Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons • Hacker News Board

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#51

Post by chucksmash » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 6:47 PM UTC

hnnewguy wrote: post #45

chucksmash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a natural consequence of society......" You could use this justification to rationalize any sort of unethical behavior you like. Embezzlement is a natural consequence of society putting a huge value on owning a Benz and other dullard measures of achievement! That is to say, I disagree wholeheartedly.

> You could use this justification to rationalize any sort of unethical behavior you like. It isn't a justification; it's an explanation. Because, I agree: if there wasn't such a societal emphasis on material goods (ie the Benz), there would be less embezzlement.

If the statement was only given as a reason why cheating is prevalent nowadays it would be an explanation.

To take the next step and use that explanation to rationalize one's own cheating makes it is a justification (or rationalization, whichever you prefer).

GP certainly used it as his justification.

> Because, I agree: if there wasn't such a societal emphasis on material goods (ie the Benz), there would be less embezzlement.

Noting that that relationship might exist is entirely different from saying "this relationship exists therefore I shall embezzle."

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#52

Post by john_b » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

littletimmy wrote: post #33

chucksmash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think you are automatically entitled to a good job straight out of college? Your reply vis-a-vis a Mercedes vs lifetime earnings seems to imply that you are willing to sell your integrity for some value x: $(Benz - Toyota) < x <= ~$2,000,000 (spread out over a lifetime). I'm a bit incredulous that your reply was basically that the only reason you would act ethically in my hypothetical situation was because…

I don't think one is entitled to a good job straight out of college. I do, however, think that in a marketplace saturated by unfairness (berkowitz's dad is a partner let's hire him) and bullshit (jump through these hoops to make us like you), one is entitled to employ any and all effort necessary to further one's interests.

> "one is entitled to employ any and all effort necessary to further one's interests"

This is a classic mentality of victimization. By focusing on the theoretical harm that been done to the extent of all other considerations, you can justify anything. It's a dangerous mentality that has resulted in many evils throughout history. Hell, this is the same justification ISIS originally used when recruiting Sunnis who were tired of corruption and discrimination at the hands of the Shia Iraqi government, only with the economic context replaced by a political one.

A more mature ethical position would recognize that in some environments, while evil has been done which harms or disadvantages you, the strategy of employing "any and all effort necessary to further one's interests" is likely what gave the advantage to those who have allegedly disadvantaged you. If you successfully follow through with this attitude you'll likely perpetuate a cycle.

If you are going to cheat, break rules, or whatever you should do so because those rules or prohibitions have little or no moral and social value in the context in which they exist. If GPA is just a meaningless filter enabling incompetent HR departments at BigCo to trim down their resume pile, then sure, game the system to your advantage. But don't draw the conclusion that you are morally entitled to do whatever it takes to promote your own interests. That path leads to psychopathy.

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#53

Post by kachnuv_ocasek » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

hnnewguy wrote: post #45

chucksmash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a natural consequence of society......" You could use this justification to rationalize any sort of unethical behavior you like. Embezzlement is a natural consequence of society putting a huge value on owning a Benz and other dullard measures of achievement! That is to say, I disagree wholeheartedly.

> You could use this justification to rationalize any sort of unethical behavior you like. It isn't a justification; it's an explanation. Because, I agree: if there wasn't such a societal emphasis on material goods (ie the Benz), there would be less embezzlement.

What if it's the other way around: Individual emphasis on material goods the whole society to appear as such?

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#54

Post by hurin » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

cpwright wrote: post #49

hurin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. > Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence. I'm going to argue the opposing part for a bit here: So OP's response should be (something along these lines): HA, there you admit it's putting up with bullshit! But if it's bullshit what's wrong…

> In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice? The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are th…

>The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve.

I'm not promoting cheating on tests - but.., I do think the value of a class is primarily in the education and not the grade; therefore in my opinion students aren't being cheated, because they all learn as much as they want to learn. Where as if the grade were the value - people should not have been forced into such a course in the first place! Although, obviously the system (or mostly employers) need some objective metrics for assessment and they have made them (perhaps poorly in some aspects but what systems aren't?)

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#55

Post by mannykannot » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 7:03 PM UTC

littletimmy wrote: post #34

pavel_lishin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that only harm you? Wouldn't you only be cheating yourself? I don't understand why your professors' interest in your personal learning would impact your own desire to learn. (Thinking about it a bit more, I can vaguely understand this if it's a required class that you have no actual interest in - an elective you had to take because all others were taken, or if you were retaking a class that you were already…

I understand the difference between our thoughts. Where we differ is that I think college is not a place of learning. In general, it is a sequence of hoops to sort out the labor force.

I learned a lot of interesting and useful things at college, and so did many of the other students. If your opinion is based on actual attendance at a college, it seems you had an unfortunate experience. If that experience was at a place focused on teaching to multiple-choice examinations, that could explain it.

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#56

Post by mannykannot » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 7:08 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #27

littletimmy wrote: post #12

Cheating is a natural consequence of society putting a huge value on grade-point-averages and other dullard measures of achievement. If I had to sit through a lecture room with 200 students (TWO HUNDRED!) and I was absolutely confident that the professor cannot possibly give a shit about my learning in this crowd, I too would cheat.

Wouldn't that only harm you? Wouldn't you only be cheating yourself? I don't understand why your professors' interest in your personal learning would impact your own desire to learn. (Thinking about it a bit more, I can vaguely understand this if it's a required class that you have no actual interest in - an elective you had to take because all others were taken, or if you were retaking a class that you were already…

Cheating harms every honest student, by casting doubt on their efforts and achievements.

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#57

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

potatoyogurt wrote: post #43

hashmymustache wrote: post #39

I'm surprised he didn't break it down to probabilities according to answer distributions instead of right vs wrong. For instance, given 2 questions with their answers and the percent of the class that answered for each choice: 1. A is the answer A - 60% B - 20% C - 5% D - 15% 2. C is the answer A - 10% B - 5% C - 70% D - 15% The probability of randomly selecting 2 students that both chose: - A and C (both correct) is…

That doesn't necessarily work because wrong answers can have natural correlations. Let's say you have two questions about finding a slope on an exam. Anyone who thinks that slope is change in x over change in y is going to get both of those questions wrong in the same way, even if those wrong answers are both individually rare. It would be really hard to distinguish between when these correlations are expected and wh…

[deleted]

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#58

Post by dubya » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 7:14 PM UTC

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #21

MollyR wrote: post #2

I don't particularly like the idea of harassing possibly innocent students. Innocent students might be under pressure with no proof of innocence, since they assumed to be guilty. They might do a cost/benefit analysis and admit guilt. Also if cheating is really such a concern, why not just handle it in a similar way to the american GRE's or SAT's ?

Based on the policies of the two universities at which I've taught, it seems like there's no possible benefit to admitting guilt. The only foolproof way to "convict" someone of cheating is to have (several) people witness/record the incident. If a student accused of cheating categorically denies everything, they're usually in the clear (although faculty will say nasty things in private).

This varies between schools. At my current school it's fairly straightforward to say "I saw this student looking at X's paper" and show that the answers are more similar than would be expected. Multiply choice would be harder of course, but free response or incorrect math calculations are pretty convincing. Students have recourse, but the appeals process here is not much work for the faculty member making the accusation until maybe the final level.

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#59

Post by littletimmy » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 7:18 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #55

littletimmy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the difference between our thoughts. Where we differ is that I think college is not a place of learning. In general, it is a sequence of hoops to sort out the labor force.

I learned a lot of interesting and useful things at college, and so did many of the other students. If your opinion is based on actual attendance at a college, it seems you had an unfortunate experience. If that experience was at a place focused on teaching to multiple-choice examinations, that could explain it.

It was actually at an ivy league school. But you're right in saying that I did have a bitter experience with college.

Re: Finding cheaters using multiple-choice comparisons

#60

Post by defen » Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 9:00 PM UTC

hurin wrote: post #46

defen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because apparently you need a 3.5+ from an ivy league school to model in excel It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence.

>> It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. > Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence. I'm going to argue the opposing part for a bit here: So OP's response should be (something along these lines): HA, there you admit it's putting up with bullshit! But if it's bullshit what's wrong…

You can't cheat once you're in the workplace (at least, not in the same "directly copy other people's work" or "look up the answers during the test" way). So if you cheat your way through school, you haven't really proven that you have what it takes to do the things your degree indicates.

To use the biology 101 example - if you can't spend 10 hours/week studying/learning material that you don't really care about and that is irrelevant to your life, how are you going to spend 60-80 hours a week doing that in your excel-modeling job?