Thankfully, not all schools:
Some educators have rejected [Turnitin] and other anti-cheating technologies on the grounds that they presume students are guilty, undermining the trust that instructors seek with students.
Washington & Lee University, for example, concluded several years ago that Turnitin was inconsistent with the school’s honor code, “which starts from a basis of trusting our students,” said Dawn Watkins, vice president for student affairs. “Services like Turnitin.com give the implication that we are anticipating our students will cheat.”
Trip Gabriel, “To Stop Cheats, Colleges Learn Their Trickery, July 5, 2010″
I’ve always thought that if I were a teacher, I’d punish the lazy cheaters, but give a wrist slap to the clever ones. Just because if you’re working that hard to cheat, you’re learning something (even if it’s not what is in the syllabus) — you might end up running security for banks or something.
Probably best that I’m not a teacher.
haha, yeah, good thing, you’re not a teacher. You would really shake things up.
Having been a TA and having caught people cheating, the professors didn’t really want to get involved, which I can understand.
There is something to “you’re
onlycheating yourself” — just found Pamela J. S. Wilson’s thoughts on this which is a solid counter.The whole evaluation thing was very piecemeal and overall poor back when I was in university. Stories like “In Law Schools, Grades Go Up, Just Like That” upset me, and suggest the state is no better today.
I remember reading this article and thinking that the extremes these people are going to really miss the point of learning. After all, the goal is to some way to measure that students have grasped the material, not to catch them cheating.