591–600 of 748 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I've had acquaintances who believed cheating made them smarter than non-cheaters
In a sense, I'm in that category because I paid for zero textbooks. Instead I photocopied them at the library. I imagine if I had to I would have probably paid for them. By the laws of the land I'm a cheater. And so be it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And, importantly, there's no reason whatsoever to think that if no cheating was allowed and a different person took the job, that they would on average be any better. I think there is plenty of reason to think people who actually know the stuff instead of cheating would be better on average. It's a signal that they were smart enough and motivated enough to learn the material (basic algorithms/coding skills in this…
If someone can just look it up, digest information in X minutes and come up with the same answer, then why does it matter that they didn't memorize it in the first place? Presumably I'm hiring an expensive problem-solver with good judgment here, accumulation of past knowledge beyond some basic level of competence is useful, but secondary. Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself. The best…
But this is usually not possible- it's contingent on other people having already solved and posted solutions online for some question worded nearly the same. Much of the knowledge behind interview questions applies to all sorts of programming problems where the solution won't be available to copy. A knowledgeable programmer would know quickly that some problem is best approached by dfs or bfs, while the cheater may not.
> Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself
I agree, but this will always be a hard process. LC problems are like IQ test or SATs, they work fairly well most of the time, but probably better to weed out the particularly weak candidates than determine how good people truly are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am from India, and I just recently completed my Masters from a US university. I have never cheated in my life when it comes to interviews, exams, or assignments; not once. I am worried that calling us “low-trust” because of your experience with a few students might lead others to think that the entire country that is so diverse and large is comprised of just an incompetent set of cheaters. I agree that a lot of stu…
I'm glad you've never cheated, and hope this becomes more common in the future. But you're fighting an uphill battle to expect people not to possess prejudices based on what is statistically likely. People will believe the evidence of their eyes. The most you can hope is that people not act on their prejudices before getting to know you. And, as unfair as it is that you can't change it, you'll have to find ways to li…
It is absolutely reasonable to ask people to reconsider their prejudices. Your line of thought does nothing but reinforce people’s existing biases without leaving room for the nuance of social context. Racists misuse statistics all the time to justify their awfulness. Consider whether you’re really different from any of those people. Or do I just need to get to know you more?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This contradicts what we read here about cheating being very often tolerated in higher education institutions in the US, because money. Usually I try including at least a few links, but in this case I think anybody who has read these threads right here on HN should remember those numerous posts and discussions? I remember comments from educators who wanted to do something but the higher-ups prevented it, for example,…
As someone born and raised in Romania, I can 100% confirm what the above poster was saying for Romania as well. Even if cheating may be widespread through corruption and other means in the States, it is at least theoretically treated much more seriously. The worse penalty possible for cheating (IF you get caught and IF the teacher/professor even cares, which was not by any means universal) is getting a grade of 1 (ou…
My impression from reading HN, where the topic came up numerous times over the years, was that that is not so. See the link I presented as example, I saw a lot such stories, right here in the discussions, but also in some articles. Not just the US, I also remember similar anecdotes about management preventing punishment from Canada even when a professor initially tried to do something.
If it is not representative I apologize, I go by what I read mostly here, and it was a lot over the years.
There certainly seems to be an official stance against cheating, e.g. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=201609211...
It's just that I saw so many stories from or about educators who tried and it went like in that link I included, especially when many students were caught.
"Why Professors Don’t Do More to Stop Students Who Cheat" - https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-professors-dont-do-mor...
> Some who have tried say that administrators, fearful of lawsuits, don’t back them up
> “In the majority of cases of trivial cheating, I think most professors turn a blind eye,” says Donald L. McCabe, the associate provost for campus development at Rutgers University at Newark, who has studied the issue. “The number who do nothing is very small, but the number who do very little is very large.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So when was this? When European businesses were exploiting the “new world”? When plantation owners were employing slaves? When robber barons were exploiting people and polluting the environment? The “greed is good” 80s? VCs throwing money at startups that they know will never be profitable waiting for the “greater fool”?
Before globalization, even before the industrial revolution. The agriculture revolution has been a disaster for the human race. Or at least the individuals within it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Business has always been about the greater benefit. Not solely (or primarily, from the business owner's perspective) about that, of course, but that aspect is the entire reason why government puts so much time, effort, and money into supporting business activities. If business is not at least in part about the greater benefit, then we need to stop wasting so many resources supporting it.
So when was this? When European businesses were exploiting the “new world”? When plantation owners were employing slaves? When robber barons were exploiting people and polluting the environment? The “greed is good” 80s? VCs throwing money at startups that they know will never be profitable waiting for the “greater fool”?
Plantations is a bit vague but to assume Cotton; people benefited tremendously from cheaper clothes. A lot of the early industrial revolution was weaving machines which wouldn't be possible without a lot of cotton.
Robber barons is a bit vague but to assume railroads; people benefited tremendously from trade. Our cities are built with a lot of materials that aren't locally sourced.
---
Things have trade-offs but to say there were nothing positive about something that has negatives is very dishonest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a very well studied decline in trust in America over time. Despite your snark no one claimed we never cheated etc. It's just getting much worse
I wonder if Americans' history of seeing cheating as dishonorable grew from our roots in Puritanism, where principle always trumps pragmatism. If so, then perhaps our ongoing devaluation of principles (and our rising mistrust in others to act honorably) is caused by the erosion of those roots as the American middle class has fallen on harder times, concluding that "the rules of the game have changed" and the old mant…
The Old Testament also offers an approach to dealing with rampant cheating in society: trust in God to provide you with what you need. It's not an exact match for classmates cheating, but David had to deal with a literal existential crisis by a king who believed falsehoods about him, and dealt with it by trusting God and refusing to kill the king (that is, using the king's methods to secure himself). Many of the psalms appear to record the emotional process he went through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone born and raised in Romania, I can 100% confirm what the above poster was saying for Romania as well. Even if cheating may be widespread through corruption and other means in the States, it is at least theoretically treated much more seriously. The worse penalty possible for cheating (IF you get caught and IF the teacher/professor even cares, which was not by any means universal) is getting a grade of 1 (ou…
> it is at least theoretically treated much more seriously. My impression from reading HN, where the topic came up numerous times over the years, was that that is not so. See the link I presented as example, I saw a lot such stories, right here in the discussions, but also in some articles. Not just the US, I also remember similar anecdotes about management preventing punishment from Canada even when a professor init…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am from India, and I just recently completed my Masters from a US university. I have never cheated in my life when it comes to interviews, exams, or assignments; not once. I am worried that calling us “low-trust” because of your experience with a few students might lead others to think that the entire country that is so diverse and large is comprised of just an incompetent set of cheaters. I agree that a lot of stu…
Not OP, but to be clear, "low trust society" has a specific sociological meaning relating to interpersonal trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_socie... It doesn't mean that individuals from that society are less trustworthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. I maybe unfairly characterized both "dishonesty" and "nepotism" as a display of lack of integrity (by the Western definition, which tends to bias toward meritocratic values). “Dishonest” from the standpoint of deviating from the social contract of unbiased and meritocratic hiring.
I don't see nepotism as being dishonest. It may be unseemly or unfair (or not, depending on culture), but it's not dishonest.
My point being, in the U.S. there is an agreement (implicit or explicit, depending on the context) that hiring will be fair, above board, and based on meritocratic principles. Nepotism undermines this and is, in the distinction I was trying to draw, dishonest from the standpoint that an organization will say one thing ("We hire based on merit") and do another ("We hire based on connections"). Other cultures do not necessarily play this game and make it quite well known that you will be hired based on your network above most else.