Why I will never pursue cheating again

Indeed. The stress associated with individual confrontations is orders of magnitudes higher than the stress associated with giving a general anti-cheating lecture.

This was my dissertation back in '92. Thought you'd get a kick out of it. It was fun ... dice/red cups/randomization. I totally agree with your position and loved your New assignments. Good luck and congratulations on your tenured position. Sunny Mathews Title: ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE: AN APPLICATION OF THE RANDOMIZED RESPONSE TECHNIQUE Author(s): MATHEWS, SARAE SUSAN Degree: ED.D. Year: 1992 Pages: 00088 Institution: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI; 0125 Advisor: Supervisor: GILBERT CUEVAS Source: DAI, 54, no. 01A, (1992): 0067 Abstract: The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which cheating behaviors occur among mathematic students at a community college. The study was conducted at the Kendall Campus of Miami-Dade Community College, during the Winter term, 1992.

A pilot study compared the reported rate of cheating among 47 upper-level mathematics students and 46 mathematically underprepared students using direct questioning and the randomized response technique. The forced alternative randomized response technique was employed to assess attitudes held about cheating and to estimate reported rates of cheating among 298 community college mathematics students. Factors related to cheating such as age, gender, birthplace, religiosity, membership in a religious organization, involvement in extracurricular activities, and self-perception of honesty were also explored. Hypotheses were tested using chi square tests of independence, frequency distributions, z-tests for significance, and a randomized response formula.

The estimated percent of mathematics students who report that they cheated while attending M-DCC was 31%. The forced alternative randomized response technique was found to have utility in a group setting. Direct questioning underestimated the reported rate of cheating; however, differences were not statistically significant.

Upper-level mathematics students reported they cheated at the same rate as mathematically underprepared students. Calculus students were less likely to report someone for cheating. Males, students under 25 years old, and students born abroad also agreed that reporting cheating was worse than actually cheating. Students who reported they had cheated were more likely to be formally affiliated with a religious organization. Reported rate of cheating was inversely related to self-perception of honesty. Students over 25 years of age were the least likely to cheat.

Recommendations included: further investigation of the randomized response technique, particularly where the actual incidence of the sensitive behavior can be determined and compared with the estimated proportions; a comparison of cheating behaviors and attitudes among younger students and older students; and research to clarify the relationship between cheating and religiosity.

I think you are reading, look at what they made me do into a situation better described by look at the impact of my emotional reaction to this course of action.

The first paints you as a helpless victim of circumstances. The second one takes responsibility for ones poor actions, and charts a course to do better in the future.

There is a world of difference between the two.

The weirdest thing in all of this is the relation between artificially boosted grades and increased pay for the teacher. This also appears to be the root of the problem.

Well, I look like an idiot now. That's what I get for not going back to reread an article before making a claim about what it says, I suppose.