• randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    Cheating in academia is the name of the game. There is a survivor bias here assuming the other 78 students didn’t cheat. They’re Learning how to not get caught. Building a better trap may simply yield a better better cheater. The proof ends up being in the work.

    I still think honeypots are amusing AF.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      i didnt have a big problem with cheating, except with the caveat if a test is weighted via averages, then it actively fucks over those who dont cheat, as the curve is set higher than it should.

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        10 months ago

        Average-weighted tests can go die in a ditch

        It just discourages cooperation leading up the the exam, because you actively benefit from your peers performing worse

        • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          it works when tests are graded where the intended score is not 100%. having a test basically be “not finished” shows which subjects on a test was not properly gone over, thus the curve would apply and remove said question from the exam. if it were to be graded in a 100% scale, the question would exist to not give the class a perfect score regardless.

    • chimpo_the_chimp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I have average intelligence and maintained a 3.5 at a top bioengineering school. I barely went to lectures, and just made sure to stay on top of the material through online resources (we have literally everything ever available to us). Id say not being a dumbass is the name of the game.

      It always surprises me when I interview new graduates now and they can’t explain any of their projects or pass a basic software proficiency test that most intro classes should cover (I usually ask them to write code to reverse complement a DNA sequence… just swap out some letters and reverse a string, I do include the rules in the prompt). I think cheating is really rampant in software students.

      • The_Lopen@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not trying to invalidate your experience, but I bet a portion of that could be explained by the brain-dump method students are conditioned for in grade schools before college.

      • Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I graduated from software engineering but still until this point, I loathe using one of the chatbots to make the code I want to make work on my own. I’ve used it twice to ask about how to organize a big software project but that was it. I am just a couple years older than the interns at my office but…damn…they are abusing chatgpt to get stuff done, albeit barely, because intern intelligence never ceases to amaze, and it’s funny to watch.

        If they wanna cheat, they should at least learn or practice that which they try to cheat xd

        • captainthroatfuck@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Luckily chat bots are hot garbage at logic. They have no clue what they’re doing at all, most of what they say is just easy/popular sources that don’t work or at worst sorta work but will create huge bugs. Sure ai will get better, but imo chatgpt/llm won’t replace real eng cause it sources from dumbasses like me

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I have no issue using an AI bot to help write code, but from personal experience, you have to at least have a basic understanding of how to do what you’re trying to do, otherwise you won’t be able to fix the code your AI bot gave you. I’ve tried using a bot to just write entire programs for me, it never works out of me. I always have to go back and update and fix what it gave me so I actually have a working product in the end but I’m also only doing scripting so that might make it easier to get by with a bot.

          • Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I think it’s my gamer experience talking, but once I realized games were more enjoyable without cheats, it opened my eyes. I think I might be going through the same with my coding adventures. It feels more…rewarding to make the code work after trying and trying until it’s all good.

    • Jomega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There was an early episode of Naruto that involved a test that was nigh impossible for someone of their grade level. The actual purpose of the test was to see how good they were at cheating without getting caught, which would translate to their ability to gather information in enemy territory. I think about that a lot.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      At a certain point though, you’ve just plain done the work. If you jump through enough hoops to cheat then you have to know the material well enough. Like doing a bunch of editing passes on downloaded papers.

      • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        Makes me think of the Key & Peele sketch where the bank robbers’ plan is to get jobs at the bank and get steal the money week after week in the form of paychecks.