire point of higher education.

"If that's what you're interested in, then why are you wasting your time and money here? Why not just go to a technical school instead?" they'll probably wonder.

If any student makes the mistake of saying something like "I pay your salary" or some such thing in one of my classes, I quickly and very pointedly remind them that they do no such thing. "You do not pay my salary; you pay for the privilege of attending my class. That's something very different."

Kyuss Apollo

01-19-2011, 09:23 PM

LadyShea

01-19-2011, 09:39 PM

Four years at a private college now totals a record $109,000 on average – not including room and board. That's a reality that thousands of parents of soon-to-be college students are starting to face Yahoo! Finance - Financially Fit (http://financiallyfit.yahoo.com/finance/article-111796-8053-5-the-most-affordable-colleges-in-america?ywaad=ad0035&nc)

As I have stated before, as an autodidact I feel no constraints or limits on my opportunities to learn, and therefore feel there is no need to attend a university to do so. A degree, however, is a requirement for many types of jobs and a salary booster for others even if not a requirement. It has, for the most part, become very difficult for non college grads to compete in the job market.

Do you truly believe that most students and their families are scrounging up 10's of thousands of dollars, and/or going into massive debt, for the learning process? If so, that is pretty insular and out of touch thinking. I am sure you don't think you sound that way, though.

FTR not one of my examples mentioned not learning anything or not writing papers.

fragment

01-19-2011, 10:02 PM

As I have stated before, as an autodidact I feel no constraints or limits on my opportunities to learn, and therefore feel there is no need to attend a university to do so.
As an aside, I'm self-taught on a number of things and often like to do things that way, and I've definitely come up against restraints that melted away when I started university - things like access to expensive facilities and equipment, and institutional access to papers.

Also, I've found some things are more efficiently learned with an experienced person keeping an eye on your progress and offering timely assistance. I'd expect what those things are to differ between people - I tend to pick up maths stuff quicker than it gets taught, observational skills I struggle with.

And finally, it's quite hard to assess your own progress when self-taught. IMO there are a bunch of blowhards out there who think they are quite competent at things but actually aren't. Some kind of validation external to oneself is potentially a useful safeguard against becoming one of those - although hardly a guarantee.

So yeah, I'm all in favour of self-teaching, but I don't think it can do absolutely everything a more organised education can.

LadyShea

01-19-2011, 10:11 PM

Well let me put it this way, I haven't found any limitations in my opportunities to learn the things I am personally interested in learning. As not me, YMMV of course.

My actual point was the costs of institutionalized learning are prohibitive to many people. Even if one highly values the learning environment you just described they may have to get resourceful and/or creative to find alternative sources of education (mentor, library! community classes), unless they can afford to invest that time and money, especially if there no expectation of a financial return.

Those that spend the time/money either A) have it or can get it without issue or B) are expecting to get a return on their investment so are comfortable borrowing it or whatever they need to do. Either way, I don't see pure love of learning being the major motivator for some huge majority of students.

The Lone Ranger

01-19-2011, 10:14 PM

That the practical value of a college/university education is "oversold" is a point that I have argued on this forum a number of times. An awful lot of people are in college not because they have any particular interest in learning per se, but because they must have a college degree in order to get the jobs they want. This, it seems to me, is unfair to pretty-much everyone involved.

Academics find it immensely frustrating to deal with students who only want to learn what they must in order to pass and get the degree they need, and don't much care about learning for its own sake. The students (and/or their parents) are unhappy because they're wasting an awful lot of time and money in the process.

I suppose that not everyone loses. College/university administrators tend to be happy with the current system, I suspect, because it means lots of paying bodies in the seats.

We'd probably all be better off if we had a better vocational education system in this country.

lisarea

01-19-2011, 10:29 PM

That really does suck, I agree. *ETA: That is to LadyShea. I took a long time poasting, so TLR made a sneaky inbetween poast like 15 minutes before I got done.*

However, allow me to segue into why I think that a liberal arts education is important.

I work(ED BECAUSE I'M UNEMPLOYABLE AND SHIT) in technical industries, broadly speaking, and the types of jobs I usually had were kind of consultinglike usually, so even when I was working steadily at the same company for years, I would hop around to different parts of the company or different clients a lot. As such, I have been in a lot of different work environments with a lot of different people. I will reiterate that this is mostly applicable to tech industries, because of how rapidly technologies evolve. It might not apply to other trades at all.

I worked with many people from different educational backgrounds. Some had vocational education in their specific field (usually some kind of software development). Some were self-taught. Some had liberal arts educations and learned their trade on the job. So the LA types were still, in their chosen fields, kind of autodidacts.

Very generally speaking, the people who either had an unrelated liberal arts degree and the autodidacts were better at their jobs. The people with vocational educations seemed to be more limited. They came in with some specific set of skills that they had learned, and they had a harder time GENERALLY working outside of those specific circumstances. And the thing with technical industries is that they change all the time. Sometimes, their skills would be obsolete by the time they graduated. If you want to actually do well, you have to have the ability to think creatively, and to solve problems. Vocational schools teaching strictly practical skills would mostly be teaching very narrow, very pragmatic sounding tasks, but the graduates often couldn't generalize what they'd learned. They'd be stodgy old stick in the muds at 22.

Now, to clarify further, there were people who just went out and got technical certifications for professional reasons, and those people weren't the type I'm talking about. (In fact, I personally chastised a hiring manager at one of the biggest tech employers in the area for his policy of throwing out resumes that had specific certifications on them, simply because a lot of people did it simply to get over that stupid HR hurdle. And I think I convinced him to stop doing it, which, if I did: HERO.)

The thing about having a liberal arts education is that it teaches you how to think, consistently, creatively, and ultimately, usefully. (And I take pains to add here that a lot of the autodidacts I worked with had auto didacted themselves a liberal arts education as well. The type of person who pursues a technical subject on their own usually pursues other interests as well on their own. They'd sometimes have a unique notion of the canon or shit like that, but ultimately, the canon itself is less important than the approach.)

What I think is really unfortunate is that, in some cases, companies will pursue applicants who have that technical education, simply because it seems immediately relevant, and it's easy to quantify and parse, particularly for the HR people doing initial vetting (which I think is a horrible way to hire for those positions, and maybe some day I will complain about that at some excruciating length). But unless you're hiring people for some discrete, well defined three month project or something, people whose education consists only of vocational training are most likely to not be very good at their jobs in the long term.

I would very much like to see employers hire people based on their actual abilities rather than their papers, whether it's a degree or a certification or whatever. But assessing that kind of thing is not an easy task, so I see why they don't.

LadyShea

01-19-2011, 11:03 PM

Look, I see the value. Hell I would love to learn more about baking from the culinary school down the street...but I can't afford to pay for that obviously superior learning experience. So, I have to just bake here at home and learn what I can that way.

On the other side, I think it would be neat to work in a state or national park as an educational guide, and I have no doubt I could learn on my own what is needed to do the job and be very good at it, BUT those jobs require a degree. I also have no doubt that I could pass the bar without ever going to law school, if I had access to the books and a mentor, but that can't happen.

I am sitting here having to find actual statistics regarding the demand for people with a certificate I am considering, because that 2500 it costs is a lot for me, and I have to ascertain if I can get that money back.

I love learning, a lot, and have made pretty darn good do on my own...out of preference for autonomy mostly and out of necessity in some cases.

So, what does this have to do with reusing papers? The whole mindset of "it's not about the final product" dismisses all those people for whom the time and money investment is very specifically a business transaction and very seriously about destination and not the journey. I feel creative problem solving and efficient time management is beneficial in most aspects of life, an important skill., so when my examples of what I consider such are labeled inherently unethical and anti-thesis to learning, that is objectionable to me.

I get that it's the standard and the the rule, I even get that it's part of an ideal concept of learning. Making that ideal some kind of universal reality is what I have been objecting to all along. The arguments put forth here make the concept of learning at universities sound very narrow and claustrophobic rather than broad horizons filled, frankly.

fragment

01-19-2011, 11:23 PM

My actual point was the costs of institutionalized learning are prohibitive to many people.
This is a bit your-country-may-vary. Round here the costs exist and are a disincentive, but I wouldn't say they are actually prohibitive. So there's a whole political diomension here, too.

Anyway, degrees have always been some sort of bastard mix of economic class signifiers and recognition of actual merit. Understandably lots of students want degrees because they are perceived as providing entry to better economic prospects. It's arguable whether they do - I'd advise most young people solely interested in economic return to seriously consider trades - but it is the perception. But IMO too tight a focus on the economic aspects of education actually waters down the whole merit side of things.

fragment

01-19-2011, 11:29 PM

I feel creative problem solving and efficient time management is beneficial in most aspects of life, an important skill...
TBH it's not that hard for most students actually putting the suggested time into a course to churn out a 2000 word essay. Most student time management problems I've noticed are about getting up in the morning, putting more than a couple of hours of actual work in the day, and reducing the amount of time wasted to hangovers.

viscousmemories

01-20-2011, 12:04 AM

The whole argument seems to have come down to "that's the rule/standard agreed to".
I'm not sure what "ethical" means if not "adhering to an agreed upon standard".

erimir

01-20-2011, 12:07 AM

:freakout: OMG pomoisms!

lisarea

01-20-2011, 12:42 AM

To preface this, I am being persistent about this because I agree with you on almost all of your underlying points, but the rationale behind the policy makes logical sense to me, so I know if I explain it right, it'll make sense to you too.

Look, I see the value. Hell I would love to learn more about baking from the culinary school down the street...but I can't afford to pay for that obviously superior learning experience. So, I have to just bake here at home and learn what I can that way.

I have never been to cooking school and know very little about the industry, but even so, I would bet money that some of the best and brightest in the culinary industry are autodidacts.

I'd also bet that more well rounded, curious types are generally more inventive and often successful chefs.

On the other side, I think it would be neat to work in a state or national park as an educational guide, and I have no doubt I could learn on my own what is needed to do the job and be very good at it, BUT those jobs require a degree. I also have no doubt that I could pass the bar without ever going to law school, if I had access to the books and a mentor, but that can't happen.

I am sitting here having to find actual statistics regarding the demand for people with a certificate I am considering, because that 2500 it costs is a lot for me, and I have to ascertain if I can get that money back.

I love learning, a lot, and have made pretty darn good do on my own...out of preference for autonomy mostly and out of necessity in some cases.

Well, yeah, and this is a pretty good segue into the most devastating burn ever: I would probably classify you as being a liberal arts autodidact.

:abitmuch:

So, what does this have to do with reusing papers? The whole mindset of "it's not about the final product" dismisses all those people for whom the time and money investment is very specifically a business transaction and very seriously about destination and not the journey. I feel creative problem solving and efficient time management is beneficial in most aspects of life, an important skill., so when my examples of what I consider such are labeled inherently unethical and anti-thesis to learning, that is objectionable to me.

OK. Here is why it makes sense to me.

A liberal arts education is an artificial construct. Like a prescribed means to go about becoming 'well rounded' intellectually. It doesn't and cannot replace an individual passion for learning. It's just a sort of artificial construct designed to replicate those things as closely as an artificial construct can. It's almost like a guided tour, and as such, it's never going to be as full and as comprehensive as a self-directed education based on genuine interest and curiosity. It's just more quantifiable.

Ideally, you'd write a lot of things about a lot of different topics because you have an interest in discourse and in examining the world around you. But that's a difficult thing to enforce or measure, so the artificial construct of a liberal arts education tries to replicate the concrete aspects of that. It mandates that you explore a variety of different subjects, that you make articulate and reasoned arguments and assessments of them individually, not just to fulfill the end requirement of producing a work product, but as practice, and to show that your logic and reasoning and rhetoric are replicable and sound and consistent.

That's what your course credits represent at least as much as if not moreso than they represent mastery of the specific topic: They represent practice and consistency, and in order for them to represent that at all accurately, they need to represent discrete instances of understanding and logic.

That's really what a degree represents: A pattern of increasing aptitude and replicable quality thinking. And the best way to measure that is, simply, by doing it over and over, on a variety of topics, in a variety of circumstances, and for a variety of purposes.

That said, I don't think there's any field that should absolutely 100% require a degree. There are always going to be people--sometimes the most talented and driven--who've learned pretty much any topic on their own. And there are always going to be a fair number of incurious dronelike people who have degrees, including advanced ones. In fact, one of the stupidest, dullest, and most frustratingly stupid and incompetent people I ever worked with had a PhD in a field directly related to her position; and some of the smartest and most creative and talented either never went to college at all or had degrees in unrelated fields like music or literature or history or something.

It is extra work to sort out the genuinely talented and creative people from some bigassed resume pool, though, so it's very common to take shortcuts that leave out some of the most qualified people, and that let some bad ones in. And that is definitely a flaw in most hiring processes that I've seen. It's just not an easily resolvable one.

livius drusus

01-20-2011, 01:09 AM

Quick interjection: This is a great thread. Thanks all.

erimir

01-20-2011, 01:18 AM

Also just thought I'd say that I don't think it's unethical to double dip if your school doesn't have a policy against it, and this is known (you could say that it misrepresents the amount of work you've done to employers, maybe, or that it gives you an unfair advantage against students from schools where this was not true, but then again, quality schools generally have a rule against double dipping so that probably is more than balanced out by institutional reputations).

But the schools have it for a reason, which has to do with them having different goals than perhaps LS would have for her education, and students must abide by that rule even if they would like the school to see education as purely a business transaction.

Also as a quick interjection: I think Honor Pledges are dumb, because you already agree to abide by school rules when you enroll, and if I was inclined to cheat, the Honor Pledge would not make me any less so. It's not like there have been people who cheated because you didn't make them say they weren't cheating right before you took the test or turned in the paper. I really don't get the point of them.

Kael

01-20-2011, 04:57 AM

LS, I think that calling the reuse of papers unethical hinges on the fact that it is (almost always) dishonest. As has been mentioned a few times, I think, it is generally understood in any field that when you are asked to do something you are being asked to do it now, not substitute old work. A similar convention generally holds true for doing one piece of work toward two separate, concurrent projects as well.

These actions are not inherently unethical. But, the shared conventions that are so widely assumed, especially but not solely in academia, would make such actions dishonest unless they were specifically addressed during the planning process.

So, the problem is not that reusing old work is inherently unethical, it's that in any area where original work can be or is reasonably expected, reusing old work is inherently dishonest. Being dishonest is unethical. As I said, this is especially true in academia, but it is true in many other areas as well, including areas like consulting, advertising, and other business-related fields.

About the only area I can think of off the top of my head where reusing old work is not inherently dishonest would be manufacturing, where it really is just the end product that matters, so long as it's built to the required specifications, when it was built, or for what original purpose is entirely irrelevant.

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 05:13 AM

The whole argument seems to have come down to "that's the rule/standard agreed to".
I'm not sure what "ethical" means if not "adhering to an agreed upon standard".

I stated my belief that adhering to agreed to rules is a value I have and share.

What I disagree with is that "double dipping" or whatever you want to call it is unethical in and of itself. I guess I am challenging whether it should be the standard, and/or if there are any circumstances in which the standard might benefit from more flexibility.

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 05:25 AM

Quick interjection: This is a great thread. Thanks all.

You just like seeing me get my ass kicked ;)

erimir

01-20-2011, 05:26 AM

The standard does have some flexibility - you are allowed to ask your professors for permission, and they may grant it.

I assume.

Kael

01-20-2011, 05:38 AM

About the only area I can think of off the top of my head where reusing old work is not inherently dishonest would be manufacturing, where it really is just the end product that matters, so long as it's built to the required specifications, when it was built, or for what original purpose is entirely irrelevant.
I think I just Fridge Logic-ed my way into a corner on that one, too, since I forgot to consider the damage that simple age can have on so many manufacturing materials. So even there, unless the assumption of providing new work is addressed during planning, presenting the client with old work would still be inherently dishonest.

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 05:51 AM

it is generally understood in any field that when you are asked to do something you are being asked to do it now, not substitute old work.

I can think of multiple fields and individual projects where starting from scratch every new assignment, when you have prior work that exactly meets the needs, or can meet the needs with a little tweaking, would be a spectacular waste of time and resources. Reinventing the wheel and all that.

You can make a case for many things, specifically creative works, needing to be unique. Logos, ad copy, various types of design, and yes some written works.
These actions are not inherently unethical. But, the shared conventions that are so widely assumed, especially but not solely in academia, would make such actions dishonest unless they were specifically addressed during the planning process.

Again, I don't think this is a fair generalization. If a project calls for quickly producing a high quality X, and you have a high quality X in your pocket already, then you get the contract, or job, or assignment.

So, the problem is not that reusing old work is inherently unethical, it's that in any area where original work can be or is reasonably expected, reusing old work is inherently dishonest. Being dishonest is unethical. As I said, this is especially true in academia, but it is true in many other areas as well, including areas like consulting, advertising, and other business-related fields.

About the only area I can think of off the top of my head where reusing old work is not inherently dishonest would be manufacturing, where it really is just the end product that matters, so long as it's built to the required specifications, when it was built, or for what original purpose is entirely irrelevant.

Rewriting or redesigning something that is perfectly suited as is, or can be perfect suited with just a few changes, just to recreate it and say "I started fresh", would be rather stupid. Tweak it, update it, reformat it, finesse it, change the specific data. Some things need to be newly created, but far from all. That's what I do for a living, by the way, business support services.

erimir

01-20-2011, 07:28 AM

I'm sorry, LS, but I have to conclude that you're a bad person and you should feel bad.

:zoidberg:

Angakuk

01-20-2011, 08:07 AM

Now I am starting to feel a little bit guilty about those papers I repurposed. Thanks alot assholes! I am still not going to return my diplomas.

Clutch Munny

01-20-2011, 02:14 PM

I have never done this (or had any occasion to) but is it generally considered academic dishonesty to turn in a paper I wrote for a class at one school to fulfill the requirements of another class at a different school? Or to turn in the same paper for two different classes at the same school, assuming relevance?

Yes.

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 02:34 PM

Okay guys! Damn sending in the big guns with Wordy McWalloftext Clutch.

Clutch Munny

01-20-2011, 02:40 PM

The whole argument seems to have come down to "that's the rule/standard agreed to". I value integrity so wouldn't exhort anyone to be dishonest.

Nicely said. I think that's really the crux of it, especially in the context of Chuck's and lisarea's observations.

Universities work on the theory that exposing students to data, concepts, and skill-development processes of particular sorts is likely to make certain changes to the kind and degree of knowledge, insight, and skills they possess. Universities put their stamp on students as having had that exposure. Their teaching methods and due diligence (assignments and exams play both roles) only work on the assumption that students are not gaming this system -- seeking the stamp without having undergone the university's particular methods. The monitoring and enforcement they can bring to bear on ensuring that this assumption is accurate is pretty limited; so they largely work on the honour system: they make clear up front what they expect from students, and students agree to abide by these expectations. (That's very important. Students aren't accidentally teleported into the classrooms, after all; they sign up and register and explicitly agree to play by the university's rules.)

Whatever one thinks about the validity of the educational assumptions implied by this system, it is at least a failure of honesty and integrity to make that agreement and then deliberately (and furtively) break it. I think it also amounts to free-riding or mooching on the cachet that university education possesses (at least in part) because other people do abide by their commitments.

I agree that some autodidacts may learn as much or more through their own study as other students learn by following the prescribed methods of a university education. I agree that life experience can teach one a lot. But life experience or implicit abilities only merit the endorsement of a university if one goes to a university that explicitly offers credit for life experience. Going to an institution that does not offer such an equivalence, agreeing to their rules, but then self-justifying a failure to abide by those rules on the grounds that one ought to get credit for one's implicit abilities even if one does not apply those abilities to the coursework is pretty clearly dishonest. It lacks integrity.

So, ultimately, I think you're well-positioned to appreciate the problem with it. I suspect some miscommunication might have happened here because what you may not have appreciated is just how explicitly, unambiguously, and repeatedly students have to agree to follow the university's course of study in order to enroll to get (not just the education but eventually) its stamp of approval.

Clutch Munny

01-20-2011, 02:41 PM

Okay guys! Damn sending in the big guns with Wordy McWalloftext Clutch.

:smugnod:

Clutch Munny

01-20-2011, 02:48 PM

In academia, assignments are typically understood to call for new work product.
How does one come to that understanding?
I don't see how one can avoid it.

Better answer, though: "By reading the section of policy on academic misconduct that basically every modern university makes available to students, in which (typically) resubmission of papers, collaborative work on assignments, etc., are banned unless the instructors specifically permits or calls for it."

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 02:55 PM

I suspect some miscommunication might have happened here because what you may not have appreciated is just how explicitly, unambiguously, and repeatedly students have to agree to follow the university's course of study in order to enroll get (not just the education but eventually) its stamp of approval.

Most of the miscommunication, I think, was that I was more questioning the reasons it was always considered wrong, more than the ethics of adhering to agreed to guidelines.

The latter is sort of a given for me so I didn't qualify my statements I guess

But yes, I also had no idea such a thing was so solidly codified.

Clutch Munny

01-20-2011, 03:26 PM

Yep.

Harvard (http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/ugrad_handbook/2009_2010/chapter2/academic_dishonesty.html).

SUNY Albany (http://www.albany.edu/undergraduate_bulletin/regulations.html)

Florida State (http://academichonor.fsu.edu/policy/policy.html)

I searched four American schools, and three had these clear policies on multiple submission. The fourth, Bob Jones University, I searched on a lark. None of my search terms could generate a result that explained any academic conduct policy whatever; but maybe I used the wrong terms. (Should have tried "WW'tJD"?)

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 03:35 PM

Educational philosophies, methods, goals and ethics are also kind of a can of worms in general. Definitely some strongly held values, perhaps approaching the realm of "self evident", seem to be in play on both sides.

I get the feeling some here think I was being purposefully obtuse or obstinate or something. I really wasn't, just in case someone feels that way.

Ensign Steve

01-20-2011, 04:43 PM

So, what does this have to do with reusing papers? The whole mindset of "it's not about the final product" dismisses all those people for whom the time and money investment is very specifically a business transaction and very seriously about destination and not the journey.

But the final product isn't the degree, it is the university education that the degree represents. The education includes the journey. Even if you only want the degree, you still have to get the education, you have to go through the journey whether that's what you want or not. The university isn't going to hand you a degree just because you want one without doing the work, even if you pay them all the $109,000.

I can go to Alaska and buy a post card, or I can pick up an Alaska post card at a thrift store. The cards are identical, but only one of them means I went to Alaska. Maybe someone only cares about getting the card, but the employer wants someone who went to Alaska, whether they enjoyed it or not. Okay that analogy kind of fell apart.

I get that you are an autodidact and all, and that you are capable of learning the information or the skills on your own. But a university degree says that you received a university education, not just that you know the information or have the skills.

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 04:55 PM

But the final product isn't the degree, it is the university education that the degree represents. The education includes the journey. Even if you only want the degree, you still have to get the education.

But a university degree says that you received a university education, not just that you know the information or have the skills.

Well now we are discussing the definition of education, and for me that's a horse of another ball of wax, and I never said anything about not getting educated.

Gawd some of these concepts are hard to articulate, thats why this thread is full of shitty analogies.

Ensign Steve

01-20-2011, 04:56 PM

I'm not discussing the definition of education. I mentioned one specific kind of education, a university education. Seriously, let me know if there is anything ambiguous or subjective or value-laden in my statement that a university degree represents a university education.

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 05:01 PM

A degree says one gained and or/demonstrated knowledge of the information and gained and/or demonstrated skills in a university, right?

Ensign Steve

01-20-2011, 05:03 PM

I guess it says that. It probably says other stuff, too, like that you did a shitload of work. I'm not getting into it beyond if you want a university degree, you either need to get a university education (as defined by some university) or cheat.

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 05:16 PM

Okay then we agree. I think we are miscommunicating something.

When I said
The whole mindset of "it's not about the final product" dismisses all those people for whom the time and money investment is very specifically a business transaction and very seriously about destination and not the journey.

I was addressing those who seemed to me to be arguing that the university educational process is the main goal or only worthwhile goal...those people seemed, again to me, to assume everyone goes to university for the pure learning.

I was countering that some people go through the exact same same process, but for a different reason or with a different end goal. They want the piece of paper that says they went through that process.

Let's use your Alaska example.

Two people sign up for a tour of Alaska:

Person 1 is going to Alaska to take in the beauty, or commune with snow spirits or something very personal.

Person 2 is going to Alaska for work, evaluating the tour company or something very professional.

Both people get to see Alaska and experienced the same tour. Both people get postcards, but they had very different goals.

Some people go to university to experience that form of education for personal reasons, or for its own sake. Others go for very practical financial or professional reasons. They both follow the same process and get the same degree at the end, though their journeys will be VERY different experiences perceptually.

Ensign Steve

01-20-2011, 05:38 PM

Let's use your Alaska example.

Two people sign up for a tour of Alaska:

Person 1 is going to Alaska to take in the beauty, or commune with snow spirits or something very personal.

Person 2 is going to Alaska for work, evaluating the tour company or something very professional.

Both people get to see Alaska and experienced the same tour. Both people get postcards, but they had very different goals.

Some people go to university to experience that form of education for personal reasons, or for its own sake. Others go for very practical financial or professional reasons. They both follow the same process and get the same degree at the end, though their journeys will be VERY different experiences perceptually.

I would argue that every single student's journey through their education is unique.

In our example, I'm operating under the assumption that the student who doesn't care about the journey and just wants the degree is doing so for the sake of future employability.

Have you seen jobs that simply require a four-year degree and it doesn't even matter in what field? I have. In those cases it is totally not about the knowledge or skills gained, and yet for whatever reason they still require the degree. There's something there in that experience that the employer wants (I don't know what) that doesn't depend on why the student wanted the degree.

Both of your travelers would be eligible for the job that required the Alaska trip, even though their trips were totally different, because there is something about travel to Alaska that the employer wants (I don't know what) that doesn't depend on the reason for the trip.

Sock Puppet

01-20-2011, 05:48 PM

Just a smartassed, tangential remark:
The arguments put forth here make the concept of learning at universities sound very narrow and claustrophobic rather than broad horizons filled, frankly.I doubt many academics, if they're honest about it, would dispute that the entire culture at universities is in some ways "very narrow and claustrophobic."

It is what it is. :heckled:

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 05:48 PM

Both of your travelers would be eligible for the job that required the Alaska trip, even though their trips were totally different, because there is something about travel to Alaska that the employer wants (I don't know what) that doesn't depend on the reason for the trip.

Right. So what were we disagreeing about?

Let me try to bring it to a point: In an ideal world, only those who personally value the university educational process on its own merits, and embrace the standards that are based on the value of that type of learning process, would go to universities.

In an ideal world all employers would only require a degree if they also value the university educational process for someone in that position, or if the degree is directly relevant, rather than using degrees as some kind of stand in for required skills and knowledge or as a way to cull the herd.

But, as it is, many employers do use a degree as a replacement for ascertaining skills and knowledge, or as a simple way to eliminate applicants to make their own job easier, and so many students are in university to get the degree to get a job, or a promotion, or a raise even though the process is not valued in and of itself by anyone in the equation.

So, are those students who are there for the degree inferior or something? Does someone not fully embracing all standards, even if they adhere to them for integrity's sake, make them stupid or mutants because they disagree that they should be standards?

Clutch Munny

01-20-2011, 09:07 PM

But, as it is, many employers do use a degree as a replacement for ascertaining skills and knowledge

In that case, they do value it for the process.

LadyShea

01-20-2011, 09:09 PM

But, as it is, many employers do use a degree as a replacement for ascertaining skills and knowledge

In that case, they do value it for the process.

To an extent yes of course. But as you probably know better than I do, having a degree is not necessarily a guarantee that specific knowledge has been retained or that the skills have moved past theoretical.

viscousmemories

01-21-2011, 01:59 AM

I personally think a lot of employers require degrees because goddamn it they had to go through that shit, damned if they're gonna give someone a job who didn't. Which makes companies like Google all the more precious since the founders dropped out of college but the company apparently won't hire anyone without a degree. So I also appreciate the view of college as a business transaction and a means to an end, but playing by the rules has value to me. If it didn't then (as someone said earlier) I'd just buy a degree online or lie on my resume; nobody's gonna ask for proof of an liberal arts degree if I'm applying for an unrelated job.

Ensign Steve

01-21-2011, 02:05 PM

Damn you guys, I was all thinking about this crap yesterday at school. I hate it when I have to think at school!

First of all, I agree with everything you said in your "perfect world" post, LS, but I guess it's no surprise that we agree about education stuff.

Anyway, I was thinking about how my last couple of jobs required a four-year degree "or equivalent" and how I was able to land those jobs with my military experience and training despite my lack of degree. And universities have nothing on the military when it comes to narrow and claustrophobic.

But then it also occurred to me that the more "institutional" a job is, like working for the government or a school or a soulless corporation like Kafka, Inc., the more likely it is that they are going to require a degree. Lots of smaller companies, start-ups, touchy-feely silicon valley places like Google and Apple, they care more about the person and what they can do and how they mesh and what-not.

So, again, no surprise there. It is what it is.

viscousmemories

01-21-2011, 03:14 PM

touchy-feely silicon valley places like Google
See my post above.
:psst:

Ensign Steve

01-21-2011, 03:16 PM

Damnit! :shakegoogle:

Dingfod

01-24-2011, 02:55 AM

I'm reading this thread, finding myself agreeing with LadyShea to some degree (no pun intended). I also find myself wondering why in the ever-loving fuck are there so many people with college degrees that can't think worth a fuck? I wouldn't put the number much over 50% of the college graduates I've worked with that seem to have gotten much out of college. Then again, I didn't know them before they got the degree; they may have been stupider than a bag of hammers before that, I don't know. Or maybe they cheated their way through (something far more common than you would think).

Clutch Munny

01-24-2011, 03:09 AM

I also find myself wondering why in the ever-loving fuck are there so many people with college degrees that can't think worth a fuck?

I don't make 'em perfect. I just try make 'em better.

Qingdai

01-24-2011, 04:13 AM

I may be entirely full of shit here, but the word university makes me think that it has something to do with the word universal, as in exposure to a widely encompassing set of ideas, and sometimes conflicting ideas of the world and/or universe around you. Exposure to a history of ideas doesn't mean that one can think or reason, but it could give one a basis in understanding or being able to reason with new or different ideas.

Just like there is catholic (meaning of broad or liberal scope) versus the actual Catholic religion. You can have a catholic education without like the pope in the slightest.

Communism with a capital c, means something slightly different than communism, the ownership of property by the whole community. Hell, farmers co-ops could arguable be called communistic.

The idea of a university education is that you have certain general or core studies, that should expose you to a larger set of skills than strictly needed for a set or specialized job.

mickthinks

01-24-2011, 01:01 PM

ChuckF

01-24-2011, 03:35 PM

"By reading the section of policy on academic misconduct that basically every modern university makes available to students, in which (typically) resubmission of papers, collaborative work on assignments, etc., are banned unless the instructors specifically permits or calls for it."

I searched four American schools, and three had these clear policies on multiple submission.

It's not every modern university, Chuck,
Try again, champ.
that wraps resubmission of one's own work up with collaborative work and plagiarism in the same blanket ban. For example, this fine British one (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/students/) seems not to worry about self-plagiarism at all.

Really? No one at Cambridge University worries about self-plagiarism at all? Remarkable! (http://www.csc.cam.ac.uk/academic/mphil/plagiarism.shtml) Wow! (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2010/chapter04-section9.html) Zounds! (http://www.bio.cam.ac.uk/sbs/facbiol/bbs/dissertations.html) Astonishing! (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/1998-9/weekly/5752/18.html) Implausible! (http://www.cam.ac.uk/guide/ugcourses/anc.html) Doubtful, in fact! (www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/students/jbs.pdf)
Each candidate who submits a project report, essay, dissertation or any other work for examination will be required to sign a declaration that the submission is his or her own work, unaided except as may be specified in the declaration, that all sources are fully acknowledged and referenced, and that the submission does not contain material that has already been used to any substantial extent for a comparable purpose.
a signed declaration that it is your own original work, and that it does not contain material that has already been used to any substantial extent for a comparable purpose
Each candidate will be required to sign a declaration that the thesis is his or her own work, unaided except as may be specified in the declaration, and that it does not contain material that has already been used to any substantial extent for a comparable purpose.
I think it can be considered unethical for a relatively powerful institution to require its relatively powerless members to abide by unnecessary rules. Do you plan to write these Cambridge departments to explain how unethical they are being? Surely pushing justice up the agenda demands this.

mickthinks

01-24-2011, 04:03 PM

Thanks for finding the evidence that many Cambridge faculties also have a "don't resubmit" requirement, Chuck. My mistake.

LadyShea

01-24-2011, 04:17 PM

I am just throwing stuff out there at this point, so forgive me if I ramble some.

The idea of a university education is that you have certain general or core studies, that should expose you to a larger set of skills than strictly needed for a set or specialized job.

Throughout this thread lisarea has been specifying Liberal Arts, and your point here Q seems specific to undergraduate studies, but do the concepts of world broadening and learning to learn apply to all degree programs? What about advanced degrees?

For a recently mentioned example I assume one doesn't pursue a Masters in Library Science unless they seek to be a librarian, or a law degree unless they plan to use it in some form of legal field (or politics). At some point the programs of study are specialized to a job field. According to Janet the library science masters program is useful in getting a needed degree, and that the education is not terribly relevant to the job of running a library.

So, again I am back to the ideal vs. reality. The ideal is learning for its own sake and exposure to new and different concepts, the reality is many universities need to have tuition paying butts in the seats and many people need to have degrees in their hands. That makes for schizophrenic ethics, and probably is the basis for any contention in this thread.

Qingdai

01-24-2011, 06:34 PM

My understanding is that in the masters and PhD, one begins specialization. Certainly it varies between programs, but is a narrowing of fields from a basis of broader studies, the general degree is usually a prerequisite.

Frequently a masters, while it might lead to a job, is a springboard to a PhD. For example a undergrad degree in BS, with a major in Biochemistry to a masters in Botany, to a PhD in Ecology, with an emphasis in micorrhizae is one path, there is no guarantee that any of those degrees will be a specific job.

Clutch Munny

01-24-2011, 06:53 PM

Try again, champ.

Thanks. I couldn't be bothered, but am happy that someone else could.

LadyShea

01-24-2011, 07:50 PM

Frequently a masters, while it might lead to a job, is a springboard to a PhD. For example a undergrad degree in BS, with a major in Biochemistry to a masters in Botany, to a PhD in Ecology, with an emphasis in micorrhizae is one path, there is no guarantee that any of those degrees will be a specific job.

No guarantee, no, and I didn't mean to stop at Master's, just advanced degrees of all kinds. Certain jobs (or certain aspects in a given field) seem to require advanced degrees. Social workers are one example where I have heard a Master's is the norm. Library science is another. MBA is pretty common. Also of course law and medical degree. Many in the sciences go for the PhD.

fragment

01-24-2011, 08:40 PM

Masters and PhD students are typically expected to be producing new, original research in the field. That's probably not so universal in masters these days.

lisarea

01-24-2011, 08:53 PM

Well, the main reasons I've focused on liberal arts are that the delineations are clearer, and that liberal arts are the core difference between vocational training and academics.

It does muddy up a little bit when you get into professional studies like computer science or social work or law or whatever, but the main difference between someone with a computer science degree from a liberal arts university vs. from a vo-tech college is that the CS degree is usually broader, and more focused on theory. I have done a ton of tech interviews, and people from vo-tech schools would often have little if any background in any kind of theory or even a general understanding of the field, but just training that would allow them to perform some very limited and specific tasks. (I interviewed some guy who applied for a web development position and didn't know HTML. He made it past HR because he had some kind of web development certification from one of those for profit vocational schools. If he hadn't been a huge prolapsed asshole, I would have felt sorry for him.)

As far as graduate studies, things like law school and b school and stuff do sort of muddy the lines further, but they're still usually more focused on the theoretical aspects of a specific field, rather than on training for specific tasks. A PhD is a doctorate of philosophy, meaning the study of core knowledge rather than specific skill training.

It shames me to admit this, but my babby bort is a pretty gigantic nerd. He has I think two BSes and two MSes, in theoretical math and physics, plus he got his Dr. Phil in Chemical Engineering.

These are not really big career fields, and they didn't really train him to perform a specific jerb. They're pretty much academic, and the studies don't really focus on training for specific tasks but on original research and theory. (As I understand it, because lol nerd.) In fact, when my mom asked him during his doctorate studies what kind of job he thought he'd get when he finished, he told her he was thinking about going back into construction or having a bike shop or something. (He did work in a research position for a while as a "Computational Physicist," but he's a computer guy now for a very large bureaucratic organization that required an engineering degree, but they probably didn't mean chemical engineering so lol.)

Some people do work in the fields they study, of course, but with a PhD, as opposed to an MD or a JD, they often work in research or academia, rather than in a job doing some specific thing they've trained to do.

lisarea

01-24-2011, 10:23 PM

For some reason, I just now saw this article in my RSS feeds:

n+1: Revolt of the Elites (http://nplusonemag.com/revolt-of-the-elites)

I hain't even finished reading it yet, but it's eerily on point to this thread, so here it is!

specious_reasons

01-24-2011, 10:38 PM

(He did work in a research position for a while as a "Computational Physicist," but he's a computer guy now for a very large bureaucratic organization that required an engineering degree, but they probably didn't mean chemical engineering so lol.)

Some people do work in the fields they study, of course, but with a PhD, as opposed to an MD or a JD, they often work in research or academia, rather than in a job doing some specific thing they've trained to do.

Most managers I know don't blink twice at an unrelated technical degree, as long as they convince them they have the skills needed for the job. Computer science/computer programming jobs have extensive technical requirements, but the actual "science" part of computer science isn't all that important to your daily job.

:nerdy: (nerd humor alert!) :nerdy:
One of my coworkers was also a part-time assoc. professor at a local college, at which I wound up taking some post-graduate level courses. He taught in a theory course, and I joked with him that I would apply Hoare logic to my device drivers.

Funny, right?

lisarea

01-24-2011, 11:07 PM

Yes, thank you for explaining what 'computer science' is and like what kinds of jobs people do and stuff.

But in case it isn't clear, my point is that in this case, there was a huge bureaucracy involved in the hiring process that had a non-negotiable requirement for an 'engineering degree' that was simultaneously too specific and too general. So while he does have plenty of experience and qualifications to work in the position, the engineering degree that technically fulfilled that qualification is completely unrelated.

LadyShea

02-09-2011, 06:09 AM

Report: First two years of college show small gains - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-01-18-littlelearning18_ST_N.htm)
Nearly half of the nation's undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college, in large part because colleges don't make academics a priority, a new report shows.

8 Alternatives to College Altucher Confidential (http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/01/8-alternatives-to-college/)

viscousmemories

02-09-2011, 03:41 PM

Meh, that report was written by a bunch of academics. What do they know?

Clutch Munny

02-09-2011, 03:45 PM

LadyShea

02-09-2011, 04:22 PM

I thought it was part of the problem. Or an example of the problem. Or a result of the problem. Or something of the problem anyway.

As we have discussed, there are students at universities that don't want to be there for the learning experience, but believe it is necessary that they get a degree. That belief may be unjustified. I think a big part of that may be that they don't know what else to do. One of the articles mentioned that specifically, something about "If they don't go to college what do they do?"

Additionally, if a large percentage of students aren't learning much (as per the article), it seems likely to be the same students that aren't there to learn, but to put in their time and get the degree. And the mention about universities not prioritizing academics...if the goal and purpose is to teach people, and the ethics and culture are based on that purpose, why isn't that the number 1 priority? Are many universities all fucked up priority wise?

So, students who don't want to be there, who might wish to cut corners or chafe at the expectations, that aren't really learning, might benefit from knowing alternatives. Universities that don't prioritize learning might benefit from the kick in the pants a loss of those particular students, to those more appropriate alternatives, might provide, so they can get back in the business of teaching people instead of whatever it is they are doing instead.