Re: Re[5]: Ethics of Creativity vs. Theft

Jeffrey R Galin (galin+@PITT.EDU)
Tue, 6 Aug 1996 16:38:07 -0400

You sly dog, you. Seems to me that Mick's quiz process openly
invited the kind of thing that this student did. This is what I
interpret "said teacher" to mean below. The fact that the quiz was not a
one-shot deal, where everone turned in a test at the same time and that
it was an "open web" test, all suggest to me that Mick was inviting
(though not explicitly looking for) what this student did. And students
need to be aware that the test situation they were offered was
dramatically different from the typical process where the lines of
cheating are much more defined.

I don't know about anyone else, but I always pilfer script from other
websites. That is how I learned html and how I continue to bring
innovative elements into my scripting. Why should we expect students to
memorize features that we ourselves don't bother to memorize?
Furthermore, why should we test our students in ways that don't reflect
common practice?

Mick, I'm convinced that this student should get the benefit of
the doubt. Whether the others students agree democratically or not, you
left open this door, and this student took advantage of it. He has got
my A and has taught the class a lesson in common practice.


On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Mick Doherty wrote:

> Let's just consider for a moment the possibility that said teacher
> (and author of said quiz) left the instructinos intentionally vague
> precisely to see what the students *would* do ...
> That would imply that, instead, that said teacher was not "assuming"
> traditional definitions, but was doing quite the opposte and assuming
> *nothing* ...
> mick@rpi
> "said teacher"