Words: 2514
From Charles Lollipop’s book Doing Honest Work in College: How to Prepare Citations, Avoid Plagiarism, and Achieve Real Academic Success, published by the University of Chicago Press in Chicago in 2004. Academic hones,’ boils down to three simple but powerful principles: U When you say you did the work yourself, you actually did it. When you rely on someone else’s work, you cite it. When you use their words, you quote them openly and accurately, and you cite them, too. When you present research materials, you present them fairly and truthfully.
That’s true whether the research involves data, documents, or the writings of other scholars. These are the bedrock principles, easy to remember and follow. They apply to all your classes, labs, papers, and exams. They apply to everyone in the university, from freshmen to professors. They re not just principles for students. They’re principles for academic honesty across the entire university. (Page 3) Text 2. From the book Cheating in School: What We Know and What We Can Do, by Stephen F. Davis, Patrick F. Adrian, and Iatric Bertram Gallant. Published in 2009 by Wiley-Blackwell in Chester, U. K. , and Malden, MA. Cheating can be defined as deceiving or depriving by trickery, defrauding, misleading or fooling another. When we talk about student cheating, academic cheating, or academic misconduct, we are referring to acts committed by students that deceive, mislead, or fool the teacher into thinking that the academic work submitted by the student was a student’s own work. Academic cheating deprives the teacher of the ability to evaluate a students independent knowledge and abilities, as well as his or her progress in the class.
Sometimes academic misconduct deprives the student of the learning opportunity intended by the teacher who created the academic assignment. And systematic and unaddressed academic cheating defrauds the public who alive that academic diplomas or degrees signify a certain level of accomplishment by the students who possess them. (Pages 2-3) Students who persistently and uniformly complete their academic assignments in ways that shortcut effort and garner unfair advantage will learn habits of a cheating character.
These children may eventually grow up to take shortcuts in life as a way to achieve personal goals, like the baseball player who takes steroids in order to beat an existing batting record or the business executive who “cooks the books” in order to artificially increase shareholder value. The Enron -6 scandal of the early twenty-first century shows that cheaters do not just hurt themselves; they can ruin businesses, create financial and economic insecurities, and cause harm to thousands of bystanders. Page 7) As the following examples of cheating on tests indicate, students have been quick to make use of technological advances to assist them in academically dishonest pursuits. 0 Student respondents reported that the popularity of programmable calculators skyrocketed when they discovered that these devices could send messages (such as answers to test questions) from one calculator to another. Several students have used the miniature camera-pager technique. In this procedure, one student takes a miniature camera into the testing situation.
The camera may be worn as part Of a piece Of jewelry (women) or part Of a fraternity pin (men), and so forth. The student uses the camera to send a picture of the test to an outside accomplice. The accomplice looks up the answers to the test questions and sends them via an alphanumeric pager to the student taking the test. Students have made effective use of miniature computers to aid their academically dishonest pursuits. For example, a absentia number of cheaters report that they have taped a Palm Pilot computer to their leg before taking an exam.
Because they wore baggy shorts to the exam, all they had to do to access the computer (I. E. , test answers) was to raise the leg of their shorts. Currently, the most blatant use of technology involves the use of cell phones. Tessellating provides students with an easy way they can share answers during a test. (Page 98) We maintain there are two primary methods for deterring student cheating in the long term and creating a culture of integrity: moral development, armorial of students and teachers, and the institutionalizing of integrity in educational organizations. Page 133) If we wish to convey academic integrity as the “right” choice of action, then, we have to work to ensure that not only are the costs high for choosing academic misconduct but the benefits are higher for choosing academic integrity. In other words, academic integrity has to be profitable for the individual student, teacher and the institution as a whole. Perhaps the most effective way to increase the perceived profitability of academic integrity is through eliciting the help of the very people the dents think want the high grades-?colleges, employers, and graduate/ professional schools.
If high school students cheat for college, then colleges need to make it profitable for students to repudiate cheating and advocate academic integrity. If college students cheat for careers, then employers and graduate/professional schools need to make it profitable for colleges to repudiate cheating and advocate academic integrity. (Pages 145-46) Text 3. From a magazine article entitled “The great university cheating scandal,” by Cathy Gull, Nicholas Koehler, and Martin Patrician, published on the website Manacles. (sponsored by Manacle’s Magazine) on February 9, 2007, and accessed December 26, 2010. The numbers on academic misconduct at both Canadian and American post-secondary institutions are startling. The [University of] Gulp report puts the percentage of Canadian 3-6 students engaging in serious cheating on written work at 53 per cent. In the U. S. , according to some studies, 70 per cent of students admit to cheating in one form or another.
Universities, apparently not convinced that cheating has reached crisis proportions, offer little but token antiquarianism policies and ineffective ethics campaigns to assuage critics. Professors, meanwhile, are not effective at policing their classrooms. In one U. S. Survey, 44 per cent Of profs said they had not reported a student caught cheating to officials during the three years prior to participating in the study. When put into historical context, the numbers for academic integrity across North America show cheating is on a steady rise.
U. S. Research conducted by Donald L. McCabe, a business professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, comparing students in 1963 and 1993, shows the percentage of those admitting to copying from a classmate doubled to 52 per cent; those porting having helped another student cheat jumped to 37 per cent from 23 per cent; and that the use of crib notes in test and exam settings increased to over a quarter from 16 per cent. The advent of the Internet has only accelerated the trend. While 10 per cent of U. S. dents surveyed in 1999 confessed to yanking whole passages from the Web to write their papers, almost 40 per cent admitted to the practice six years later, according to Menace’s research. Other Web-based services include the so-called “paper mills” hawking custom-made essays by ghostwriters with proven records for scoring high grades. The numbers attached to instances of Internet-related cheating and indeed to cheating of all kinds are likely under-reported. “What could be happening now is that it’s becoming so commonplace among students that it’s not cheating now it’s just a way to survive the system,” says McCabe. Text 4.
From a newspaper article entitled “CUFF cheating scandal: 200 students step forward,” by Denies-Marie Balboa, published on November 12, 2010, in the Orlando Sentinel. Accessed on the newspapers website, Relationally. Com, on December 23, 2010. About 200 students at the University of Central Florida have come forward to admit their involvement in a cheating scandal that has drawn national attention, college officials announced Friday evening. This represents roughly one-third of the nearly 600 students who had to retake a mid-term this week for a senior-level business course after an instructor was tipped off to cheating.
Although cheaters typically face disciplinary action, CUFF instructor Richard Quinn worked out a deal with the business dean to allow his students to finish the course if they owned up to their mistake before a different exam was administered this week. The 200 or so students who confessed will be squired to complete an ethics seminar, although college officials have not yet worked out the details of when and how that seminar will be offered. It’s still unclear what will happen to about 15 others who have not admitted their involvement.
The university is still trying to figure out how students acquired the test questions. It appears they accessed them online somehow, said CUFF spokesman Grant Weston. Quinn, Weston acknowledged, did not write his own questions for the test. Citing an ongoing investigation, he could not say whether the questions were publicly accessible online. Publishers often rate exam questions from their textbooks that are made available to instructors and professors. And 4-6 sometimes those questions end up on websites.
In this case, Quinn’s test questions came from the publisher of the textbook used in his class, Weston said. One Sentinel reader blamed both the students and the professor: “These students knew their professor well. They know he has been using the same resource for test questions for years. They took advantage of his shortcomings. ” Text 5. From an online article entitled “A Formula for Cheating: Big Schools, Weak Community,” by David Callahan, published on the website Gesticulating on November 10, 2010, and accessed on December 26, 2010.
The website is edited by David Callahan. CT]he scope of cheating varies widely across different schools. Small colleges with a focus on the liberal arts and a strong campus community tend to have less cheating, while large universities that are professionally oriented and filled with commuter students tend to have more. This makes sense. If you know your fellow students and professors, and if you’re focused on learning as an end in itself, you’ll fret more about violating the trust of others and see little point in cheating in your rouses.
In contrast, people feel more license to cut corners in anonymous settings and, when a degree is simply a meal ticket, tend to take a more instrumental and less ethical approach to their education. By this logic, it should come as no surprise that the biggest cheating scandal this year would erupt at the University of Central Florida, a mammoth school with 56,000 students many of whom live off campus, attend huge classes, and are pursuing utilitarian degrees in fields like business and hospitality.
Cheating is now deeply embedded in many universities and is fueled by the economic insecurity of our age, with young people deeply worried about their futures. Another driver is the me-first culture of American society, where extreme individualism reigns and it can be hard to get through with messages about the common good. Text 6. From David Callahan book The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead, published by Harcourt in Orlando in 2004. Most academic cheating does, in fact, go unpunished.
A consistent finding of the research on academic cheating is that there are few consequences for those suspected of cheating. In a 1999 survey of 1 ,OHO casualty at twenty-one colleges, a third of professors said they were aware of cheating in their classes but didn’t stop it. Likewise, in an earlier survey of student-affairs administrators in colleges across the united States, 60 percent reported that faculty at their schools tended to handle incidents of cheating independently and not subject student violations to formal disciplinary action.
Many professors would rather let cheaters slide than take on the bureaucratic hassles of pursuing disciplinary actions. Others were afraid of lawsuits filed by the parents Of cheaters. (Page 229) Cheating involving athletes is also widely tolerated at universities. School athletics departments are awash in scandal, including cash bribers to recruit high school athletes and flunking 5-6 athletes who are still allowed to compete on the playing field. Cheating coaches and top athletes are let off the hook again and again.
Schools are put on probation one year, only to violate the rules again the next year. Professors who try to enforce academic rules against athletes find themselves receiving hate mail and obscene phone calls. (Pages 232-33) Text 7. From the book Combating Academic Fraud: Toward a Culture of Integrity, by Max A. Cistern, published in 2003 by the International Institute for Educational planning, in Paris. Accessed on the website Of UNESCO on December 29, 2010. [why they cheat] Students usually cheat because of concern about their performance.
They are prompted by anxiety about their capacity to produce acceptable work, by fear of failure, by the demands and pressures made on them by such external sources as parents and teachers, and the importance of the results of their efforts for their future. They cheat because they are ill – prepared. They cheat because they have not learned the rules of honest behavior, or to comprehend its longer-term value, or to appreciate the negative results of dishonesty for themselves and the society they live in. Some assert that cheating is part of a student sub-culture: they do it for fun and because their peers do it.
There do not appear to be any victims of misconduct and the consequences are usually not serious. Moreover, as students, they believe, possibly correctly, that academic dishonesty is rarely detected or punished. Cheating is becoming so common (and so easy with the help of the Internet) that not to do so is to put oneself at a disadvantage. (Pages 4344) Competition for a limited number of valued prizes is a primary cause of cheating in examinations as well as other forms of academic fraud. The rewards for success in examinations and for degrees or other professional qualifications are considerable, in some instances, inestimable.
To the extent that the process of gaining these prizes is a competitive one, and It usually is, the temptation to obtain the rewards illegitimately is great. But the value of academic success and qualifications is not limited to educational advancement alone. It is accompanied by the prospect of improved status, power, and influence. (Pages 44-45) Ambiguity and lack of clarity about what constitutes cheating adds to the array of causes of academic fraud. Nowhere is this more evident than in cases of plagiarism. The very concept is a problematic one for many individuals and some cultures.
To cite the words or ideas of others, even without acknowledgment, may be regarded as a gesture of respect. The conventional concept is that knowledge is a communal possession, constantly built up over time, and is a view that teachers and researchers foster and promote. That ideas or words can belong to any one individual seems strange to some and the concept that they may be considered as individual intellectual property is a relatively recent one. (Pages 49-50) The social costs [of cheating] in such sectors as schooling, medicine, and administration, are incalculable. The financial costs are considerable too.