Comment by com2kid | Hacker News Reader

Comment by com2kid | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 1. Cheating is only an issue in the artificial world of academia, where it goes against how the system is supposed to work.

People who cheat their way to a degree, are lying to future employees about possessing a level of knowledge that they do not have.

An academic degree is bestowed upon a graduate as a sort of symbol of authenticity, backed by the college/university's reputation, that the graduate has a certain level of mastery in a given set of topics.

This mastery includes both a broad base, the ability to make well reasoned arguments, perform basic research, write papers, an understanding of world history, and other undergraduate degree pre-reqs.

Cheating is a way for a student to acquire such certification without having done the work, and without having learned the skills that work imparts.

> Academic grades and degrees, to the extent that they affect your life after academia, should be based on what you can accomplish or explain, not how well you can write answers.

The cheating services being offered here are about writing essay papers, which are the most basic case of being able to produce an end product after having applied research and critical thinking to a problem space.

Being able to communicate, and think, in a clear and coherent manner is one of the very foundations of a classic liberal education. It is also one of the most important skills for almost any professional job.

Lying about possessing that ability is a form of deceit, and by common consensus, morally objectionable.

> People who cheat their way to a degree, are lying to future employees about possessing a level of knowledge that they do not have.

Not if they don't apply to jobs.

> Being able to communicate, and think, in a clear and coherent manner is one of the very foundations of a classic liberal education. It is also one of the most important skills for almost any professional job.

You can't assess that by talking to someone during an interview?

> Lying about possessing that ability is a form of deceit, and by common consensus, morally objectionable.

Agreed. That's a matter for when the person is applying to jobs.

If he just gets the degree and becomes a trust fund kid for the rest of his life, who is being harmed?

> Not if they don't apply to jobs

This does not apply to the majority of students going to college. Why should a tiny fraction of students be able to drag down the reputation of a college because they do not want to do the work that they signed up to do, paid tuition to be taught how to do, and signed a contract saying that they would honestly complete to the best of their abilities?

> You can't assess that by talking to someone during an interview?

It is not possible to assess someone's ability to do a long form research report doing a 1 hour in person interview. I have actually seen some companies that do have candidate screening processes that involve independent research work, but that is aside the point[1]. The real point here is that there is a centralized system that is designed to teach, and validate, academic credentials. They are called colleges!

> Agreed. That's a matter for when the person is applying to jobs.

It is a matter for colleges to worry about because they are in the business of bestowing credentials backed up by the colleges reputation for doing a good job educating their students. If too many students have a degree from a college but they do not actually know anything, then degrees in general from that college become devalued and it cheats the students who put in all the work legitimately!

> If he just gets the degree and becomes a trust fund kid for the rest of his life, who is being harmed?

Reputable colleges and universities are not day cares for trust fund kids. There are plenty of less reputable colleges that serve that purpose.

[1] Such longer interview processes put more burden, which can be measured economically, on both the applicant and the hiring company. The applicant has already paid a fee to go through a skill assessment process, their college tuition. It is possible to model cheaters as an economic drain on both employers and job applicants. Cheating is not free, it has a real cost to it as companies have to implement additional testing and applicants have to spend their time (which always has a monetary trade off) going through screening that is redundant to the credentials they already have.

> This does not apply to the majority of students going to college. Why should a tiny fraction of students be able to drag down the reputation of a college because they do not want to do the work that they signed up to do, paid tuition to be taught how to do, and signed a contract saying that they would honestly complete to the best of their abilities?

Why should colleges penalize against possible future job interview fraud? Pre-crime, anyone?

> It is a matter for colleges to worry about because they are in the business of bestowing credentials backed up by the colleges reputation for doing a good job educating their students. If too many students have a degree from a college but they do not actually know anything, then degrees in general from that college become devalued and it cheats the students who put in all the work legitimately!

Good, the sooner we bury the whole rotten, overpriced system, the sooner we can come up with a better alternative.

> Cheating is not free, it has a real cost to it as companies have to implement additional testing and applicants have to spend their time (which always has a monetary trade off) going through screening that is redundant to the credentials they already have.

Neither is spending $200k on tuition!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com