Slashdot Mirror


Website Does Homework For Kids

A new French website allows children to pay older students to do their homework for them. Faismesdevoirs.com (domyhomework.com) allows children to buy answers to simple maths problems for 5 euros ($6), while a full end-of-year presentation complete with slides and speaking notes costs 80 euros ($100). Founder Stephane Boukris says, "I realized there was a gap in the market. Add to that a dose of insolence, a zest of arrogance and the internet, and you have faismesdevoirs.com." I thought cheating on homework was what older siblings were for.

8 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. If you teach them that an arbitrary system... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is all that matters and not the actual comprehension, then they will find a way around the arbitrary system.

    In other words, if you ask for bullshit do not be surprised when they bullshit you.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  2. Ahem, nonsensical sense much? by gcnaddict · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It turns them into consumers. The message is that for the right price you can get the results you want. It's nonsense," [Agathe Field] said.

    That makes perfect sense to me.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Ahem, nonsensical sense much? by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, sounds like a perfect preparation for the real world.

    2. Re:Ahem, nonsensical sense much? by cephalien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I was bored, and my teachers weren't interested in doing things my way, so instead of making a good faith attempt to learn, I cheated."

      Wow. No wonder all my students think they're entitled to passing grades just because they show up.

      Man up, Nancy. Until the school systems are so well funded that we have a 1:1 teacher student ratio, some kids are just going to have to suck it up and learn the hard way.

      Cheating is just an excuse to not work hard. If you can demonstrate serious effort and still have trouble, try finding a teacher/professor during office hours.

      Amazingly, we're pretty ameniable to trying to explain topics over again if you'd bother to ask.

      Cheat in my lectures, and you get a zero. The end.

      --
      If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
    3. Re:Ahem, nonsensical sense much? by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I call BS... I was one of the kids that people cheated off of... None of them did it because they were bored. They did it because they were lazy and didn't care.

      There's a very fine line between "bored" and "lazy and didn't care". If I'm not doing something because the activity bores me, then clearly I don't want to work on it because I don't care much about it.

      I have an aversion to the word "lazy" because I'm not sure what it's trying describe. It seems to me to imply that there are people who won't do work because they simply won't, as though there are no further reasons behind it. That doesn't accurately describe anyone I know.

      Most of the time that I've dealt with people who are averse to work, there are really a number of factors at play. For one thing, if I refuse to do the work you want me to, it's possible that I just don't think that work is valuable, and it's even possible that I'm right about that. It may also be that I don't really know how to do that work, or I don't know where to begin, and rather than admitting it, I just put it off.

      Beyond that, lots of people that I know who are "lazy" in general are also just very discouraged from working. Often they're coming from a place where they believe that nothing they do will be accepted by others to be "good enough". If you're feeling like you have no possibility of success and achievement, then there doesn't seem to be much point in trying.

      I know I probably sound like a politically correct hippy who's just making excuses, but I just think there's something dangerous in labeling children as "lazy". It's saying, "You're not just disinterested or discouraged, but there's actually a serious flaw with you, personally, that makes you unworthy of success." If being discouraged is actually part of the problem, then calling them "lazy" may be very counter-productive in getting them to work on things.

    4. Re:Ahem, nonsensical sense much? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cheating is just an excuse to not work hard. If you can demonstrate serious effort and still have trouble, try finding a teacher/professor during office hours.

      Although I agree with you that cheating is unacceptable (and deserving of a zero), it is a symptom of the system. You say it's an excuse to not work hard, and you want serious effort being demonstrated. Well, working hard and amount of effort should be completely irrelevant. Results are what matter. That's true in the "real world" and it should be true in the schools.

      Some people will learn effortlessly. Others will require more work. Yet, some teachers (not necessarily you) insist on giving large amounts of busy work, just to make sure that the students have hours of work after school to accomplish, on the hopes that the ones who are having difficulty learning will eventually do so by repetition.

      Problem #1: Even the ones who do eventually learn through the busy-work repetition are not actually "learning." They'll be able to follow the example to solve that types of problems given them, but they'll have no idea how to apply the concepts to solve problems they haven't seen before.

      Problem #2: The ones who learn quickly end up wasting their time on tons of problems they already know how to work.

      Problem #3: There are people on both categories who will simply be frustrated with the amount of work, and just not do it. They'll either take the bad grade or cheat. Not saying that's a justification to the cheating, here. Personally, I just used to calculate exactly how much homework I could get away with not doing to get the grade I wanted in the class rather than cheat. I'm not a genius either, but homework really was given in extremely large amounts to compensate for the people who were really having trouble with the classes.

      Ideally, this is what you do: you assign homework, but don't grade it. Assign lots of problems but let your students decide how much they need to work on. You can have them turn it in and correct the problems they did work on (without assigning a grade, so they don't have to turn in everything...this will keep your workload lighter too) so that they get confirmation that what they think they are doing correctly actually is correct.

      You keep your classes discussion oriented. Make sure students are involved when you ask them about the concepts, not the problems.

      You give them tests for the evaluation of their knowledge, which is the only thing that should matter. Part of the test is like the problems they've worked on for homework, but at least half the test are problems they've never seen before, but have the knowledge to figure out. This ensures you are testing their knowledge, not their ability to memorize a process to solve a particular type of problem.

      There. Now if somebody fails the test because they didn't do any of the optional homework, it's their own damn fault for not wishing to work hard. However, you're no longer trying to punish people who don't wish to work harder then they have to.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  3. Re:Actually that's good for society! by psnyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish I had mod points to mark this funny.

    In all seriousness though, the goal should be to bring up the lower class to the higher level, not to lower the upper class to the lower level. They're not the same thing. While the overall value of money stays the same in economics, the actual, real-world worth is what we should focus on.

    Think of the Jetsons, complaining that they're poor and can only afford that huge house and the older type robot housekeeper. Lowering the productivity of the upper class is not the same as raising the productivity of the lower class.

  4. Re:You are somewhat right, but miss a vital bit by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously what I experience as sweet can be very different from what you experience as sweet.

    I'm not sure that's right. I'm might prefer things that are sour to sugary-sweet candy, but I think sugar will taste sweet to both of us because sweetness is biological (at least to some extent). If someone is for some reason unable to taste sweetness, that doesn't change what sweetness is. But I get what you're saying: Laziness is somewhat relative, but perhaps not entirely. The idea isn't really borne out in the rest of your post, though.

    Some tasks just need to be done because... end of story. If you can't, then the label is lazy.

    This doesn't make sense to me. You're saying that some things need to be done for no reason, and it's "laziness" if you don't do them. Now I don't understand why anyone should be doing things for no reason. I don't think I know anyone who does things for no reason, with no rationale, and with no expectation of personal benefit from those actions. If there were anyone doing such things, than I would probably label that "stupidity".

    I think what you're actually thinking of is that there are some things that ought to be done even though the benefit might not be immediately apparent to everyone. In those cases, I think the people who understand the importance of those things are willing to put in work to make sure they get done. Other people may be motivated to do those things for other reasons without fully understanding the importance. But no one is doing it for no reason.

    If you are not prepared to simply say at a certain point "we did all we wanted to do, now it is up to you and if you don't, you fail" you end up with the no-child-left-behind policy.

    Now this is a different argument about a different topic. You're just arguing that, given limited resources, we should be willing to sacrifice the welfare of some children in order to increase the success of other children. Even if true, that's a whole other discussion before we can get to the question of which children to sacrifice and which to spend your resources on.

    School nowadays is so non-challenging that kids with brains are left to rot because the most dis-intrested can't be left behind.

    I'm not saying that we should make schools less challenging. I'm just saying it might be counter-productive to single children out and tell them they have inherent deeply-ingrained character flaws.

    At a certain point our society just can't afford or can't be bothered to keep chasing after people who are lazy.

    At a certain point, society can't afford not to. You keep writing children off, telling them they're no good, trying to force them into the idea that they're useless, and then you're surprised when they don't grow up to be productive members of society?

    Yes, I think society would be well served to chase down everyone and try to find good uses for them. Why shouldn't we? Here's a pretty interesting video that's somewhat related. But even so, that's not what I was talking about. I haven't said anywhere before that we need to put more effort and resources into chasing people down, but if we're going to spend all of our effort and resources trying to educated people, we may as well educate them properly. There's no point in putting extra effort into chasing people away.

    But let me put it this way: I've known lots of different types of people, some of whom have been labelled as lazy. I have never known anyone who met most of the following criteria and were still unwilling to work:

    • understood the importance of a task
    • believed that he/she would benefit from completing the task
    • knew which task needed to be complete and how to do it
    • felt confident in his/her own ability to complete that task

    I