Slashdot Mirror
Georgia Tech Cracks Down on Learning
The Washington Post has an article today on a Georgia Tech student who almost flunked his intro to comp sci course for just discussing his homework with someone else. Note that no one including the faculty accused him of actually copying any code from anyone. However, the "honor code" at Georgia Tech "forbids its introductory computer science students from seeking any help from other students on their homework." The faculty recorded part of his violation on the forms as "He was trying to learn it." This is something that high school seniors might want to keep in mind when selecting which university to attend.
If the student did research in a book?
Violation?
If the student asked his father or mother?
Violation?
If the student joined an online discussion group?
Violation?
???????
I go to Georgia Tech. Yes, the student was accused of cheating. Yes, this is because he was caught cheating. Yes, the article states this, and then goes on to tell how it's "not that bad." Whoever wrote this summary of the article needs to brush up on their reading comprehension skills.
As for what happened to the student....He had a substantial amount of code (probably around 30 lines) that was verbatim with another student. As the article says, he should have not turned it in and lost the 2% instead of cheating. He can't handle responsibility for his actions so he and his dad pitch a fit and blame it on the college of computing.
Tech may not be the top CS school, but I think our program is pretty good, and their strictness when it comes to cheating only adds credence to the degree you get when you graduate from the Computer Science department. The strictness is not a reason to avoid this school, but a reason to come here.
in a perfect world, all professors would have absolute and complete knowledge on every topic they teach, and a firm grasp on any topic they might come across in class.
however, this is not a perfect world.
at my lovely college(GVSU), most of the professors I've had are incompetent, can't teach, or just plain don't know the subject matter.
One of my Profs has went so far as using ANOTHER Professors code to teach his classes(IRONY) while not even understanding it. When my classmates asked him for help because none of it made sense, he admitted he only know what it was SUPPOSED to do, not if (or how) it actually worked.
so yeah, I'm disenfranchised with the the entire college situation. there are only a handful of Professors in the CS department who 'have a clue.'
I'd say that I seriously spend about 80-90% of my time working on classwork with someone else because it just doesn't make sense(with the rare exception of Prof. Wolffe- his classes are difficult, and you learn a ton).
I personally learn better having a colleague explain it to me than a professor, simply because I either have a hard time understanding my professor(I can't comprehend accents very well) or the professor just doesn't have a clue.
and don't even get me STARTED on Gen-Ed's!
but then again in CS, it's all about the degree- I occasionally forget I'm supposed to teach myself everything.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
My god, this sounds like something I was ranting about earlier today. %90 of the people in my final class from my CS major couldn't write a few lines of code to save their lives. We are doing the whole final project in C# (project requirements, not our choice). Being a programming class, and being that it is the capstone of the major, you'd think that the people would take the time to at least look at the language right? Wrong. I've written the entire project so far. They don't even have a clue how the code works.
On the bright side, I did get them to do all of the documentation for the project but still....it really scares me how many technically inept people are graduating along with me in my major. On the other hand, it made it a lot easier for me to score the job that I have =)
Most of you are misinterpriting the idea behind this type of rule. Yes, in the real world collaboration is increadably important, infact it is so important that we actually take classes in software design where the entire class is in groups. Learning how to interact with people and function in teams, methods of interaction and teamwork, dealing with problem members and managment, these are REQUIRED classes, and yes, groupwork is a required part of them. We even cover different philosophies of team interaction, the ancient methods and new concepts such as Extreme Programing. However, these rules are for the very begining, we are talking CS1 and 2 here, collaboration is not permitted. Yes, when I was taking the classes, I complained about the very constraining rules, and I did say that "In the real world, collaboration (and while I'm at it, not re-inventing the wheel) is important." However, it is also important to learn the basics yourself. Everyone in the entire university must take CS1 and most CS2, these are just intro programing classes to get people familure with coding and thinking on there own. That is their point, and to accomplish that, they must seperate the students out. Some of the strictness is misunderstood. The java API is not looked down upon, we are told to print it out and sleep with it under our pillows, to use it so much that by the end of the year it looks a bit the something from the 12th century. Granted that is in jest, but the point is, documentation, man pages, that type of stuff is encouraged. It is just the first few classes need to focus on the individual, not the team. You must first build yourself before you can build on yourself, and in order to assure that, rules must be in place. The CS majors know, or eventually realize once they reach the 2000 and above CS classes, that they benifitted from the artificial division. Maybe they knew everything going into CS1 and 2, but now all (or most) of their peers are strong on their own. So when it comes time to work together, each programmer could stand on their own, but together their skill is greater than the collective sum. In addition, it goes to teach the true value of working together, they know first hand how hard it can be to stand alone. Maybe it is difficult to see looking in, but there is a good concept behind the rules. Yes, they might not need to be there if everyone was honest, but unfortunately this is not a perfect world, and the restrictive environment helps in the long run.
Well, I'm a Computer Engineering student at Georgia Tech, and as such, I was required to take CS 1311 (what is now known as 1321).
One thing that I noticed about the class was that discussion was rampant, and so was cheating. I openly admit to discussing general points of certain programs and concepts with my best friends. Did I get caught? No. Was I guilty of something? No.
Everyone's code is automatically scanned and then the suspect programs are then checked by an undergraduate assistant. At some point, someone decides that there is enough evidence to point the finger.
If anything, the system doesn't catch enough cheaters.
Having taken several undergraduate CS courses at Tech as well as having earned a Master's in CS there ('95), I read the editorial with a very self-interested eye.
Frankly, I've got mixed feelings.
On the one hand, as many have persuasively pointed out almost no one can defend the notion of prohibiting general conversation and interaction involving course material/ideas/concepts as a good thing for learning in the long run. And I agree with this -- for obvious reasons, engineering as well as literature students should be encouraged to discuss technical as well as philosophical ideas and approaches.
On the other hand, this is an introductory course meant to intellectually test (both figuratively and literally) the capabilities of the students, and it is by design meant to generate a gradient/differentiation of the students' skill sets. This is perhaps the one course that may demonstrate to non-CS majors the work involved in understanding a problem set, designing a solution, and implementing the solution via a programming language -- this is a good thing, and the fact that it's challenging to many doesn't mean that the assignments are patently unfair.
As far back as 1993 (and probably before) Ga Tech was submitting programming assignments to "similarity/copying detection programs" which aimed to detect, and thus deter, near verbatim occurrences ("copying") of code in students' submissions. Students were told UP FRONT that this was being done, and that they would be caught if they cut-n-pasted even a portion of their friend's (or classmates' whose directories/file permissions were a bit too lax allowing visibility to group/world users) assignment.
I think we need to be careful about indicting an entire university or department based on an editorial. At a minimum, we need the cold, hard facts (ie, the likely verbatim similarities -- variables, spacing, comments, etc. -- involved in the code submissions) before getting too one-sided either way.
Yes, you could use this "details unknown" case to condemn Ga Tech's College of Computing of being too much of a nit-picking hard ass, but you surely can't use it question the integrity or individual accomplishment of those that successfully completed their curriculum -- and in the technical fields of CS and engineering, this is a Very Good Thing.
Andy
You're implying a lot of neurological theory here that doesn't necessarily exist. More likely it was an issue of confidence. What I have seen more frequently than any other problem in the CS program I went through was a lack of understanding of what it means to be "programming." That is, it doesn't mean sitting there with your UML diagram in one window and your editor in another...it's 5 browser windows full of google searches, three books open on your desk (or floor) and the debugger and a shitload of printfs. It is like, when you first go fishing you are thinking about your casting technique, but when you start doing it you spend half an hour trying to rip a hook out of some half-dead fish's throat with a pair of needle-nose pliers so you can "throw it back" to die 15 feet from your boat.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I would posit that going to engineering school is about the hardest and least effective way for anyone to get ahead in life. I'm an engineer, and I totally regret it now. Honestly, this country treats engineers like crap; if you want a good, stable career, go into something else like accounting (it can't be any more boring than working as a EE at a megacorp).
However, it is also important to learn the basics yourself. Everyone in the entire university must take CS1 and most CS2, these are just intro programing classes to get people familure with coding and thinking on there own. That is their point, and to accomplish that, they must seperate the students out.
... there is also an LAS compsci program which I know little about). These rankings change from year to year (and source to source), so I don't know where the U of I stands currently, but I'd be surprised if it had slipped all that much.
... reinforcing the very lessons they are to be learning. And if you choose to be a lazy bastard and let someone else do all the work, then try to rewrite it so that it is sufficiently different, you'll either learn despite yourself, or screw it up sufficiently to get the grade your laziness has earned you.
... so there is a disincentive for people to be too free with their solutions built in. In short, the complexity and demands of the assignments coupled with the grading model (bell curve), and a systematic check for plagorism, were sufficient to prevent and punish cheating without resorting to draconian absurdities such as disallowing any discussion of assignments amongst students.
What utter nonsense. Please keep in mind that you are being taught that your University is right and its critics are wrong in each lecture you attend, if not overtly, then certainly on a subliminal level.
I attended the University of Illinois at a time when it was considered the 2nd or 3rd best university for computer science (Engineering College
In any event, that particular university had an impeachable reputation in computer science. They never had such an asinine rule that students could not discuss the subject and their homework assignments amongst themselves. Not only would such a rule have been unenforcable, or led to the kind of absurdities you are defending here, but it would have precluded one of the most important facets of education, through which people learn any subject, at any level, rudimentary freshman level through advanced post-doctorate: studying, discussing, and digesting the material.
Instead, the homework assignments were made to be sufficiently challenging that, even if you were to collaborate with others, you would learn the material and your grade would reflect how well you learned it. Keep in mind if your work resembles another's too closely you'll get nailed for cheating, so even if several people solved the problem together they'd essentially have to reimpliment it differently from one another
Then there is the bell curve to contend with
Georgia Tech is simply wrong on all counts, and probably too arrogant to recognize and fix the real problem, which isn't their students, but their approach to education.
Maybe it is difficult to see looking in, but there is a good concept behind the rules. Yes, they might not need to be there if everyone was honest, but unfortunately this is not a perfect world, and the restrictive environment helps in the long run.
Now it becomes clear what Georgia Tech is teaching its students. Obedience, and the sublimation of one's intellect to the authority of others, without question. The fact that you would write something like that with a straight face (and for your sake, I truly hope this was a clever troll and not meant in earnestness) is indicitive of the kind of education you are receiving at your university.
I humbly suggest you start shopping around for a more sensible university to transfer to, one that concentrates on teaching science and technology rather than obedience.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy