Slashdot Mirror
Online Plagiarist Sues University
raistphrk writes "The Reg reports that an English student at the University of Kent has sued the university after the university caught him ripping his papers off the Internet and kicked him out of the English program. I guess the stakes are now being raised for universities that use services to check for plagiarized papers."
Burgulars will start suing homeowners for unsafe conditions. Oh wait ... nevermind
Got hosting
this reminds me of that woman that sued mcdonalds for "making her fat"...how could this guy not realize that copying papers and turning them in as his own is wrong?
should have stopped him?! The world is going downhill when people begin to reject common sense in favor of outrageous accusations such as this one.
He admitted he's plagiarized... There should be no problem.
Discrimination: You singled me out. All the other students are doing it, too, and you didn't kick them out.
This guy should have to pay his own legal fees plus all the cost incurred by the university.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
I saw this a couple of days ago (at a site with more details).
...
How any person can get to university without realising that plaigarism is wrong is beyond me. How an *English* student can try to argue that he didn't know what the word meant (as per the student handbook that explained this)
This person is so stupid that he doesn't deserve a degree. I think how he got his A Levels (pre-university exams in England) is also rather doubtful as well.
"I can see there is evidence I have gone against the rules," he concedes. "But they have taken all my money for three years and pulled me up the day before I finished. If they had pulled me up with my first essay at the beginning and warned me of the problems and consequences, it would be fair enough."
University authorities wouldn't comment directly on the case stressed that the university is very clear on the subject. David Nightingale, the deputy vice-chancellor said: "All students are given clear guidelines as well as practical advice and support as to what constitutes plagiarism. These spell it out that it is not acceptable under any circumstances."
I'll admit that I've never been to a university, but I have to assume that like any respectable organization, this university made it clear to the student when he enrolled that plagarism was not acceptable. I'm sure there's a signature of his on a form somewhere in his records stating that he knew that well in advance.
Where I went to college, the Art department chair was caught many years after that fact for plaigarizing his dissertation for his Ph.D. He lost his doctorate and his job, and probably faced legal actions as well.
Better to get nailed for plaigarism before you have your degree like this guy at the University of Kent did than to build a career around a falsehood like the department chair.
A love beyond compare...
So? Its not illegal for the university to do that. Education is a business. You cant claim to be downloading pirated material on Comcast's network, then claim they should have stopped me when you get busted.
Its just another typical example of people today trying to put the blame on others for their mistakes.
Its totally irrelavent as to when the school noticed/stopped him. The guy is asking for a degree based on work he didnt do. He cheated. he got caught, and now is just fishing for a way out.
Theres no way on earth he could have thought the university would be thrilled with his plagerism.
Oh my, I think Dave just turned into a bear.
...is that the university didn't warn him that they knew he was plagiarising papers for his courseworks, but instead let him keep going until the week of the final exams and then told him there wasn't any point in him taking them, as they wouldn't let him pass anyway, thus letting him build up debts of $15,000+.
.A verbal warning first, then a written warning; and finally suspension or being expelled.
There are two other possible options they could have done at the first time they he was plagiarising text:
(1) Throw him out immediately.
(2) Follow standard industry disciplinary procedures:
. .
Given that the university stated that plagiarising won't be tolerated, why didn't they warn him? If a students wasn't getting some topic and constantly getting wrong answers, wouldn't the department have told him? If someone decided they wanted to become a pilot, attended flying school, but lacked the concentration/attention span required to learn, would the instructors waste their (and his) time stringing that person along only to tell them that they shouldn't bother attending the exam?
There are standard punishments for this type of behavior. To allow someone to build up this amount of debt is purely vindictive and would probably amount to a "cruel and unusual punishment". It seems to me, the department were only interested in collecting as much money from him as possible.
OTOH, nice troll.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
All I know, is that whenever I hand in a single piece of coursework, however minor, we are always given a sheet to read and sign, stating that the work is entirely our own.
And I'm a student in England.
I hope he doesn't win, if he does, I'm going to feel really silly for the hundreds of hours I've put in on work over the years, when I could have done this.
/Me Rolls Eyes.
Because he had never submitted the original for grading?
I'm not sure if this is the case (I'm not the above AC), but I don't really see a problem with submitting work done outside of class for later class credit. It's a bit on the edge to submit the same assignment for multiple classes, but fairly unlikely to happen in a University setting (and usually out-ruled anyway).
Sometimes the sentence you wrote 6 months ago is just the best way to say what you want to say. That being said, I've never done anything like this. But it's an interesting case.
My karma really hurts.
If it works, maybe they can use this argument in criminal court. Serial killers could sue local governments for incarceration using the arguement that they should have stopped him earlier and told him the consequences if he continued.
Hyperbole? Yes. But sometimes the ridicules helps to illuminate it's ilk.
I suspect (as the plaigarism detection system is new in that university, and is due to be used full time from next year) that they were testing it on some papers from this year. His came up as plagiarised. They (sensibly) decided to check all of his papers. Ding! All copied. They then contacted the authorities, and he got 0 on all papers.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is all stuff detected within the past month.
Plagiarizing: To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).
Now a university is supposed to be a institution to pass on knowledge but when they can't even get simple English right, its a slight problem. If you wrote it you have the right to use it where ever you would like to, well unless you gave away the rights and such.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
The analogy to that would be seeing a burglar in your house, and sitting there as he took almost everything (and he knows that you're there watching and not saying anything about it). When he goes to take the last valuable item in your house, THEN you pull out your gun and shoot him in the face.
I think a closer analogy would be a bank robber, caught after a long string of robberies. "They knew I was doing it before, but they purposely waited until now to bust me, so they could give me a harsher sentence!" (and offering no proof that they did know he was doing it before)
The 1st time or the 20th time...it's still wrong.
Building a case takes time. A suable entity, like a university, doesn't simply go off making accusations it can't prove. A better analogy than yours is a store security officer who sees Winona Ryder on the security monitors clipping the price tags off of articles of clothing on the store racks and stuffing them in her bag, then arresting her once she's on her way out the door with the merchandise in hand. That gave the security personnel everything they needed to prove intent.
It's not like the university officials did anything remotely analogous to "shooting him in the face", either. They imposed a completely legitimate penalty on him, that he already knew about. He's doing the equivalent of the burglar complaining, upon being arrested, that he shouldn't have been arrested JUST THEN because you waited too long to call the cops, thus "robbing" him of the opportunity to run out of your house before you could catch him.
As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, you seem to assume that the university was making money by keeping this yobbo paying tuition. That's almost certainly not true.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
He has no evidence that the University knew he was cheating three years ago. Read the article again.
What he's really saying is that, since the University didn't catch him the first time he plagarised and warn him about it, they shouldn't be allowed to punishment if they catch him at any subsquent time. This is as silly and stupid as saying that if a burglar isn't caught the first time he robs somebody, he should be free to keep on robbing people without fear of punishment, because nobody told him it was wrong after the first time he did it.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
The reason why it continues is because most of the kids who get caught face no disciplinary measures.
I'm a University student and know kids who have plagiarized, and they don't get anything but a slap on the wrist. Why? They're good students otherwise, and teachers feel bad ruining a career over it. They always think that they can "teach them better" by making them do an extra essay instead.
But it's hard to argue that it should be okay. Maybe an F would do people some good.
As a student, some advice:
- Make kids write outlines before they write essays, or assign questions in the form of outlines. Things like: Write the following in this order: "X, Y, Z".
- Never assign a group essay. They encourage one student to freeload off another.
- Assign essays with extremely specific topics, such as, "Write an essay describing the patterns of light and dark in Ovid's Elegies, specifically focusing on Amores 1.3 and Amores 1.13."
And, well, my favorite:
- Assign a short (3-5) essay. Tell people when it's due. When they go to hand in their papers that day, instead, ask them to take out a piece of paper and, in 5 minutes, summarize three of their arguments on said topic with extra points for references. I can almost guarrentee that anyone who plagiarizes will never pass.
- infringes on music copyrights... applaud
- infringes on non-GPL licensing stipulations
... applaud
- infringes on GPL licensing stipulations
... flame
- infringes on website owner copyrights by reposting text that requires free registration
... flame
- infringes on website owner copyrights by putting up an (unauthorized) mirror of the same material
... cheer
- cheats in class by using a graphing calculator's memory functions
.. cheer
hmm.. it's not here.writes in additional line
- plagarizes in class by plagarizing from the web
... flame
glad we got that sorted.He admits he plagiarised. From the article:
"But they have taken all my money for three years and pulled me up the day before I finished. If they had pulled me up with my first essay at the beginning and warned me of the problems and consequences, it would be fair enough."
He's complaining that he spent 3 years and lots of money submitting stolen papers and that the University should have made him understand EARLIER that submitting stolen papers would REALLY get him kicked out of the program.
His case is that no one at the university REALLY explained to him that stealing papers was not acceptable and what the ACTUAL consequences would be. Or at least that they didn't do it early enough to satisfy him.
Whether he wins or loses that case, you have to ask yourself, would you want to HIRE him to work for you?
In reality, the student got what he paid for - class instruction - for years. He doesn't have that coming back to him. He paid tuition for a service (instruction), and he received that service.
The fact that he is unable to complete his degree puts him in the same category as all the drop-out and flunk-out "students". Should they be refunded their tuition, simply because they cannot finish? Doubtful.
Court adjourned; ruling in favor of the defendant, in summary judgment.
The grandfather post never stated that what he wrote on the internet was for an assignment, simply that he wrote it online.
I see the whole 'you can't resubmit a previous assignment or its plagiarism' to be rather foolish. If I write a paper, why shouldn't I be allowed to hand it in multiple times?
This rule seems to be imposed for the following reasons:
1) Professors have trouble coming up with original assignments
2) Some professors feel that student would be 'cheating' by 'getting out' of doing work
3) It would greatly irritate some professors, when students point out that professer Smith gave them an A while professor Jones gave them a C-.
The purpose of attending university is 'supposedly' for the student to learn something. Assignments should be given out with clear stated criteria, and the student should be graded on how well he meets them.
I am almost done a 4 year double major degree, and I applaud any university that kicks out students for plagerism or cheating.
/. entry, this is just a subject I feel very strongly about)
I am sick and fucking tired of watching classmates cheat on assignments, term papers and final exams, while the faculty does nothing. I have reported someone cheating to either a teacher or TA at pretty much every exam I have written and nothing gets done. 'Stern' warnings are pretty much as far as it seems to go. Occasionally I have heard of students being forced to repeat a class, the odds of getting caught by someone who cares enough to do something about it are so small, that the penalty pales in comparison to the crime.
This pisses me off because they are devauluing my degree. Random employer A goes out and hires someone with the same degree I am getting, sees that they know jack shit, and fires them. I'm not even going to get an interview walking in 2 months later because they have already discounted that peice of paper I spent 4 years of my life and many thousands of dollars on.
If you want to get a degree the easy way, do it mail order, and get the fuck out of the class room.
(I beleive this is the first time I have sworn on a
paul reinheimer
If this student can sue the university "because they didn't catch him before" I guess that serial killers can sue the police "because they didn't catch him before".
Does anyone else see the flaw in this logic?
How any person can get to university without realizing that plagiarism is wrong is beyond me.
You get it wrong. He's suing them for not catching him earlier . He admits that he's been cheating all along and that he knew it was cheating. His complaint is that, if they had caught (and kicked him out) earlier, he wouldn't have stayed in school for so long (and paid his tuition).
It looks like he's going to go into court arguing that he's been cheating since day one. I expect the university to use (among other things) the 'clean hands' defence (you can't claim the protection of the court if you're breaking the law). Plagirism is also copyright violation, so he's likely to get laughed out of court just on that basis.
I can just imagine the disclosure request for:
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I was about ready to tear the kid's head off too, and then I read the blurb. Although I don't think he would ever win a lawsuit, I do think that, if they knew that he was plagarizing earlier, they should have kicked him out instead of letting him wade through 3 years of school and then opening up the history of his plagarizing.
The analogy to that would be seeing a burglar in your house, and sitting there as he took almost everything (and he knows that you're there watching and not saying anything about it). When he goes to take the last valuable item in your house, THEN you pull out your gun and shoot him in the face.
Now granted, what the kid did was stupid, and his excuse is lame ("I didn't know it was wrong"). But if they knew that he had been plagarizing the past 3 years (as the article incinuates), then they should have kicked him out immediately. Doing otherwise does kind of look like extortion, or rather making someone pay money under false pretenses.
That being said, I don't feel sympathy for the kid. You lost money? Too bad, you shouldn't have been plagarizing. You're 21 years old, you should know better.
-Vendal Thornheart^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
-Ben Taitelbaum
Just to tell you my experience. In a class of about 100 students, I grabbed 5 for plagiarism of the final assignment. Of a simple 5 page essay, 3 had cutandpasted over 60% of the text. One had done about 80%, and drum roll please... one had BOUGHT THE PAPER and handed it in verbatim.
I had told the students not to do it. I told them HOW not to do it. I went after the students with no proper citations first, and THAT is where I found the cheaters. Teaching proper citation is the same as teaching them not to plagiarize.
I asked other students about it. Many students have friends write papers. Some students pay others to do it. Most think that the professor does not read them anyway. No person thinks that they will be caught. That is for sure.
"This is like a murderer saying they should have warned me earlier that I will kill a person and go to jail?"
It sounds more to me like a serial murder that killed 4 or 5 people over three years suing the police departments who investigated the case for not catching him after the first one thus stopping him from serving time for and additional 3 or 4 people.
All these comments about turning in your own work twice being plagiarism are beside the point. Some professors don't want students turning in a paper written for another class, since presumably you should have learned something unique in that class that merits a unique assignment. In many situations that could be considered academic dishonesty (although I don't agree with that view), but hardly "plagiarism," which as others pointed out involves taking another person's work and pretending it is your own.
It's not plagiarising, and besides that, universities who condemn this are stupid.
I get an assignment. I write an essay. I submit it and pass the course. I get an assignment for another course. Exactly the same essay fulfills that assignment. So I submit my essay again. And that would be wrong?
If my own work is good enough to meet the requirements of two courses, why would I not pass both courses? Because I have to do the work twice? Silly.
" Also similar to the "I didn't know smoking was bad for me" argument ... "
The tobacco lawsuits are different. When a company's internal documents show that they knew a product was both chemically addictive and highly carcinogenic, and they continued to sell it for decades while assuring consumers that it was neither addictive nor deadly, they are responsible for damage done to those consumers.
Given full disclosure up front (as cigarettes feature now), I'm more willing to blame the users.
I was looking through the comments today and RTFA. The guy deserves what he got. The real question is whether or not the University is in the wrong for not telling him that he was cheating.
It's pretty obvious that the Judge that hears this case is just going to throw it out and give the guy a big, "You had it coming!" What bugs me is that if the University did know that he was cheating the entire time then why didn't they do something about it. Was it because they just wanted to hold onto a student who was paying his bills?
I agree the student got what he deserved, but I think the University does have a responsibility to both the students and itself to discipline rule-breakers immediately, otherwise it may take years for the student to learn his lesson.
What worries me most is that the University may be as morally bankrupt as the student...
Writing a good term paper actually IS about taking constucted pieces and putting them together.
BUT YOU HAVE TO CITE YOUR SOURCES.
Any moron can take someone elses hard work and put their name on it, it involves no creativity, no intelligence, and no skill.
The only thing this guy has going for him is that he feels the world owes him a living for no work of his own. Frankly if you're too fucking lame to get an english degree, there is no place for you in college. (Before all the English Majors start whining, I should mention that I have an English BA, which I picked up accidentally while working on my CS BS, so I know what the hell I'm talking about.)
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
While I understand what you're saying, you're A) oversimplifying and B) assuming Slashdot thinks as a single hivemind. (Which, while more true than may be optimal for true arguments and discussions, is NOT as true as your little quick-reference sheet makes it seem.)
The first point is a gross oversimplification as, while SOME people here have said specifically 'All copyright is wrong and should be abbolished," MOST people have expressed something more mild. Along the lines of, "The current copyright system is extremely unfair. However, I do understand the possible good uses for copyright as an idea, just not how it is currently implimented. Because of that, I have more sympathy for those who chose to ignore the unreasonable restrictions used for copywritten entertainment (usually music) than those who use the copyright system to impose unreasonable restrictions on media." Which, in your mind, gets boiled down to all Slashdotters saying, "Infringing on music copyrights is good." This isn't even true for all Slashdoters, though, as every time music copyrights come up there are well-spoken arguments by artists (or even just those who disagree with downloading music without paying the artist, or programmers who apply the argument about music to software) who explain why they believe the copyright system is valid, and you're an ass if you "pirate" music or software.
The second two points ignore the type of licensing stipulations. You seem to have a missunderstanding you seem to have on how (many) Slashdoters view software licensing. The issue (as I understand it) is that the GPL grants privledges BEYOND what would normally exist for code. As such, violating it makes you look like an ass, because you're already being given allowances you wouldn't have had without the GPL. On the other hand, the software licenses which are "applauded" when broken (usually) impose a restriction that (by Slashdot hivemind, popular concensus, the phase of the moon, or whatever company is currently in or out of favor) have been deemed unreasonable and overly harsh. For the most part, these software licenses impose restrictions vastly beyond what 'normal' copyright law would suggest is standard, and often due so in a questionably legal fashion (click through licenses, EULAs, popup browser downloads that say they are "required," etc.) So violating the GPL makes you look greedy while violating 'standard' software licenses (according ot Slashdot groupthink) can be the "right" thing to do.
I don't even understand your points concerning mirroring and reposting text. Karma whores or ACs will often copy-and-paste text from Salon or the NYT and get modded up for it. Likewise, posting mirrors often gets you modded up. The idea for the first is that many (not all) people feel the registration systems imposed for some news sites are overly harsh and appreciate not having to give up such info to read what - in the newsstand print edition - would require no personaly identifying information. The logic behind mirroring is that many of the sites Slashdot posts about are, by their nature, hobby sites with low bandwidth and the webmasters appreciate not having their site hosed. When an entire word has been devoted to the negative effect of having a website posted on Slashdot, I don't think mirroring is unreasonable. For small sites, it's often considered a polite way of being helpful, rather than copyright violation...
Maybe I missed a story, but how is the graphing calculator even slightly on topic? Because it's a story about school? I admit I don't read every story and don't have them all memorized, but I don't recal seeing a story about some kid getting in trouble for using a graphic calculator. (I wouldn't be copmletely surprised if it happened, but I think you're jumping the gun by posting about it.) That said, as a student... graphing calculators are tools and, if the teacher allows their use, I'm going to damn well use every tool I can to make my life easier. I'm not writing papers by hand because computers make it easier. Lik
So if she had placed this coffee cup into a cupholder and hit a bump and was scalded, who would be to blame then?
McDonald's had repeatedly been warned about their coffee in and out of court before this. This was not the first suit against them for hot coffee burning people. McDonald's was purposefully overheating their coffee so that if it was a slow morning, they could keep the same batch around longer. The purpose of the original large judgement in favor of the woman was to teach McDonald's that it actually doesn't pay to use unsafe practices to save a buck.
This falls under the category that protects the average person from Big Corp, Inc. that cuts corners and doesn't worry about customer safety. This has nothing to do with intelligence, at least not on the woman's side.
How exactly did you manage to spell "the" as "teh" EVERY TIME?!
Waaah! I admit that I did wrong, but I was misled into thinking it wasn't a problem!
File this one under, "Sit down and shut up!"
In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
-- Yun-Men
I am completely amazed that this person is acutally NOT an American (as I am, don't worry, no foreign criticism here).
Apparently, in our courts and society, ignorance of the rules, or in fact, ingnorance in general, is usually enough to get yourself out of trouble (or at least, excuse yourself from it).
People have brought up a large number of similar cases (most notably coffee), where people basically claim ignorance (unreasonably) and try and make a legal case out of it.
I didn't know the coffee was hot, I didn't know plagerism would get me kicked out of school, et cetera. What sickens me more than when people wrongfully claim ignorance, is when judges don't throw that shit out of court.
You know, I'm just about cheering for this kid, and I'll tell you why:
First, colleges have a tendency to take BUCKETS of your money and make no guarantees with it, e.g. if you don't learn the first time, we'll let you sit in on the class again, FREE! There are PLENTY of accredited specialty schools that have this guarantee, so don't tell me it can't be done. So, just as with almost every institution I've ever run across, it is inherently violent by creating false hope and not taking responsibility. (Think about it...corporations are legal entities that NEVER DIE, but when they fuck up, it's REALLY difficult to get them to take responsibility)
Second, the money...again. College is OUTLANDISHLY expensive! Most people will NEVER have the money it takes to go to one, and the price just keeps going up with no restraints on it at all! Example: just last year, the University of California Regents decided to raise tuition by 30%. Just like that, one simple little vote, and it happens. I complained about this to a former UC Berkeley student and he laughed. "HA! That's nothing! When I was there they raised it by 300%!" I merely looked at him agape. They have a monopoly on the goods, folks, and they raise prices at will.
Third (and this is a lesser complaint), living conditions. I once visited the UC Davis campus to see a couple of friends and they told me about how they had to live on campus the first year. H-A-D to, those were the words they used. The place they HAD to live was a glorified closet that housed not one of them (which would have been cozy but respectable) but T-W-O of them. The entirety of their living quarters was less than that of your average PRISONER. Now, I'm sure that not all colleges have this requirement, but the ones that do are defrauding their students for HUGE amounts of rent for those cramped closets. If any college told me that I had to live under those conditions I would tell the dean to offer me his neck to repay the insult.
Fourth, the kid admitted to plagiarism, I'll grant you that. But doesn't the old saying go that if you steal it from one source, it's plagiarism, if you stal from many, it's research? Okay, no, I can't really defend the kid here. Crow copied Gypsie's paper word-for-word (even if his downbeat was on Basehart) and didn't get to eat the Hostess Snowballs. The kid should have a disembodied floating head in his dorm room for pulling that stunt. But I know how *I* would have dealt with it: I would have made sure my bibliography was complete. Quoting other works in a paper is STANDARD PRACTICE! If it were me, I would have used entire paragraphs from Paglia's works, but I would have given her credit and probably gotten away with it!
But frankly I'm under the impression that the University of Kent is running a scam on him and I hope he repays the favor in a court of law.
Fight the University monopoly! Practice auto-didacticism!
Useless opinions, worthless observations, and more!
he was lazy and never read the university code of conduct. They all have them, and it outlies what you may and may not do. It's an important document to read. For example here in Arizona it's legal to carry a gun, both openly (with no permit) and concealed (with a permit). You can do this everywhere that isn't prohibited by law, or by the owners. The universities are not prohibited by law, and have no signs posted, so one might assume you can carry on campus. Well, you could in the past, but not any more. The regeants changed the rules. This is important to know, if you are in the habit of carrying a gun.
The same applies to cheating. They outline quite clearly what constitutes cheating, and what the punishments can be (which include explusion). Thus you have no reason to be supprised if you get nailed for cheating.
He's just whiny because he thought he could get away with it. If he didn't know the punishment, that's his own fault. As is often said, ignorance of the law is no excuse. That applies to the criminal code, and it applies to rules and regulations of a university. They make them public knowledge (and usually hand them to you as a new student), it is YOUR responsibility to know them and follow them.
Okay, a couple of points here:
Lawyers have to pass the BAR exam. I know a couple of people that have tried and, believe me, it isn't easy. There really is no way to cheat on this test. You can't even know what the questions are, really, because they rotate them. So his lawyer most assuredly will NOT have gotten his license the way he (didn't) get his degree.
Of course, all this may not translate in the UK, but I'm certain that the exams the barristers there take are just as stringent.
I also want to make a point here about tests in general: all tests should be open-book. Remember that life IS an open-book test, and research is getting easier. Example: all I have to do now is type in "definition autodidactism" into Google and it will give me not only the correct spelling (did you mean autodidacticism?) but also the definition. That is UNBELIEVABLY handier than a dictionary. Memorization is fine for a lot of things, things that you have to do on the fly. But memorizing the capitals of all 50 states? Virtually useless.
You see, folks, we have this nifty little system called WRITING. This WRITING system allows you to use symbols to RECORD things on that you might want to recall later. Why would you not be able to recall something? Because humans are imperfect, and have imperfect memories to go with them. The WRITING system allows you to record anything that you might forget and want to recall later!
It is far, FAR, *FAR* better to teach children how to do research and use reference material than to teach them trivia that they could, in the former case, easily look up in a library. And I assure you that practice in reference will (eventually) lead to memorization of plenty of facts, and thus prepare them for a career on gameshows.
Useless opinions, worthless observations, and more!
I think that suits like this are good.
Only for the reason that the lower end of the gene pool gets spotted and we as a society can adjust. Those of use that have taken a class or gone to school (most of us) basicly understand that the purpose of taking the courses / classes etc is so that the teacher / prof / school can certify that we know what they have taught us to a percentage degree (90%,50%).
This kid is freely admiting that he has done nothing and has been avoiding the ciriculum since day 1? Will that make his future employers more trusing in thier descision to hire him?
If I was able to I would allow him back into the course on the one condition that on his transscript it would show that he has actively plagerized and admited to it. Let him pay for the remainder of his courses. Thank him for bringing it to thier attention and send him into the world with his stupidity following him all the way.
Just my $0.02 CDN
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.