Chinese students and families fight for the right to cheat their exams(smh.com.au)
smh.com.au
Chinese students and families fight for the right to cheat their exams
http://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-students-and-families-fight-for-the-right-to-cheat-their-exams-20130621-2oo6o.html
31 comments
I'm a spring 2013 undergraduate in CS, and this goes on in America just as it does in China. (the entire process is a charade.) I will admit it without hesitation.
It's incredibly interesting that not a single party in the process sees actual knowledge as the value gained. Everyone sees the piece of paper as the value: the box that's checked. How long can such an illusion continue? Your guess is as good as mine. At the end of the day though, you either learn what you need to learn or you don't. Industry isn't too terrible at calling out those who can't produce value, but can only cross their t's and dot their i's.
EDIT: I should definitely draw a distinction between the magnitude of cheating/carelessness described in the article and what I encountered at an American university. The article describes a situation that is much worse.
It's incredibly interesting that not a single party in the process sees actual knowledge as the value gained. Everyone sees the piece of paper as the value: the box that's checked. How long can such an illusion continue? Your guess is as good as mine. At the end of the day though, you either learn what you need to learn or you don't. Industry isn't too terrible at calling out those who can't produce value, but can only cross their t's and dot their i's.
EDIT: I should definitely draw a distinction between the magnitude of cheating/carelessness described in the article and what I encountered at an American university. The article describes a situation that is much worse.
This has most to do with the student. If the student wishes to acquire knowledge, most American universities can provide the student with a great deal of knowledge. If you are not at such a university (unlikely, though some schools are significantly weaker in some disciplines than other schools, so YMMV), then such a university is generally just a transfer application away (protip: admissions standards are different for transfer applicants, it is generally, though not universally, easier to get into a more prestigious school as a transfer, having already shown an aptitude for college work).
No student at an American university can honestly claim not to have learned anything and yet be blameless for not having learned anything.
I will admit that many students are not ready to attend college at the age of 18. I think we should do more to allow students the freedom to take some time to explore their options and possibly even take a year or two off of school before deciding whether or not to attend college, where to attend college, and what to study once there.
No student at an American university can honestly claim not to have learned anything and yet be blameless for not having learned anything.
I will admit that many students are not ready to attend college at the age of 18. I think we should do more to allow students the freedom to take some time to explore their options and possibly even take a year or two off of school before deciding whether or not to attend college, where to attend college, and what to study once there.
I agree, and disagree.
Having recently been a student in an American university, I found that in a number of my classes, having a wish to acquire knowledge puts you at a disadvantage. When the majority of your peers are "working in a group" (read: academically sanctioned cheating) and you are not, your grade is likely to suffer. I was able to grasp and learn the material better in the long run, but at the cost of not having a great GPA.
This situation forces any student interested in maintaining a high GPA to focus more on the grade and not the material. The delicious irony being that students who are most eligible for graduate studies are those least intellectual.
Having recently been a student in an American university, I found that in a number of my classes, having a wish to acquire knowledge puts you at a disadvantage. When the majority of your peers are "working in a group" (read: academically sanctioned cheating) and you are not, your grade is likely to suffer. I was able to grasp and learn the material better in the long run, but at the cost of not having a great GPA.
This situation forces any student interested in maintaining a high GPA to focus more on the grade and not the material. The delicious irony being that students who are most eligible for graduate studies are those least intellectual.
> Having recently been a student in an American university, I found that in a number of my classes, having a wish to acquire knowledge puts you at a disadvantage. When the majority of your peers are "working in a group" (read: academically sanctioned cheating) and you are not, your grade is likely to suffer. I was able to grasp and learn the material better in the long run, but at the cost of not having a great GPA.
You are possibly conflating "working in a group" with "academically sanctioned cheating". There are several situations where working in a group happens:
1. Cooperatively solving an assignment as a group, e.g. a programming assignment where pieces of code are divided amongst the members. In such a scenario, I would argue that if you were solving it on your own, you were being stupid. Sure, you learnt how to solve a technical problem on your own; on the other hand you missed out on learning how to work in a group.
2. Studying together in order to comprehend the material better. I am not even sure how this could be interpreted as cheating.
3. Solving say a theoretical assignment together where in reality one person solves the damn thing and everyone else copies the solution. Most math/theory classes (in a decent school) acknowledge that this can happen and have exams to smooth out the grades.
> This situation forces any student interested in maintaining a high GPA to focus more on the grade and not the material. The delicious irony being that students who are most eligible for graduate studies are those least intellectual.
Really? Tell me more about these graduate programs that look only at your GPA. If you are so damn well intellectual, you should be out there working with professors on research projects and whatever to show that you are cut out for graduate school.
You are possibly conflating "working in a group" with "academically sanctioned cheating". There are several situations where working in a group happens:
1. Cooperatively solving an assignment as a group, e.g. a programming assignment where pieces of code are divided amongst the members. In such a scenario, I would argue that if you were solving it on your own, you were being stupid. Sure, you learnt how to solve a technical problem on your own; on the other hand you missed out on learning how to work in a group.
2. Studying together in order to comprehend the material better. I am not even sure how this could be interpreted as cheating.
3. Solving say a theoretical assignment together where in reality one person solves the damn thing and everyone else copies the solution. Most math/theory classes (in a decent school) acknowledge that this can happen and have exams to smooth out the grades.
> This situation forces any student interested in maintaining a high GPA to focus more on the grade and not the material. The delicious irony being that students who are most eligible for graduate studies are those least intellectual.
Really? Tell me more about these graduate programs that look only at your GPA. If you are so damn well intellectual, you should be out there working with professors on research projects and whatever to show that you are cut out for graduate school.
> If you are so damn well intellectual, you should be out there working with professors on research projects and whatever to show that you are cut out for graduate school.
Out where? Do you mean in between your class load? (I'm not too familiar with US graduate schools)... I thought your GPA was exactly what they looked for?
Out where? Do you mean in between your class load? (I'm not too familiar with US graduate schools)... I thought your GPA was exactly what they looked for?
No, GPA is not generally a priority in graduate school admissions. You need a reasonable GPA, but a 4.0 is totally unnecessary. GRE scores and other factors like letters of recommendation and research projects with faculty members during undergraduate are usually more important.
During undergrad. It's not like the Engineering college at a given university is that hard to find.
And while GPA is nice, any group selective enough to care is also going to check the transcript. Getting a "C" in Diff Eq. is far different from getting a "C" in "Intro to College Math", for example.
And while GPA is nice, any group selective enough to care is also going to check the transcript. Getting a "C" in Diff Eq. is far different from getting a "C" in "Intro to College Math", for example.
GPA is unimportant to graduate work if you have good research recommendations and skills that the grad department you are applying to needs.
> This situation forces any student interested in maintaining a high GPA to focus more on the grade and not the material.
This also reflects almost every job in the post-university world: the skills required to keep a job are very different to the skills required to do a job.
This also reflects almost every job in the post-university world: the skills required to keep a job are very different to the skills required to do a job.
GPA really isn't all that important for graduate study. GRE score, personal statement, letters of recommendation all matter more, provided the GPA is reasonable. This is, of course, also dependent on the program you are applying to. But with hundreds to choose from, it is usually possible to find a good fit.
as is the essay. My PhD co-advisor was the dean of the graduate students for a spell, and he repeatedly said, 'the one factor that determines the success of a grad student is their GRE writing score and the quality of their essay'. Which is deliciously ironic, because I think he himself was an atrocious writer, I think he has dyslexia, yet, he's the only professor in the institute that has a drug that made it to Phase I.
At the engineering school I graduated from in Canada, which is ranked in the top 20 worldwide, cheating was prolific with nearly all unsupervised work being gratuitously plagiarized.
Although supervised examinations accounted for at least 50% of each grade, any student who didn't cheat and wasn't also very, very bright probably lost at least half a letter grade on their CGPA as a result.
It was common for me to do well above average on examinations and well below average on assignments, since I was not plagiarizing them.
Although supervised examinations accounted for at least 50% of each grade, any student who didn't cheat and wasn't also very, very bright probably lost at least half a letter grade on their CGPA as a result.
It was common for me to do well above average on examinations and well below average on assignments, since I was not plagiarizing them.
In my engineering school in Poland everyone was given a different assignment, so copying off other students was not possible. Other pathology occured though - since most of the tasks were group assignments (with the usual group being 2-3 people), it was common for a group to just divide the workload among its members across multiple courses, which in practice resulted in a possibility of getting a grade for course x on which one didn't do any work (because he was busy doing group's assignment for course y). The cool unintended consequence of this was that the whole studies were a multiyear training ground in team organisation and negotiations, which is arguably worth more in real life than some of the highly theoretical courses.
"I'm a spring 2013 undergraduate in CS, and this goes on in America just as it does in China. (the entire process is a charade.) I will admit it without hesitation."
www.de.ufpe.br/~toom/my-articles/engeduc/ARUSSIAN.PDF
The article is about a Russian mathematician who starts teaching in American universities. The same thing already happens in America with these 'business calculus' courses.
www.de.ufpe.br/~toom/my-articles/engeduc/ARUSSIAN.PDF
The article is about a Russian mathematician who starts teaching in American universities. The same thing already happens in America with these 'business calculus' courses.
There are numerous more subtle forms of corruption in the US system of education
1. Grade inflation.
2. Bell curves so that a certain percentage of students must pass.
3. Student evaluations and students voting by enrolments that discourage tough/realistic marking.
4. Marking of courses is controlled by the teachers of the course. Thus the teachers are in effect assessing themselves.
5. In some countries students who pay full fees are marked easier than those who have government funded places.
Hiring people in IT, I was amazed to find that a high percentage of people who have passed programming courses are totally incapable of writing a working program.
So let us not be too scornful of the Chinese.
1. Grade inflation.
2. Bell curves so that a certain percentage of students must pass.
3. Student evaluations and students voting by enrolments that discourage tough/realistic marking.
4. Marking of courses is controlled by the teachers of the course. Thus the teachers are in effect assessing themselves.
5. In some countries students who pay full fees are marked easier than those who have government funded places.
Hiring people in IT, I was amazed to find that a high percentage of people who have passed programming courses are totally incapable of writing a working program.
So let us not be too scornful of the Chinese.
Maybe it's different here in the UK, or maybe I'm naïve.
With my A-Levels (end of high-school exams) I felt like I was learning material that I would need to know for my university course, and my university entrance was conditional on the grades I achieved.
Having been at uni for 3 years now, it has confirmed this for me. I had friends in high-school who didn't study maths, and they wouldn't have managed the CS course at my university. I wouldn't have managed it without the A-Level grades I got (or slightly below them).
I also think that my degree matters quite a lot. To me it's a piece of paper that says I have a reasonable competency in computer science, and anyone who has a brief look at the syllabus should see that I will be of a certain level of ability.
It is possible to self-teach yourself much of computer science, but when I talk to other people of a similar age to me who have self-taught and not gone to university, I don't want to come across as cocky, but the gap in knowledge appears very significant to me. After 5 years working I'm sure my degree won't matter much, but I think it will give me a big head start on knowledge and understanding.
With my A-Levels (end of high-school exams) I felt like I was learning material that I would need to know for my university course, and my university entrance was conditional on the grades I achieved.
Having been at uni for 3 years now, it has confirmed this for me. I had friends in high-school who didn't study maths, and they wouldn't have managed the CS course at my university. I wouldn't have managed it without the A-Level grades I got (or slightly below them).
I also think that my degree matters quite a lot. To me it's a piece of paper that says I have a reasonable competency in computer science, and anyone who has a brief look at the syllabus should see that I will be of a certain level of ability.
It is possible to self-teach yourself much of computer science, but when I talk to other people of a similar age to me who have self-taught and not gone to university, I don't want to come across as cocky, but the gap in knowledge appears very significant to me. After 5 years working I'm sure my degree won't matter much, but I think it will give me a big head start on knowledge and understanding.
I can promise you that there are schools in America where students and faculty see the knowledge gained as the value, it sucks that you're not at one though.
I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't schools where knowledge is the goal, only that such is the case at a minority of schools. My education was definitely better off than most; I attended a good school. If you do believe there are schools where very little or no cheating occurs, I'd love to hear about it though.
Everyone gets what they want except the chinese companies who employ them in their first job.
It's ok, they only have to implement plans stolen from other companies.
Flagged. Lets keep xenophobic comments off HN.
[Edit: s/racist/xenophobic as per conversation below]
[Edit: s/racist/xenophobic as per conversation below]
It's interesting you assume he was being racist, rather than culturalist. I think it's equally valid to assume he was talking about mainland Chinese business culture.
Is it controversial to say that mainland Chinese companies (as we're talking about here) commonly steal or clone business plans?
Is it controversial to say that mainland Chinese companies (as we're talking about here) commonly steal or clone business plans?
That's equally unacceptable, saying "mexicans are lazy" is as bad as saying "hispanics are lazy". It's just xenophobia.
The OP wasn't starting a conversation about business practices, they were attempting to make a witty one-liner by denigrating a group of people and reinforcing a negative stereotype. They were implying that Chinese people don't need to be educated because they do unimportant work.
Imagine if someone had said that it didn't matter if women or blacks cheated in exams because all they did was housework and unskilled labour ? - that's exactly the same as what the OP is doing here.
The OP wasn't starting a conversation about business practices, they were attempting to make a witty one-liner by denigrating a group of people and reinforcing a negative stereotype. They were implying that Chinese people don't need to be educated because they do unimportant work.
Imagine if someone had said that it didn't matter if women or blacks cheated in exams because all they did was housework and unskilled labour ? - that's exactly the same as what the OP is doing here.
Please point me to the company BYD Stole from?
Or Tencent?
Or Alibaba?
The "copying" that you seem to be referring to, is no different to "normal business" in the US: Apple open a retail store, Microsoft open a retail store (or was it vice versa?) Is that "copying"? or is that "competition"?
Is it only copying when the parties are different races? or more controversially when one party is chinese?
Or Tencent?
Or Alibaba?
The "copying" that you seem to be referring to, is no different to "normal business" in the US: Apple open a retail store, Microsoft open a retail store (or was it vice versa?) Is that "copying"? or is that "competition"?
Is it only copying when the parties are different races? or more controversially when one party is chinese?
edit: I'm going to tone back my comment a bit and try to assume the best - that this was a simple misunderstanding and not an attempt to trivialize intolerance.
I believe the person you are replying to was making a statement about widespread Chinese government and corporate practices, and not about the Chinese people in general. God knows that the American government and corporate practices are under a constant barrage of attacks from around the world, yet we do not accuse those critics of xenophobia or racism.
Also, from the Hacker News Guidelines: "If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."
I believe the person you are replying to was making a statement about widespread Chinese government and corporate practices, and not about the Chinese people in general. God knows that the American government and corporate practices are under a constant barrage of attacks from around the world, yet we do not accuse those critics of xenophobia or racism.
Also, from the Hacker News Guidelines: "If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."
There's enough corporate espionage happening in the US also.
Just 3 days ago, an officer at a certain US software company announced their intention to launder some open source code written 2 years ago by someone else and bundle it in the next version of their product.
Just 3 days ago, an officer at a certain US software company announced their intention to launder some open source code written 2 years ago by someone else and bundle it in the next version of their product.
That sounds interesting. Do you have a link you could share?
This ignores the fact that a huge part of a degree's value is as proof you've passed a lot of difficult filters. One of those filters is ability to do an institution's bidding for many years. For many companies, this is much more important than any particular academic knowledge. For jobs that really require deep knowledge, there are fairly easy ways to test for it that the employer can do themselves (i.e. by interviewing).
For those who haven't read the article yet, when they say "fight", they mean actual physical fighting:
> By late afternoon, the invigilators were trapped as students pelted the windows with rocks. Outside, more than 2000 people had gathered, smashing cars and chanting: ''We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat.''
Cheating in China goes way beyond cheating to get into school. Two years ago, the Journal of Zhejiang University-Science became the first Chinese journal to use text analysis software to spot plagiarism.
They found that 31% of their papers were plagiarized. 40% for computer science and life science papers. [1] [2]
[1] http://www.npr.org/2011/08/03/138937778/plagiarism-plague-hi...
[2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467153d...
> By late afternoon, the invigilators were trapped as students pelted the windows with rocks. Outside, more than 2000 people had gathered, smashing cars and chanting: ''We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat.''
Cheating in China goes way beyond cheating to get into school. Two years ago, the Journal of Zhejiang University-Science became the first Chinese journal to use text analysis software to spot plagiarism.
They found that 31% of their papers were plagiarized. 40% for computer science and life science papers. [1] [2]
[1] http://www.npr.org/2011/08/03/138937778/plagiarism-plague-hi...
[2] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467153d...
Yes, we have this scheme in our Finnish polytechnic. Regardless though, people still do it and try and get away with it. Sometimes they don't even try and make any small changes to the original document. I have no idea why they do it -- perhaps they don't believe the system will catch it?
People plagiarize because doing the actual work is soul-crushing. How motivating is it to read a bunch of high quality work, put them together and produce a mediocre work? It's not motivating at all, and people simply try to stay sane.
"Students plagiarize because the source material will always be of higher quality than their paper" is a very novel argument! And yet, it doesn't hold water. For one thing, teaching kids how to synthesize information, explain how a process works, is quite valuable and not at all soul-crushing. "To learn is to teach," they say, and writing papers about what you've learned is, essentially, teaching about what you've learned. It's a good thing.
And of course if you generalize the argument, then students could be excused from learning entirely. How "soul-crushing" is it for a piano student to try to play Étude in C major, when there are countless recordings of it being played perfectly, and with great genius? Following in the steps of great thinkers and doers is not soul-crushing, because you're walking in the footsteps of greatness. Those notes are the right notes. You play it badly, but you're playing it. It is humbling, though. The difference between soul crushing and humility is that for the latter, there's every reason to believe that one day you too could be great.
The other good thing about writing papers is that, no matter how expository it may be, there is always opportunity for viewpoint. Even if the viewpoint expressed has to do with how best to organize the material, every paper is a chance for self-expression.
The reason students don't like writing papers is that it's really hard. It's hard to consume the information, and it's hard to organize it, especially if you're not used to organizing information. But you have to make mistakes, write papers that are all jumbled and confused, before you can get better. Those jumbled, bad papers are clearly worse than the source material, and the teacher is there with her red pen marking the next step toward greatness.
And of course if you generalize the argument, then students could be excused from learning entirely. How "soul-crushing" is it for a piano student to try to play Étude in C major, when there are countless recordings of it being played perfectly, and with great genius? Following in the steps of great thinkers and doers is not soul-crushing, because you're walking in the footsteps of greatness. Those notes are the right notes. You play it badly, but you're playing it. It is humbling, though. The difference between soul crushing and humility is that for the latter, there's every reason to believe that one day you too could be great.
The other good thing about writing papers is that, no matter how expository it may be, there is always opportunity for viewpoint. Even if the viewpoint expressed has to do with how best to organize the material, every paper is a chance for self-expression.
The reason students don't like writing papers is that it's really hard. It's hard to consume the information, and it's hard to organize it, especially if you're not used to organizing information. But you have to make mistakes, write papers that are all jumbled and confused, before you can get better. Those jumbled, bad papers are clearly worse than the source material, and the teacher is there with her red pen marking the next step toward greatness.
In case you missed it, that was for a Journal, not for undergraduate academic work.
The people writing journal papers are supposed to be doing high quality, original work, contributing to science, the knowledge of mankind, all that kind of thing.
The people writing journal papers are supposed to be doing high quality, original work, contributing to science, the knowledge of mankind, all that kind of thing.
I like to think different people can express things in different ways. For example, if you can simplify a piece so that it is more understandable to a wider audience, is it still mediocre?
Entrance exams treat undergraduate admissions as an O(n) problem.
As anyone who has worked in undergraduate admissions will tell you, it is far more complex than that. But when n grows prohibitively large, you have to go with solutions that are less than ideal.
My alma mater, thirty years ago, eschewed the traditional college application in favor of a more homebrew approach: since it was a small liberal arts college, it felt that the best way to see if a student was a fit for the college was to place him there for a span of a week or so: meeting with professors, faculty, taking a tour of the place, making sure things 'clicked'. He or she took an exam at the end of it, focused less on trying to define the student intellectually and more whether or not they were engaged with the college: there were quizzes on campus trivia (we're the second oldest college in the nation, and talk about our history incessantly), open-ended questions about what they liked, et cetera -- all designed to see if the student was really meant to be a part of the college.
This worked twofold: it let the admissions faculty see whether or not the student was really taking the experience seriously, and it let the student see whether or not they wanted to take it seriously.
(Why no math tests? When a professor spends a few hours with a prospective student, they can generally deduce whether or not they're smart enough to handle the rigor.)
Today, such a practice is impossible: the number of applicants has increased by at least 20x. There literally are not enough days in the calendar.
As anyone who has worked in undergraduate admissions will tell you, it is far more complex than that. But when n grows prohibitively large, you have to go with solutions that are less than ideal.
My alma mater, thirty years ago, eschewed the traditional college application in favor of a more homebrew approach: since it was a small liberal arts college, it felt that the best way to see if a student was a fit for the college was to place him there for a span of a week or so: meeting with professors, faculty, taking a tour of the place, making sure things 'clicked'. He or she took an exam at the end of it, focused less on trying to define the student intellectually and more whether or not they were engaged with the college: there were quizzes on campus trivia (we're the second oldest college in the nation, and talk about our history incessantly), open-ended questions about what they liked, et cetera -- all designed to see if the student was really meant to be a part of the college.
This worked twofold: it let the admissions faculty see whether or not the student was really taking the experience seriously, and it let the student see whether or not they wanted to take it seriously.
(Why no math tests? When a professor spends a few hours with a prospective student, they can generally deduce whether or not they're smart enough to handle the rigor.)
Today, such a practice is impossible: the number of applicants has increased by at least 20x. There literally are not enough days in the calendar.
That is a great system, but unsustainable for the volume, you are right. As a non-cheater who has been blessed with a lot of academic success, this article upsets me so much. my academic success has been dearly earned and I feel like cheaters completely undermine my efforts. True, cheaters don't have the knowledge and maybe I am a step ahead of them, because I actually put in the effort. But still, it feels like someone stole a taxi medallion and I bought one.
I get the impression that these people are fighting for the right to have more decent lives and better schools. If so, organized cheating is a cost of the unequal system they live under.
Reminds me of Basho's chief architect (the Riak company), who advised at Ricon's closing keynote that you should lie and misrepresent yourself to anyplace doing interesting things, as he did at Apple (where he got to write a distributed filesystem), Akamai, etc.
Once in "the real world", we discover that corporations and governments routinely lie, cheat and steal. Because it's effective. Does anyone honestly think Steve Jobs was averse to sociopathic behavior, or went unrewarded for it? We live in institutions which reward such sheer winning over obeying rules. (Regardless whether those rules are important or terrible.) The people who make the rules themselves are subject to such pressures. The mass of cheaters here on HN simply are too wise to speak up and admit it.
I say that as someone who never cheated on a school test or homework. I don't begrudge those who did, because the mainstream educational systems are disgusting. I have no fear that a cheater will make my worklife hard, because that's what interviews are for. I'm more concerned about play-by-the-rules people who've stuck to conventional wisdom all their lives, and defer to bosses.
Reminds me of Basho's chief architect (the Riak company), who advised at Ricon's closing keynote that you should lie and misrepresent yourself to anyplace doing interesting things, as he did at Apple (where he got to write a distributed filesystem), Akamai, etc.
Once in "the real world", we discover that corporations and governments routinely lie, cheat and steal. Because it's effective. Does anyone honestly think Steve Jobs was averse to sociopathic behavior, or went unrewarded for it? We live in institutions which reward such sheer winning over obeying rules. (Regardless whether those rules are important or terrible.) The people who make the rules themselves are subject to such pressures. The mass of cheaters here on HN simply are too wise to speak up and admit it.
I say that as someone who never cheated on a school test or homework. I don't begrudge those who did, because the mainstream educational systems are disgusting. I have no fear that a cheater will make my worklife hard, because that's what interviews are for. I'm more concerned about play-by-the-rules people who've stuck to conventional wisdom all their lives, and defer to bosses.
Basho's Chief Architect here. I was talking about self-taught programmers and companies irrational bias towards people with CS degrees.
I didn't say "lie and misrepresent", I said "BS and charm". It was a rephrasing of an earlier tweet of mine:
https://twitter.com/argv0/statuses/222618738250350592
My main point was that all this stuff can be learned without a degree, but should always be learned, and that these jobs mainly require skills not taught in school; that charm goes a long way, etc.
Your parsing of what I said is unfortunate and your characterization of what I was espousing ('sociopathic', 'cheaters') is wrong.
EDIT: Try to interpret what I said in a positive way.
I was talking about personal intellectual growth, not obtaining things you don't deserve via lies.
I was talking only about bootstrapping yourself into a career you want - of course you must then master whatever it is you have set out to do or will be found out and fired.
If you want a job and know you can learn it, then obtain that job however you can and prove yourself.
I didn't say "lie and misrepresent", I said "BS and charm". It was a rephrasing of an earlier tweet of mine:
https://twitter.com/argv0/statuses/222618738250350592
My main point was that all this stuff can be learned without a degree, but should always be learned, and that these jobs mainly require skills not taught in school; that charm goes a long way, etc.
Your parsing of what I said is unfortunate and your characterization of what I was espousing ('sociopathic', 'cheaters') is wrong.
EDIT: Try to interpret what I said in a positive way.
I was talking about personal intellectual growth, not obtaining things you don't deserve via lies.
I was talking only about bootstrapping yourself into a career you want - of course you must then master whatever it is you have set out to do or will be found out and fired.
If you want a job and know you can learn it, then obtain that job however you can and prove yourself.
In my personal value system I value the one who is able to beat a system through a clever hack much higher than the one who follows just the instructions to the point how somebody else planned it out.
After all in you world of non-cheating companies you would have to be strictly agains the business practices of companies such as Uber or Airbnb. After all they were certainly breaking the rules when they first started out and are still facing some serious legal battles.
I believe that everyone has the personal responsibility to challenge the rules, to question them, to demand answers why they are there and whom do they benefit. If the answers are unsatisfying it comes down to the personal evaluation: Is it better to follow the rules, challenge the rules, or break them.
After all in you world of non-cheating companies you would have to be strictly agains the business practices of companies such as Uber or Airbnb. After all they were certainly breaking the rules when they first started out and are still facing some serious legal battles.
I believe that everyone has the personal responsibility to challenge the rules, to question them, to demand answers why they are there and whom do they benefit. If the answers are unsatisfying it comes down to the personal evaluation: Is it better to follow the rules, challenge the rules, or break them.
Wallstreet is calling, it's for you.
Your post reminds me of a fictional example taken from Star Trek where Kirk (just a cadet at that point) cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test. For those who are not familiar (or even fans) of the franchise, the Kobayashi Maru[1] is a simulation that's designed to test a cadets ability to cope with failure when faced with a scenario that is unwinnable. In Kirks case, he hacked the computer to give him a better odds and thus went on to beat the simulation.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
Do you have a link to the keynote where he mentions this perhaps? Would be very interested in it and my google powers didn't find anything.
While I haven't done it, I have recommended it to various people to lie on their resumes if they think it is the resumes preventing them to get a job. I was lucky to enter the work world in a time that they accepted just about everyone, but I see very smart folks nowadays scrapping for a job because they don't 'cheat' the interview process.
While I haven't done it, I have recommended it to various people to lie on their resumes if they think it is the resumes preventing them to get a job. I was lucky to enter the work world in a time that they accepted just about everyone, but I see very smart folks nowadays scrapping for a job because they don't 'cheat' the interview process.
This is why we have a crappy world: the tragedy of the commons.
> Once in "the real world", we discover that corporations and governments routinely lie, cheat and steal.
Really? I'm not sure I've experience of this. Might be a geographic/cultural thing, I guess, but business and governance in the UK doesn't seem to be particularly corrupt.
Really? I'm not sure I've experience of this. Might be a geographic/cultural thing, I guess, but business and governance in the UK doesn't seem to be particularly corrupt.
You live in a high trust society with an impartial and competent state, where the rule of law is a real thing and opportunities for real, lucrative corruption are relatively limited. Given the demographics of this website there is an above average chance you work in an industry or sector that is dominated by literal minded men that tend more autistic than the general population, and associate mainly with people who are basically bourgeois in their values. All of these characteristics make the level of rat bastard weaselness in your environment lower than it would otherwise be.
Nonetheless the upper echelons of the corporate world in the UK probably resemble those in the UK in that sociopaths are ten to twenty times more common in the executive class than the general population. I can't see any reason politics would not favour the same group in the same way.
For further reading see gwern's notes on psychopaths and the psychology of power.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/fzy/notes_on_psychopathy/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power...
I have also heard good things about Ashok Rao's Psychopaths, Losers, Clueless series.
Nonetheless the upper echelons of the corporate world in the UK probably resemble those in the UK in that sociopaths are ten to twenty times more common in the executive class than the general population. I can't see any reason politics would not favour the same group in the same way.
For further reading see gwern's notes on psychopaths and the psychology of power.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/fzy/notes_on_psychopathy/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power...
I have also heard good things about Ashok Rao's Psychopaths, Losers, Clueless series.
> I have also heard good things about Ashok Rao's Psychopaths, Losers, Clueless series.
That would be Venkat Rao's Sociopaths, Losers, Clueless series.
That would be Venkat Rao's Sociopaths, Losers, Clueless series.
"business and governance in the UK doesn't seem to be particularly corrupt"
You should read up on the City of London Corporation.[1][2][3][4]
[1] - http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2013/04/mysterious-residen...
[2] - http://streebgreebling.blogspot.com/2011/04/state-within-sta...
[3] - http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporati...
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation
You should read up on the City of London Corporation.[1][2][3][4]
[1] - http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2013/04/mysterious-residen...
[2] - http://streebgreebling.blogspot.com/2011/04/state-within-sta...
[3] - http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporati...
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation
Sorry, what does that have to do with anything? I'm well aware of it, I work within the City - it's just local government. It, in common with many ancient bodies in the UK, has quirks, but none that are corrupt.
I wouldn't use the term "corrupt". For example, a mafia's members can be quite upright in following the institution's rules. Likewise, at the height of when the UK sent legions of killers outside its island, to terminate and replace the rules other people must live under, it's not important if anyone was particularly corrupt.
When an institution is at its core about lying, cheating and stealing, then it redefines the rules to make these actions just and moral... part of its own natural functioning. This filters down into all its sub-institutions, like its economic and educational systems.
(Then "lying, cheating and stealing" becomes anything which goes against its functioning. For instance, "terrorism" is redefined to include defending your country against the terrorists some foreign power sent to control you.)
When an institution is at its core about lying, cheating and stealing, then it redefines the rules to make these actions just and moral... part of its own natural functioning. This filters down into all its sub-institutions, like its economic and educational systems.
(Then "lying, cheating and stealing" becomes anything which goes against its functioning. For instance, "terrorism" is redefined to include defending your country against the terrorists some foreign power sent to control you.)
You may need to get out more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC
See "Money Laundering".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC
See "Money Laundering".
> business and governance in the UK doesn't seem to be particularly corrupt.
Read any issue of Private Eye and you might form a different opinion.
Read any issue of Private Eye and you might form a different opinion.
Go read Le Carré. Or examine the record of News Corp phone hacking, and the politicians with whom they are entwined.
> ... routinely lie, cheat and steal. Because it's effective
It's a prisoners dilemma thing. It works while they are suckers to cheat, but the refutation of that entire way of thinking comes when everybody cheats and everyone suffers.
It's a prisoners dilemma thing. It works while they are suckers to cheat, but the refutation of that entire way of thinking comes when everybody cheats and everyone suffers.
Same here! It feels bad when people think that cheating is a RIGHT!
I'm from India and 70% of people in my class think that cheating is fine. They'll copy assignments, cheat in tests and even exams. Though situation is not so bad here that people DEMAND for cheating but everything else is same.
I guess this is because of society and pressure. I don't know about China but in India, professions are like fashion. When doctors seem to be making money, there is a large portion of students wanting to be doctors and there is pressure from parents and society as a whole. Academic qualification is treated as the ONLY thing that one will be judged on and this also leads to parents stopping kids form going into sports, music and arts.
And poor kids who can't cope up with all this have to cheat.
I'm from India and 70% of people in my class think that cheating is fine. They'll copy assignments, cheat in tests and even exams. Though situation is not so bad here that people DEMAND for cheating but everything else is same.
I guess this is because of society and pressure. I don't know about China but in India, professions are like fashion. When doctors seem to be making money, there is a large portion of students wanting to be doctors and there is pressure from parents and society as a whole. Academic qualification is treated as the ONLY thing that one will be judged on and this also leads to parents stopping kids form going into sports, music and arts.
And poor kids who can't cope up with all this have to cheat.
Ironically, in this case, the Chinese students who demanded rights to cheat were about to compete opportunities to enter SPORTS, MUSIC and ARTS colleges.
The way many things work in Chinese societies is deviated far away from common knowledge, moral standard and laws. It is an eternal mystery how and why something is done for anybody outside of certain society. Although schools I attended never encouraged cheating, but the teachers did mention that gaps existed between the social reality and textbooks.
The way many things work in Chinese societies is deviated far away from common knowledge, moral standard and laws. It is an eternal mystery how and why something is done for anybody outside of certain society. Although schools I attended never encouraged cheating, but the teachers did mention that gaps existed between the social reality and textbooks.
How does it feel like when people think that privacy is a RIGHT?
Entrance exam is a big thing in China, it will determine one's future, and we all take it quite seriously. Cheating is reported every year, but not in large cities, and this is the first time that someone will 'fight' as their children will not being able to cheat. Comparing to the total number of students who take the exam, 9,120,000 this year, cheating is really really quite small, from my experience, I never heard of cheating around me for entrance exam; and we also feel very ridiculous for such thing could happen here in China.
The dilemma here is that admission quota is by province, so there is incentive for municipalities to go easy so that local students gain more seats at the prestigious schools. In other words the local education bureaus administering the tests are not disinterested parties.
Williams and Mary Represent
This is going to take a long time to change for the better. My Chinese friends who don't cheat because they actually want to learn stuff definitely complain a lot about the rampant cheating. If you want to get into and finish Uni completely legit, you have to work way, way harder than everyone else :\ And you will end up doing worse than people who cheated and got away with it, just have to suck it up.
There's a lot of inertia to solving it, and it's very hard to do across the board. For Uni entrance, there's ~10 million+ people taking the exam every year - that prevents a lot of non-exam based solutions to "who do we let into Uni?"
I do not envy the position of the people in charge of all of this :(
There's a lot of inertia to solving it, and it's very hard to do across the board. For Uni entrance, there's ~10 million+ people taking the exam every year - that prevents a lot of non-exam based solutions to "who do we let into Uni?"
I do not envy the position of the people in charge of all of this :(
Wow. You realize that this world where people care enough about school to put in that much effort is /completely foreign/ to me, right?
Personally, I think the school system I came from, where nobody cares is in bigger trouble than the system where cheating is endemic.
Personally, I think the school system I came from, where nobody cares is in bigger trouble than the system where cheating is endemic.
They still don't care about school. They care about not being weeded from the pile of resumes because they didn't have "the right grade" - which they got by a pantomime that superficially resembled school.
As a system it's highly optimized to select candidates who'll "go along to get along".
As a system it's highly optimized to select candidates who'll "go along to get along".
>As a system it's highly optimized to select candidates who'll "go along to get along".
Yeah, but isn't that a big part of what school teaches, though? It's an important skill, too. If you want to get a good grade on that paper, you've gotta read the professor and figure out what they are expecting, and give it to them. That's an important skill.
I mean, what school doesn't teach is that you can also choose who you want to please; different people want different things, so if you want to be one way, well, you just find a boss/partner/whatever that wants you to do the things you want to do. school doesn't cover that.
Yeah, but isn't that a big part of what school teaches, though? It's an important skill, too. If you want to get a good grade on that paper, you've gotta read the professor and figure out what they are expecting, and give it to them. That's an important skill.
I mean, what school doesn't teach is that you can also choose who you want to please; different people want different things, so if you want to be one way, well, you just find a boss/partner/whatever that wants you to do the things you want to do. school doesn't cover that.
I am not coming from a perspective that has inherent insight into this, but this all seems very strange to me.
It seems to me that only the top [whatever] percent of a population is going to be able to get into a class of school of their choosing, and only a top [whatever] percent of those admitted to those schools are going to successfully graduate. Now, China's population is unfathomably large, so that means way more people are going to be rejected or fail to graduate. On the other hand, it also means way more people are going to be accepted and graduate. 10x the population should mean 10x the rejected people, but it should also mean 10x the accepted and 10x the graduated, right?
I don't really see why a larger population should mean that cheating is incentivized more, unless the real problem is an undersupply (proportionately) of education.
Now, if lack of education positions is the real problem, then cheating isn't a solution to that; rampant cheating just changes the equation from "top [whatever] get accepted" to "top [whatever] at cheating get accepted". But do those who don't meet "top [whatever]" in a large population have more incentive to cheat than those who don't meet "top [whatever]" in a small population? I don't see why. The incentives should be the same in either a large or a small population, right?
It seems to me that only the top [whatever] percent of a population is going to be able to get into a class of school of their choosing, and only a top [whatever] percent of those admitted to those schools are going to successfully graduate. Now, China's population is unfathomably large, so that means way more people are going to be rejected or fail to graduate. On the other hand, it also means way more people are going to be accepted and graduate. 10x the population should mean 10x the rejected people, but it should also mean 10x the accepted and 10x the graduated, right?
I don't really see why a larger population should mean that cheating is incentivized more, unless the real problem is an undersupply (proportionately) of education.
Now, if lack of education positions is the real problem, then cheating isn't a solution to that; rampant cheating just changes the equation from "top [whatever] get accepted" to "top [whatever] at cheating get accepted". But do those who don't meet "top [whatever]" in a large population have more incentive to cheat than those who don't meet "top [whatever]" in a small population? I don't see why. The incentives should be the same in either a large or a small population, right?
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that the higher population CAUSES cheating. Just that the insane volume of people applying makes the current system (single exam being 99% of your entrance to Uni) more logistically feasible than a lot of other potential systems.
The disadvantage is that you have no other way to prove yourself than a single test score. That's also why you're seeing such outrage, because that single test is going to open (or shut) a lot of doors.
(See above comment about O(n), he articulated it way better than me :P)
The disadvantage is that you have no other way to prove yourself than a single test score. That's also why you're seeing such outrage, because that single test is going to open (or shut) a lot of doors.
(See above comment about O(n), he articulated it way better than me :P)
> I don't really see why a larger population should mean that cheating is incentivized more, unless the real problem is an undersupply (proportionately) of education.
I interpreted dmoy's comment much differently. I thought the point was that since there are so many people entering Uni, they just don't have the resources to penalize enough people for cheating. The obvious solution is to put people on site and prevent it rather than look for it after-the-fact, but apparently that results in rock throwing protests...
I interpreted dmoy's comment much differently. I thought the point was that since there are so many people entering Uni, they just don't have the resources to penalize enough people for cheating. The obvious solution is to put people on site and prevent it rather than look for it after-the-fact, but apparently that results in rock throwing protests...
10x the population should mean 10x the rejected people, but it should also mean 10x the accepted and 10x the graduated, right?
I don't know where you got that. The number of seats in "elite" or even "good enough" universities is not a linear function of the national population. In populous but poor countries like China and India and Bangladesh, there is much less educational opportunity than there are smart people.
I don't know where you got that. The number of seats in "elite" or even "good enough" universities is not a linear function of the national population. In populous but poor countries like China and India and Bangladesh, there is much less educational opportunity than there are smart people.
Cheating is always going to exist in highly competitive environments. Confusing kids in such environments with excessive focus on honesty and integrity can put them at a serious disadvantage.
In my experience, irrespective of country or culture, most people (even those that have cheated) inherently want to be fair and that sort of balances the equations out over the long term.
In my experience, irrespective of country or culture, most people (even those that have cheated) inherently want to be fair and that sort of balances the equations out over the long term.
Sounds exactly like those people who want to make privacy a right.
This isn't just a problem with Chinese students in China. A large for-pay cheating operation which catered exclusively to Chinese students was just uncovered in New Zealand, too.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/8662224/Chinese-ch...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/8662224/Chinese-ch...
These are completely different issues (which you are simply conflating by race).
The exam mentioned in the article is THE exam. If you fail, that's it for you. You can't re-sit and you can't attend a reputable university. Your choices are the equivalent of technical colleges (few which have any reputation), working in low skill jobs, or (if you have A LOT of money) studying abroad.
Given the circumstances, I think cheating is the sensible thing to do, given their are cheaters, by not cheating yourself you put yourself at a disadvantage.
The exam mentioned in the article is THE exam. If you fail, that's it for you. You can't re-sit and you can't attend a reputable university. Your choices are the equivalent of technical colleges (few which have any reputation), working in low skill jobs, or (if you have A LOT of money) studying abroad.
Given the circumstances, I think cheating is the sensible thing to do, given their are cheaters, by not cheating yourself you put yourself at a disadvantage.
The term "Chinese" doesn't describe a race; it is descriptive of a nationality. And I don't see how the two issues aren't related at least at some basic level. Cheating at this scale seems to be a cultural phenomenon moreso than a racial one.
Well sure, technically, blacks aren't a race either, nor are whites or indians... technically we are All "human" but these semantics don't progress the discussion.
I agree that right now, given China's recent history and current state of affairs their is widespread corruption and exploitation. If that qualifies as "cultural phenomenon" then I agree, but I don't agree it was always there, and think it is more to do with the mao/deng transition and the massive injection of wealth into china since.
I agree that right now, given China's recent history and current state of affairs their is widespread corruption and exploitation. If that qualifies as "cultural phenomenon" then I agree, but I don't agree it was always there, and think it is more to do with the mao/deng transition and the massive injection of wealth into china since.
"We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat."
I can't imagine how people can say it out their mouth. Just like when someone kill, due to fairness you kill too.
I am a Chinese, and I feel shame on this kind of Chinese logic. They use wording like fairness, human right not seek for proper, but their benefit, I have see too much ridiculous in my homeland.
I can't imagine how people can say it out their mouth. Just like when someone kill, due to fairness you kill too.
I am a Chinese, and I feel shame on this kind of Chinese logic. They use wording like fairness, human right not seek for proper, but their benefit, I have see too much ridiculous in my homeland.
Well, I'm not Chinese, but I think they're right. Fairness requires impartiality, and they're being discriminated against. The solution should be to implement the anti-cheating measures everywhere, not just in a few schools.
> Fairness requires impartiality, and they're being discriminated against.
> The relatively small city of Zhongxiang in Hubei province has always performed suspiciously well in China's tough ''gaokao'' exams, winning a disproportionate number of places at the country's elite universities. Last year, the city was cautioned by the province's education department after it discovered 99 identical papers in one subject.
> The relatively small city of Zhongxiang in Hubei province has always performed suspiciously well in China's tough ''gaokao'' exams, winning a disproportionate number of places at the country's elite universities. Last year, the city was cautioned by the province's education department after it discovered 99 identical papers in one subject.
I think it's wrong for people to jump on the band wagon. It just adds to the problem instead of making it a minority thing which can be easier to deal with.
But is it a minority thing? That doesn't seem to be the case.
They want the schools allow them to cheat instead of fight for anti cheating system
that's the most ridiculous point
What do you think of the "right to privacy"? Isn't it as ridiculous as a "right to cheating"? I mean, they're both dishonest ways to reach fairness.
I think they are misusing the word "fairness"
fairness can have both size, all doing the same or all not doing it
both we just usually prefer the wrong side as we know we are hard to change the mind of others
This may be obvious, yet unmentioned in the article, but if you are a Chinese student, you can take this exam exacly once, and this is the one single number they will judge you on. Understandable if you are upset. Perhaps if no single exam would be so important and you were able to retake them whenever you want, there were less pressure for cheating.
Our education and qualification systems are indeed unscalable. Are we in a need for a more granular and more subjective way of "quantifying" peoples achievement?
Stories likes this make life worth living! It's got irony, farce, class struggle, crushed dreams - everything human existence is made of.
I actually have a lot to say about it, but this great Baffler piece, Adam Wheeler Went to Harvard, says it best: http://thebaffler.com/past/adam_wheeler_went_to_harvard.
Then, I would add a snippet from this Thomas Frank article[1] in Harper's:
After all, what universities were selling then, and what they are selling today, is an extremely valuable commodity: entry into what sociologists call the professional managerial class. There’s a reason that Lexus LX 570 that almost ran you down in the crosswalk the other day had a harvard sticker neatly centered on its rear window. And it isn’t because the driver believes we would all profit from immersing ourselves in theories of intersectionality, or because of a lifelong attachment to Crimson field hockey. That sticker is there because Harvard is a crucial part of who that SUV driver is. A college degree from a prestigious school is the credential that matters most in American life, and growing college-enrollment figures suggest that an increasing number of Americans have figured this out.
[1]: http://harpers.org/archive/2012/06/the-price-of-admission/ (subscribers only)
I actually have a lot to say about it, but this great Baffler piece, Adam Wheeler Went to Harvard, says it best: http://thebaffler.com/past/adam_wheeler_went_to_harvard.
Then, I would add a snippet from this Thomas Frank article[1] in Harper's:
After all, what universities were selling then, and what they are selling today, is an extremely valuable commodity: entry into what sociologists call the professional managerial class. There’s a reason that Lexus LX 570 that almost ran you down in the crosswalk the other day had a harvard sticker neatly centered on its rear window. And it isn’t because the driver believes we would all profit from immersing ourselves in theories of intersectionality, or because of a lifelong attachment to Crimson field hockey. That sticker is there because Harvard is a crucial part of who that SUV driver is. A college degree from a prestigious school is the credential that matters most in American life, and growing college-enrollment figures suggest that an increasing number of Americans have figured this out.
[1]: http://harpers.org/archive/2012/06/the-price-of-admission/ (subscribers only)
This is going to effect innovation and education in China very badly. If there elite University students are getting there by cheating, then it means there elites aren't really elite: just better at being dishonest.
Devil's advocate: grades are a stupid thing; if someone sits in class and learns and for the exam needs to cheat in order to keep up with cheat-driven-grades-inflation, we have not made a comment about that student's ability or anything. The elites may yet be elite.
All that proves is that exams aren't the best way of assessing someone's ability. However, cheating doesn't show ability in anything, other than deviousness.
As opposed to the elite in the USA...
I went to school in the US. Anecdotally, the top students genuinely cared about learning. Most of the cheaters just barely got by, if that.
Anecdotal data point: My brother taught pure math in both Australia, and the U.S (in ivy league institutions). His view is that the quality of students in Australia (largely classless given the govt subsidies education so much) is leagues above the undergrads at top ivy leagues (who are there because of $$$).
Yes, but take a step “down” to the elite but not aristocratic schools (berkeley, NYU, georgia tech, etc.), and you'll find the quality of the students go up.
In the usual pre-exam instructions this year at university (in the UK) the invigilators made specific reference to network enabled watches as a prohibited item - I have a Pebble, as do a few of my friends, but not many students do in general.
One interesting thing I've noticed is with assignments we have strict anti-plagiarism checks which always seem to be emphasised for foreign students. We have quite a few students from China and India on our courses and it's almost like it's a special mention for them. Several times lecturers have made reference to different cultures having an expectation of plagiarism, and I've spoken to academics who say it is a very common thing from foreign students.
One interesting thing I've noticed is with assignments we have strict anti-plagiarism checks which always seem to be emphasised for foreign students. We have quite a few students from China and India on our courses and it's almost like it's a special mention for them. Several times lecturers have made reference to different cultures having an expectation of plagiarism, and I've spoken to academics who say it is a very common thing from foreign students.
If this was jeopardy, the question would be: "What is the combination of a child-centric culture and a one child policy."
Selecting to enforce more strictly the law in a particular area is unfair and not the way to go when you have such high cheating levels reported in the whole country. To walk the path of the "Rule of Law" they have to make the rules stricter for all.
I am a native Chinese and I must say this is something considered very abnormal in China.
The college entrance examination is one of the most important exam hold in the whole country level. If anything happen in this exam, the governor whom in charge of the area will lose a lot of score in their KPI performance.
The college entrance examination is one of the most important exam hold in the whole country level. If anything happen in this exam, the governor whom in charge of the area will lose a lot of score in their KPI performance.
Less important in this case, from my perspective, as the students are competing SPORTS and ARTS colleges/majors, which are always seen as categories that requires less solemn test scores on everything(, except for the talent in specific sports/arts, which is hard to test though).
My mother always watches Youth Singers Competition year after year on TV, where they draw random questions as 'overall quality' section. And you can tell many of the best youth singers in China are less competitive in literature, history and some common knowledge in science(, and some of them are even less competitive in answering questions in music theory/history).
I am not trying to generalize any conclusion about the cheating rate or something. I am just less inclined to believe that the media have already reported all the truth(, nothing but the truth). And it may not necessarily hint that other students who focus other majors like science, technology or business are cheating in the same level.
My mother always watches Youth Singers Competition year after year on TV, where they draw random questions as 'overall quality' section. And you can tell many of the best youth singers in China are less competitive in literature, history and some common knowledge in science(, and some of them are even less competitive in answering questions in music theory/history).
I am not trying to generalize any conclusion about the cheating rate or something. I am just less inclined to believe that the media have already reported all the truth(, nothing but the truth). And it may not necessarily hint that other students who focus other majors like science, technology or business are cheating in the same level.
If everyone cheats and they construct a pilot enforcement program that focuses on .1 percent of the population, of course it's unfair. The real solution is to drop the cheatable system altogether. You aren't going to fix universal corruption with baby steps.
Cheating is not endemic within the gaokao system because, as a testing regime, it's excessively vulnerable to cheating. It's not any more cheatable than the SAT, GREs, or other standardized entrance or aptitude exams.
Mainland Chinese society at all levels is thoroughly corrupt and its pretty much impossible to achieve what a reasonable observer would recognize as a materially successful life within the PRC without being actively involved in corruption.
Even simply to muddle along and live hand-to-mouth, content to have most of the doors to success either closed to them from the get-go or slammed in their face, a regular Mainland person has to turn a blind eye to a steady stream of illegal, unethical, and downright harmful behavior on the part of their peers.
That's a part of why (along with many other factors) many Mainland citizens are eager to emigrate to pretty much anywhere that's not the PRC.
Mainland Chinese society at all levels is thoroughly corrupt and its pretty much impossible to achieve what a reasonable observer would recognize as a materially successful life within the PRC without being actively involved in corruption.
Even simply to muddle along and live hand-to-mouth, content to have most of the doors to success either closed to them from the get-go or slammed in their face, a regular Mainland person has to turn a blind eye to a steady stream of illegal, unethical, and downright harmful behavior on the part of their peers.
That's a part of why (along with many other factors) many Mainland citizens are eager to emigrate to pretty much anywhere that's not the PRC.
This feels like a massive over generalisation (given the size of china)... Any kind of evidence of this?
Can I provide evidence to prove to you that my generalization is accurate?
Can you prove to me that Antarctica exists? That there were ever dinosaurs? If I'm intent on not being convinced?
Come to China for an extended visit. Reside in one region for a while, then move to another for a bit. Repeat that process a few times until you're satisfied. Being able to read and write Chinese (simplified characters) and speak Putonghua (or, if you stay in one place long enough, the local dialect) would probably speed things up for you.
Even then, you could (if you were determined enough) maintain a conviction that you had just had a run of bad luck in terms of the places you'd chosen to live and the people with whom you'd happened to interact.
I don't know how much time you'd have to spend here to be satisfied.
Can you prove to me that Antarctica exists? That there were ever dinosaurs? If I'm intent on not being convinced?
Come to China for an extended visit. Reside in one region for a while, then move to another for a bit. Repeat that process a few times until you're satisfied. Being able to read and write Chinese (simplified characters) and speak Putonghua (or, if you stay in one place long enough, the local dialect) would probably speed things up for you.
Even then, you could (if you were determined enough) maintain a conviction that you had just had a run of bad luck in terms of the places you'd chosen to live and the people with whom you'd happened to interact.
I don't know how much time you'd have to spend here to be satisfied.
This could mean a few years without graduates...
Instead of calling it cheating, whynot describe objectively what they are doing and let us judge ourselves whether it's cheating? This article makes it sound obvious that everyone is using cell phones or other devices to communicate with people outside or with each other, but for all we know that was a single occurrence out of thousands of students. Too often articles like these turn out to tell only one side of the story, and I don't like it. It sounds too crazy that all Chinese students think cheating is fair; heck, it wouldn't be called cheating by them if they thought it was!
The article reads as if it was something from The Onion. It's funny, then you realize it's real, and it become scary.
I got a very similar vibe from "Journey Beyond Tomorrow" by Robert Sheckley. It's half SF, half satire, and very witty. The book chilled me a few times because I realized things he makes fun are happening around the world, just on a smaller scale (for example, people committing crimes in order to be sent to jail. Free food and shelter). When reading the book, I had to make breaks not because I was tired, but because it was like overdosing laughing gas.
I got a very similar vibe from "Journey Beyond Tomorrow" by Robert Sheckley. It's half SF, half satire, and very witty. The book chilled me a few times because I realized things he makes fun are happening around the world, just on a smaller scale (for example, people committing crimes in order to be sent to jail. Free food and shelter). When reading the book, I had to make breaks not because I was tired, but because it was like overdosing laughing gas.
Back in the days of the Great Cultural Revolution, students who handed in blank answer sheets were praised as 'white paper heroes'. Now, at least they are trying to write something rather than nothing.
This is about the 高考 (gaokao) or the university entrance exam. There are many discussions about this since ages. The parents in other provinces think it is unfair their child needs a higher score than those from Beijing; well, the cheating is one reason, but also the universities are paid by the taxpayers from Beijing. In short: This exam decides a lot about the students future... If they have a bad score, no good uni, no good future. After this, only money can help you get a way to buy you into education or a good future.
1) Stephen Covey often talked about the "personality ethic" over the "character ethic." The set of ethics a society chooses will determine its future in the long-term. Charades cannot last forever.
2) The article didn't hesitate to conflate the events at this one school with the character of the entire country, which, given the disparate scale of the two, seems to be poor journalism. But then again, such articles have come to be expected nowadays.
2) The article didn't hesitate to conflate the events at this one school with the character of the entire country, which, given the disparate scale of the two, seems to be poor journalism. But then again, such articles have come to be expected nowadays.
> Transmitter disguised as a pencil eraser
Let's not forget, resourcefulness is a greater predictor of success than raw intellectual ability.
Let's not forget, resourcefulness is a greater predictor of success than raw intellectual ability.
If all your friends are using pencil eraser radios, then how resourceful do you really have to be to use one too?
"...Mr Li had confiscated a mobile phone from his son and then refused a bribe to return the handset.
Cohen Bros' A Serious Man, deftly sounded this Asian custom as a passing grade bribe into a mixed-metaphor with 'Schrodinger's Cat', all the while quantum engineer uncle Arthur's Mentaculous, returns a fortune.
Cohen Bros' A Serious Man, deftly sounded this Asian custom as a passing grade bribe into a mixed-metaphor with 'Schrodinger's Cat', all the while quantum engineer uncle Arthur's Mentaculous, returns a fortune.
As a though experiment, what do you think Americans would do if the government banned SAT prep courses? I know this isn't exactly a parallel; but consider that in many ways those courses are a leg up for the with it and able families.. just as this racket sounds like it was.
Nothing, because there are about a thousand colleges one can get into with dismal SAT scores.
This is a perfect example of the problem with test scores. The test becomes a metric to game, and any actual learning is negated in the process.
At this level, some might say "Cheating is an art", the more crafty and resourceful you get the more you'll go farther!
I'm glad to see that there wasn't a comments thread on that story. It would have probably been filled with racist comments.
Surprisingly, not The Onion.
Doesn't this go on a lot more often then we want to admit?