Report exam cheating to professor? Forum

[mvp99]

I'm sorry...but this thread really sums up why TLS posters are no-offered at a disproportionately high rate.

Please elaborate

[sublime]

..

[AReasonableMan]

I'm sorry...but this thread really sums up why TLS posters are no-offered at a disproportionately high rate.

Please elaborate

He seems to say that individuals who take an unfortunate but relatively commonplace situation, and turn it into a heated debate about being a rat vs. ethical duties and involve race and socioeconomic status tend to make everybody feel awkward and present huge HR issues. They present a level of risk. Think about it from your boss' point of view. S/he has 50 other things going on, and now some replaceable prick there to get their feet wet is generating time consuming drama.

[daleearnhardt123]

I'd be interested to know where the "don't snitch" folks draw the line. You see someone smoking weed in public, do you snitch? (I'd guess probably not). You bear witness to a murder, do you snitch? (I'd hope so).

So where does the line get drawn? Is it totally arbitrary? If so, I'd say this isn't much of a principle to be premising an argument on.

[AReasonableMan]

I'd be interested to know where the "don't snitch" folks draw the line. You see someone smoking weed in public, do you snitch? (I'd guess probably not). You bear witness to a murder, do you snitch? (I'd hope so).

So where does the line get drawn? Is it totally arbitrary? If so, I'd say this isn't much of a principle to be premising an argument on.

That's pretty straw man. I would say if there was a street fight that seemed fair, I wouldn't report it. If it seemed unfair, I would. I'd perceive both situations as wrong, but only the latter as so wrong I have a duty to do something.

[sd5289]

you heard it here first, folks: paul campos doesn't care about ethics

Lolz, I think his point was more about the believability that two people would cheat in such a blatantly open way. Assuming it was proctored like it is at just about every law school, they set people up in the room to make it next to impossible to collude and share answers with someone else. These two would have had to go out of their way to cheat in the way OP is describing.

Doesn't really make sense from a typical law student, self-interested POV.

[fats provolone]

save it for the slate rebuttal, buddy

[sublime]

..

[AReasonableMan]

Leaving aside ethics for the moment, I have trouble imagining how this kind of cheating -- assuming that's what it was -- is even supposed to work from a purely self-interested viewpoint. If the two students sharing answers are of similar ability, then neither should get any significant advantage from knowing the other's choice on a multiple-choice exam. If one student is much stronger than the other, why would the stronger student cooperate, given that by definition she's taking all the risk and getting no gain? Even beyond all this, it just seems bizarre that people would be willing to risk professionally devastating consequences in return for possibly getting a slightly higher grade in an upper level law school course.

You're assuming the students are only motivated by somewhat direct economic incentives (high grades = job, getting caught cheating = no job). They might have a personal interest in the other person's success, and realize It's unlikely one person will diminish the other person's score. If the other person sees them as why they have a job as opposed to not having a job, they're likely to see that person as an ally and be actively willing to help them at any point in their career. Even with giving or receiving someone's outline when studying which is allowed in the majority of classes, people perceive this differently than you buying them a beer. You're directly helping someone succeed in a situation they're pissing their pants about.

This might be a far fetched analogy, but why has the US at times been historically willing to do put its neck out and do some unethical things that only directly benefit other countries? Personally, I would never cheat because I think it's a disgusting thing to do even on an uncurved test, but in hindsight if this were possible and allowed, I would have traded an A for an A- if it would have enabled a close friend to get an A- vs. a B+. The reality is that grade fluctuations have more value in certain ranges than they do in others. There are circumstances where getting a lower grade for someone to get a higher grade would have a mutually beneficial outcome. I mean, why does the bank lend money to people, and why did Vito Corleone absorb the cost and risk of doing all those favors on his daughter's wedding day?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Leaving aside ethics for the moment, I have trouble imagining how this kind of cheating -- assuming that's what it was -- is even supposed to work from a purely self-interested viewpoint. If the two students sharing answers are of similar ability, then neither should get any significant advantage from knowing the other's choice on a multiple-choice exam. If one student is much stronger than the other, why would the stronger student cooperate, given that by definition she's taking all the risk and getting no gain? Even beyond all this, it just seems bizarre that people would be willing to risk professionally devastating consequences in return for possibly getting a slightly higher grade in an upper level law school course.

You're assuming the students are only motivated by somewhat direct economic incentives (high grades = job, getting caught cheating = no job). They might have a personal interest in the other person's success, and realize It's unlikely one person will diminish the other person's score. If the other person sees them as why they have a job as opposed to not having a job, they're likely to see that person as an ally and be actively willing to help them at any point in their career. Even with giving or receiving someone's outline when studying which is allowed in the majority of classes, people perceive this differently than you buying them a beer. You're directly helping someone succeed in a situation they're pissing their pants about.

This might be a far fetched analogy, but why has the US at times been historically willing to do put its neck out and do some unethical things that only directly benefit other countries? Personally, I would never cheat because I think it's a disgusting thing to do even on an uncurved test, but in hindsight if this were possible and allowed, I would have traded an A for an A- if it would have enabled a close friend to get an A- vs. a B+. The reality is that grade fluctuations have more value in certain ranges than they do in others. There are circumstances where getting a lower grade for someone to get a higher grade would have a mutually beneficial outcome.

wut

[AReasonableMan]

Leaving aside ethics for the moment, I have trouble imagining how this kind of cheating -- assuming that's what it was -- is even supposed to work from a purely self-interested viewpoint. If the two students sharing answers are of similar ability, then neither should get any significant advantage from knowing the other's choice on a multiple-choice exam. If one student is much stronger than the other, why would the stronger student cooperate, given that by definition she's taking all the risk and getting no gain? Even beyond all this, it just seems bizarre that people would be willing to risk professionally devastating consequences in return for possibly getting a slightly higher grade in an upper level law school course.

You're assuming the students are only motivated by somewhat direct economic incentives (high grades = job, getting caught cheating = no job). They might have a personal interest in the other person's success, and realize It's unlikely one person will diminish the other person's score. If the other person sees them as why they have a job as opposed to not having a job, they're likely to see that person as an ally and be actively willing to help them at any point in their career. Even with giving or receiving someone's outline when studying which is allowed in the majority of classes, people perceive this differently than you buying them a beer. You're directly helping someone succeed in a situation they're pissing their pants about.

This might be a far fetched analogy, but why has the US at times been historically willing to do put its neck out and do some unethical things that only directly benefit other countries? Personally, I would never cheat because I think it's a disgusting thing to do even on an uncurved test, but in hindsight if this were possible and allowed, I would have traded an A for an A- if it would have enabled a close friend to get an A- vs. a B+. The reality is that grade fluctuations have more value in certain ranges than they do in others. There are circumstances where getting a lower grade for someone to get a higher grade would have a mutually beneficial outcome.

wut

I'm saying getting a higher grade is not the only incentive to cheat/aid cheating.

[sublime]

..

[A. Nony Mouse]

^

Also, it might not be the only incentive to help someone cheat, but I'm pretty sure it's the only incentive for cheating itself.

[AReasonableMan]

Then why didn't you just say that? Without the weird analogy.

I wanted to add some flavor, but that's fair. I obviously thought the analogy was apt, but I've been wrong before.

And yes, grades are the only incentive to cheat for a better score, but IDK if intentionally helping someone cheat or actually cheating are morally different. I guess the one changing their answers is the person who does the actual act that makes it cheating.

[jbagelboy]

I'd be interested to know where the "don't snitch" folks draw the line. You see someone smoking weed in public, do you snitch? (I'd guess probably not). You bear witness to a murder, do you snitch? (I'd hope so).

So where does the line get drawn? Is it totally arbitrary? If so, I'd say this isn't much of a principle to be premising an argument on.

what the fuck? I'm far more likely to be the dude smoking weed in public or asking the guy smoking in public to pass the j than to report them.

i'm honestly surprised by the number of people who would turn on their fellow student and report to a "dean" or a "proctor". I would much rather confront the student about their actions than run to some authority figure for guidance. I can't fathom a circumstance where I would side with the law school administration against a student, unless they committed a violent crime or sexual assault or something in which case I'd be the first person urging expulsion. But this pansy ass shit? it's low

[AReasonableMan]

I'd be interested to know where the "don't snitch" folks draw the line. You see someone smoking weed in public, do you snitch? (I'd guess probably not). You bear witness to a murder, do you snitch? (I'd hope so).

So where does the line get drawn? Is it totally arbitrary? If so, I'd say this isn't much of a principle to be premising an argument on.

what the fuck? I'm far more likely to be the dude smoking weed in public or asking the guy smoking in public to pass the j than to report them.

i'm honestly surprised by the number of people who would turn on their fellow student and report to a "dean" or a "proctor". I would much rather confront the student about their actions than run to some authority figure for guidance. I can't fathom a circumstance where I would side with the law school administration against a student, unless they committed a violent crime or sexual assault or something in which case I'd be the first person urging expulsion. But this pansy ass shit? it's low

You'd confront them? What happens when someone else reports them, and this other person didn't confront them?

[jbagelboy]

I'd be interested to know where the "don't snitch" folks draw the line. You see someone smoking weed in public, do you snitch? (I'd guess probably not). You bear witness to a murder, do you snitch? (I'd hope so).

So where does the line get drawn? Is it totally arbitrary? If so, I'd say this isn't much of a principle to be premising an argument on.

what the fuck? I'm far more likely to be the dude smoking weed in public or asking the guy smoking in public to pass the j than to report them.

i'm honestly surprised by the number of people who would turn on their fellow student and report to a "dean" or a "proctor". I would much rather confront the student about their actions than run to some authority figure for guidance. I can't fathom a circumstance where I would side with the law school administration against a student, unless they committed a violent crime or sexual assault or something in which case I'd be the first person urging expulsion. But this pansy ass shit? it's low

You'd confront them? What happens when someone else reports them, and this other person didn't confront them?

I don't think I would confront them unless I was close with them either way. but if I was going to make a stink about it and it really mattered to me enough, I'd go to the student first and treat them like an adult before consulting the admins.

[03152016]

lol at breaking out the violins for some dumbfuck copying exam answers

[FKASunny]

I'd go to the student first and treat them like an adult

This seems to be a quality a ton of law students lack

[AReasonableMan]

I'd go to the student first and treat them like an adult

This seems to be a quality a ton of law students lack

I think most people would do this if they were friends with the student. You are incurring risk by confronting them. If someone reports them and you're the only person who confronted them, they are going to make a deduction.

[B.B. Homemaker]

I can't tell which side is actually the holier in this debate.

(fwiw, I didn't say anything about a bro playing very fast and loose with the rules during my exam yesterday. He's a shithead, but also probably one with so little confidence in his ability to do well given a level playing field that he's willing to risk it. Either he'll get caught one day or continue being dumb until he can't hide it anymore, either of which I'm okay with.)

[jbagelboy]

Either he'll get caught one day or continue being dumb until he can't hide it anymore, either of which I'm okay with

exactly!

[sublime]

..

[jbagelboy]

I can't tell which side is actually the holier in this debate.

(fwiw, I didn't say anything about a bro playing very fast and loose with the rules during my exam yesterday. He's a shithead, but also probably one with so little confidence in his ability to do well given a level playing field that he's willing to risk it. Either he'll get caught one day or continue being dumb until he can't hide it anymore, either of which I'm okay with.)

What did they do?

Last year our con law prof said no outlines but what you would write in good faith while reading the text in the margins is ok. Some people played pretty fast and loose with that.

if we include what people bring to the exam under the "cheating" umbrella, it would encompass like a third of the class. profs always say only bring your own outline but esp for 2Ls/3Ls I always see previous year's outlines from the public drives. hell, I've seen people on TLS advise and encourage each other to find outlines all the time from different non-self generated sources

[sublime]

..