HARVARD SUCKS

[KeithK]

I liked the following "An accused sophomore said that in working on exams, "everybody went to the T.F.'s and begged for help. Some of the T.F.'s really laid it out for you, as explicit as you need, so of course the answers were the same." "

That's my point, though. If the TF practice was to discuss the contents of an exam with the students, that's on the school for having a poorly explained (or enforced) policy regarding exams.

I'm inclined to agree with ugarte. I find it very hard to believe that 125 students all worked together on the exam (or in a series of interconnected groups). If it was 5 or 10 students, I would say they cheated, but 125 is just too high a number for me to accept that the professor or TF was not in any way responsible.

I can understand what you're saying and it makes a lot f sense.  On the other hand, Harvard has made a big enough deal out of this that they have attracted national, negative attention. I can easily imagine the prof making a stink and being unwilling to admit he might have made mistakes in instructions/whatever, but would the administration carry it this far along if there weren't some substance to the story?

Then again, the administration at Harvard sucks tyoo.

[ugarte]

I liked the following "An accused sophomore said that in working on exams, "everybody went to the T.F.'s and begged for help. Some of the T.F.'s really laid it out for you, as explicit as you need, so of course the answers were the same." "

That's my point, though. If the TF practice was to discuss the contents of an exam with the students, that's on the school for having a poorly explained (or enforced) policy regarding exams.

I'm inclined to agree with ugarte. I find it very hard to believe that 125 students all worked together on the exam (or in a series of interconnected groups). If it was 5 or 10 students, I would say they cheated, but 125 is just too high a number for me to accept that the professor or TF was not in any way responsible.

I can understand what you're saying and it makes a lot f sense.  On the other hand, Harvard has made a big enough deal out of this that they have attracted national, negative attention. I can easily imagine the prof making a stink and being unwilling to admit he might have made mistakes in instructions/whatever, but would the administration carry it this far along if there weren't some substance to the story?

Then again, the administration at Harvard sucks tyoo.

Yup.

[Towerroad]

I liked the following "An accused sophomore said that in working on exams, "everybody went to the T.F.'s and begged for help. Some of the T.F.'s really laid it out for you, as explicit as you need, so of course the answers were the same." "

That's my point, though. If the TF practice was to discuss the contents of an exam with the students, that's on the school for having a poorly explained (or enforced) policy regarding exams.

I'm inclined to agree with ugarte. I find it very hard to believe that 125 students all worked together on the exam (or in a series of interconnected groups). If it was 5 or 10 students, I would say they cheated, but 125 is just too high a number for me to accept that the professor or TF was not in any way responsible.

I can understand what you're saying and it makes a lot f sense.  On the other hand, Harvard has made a big enough deal out of this that they have attracted national, negative attention. I can easily imagine the prof making a stink and being unwilling to admit he might have made mistakes in instructions/whatever, but would the administration carry it this far along if there weren't some substance to the story?

Then again, the administration at Harvard sucks tyoo.

Yup.

The admin being a subset of Harvard would of course suck. The quesiton I have is if Harvard=Sucks, would it be appropriate for a Red
Sox fan to say "Yankees harvard!"? If so would it then be appropriate to say "Harvard harvards."?

[ugarte]

The more I read about the nature of the cheating the less I stand by my feeling that the students (as a group) are being railroaded. If people were cut-and-pasting material that was being shared, that's obviously bullshit. That isn't collaboration and consultation; it's closer to plagiarism.

[Towerroad]

The more I read about the nature of the cheating the less I stand by my feeling that the students (as a group) are being railroaded. If people were cut-and-pasting material that was being shared, that's obviously bullshit. That isn't collaboration and consultation; it's closer to plagiarism.

Are you suggesting that the suck at cheating too?

[madAgaskar07]

The more I read about the nature of the cheating the less I stand by my feeling that the students (as a group) are being railroaded. If people were cut-and-pasting material that was being shared, that's obviously bullshit. That isn't collaboration and consultation; it's closer to plagiarism.

Remember that 125 out of the 250 students have been accused. So while it is becoming clear that a subset of the accused committed serious, copy-paste-style infractions, it is very likely that others are being railroaded. If you have about 9 hours to spare, read the last 4-5 posts on Prof. Harry Lewis's blog http://harry-lewis.blogspot.com/. The relevant excerpt:

The course seems to have sent some mixed signals about the exam, with a TF holding office hours during the exam, in which students could hear each other's questions about their proposed answers, and the TF's responses.

Of course, the exam instructions were clear: No collaboration. But 60mph speed limit signs also could not be clearer. If you go 63 for an hour and people are passing you, and then you pass a speed trap and see that somebody who raced passed you at 75 has been pulled over, you get used to the idea that maybe you, everyone else, and the police all agree that 60mph signs don't literally mean what they say. It sounds to me like some students were going 75--they were cutting and pasting--and some of the other students who have been pulled in were going 63. Hopefully the Ad Board will respond in proportion, though I think those 63mph students have some justification for rolling their eyes about their culpability. Those who keep insisting that the students should be punished because the exam instructions were clear will, I trust, not complain if they are ticketed for driving 63, like everyone else,  in a 60mph zone.

[Trotsky]

"We're in trouble. I just checked with the guys at the Jewish house and they said that every one of our answers on the Psych test was wrong."

[Towerroad]

The more I read about the nature of the cheating the less I stand by my feeling that the students (as a group) are being railroaded. If people were cut-and-pasting material that was being shared, that's obviously bullshit. That isn't collaboration and consultation; it's closer to plagiarism.

Remember that 125 out of the 250 students have been accused. So while it is becoming clear that a subset of the accused committed serious, copy-paste-style infractions, it is very likely that others are being railroaded. If you have about 9 hours to spare, read the last 4-5 posts on Prof. Harry Lewis's blog http://harry-lewis.blogspot.com/. The relevant excerpt:

The course seems to have sent some mixed signals about the exam, with a TF holding office hours during the exam, in which students could hear each other's questions about their proposed answers, and the TF's responses.

Of course, the exam instructions were clear: No collaboration. But 60mph speed limit signs also could not be clearer. If you go 63 for an hour and people are passing you, and then you pass a speed trap and see that somebody who raced passed you at 75 has been pulled over, you get used to the idea that maybe you, everyone else, and the police all agree that 60mph signs don't literally mean what they say. It sounds to me like some students were going 75--they were cutting and pasting--and some of the other students who have been pulled in were going 63. Hopefully the Ad Board will respond in proportion, though I think those 63mph students have some justification for rolling their eyes about their culpability. Those who keep insisting that the students should be punished because the exam instructions were clear will, I trust, not complain if they are ticketed for driving 63, like everyone else,  in a 60mph zone.

Clearly Prof. Lewis has never driven in Cayuga Heights.

I believe that his argument boils down to "Oh I guess it is ok to cheat a little but not a lot and it is really bad form to get caught"

I think this is a compelling case for doing away with exams at Harvard. They clearly have no impact on grades. For that matter why go through the whole expensive and cumbersom process of holding classes that is so 20th century.

[Beeeej]

I believe that his argument boils down to "Oh I guess it is ok to cheat a little but not a lot and it is really bad form to get caught"

No, I believe his argument is closer to "Those who only slightly broke the rules and/or didn't realize they were breaking them shouldn't be expelled alongside the worst offenders, they should be given something more like a slap on the wrist."

[ugarte]

The more I read about the nature of the cheating the less I stand by my feeling that the students (as a group) are being railroaded. If people were cut-and-pasting material that was being shared, that's obviously bullshit. That isn't collaboration and consultation; it's closer to plagiarism.

Remember that 125 out of the 250 students have been accused. So while it is becoming clear that a subset of the accused committed serious, copy-paste-style infractions, it is very likely that others are being railroaded. If you have about 9 hours to spare, read the last 4-5 posts on Prof. Harry Lewis's blog http://harry-lewis.blogspot.com/. The relevant excerpt:

The course seems to have sent some mixed signals about the exam, with a TF holding office hours during the exam, in which students could hear each other's questions about their proposed answers, and the TF's responses.

Of course, the exam instructions were clear: No collaboration. But 60mph speed limit signs also could not be clearer. If you go 63 for an hour and people are passing you, and then you pass a speed trap and see that somebody who raced passed you at 75 has been pulled over, you get used to the idea that maybe you, everyone else, and the police all agree that 60mph signs don't literally mean what they say. It sounds to me like some students were going 75--they were cutting and pasting--and some of the other students who have been pulled in were going 63. Hopefully the Ad Board will respond in proportion, though I think those 63mph students have some justification for rolling their eyes about their culpability. Those who keep insisting that the students should be punished because the exam instructions were clear will, I trust, not complain if they are ticketed for driving 63, like everyone else,  in a 60mph zone.

Clearly Prof. Lewis has never driven in Cayuga Heights.

I believe that his argument boils down to "Oh I guess it is ok to cheat a little but not a lot and it is really bad form to get caught"

That's unfair. His argument boils down to "if the TA answers a question you asked, maybe you shouldn't be punished for listening".

[marty]

I believe that his argument boils down to "Oh I guess it is ok to cheat a little but not a lot and it is really bad form to get caught"

No, I believe his argument is closer to "Those who only slightly broke the rules and/or didn't realize they were breaking them shouldn't be expelled alongside the worst offenders, they should be given something more like a slap on the wrist."

Rather than a slap on the wrist I think it would be appropriate for those found to be less deceitful to have to wear "The Scarlet Letter".

[Towerroad]

I believe that his argument boils down to "Oh I guess it is ok to cheat a little but not a lot and it is really bad form to get caught"

No, I believe his argument is closer to "Those who only slightly broke the rules and/or didn't realize they were breaking them shouldn't be expelled alongside the worst offenders, they should be given something more like a slap on the wrist."

Rather than a slap on the wrist I think it would be appropriate for those found to be less deceitful to have to wear "The Scarlet Letter".

But at Harvard everyone gets an "A"

[ursusminor]

"We're in trouble. I just checked with the guys at the Jewish house and they said that every one of our answers on the Psych test was wrong."

That can't be. How can there be a Jewish house if Harvard doesn't admit Jews?

[BMac]

A. sucks sucks

B. I swear there's a veritas joke in here somewhere. Someone clever should figure it out.

C. You even suck at cheating! You even suck at cheating!

D. You're so bad you can't win despite knowing the answer!

E.
INSTIGATOR: "Hey (captain whose name I'm too lazy to go back and look up)! Professor such-and-such called and he said:"

CROWD: "you suck!"

INSTIGATOR: Actually, he said you've been caught cheating and will be asked to take a leave of absence.

CROWD: "you suck! (pause) AT CHEATING!
You suck at cheating!
You suck at cheating!"

F. Hey [captain], when they brought you in as a prefrosh and introduced you to some current players as role models, they didn't mean Kyle Richter!

[billhoward]

[clear]
Photographed near Palo Alto by a friend, Nathan Papadopulos. Next stop, Cambridge.