The trajectory of cheating, in my experience, mirrors the general cultural malaise in which we now find ourselves. Twenty or so years ago I recall a final year student submitting an exceptional essay on ‘Sons and Lovers’ that, in its stylistic felicity and depth of analysis, was on par with a seasoned mid twentieth century academic criti…
The trajectory of cheating, in my experience, mirrors the general cultural malaise in which we now find ourselves. Twenty or so years ago I recall a final year student submitting an exceptional essay on ‘Sons and Lovers’ that, in its stylistic felicity and depth of analysis, was on par with a seasoned mid twentieth century academic critic. Parental involvement was the suspicion. Since then I have read many pieces of work produced by students that was either demonstrably plagiarised, or at least raised serious suspicions - and that without the aid of so-called plagiarism checkers. In this time frame the actual quality of the prose produced by cheaters has declined from the stylistic and analytical rigour that one occasionally encountered to the bloodless superficiality of more recent times - the sort of stuff that any teacher or professor can spot from fifty feet, if they know their students and are alert to the formulaic features of writing produced by plagiarism factories and algorithms. But who has the time or the resources? We all do if we make the effort and are prepared to take a stand. Viva voce presentations, class based examinations and hand written - yes, hand written - essays - under supervised conditions suggest themselves. To pretend we can do anything less, or must somehow adapt to using the emerging AI as an educationalist academic here in Australia recently suggested, will make us as culpable as Bradbury’s Chief Beattie in the achievement and maintenance of the ultimate philistinism.
Likewise with examinations. Last year I marked online psychology examinations in Australia. I was alarmed to detect that a cluster of my allocated papers contained word for word responses to two questions that were lifted from a text book. I report this, but was not informed of the ultimate outcome. I suspect - and this is the disturbing part - that no serious penalty ensued because heaven forbid it painted the examination authority in a negative light.
The trajectory of cheating, in my experience, mirrors the general cultural malaise in which we now find ourselves. Twenty or so years ago I recall a final year student submitting an exceptional essay on ‘Sons and Lovers’ that, in its stylistic felicity and depth of analysis, was on par with a seasoned mid twentieth century academic critic. Parental involvement was the suspicion. Since then I have read many pieces of work produced by students that was either demonstrably plagiarised, or at least raised serious suspicions - and that without the aid of so-called plagiarism checkers. In this time frame the actual quality of the prose produced by cheaters has declined from the stylistic and analytical rigour that one occasionally encountered to the bloodless superficiality of more recent times - the sort of stuff that any teacher or professor can spot from fifty feet, if they know their students and are alert to the formulaic features of writing produced by plagiarism factories and algorithms. But who has the time or the resources? We all do if we make the effort and are prepared to take a stand. Viva voce presentations, class based examinations and hand written - yes, hand written - essays - under supervised conditions suggest themselves. To pretend we can do anything less, or must somehow adapt to using the emerging AI as an educationalist academic here in Australia recently suggested, will make us as culpable as Bradbury’s Chief Beattie in the achievement and maintenance of the ultimate philistinism.
Likewise with examinations. Last year I marked online psychology examinations in Australia. I was alarmed to detect that a cluster of my allocated papers contained word for word responses to two questions that were lifted from a text book. I report this, but was not informed of the ultimate outcome. I suspect - and this is the disturbing part - that no serious penalty ensued because heaven forbid it painted the examination authority in a negative light.