[dart600]

Hi. I attended this school and then got accepted to another more standard institution, which I applied at the same time to. The new institution, learning I had been attending U of the P, promptly told me that U of the P credits would not transfer. Universal transferability in question, I opted out.

I did enjoy meeting people from all walks of life, all over the world. However, I also saw a grossly wide range of educational professionalism in the students. In the introductory mandatory writing course, for example,there were a number of classmates whom could not grasp the idea of plagiarism being unethical. With a plagiarism assignment graded by those peers, it was difficult to not feel like higher educational learning was moving along for oneself at a progressively intellectually challenging pace.

[themodelplumber]

> could not grasp the idea of plagiarism being unethical

I remember experiencing this at a private religious university. At the time, my hyper-religious mind was blown to see students outright cheating in the Testing Center.

Since then I've been exposed to additional perspectives on plagiarism. It is an extremely deep and nuanced topic. A few years out of school, I ended up mentoring and then teaching college students who seem to match the sort of person you describe. This was a huge shock at first.

The more I learned about these students, the more I learned about the sheer variety of perceptions involved: One person's fairness concept is, to another person or group, a latent power dynamic which ought to be questioned.

Or, this person's concern for the big-picture ethical questions is this other person's small-picture roadblock in an economic problem which seems more urgent with each passing moment. You want a big picture? Can you justify it in seconds, with something that's not simply a subjective perception or largely-covert moral construct of your own?

Yet another person's assumption of perpetually commonly-understood contract is another's baroque exercise in cleverness and flexibility. It's the sneaky laser dance from _Ocean's Twelve_, and _that_ kind of challenge is, psychologically speaking, extremely energizing for them. Don't think they didn't notice how things work in the "real" world! (When these two see each other face to face--so to speak--there are harsh outcomes)

Anyway--sorry to hear about your experience & thank you for sharing so that others can be more educated about their choice of institution.

[infogulch]

The problem with plagiarism isn't best characterized as some sort of power struggle between teachers and students via bullshit assignments.

The purpose of learning to write is to make yourself a formidable communicator. If you can independently analyze a new topic to learn something new and apply the results of those learnings towards a particular goal, you can be amazingly effective in everything you aim for. But if you plagiarize every assignment you rob yourself of your own training of this critically important competency.

Plagiarizing some work doesn't really hurt the work, it hurts you.

[khawkins]

This is under the assumption that you see college is a program of self-betterment and not busy work for receiving a degree that says you can have a middle-class job. It feels like even the universities themselves see it as the latter these days.

[knowuh]

The cynical anti-intellectualism in this thread is bracing.

All part of the zeitgeist I guess.

News is fake. Science is fake. Schools are barriers. Everything is subjective, objective reality is nonexistent.

How do we have productive disagreements going forward?

[RNCTX]

> News is fake. Science is fake. Schools are barriers. Everything is subjective, objective reality is nonexistent. How do we have productive disagreements going forward?

Funny you describe it that way. I'd argue that young people in STEM fields, including IS/CIS/CompSci undergrad programs, think everything can be objective when that clearly is not the case.

You don't need to go to college to press buttons, fill out spreadsheets, or input code until you get the output you seek. You need to go to college to make the subjective decisions, which don't have a clear right/wrong answer.

[SuoDuanDao]

I can't word this in a non-snarky way, but it's a genuine question:

Why do you believe that college can teach making subjective decisions?

[mikecoles]

Anti-college is not anti-intellectualism. Quite the opposite. Higher education is no longer about education; it's about profit. Pieces of paper are pointless for anything other than wallpaper. Free-range education through meeting and collaborating with others is more beneficial to expanding your knowledge than handing over money to some college. Save those tens of thousands of dollars and years of your life. Spend that time and money being an apprentice, creating your own curriculum, or taking specific training.

[BossingAround]

> Anti-college is not anti-intellectualism. Quite the opposite. Higher education is no longer about education; it's about profit.

In the US, maybe. Do people take ridiculous loans for their degree outside of US? Some loans, sure, but loans that amount to 5-10x their future yearly income? I don't know...

[quacked]

I agree with you, but the primary issue is signalling via degrees. For the elite non-college educated who already have a working portfolio of projects to reference, landing a "white-collar" job may be a possibility. For the rest of them, a non-degree holder, even if objectively competitive with a degree-holder, will be immediately discounted by a hiring manager who's looking at 250 resumes.

[SuoDuanDao]

Productive disagreement? I think to begin, we need to vet people we might have disagreements with. I don't think productive dialogue can be commodditized. Maybe it can after the fact via podcasts etc, but dialogues themselves are, I think, inherently analogue and highly personal. I think, given the realities of the attention economy, that we need to be much more selective about whom we let in to a conversation that might change our own mind. And this needs to be on a case-by-case basis, with everyone setting and updating their own standards on whom they'll let into dialogue.

I think people like the one you're responding to would agree and increasingly think that association with institutions of higher learning send a strong signal to avoid dialogue. It doesn't necessarily look like anti-intellectualism to me, any more than filtering out people who didn't graduate high school is necessarily elitism. I could see myself rationalizing either, depending on the kind of conversation I wanted to have.

[dart600]

Could you please define anti intellectualism by your standards? To me, anti intellectual notions would be just if the initial intentions of a discussion were based on a very rich topic and were dissolved in some manner. I beg a brief and graceful peer review for the poor submissions that likely seek solace in the isolation of a virus infected planet.

And at end. In my intention to post, I was solely being altruistic, informing whomever reading that if they were to read this article and consider getting a degree from U of the P that they should consider the risk. Just a gesture. However, I think my writing style might have been misunderstood as some semblance of pseudo intellectual attempt or such. Do know, for the record,that as the 1st to reply to the post, my intention was to inform.

But I am intrigued and inspired. How about we both try to post an article that invites our versions of intellectualism! Ready set go.

[zo1]

>"How do we have productive disagreements going forward?"

We are barely having any of those right now in the greater society. As long as we can't argue facts, objective-reality and do so without feelings, we'll continue descending into anarchy and divisiveness.

[tripzilch]

US is "the greater society" now??

[kerkeslager]

Your post lacks nuance.

Some news is fake, some isn't.

Some science is fake, some isn't.

Schools are barriers, but for many elements of a school, the fact that it's a barrier is a good thing--we don't want ignorant people performing in roles that where knowledge is required. The problem is that many elements of schools are barriers which are poor at achieving their purpose, or are directly counterproductive to their purpose.

> How do we have productive disagreements going forward?

That's a complicated question, but oversimplifying the opinions of people we disagree with and then labeling it ("cynical anti-intellectualism") isn't the answer.

[antepodius]

Or: Objective reality might exist, but it's not necessarily present in the universities, which are mostly there as an IQ test by proxy with a filter for the most lazy, with some social indoctrination thrown in. Any science or truth exists only at the whims of the social order of the day.

[zarathustreal]

>Any science or truth exists only at the whims of the social order of the day.

This is not objectively true but I understand what you're trying to say. I'm sad to hear that your experience of science and truth has been only that which society has given you, or at the least that you feel that others are only experiencing it in that way

[AnimalMuppet]

But if you can't do the middle-class job because you can't write, the piece of paper will only get you so far. It may get you an entry-level job, but you probably won't get much in the way of promotions. So even from that perspective, plagiarism isn't helpful.

[BeetleB]

> But if you can't do the middle-class job because you can't write, the piece of paper will only get you so far. It may get you an entry-level job, but you probably won't get much in the way of promotions. So even from that perspective, plagiarism isn't helpful.

Where do these mythical jobs exist where being able to write well is a requirement for career growth? Certainly not at engineering companies.

I wish what you said were true, but in my experience, "being able to write and communicate well is critical in the workplace" is one of the top lies taught to me when I was at university. We had to take a regular writing class, and a technical writing class to graduate with an engineering degree. And when I get to industry, I see no signs of people practicing what they're taught, and it doesn't hold anyone back.

Edit: I should say my experience is more about writing than communicating as a whole. People do need to be good speakers/presenters. But writing? Not really.

[brobdingnagians]

Yes, writing is important. I have coworkers who struggle at writing, and it takes mental overhead to try to understand them. It hurts their ability to communicate clearly, think clearly, and to be taken seriously. I have clients who struggle to write well; I was just barely looking at a legally binding document that is incomprehensible in places and would have serious repercussions on those using it. That is bad. Society is better when we are truly educated to think and to communicate. We can be enriched by each other when we understand each other. Writing coherently helps us think coherently. That improves our lives more than a degree certificate ever will.

[azinman2]

Writing and communication skills are absolutely necessary for career growth. The power of persuasion is directly linked to the ability to communicate your ideas well.

[jimmaswell]

> "being able to write and communicate well is critical in the workplace" is one of the top lies taught to me when I was at university

Definitely. Communication full of casual txtspeak and/or broken English all over. I suspected my first job's recruitment emails to possibly be some kind of scam at first because they were made in 3 different fonts in the same email with random words capitalized or colored various colors for emphasis, of course full of broken English - and I'm not talking about just terms like "do the needful" which are valid Indian English, that's fine, but even evaluating as that language so much of the communication is just terrible and nobody seems to care. I guess it works out fine and ultimately doesn't matter much but it still feels unprofessional.

[chrisweekly]

I strongly disagree.

Communication skills -- especially in writing -- are increasingly important, rare, and valuable.

I've been doing software-related work for a living since 1998. The trend toward remote and async collab -- which has only ever increased in that 22-year span -- strengthens my conviction.

[jonfw]

You are seriously limited in your ability to move past being an individual contributor if you aren't able to write well. Especially in this industry where remote work, even across time zones, is so common.

I see some really brilliant problem solvers in my company, for instance, that are definitely being held back by their inability to communicate well. Communication allows you to scale your impact several times over.

[nopinsight]

Which field(s) of engineering do you talk about? What are the highest level(s) of promotion the persons who don't write well reach and continue to work in?

I would think that writing well is at least a requirement for promotion into a technical leadership role (above senior individual contributors).

By writing well, I don't mean in the style of journalists or novelists. Rather, writing clearly and concisely to effectively convey one's points and reasoning should be very valuable in engineering.

[TedDoesntTalk]

I can only believe you are trolling.

[jerry1979]

You write well. Maybe you have a blind spot because of that.

[brooklyn_ashey]

Wait...does anybody care about writing skills anymore? ——outside—or even inside—journalism? I wish they did. Writing seems to be treated like a 20th century skill of the uber-affluent layabout these days. I jump for joy when I stumble upon some great writing on the internet.

[bitexploder]

Yes. Try consulting. Information security consulting to be precise our work product is a written report. We have to communicate nuanced and complex topics to a variety of audiences. Writing well, even technical writing, is hard and it’s not as obvious as code when it is not quite right. We care deeply about it. Writing clean proposals, white papers, blog posts etc. It all matters to us. Sure your average coding job doesn’t require it, but plenty of work does. And I do believe having communication skills at a high level in a written form is a competitive advantage. It’s hard to see, but in the long run people who can eloquently write their ideas have an advantage on the less articulate.

[renewiltord]

To be honest, I arrived at university fully capable of my first job out. I think most people do. The selection process has you write essays and do math and all that shit.

Work is hard, but like most things you learn best doing the thing. Not saying SICP was shit. Just that I could have done that in high school and accelerated my time to money (and through it, contentment).

Maybe I'll let my kids do something like that if they feel the mildest desire to.

[derwiki]

Kudos to you— having started coding QBasic in fifth grade, I definitely needed 3-4 years of undergrad to be ready for my first professional SWE job.

[bryanrasmussen]

If you have the skills to get the degree with 8 hours of work per day or to get the degree with 2 hours of work per day, getting the degree with the 2 hours of work does not mean you will not be able to do the job which will require you to do the 8 hours of work when you graduate.

[WJW]

There seems to be a sizable group where any job (especially an entry-level middle class job with the associated health insurance benefits and salary) would be a massive step up in income and social status. Cheating on a test to escape a life of poverty in the slums is not much of a dilemma IMO.

[imtringued]

It's actually the opposite. First generation migrants try their best because they know what happens if they fail. Cheating is easier if you can bribe authorities.

[Broken_Hippo]

Most of the jobs don't require you to be able to write well at all - especially not university level writing. Really, all most folks need is the ability to communicate effectively in person or over email. You might - just might - be required to write a letter. Of course, these skills are ones that a store manager at any random retail or dining establishment needs too, and some of these 'middle class' jobs require nothing much at all (if it is a factory that pays well enough).

Besides, plagiarism isn't really about writing. You can lump it into two categories: Cheating, which isn't most folks' intention, and more importantly, giving someone credit for an idea. This last one is something folks need to do in some professions. Don't take an employee's idea and call it your own, same for something your boss has you pass along. Don't pretend something is your own idea when it was implemented at a job you had years ago. This version of plagiarism is vastly more important than writing skills (which can be taught without needing to address plagiarism).

[tripzilch]

> This is under the assumption that you see college is a program of self-betterment and not busy work for receiving a degree that says you can have a middle-class job.

That's not really up for discussion though.

The degree itself will become utterly meaningless extremely quickly if we would actually generally accept that kind of reasoning.

The whole reason the degree is worth something is because it's perceived as a token of you having done the work and self-betterment etc.

It's not an empty token that allows you to have a middle class job. In practice it might be, but as soon as you openly accept that is just what it is, and only what it is, then you only get cheaters.

[nine_k]

To have a middle-class job, you need knowledge, not a degree. (Disclaimer: my son does not have a degree but has a pretty demanding middle-class engineering job.)

If you spend time in a university to just get a diploma and maybe some connections, you likely are wasting your time and significant money (remember, a student loan cannot be got rid of by a bankruptcy).

[leereeves]

Even if you only care about obtaining the degree, rampant plagarism also diminishes the value of that degree.

[a-nikolaev]

I think, plagiarism also harms the character. If instead of doing things right and put effort, you cheat, eventually you learn that doing things right does not worth it. And then it becomes a personal trait, so to speak.

[Melting_Harps]

> I think, plagiarism also harms the character. If instead of doing things right and put effort, you cheat, eventually you learn that doing things right does not worth it. And then it becomes a personal trait, so to speak.

Welcome to the underlying systemic problem with some of Society's more critical institutions.

Fraud and corruption have become institutionalized, and lying and cheating are just the name of the game.

Explain to me how Banks got away with what they have if not fir this very root issue; blow up the economy because of reckless, risky investments: Bonus, bailouts, and golden parachutes for all.

Default on your student loans, utility bill or car payment? We'll ruin your credit for all of your miserable existence, while you slave away anyway because the former cannot be expunged.

I'm so glad I borrowed from family and friends instead of banks or the State. It was hard paying them back, but if I had to choose a creditor of last resort I think I made the right choice.

[VLM]

Not necessarily hurt you, but doesn't help as much as it could.

From talking to people further along the plagiarism spectrum than myself, they see it as developing good taste or almost coaching.

Yeah yeah in a writing class its hard to justify not learning to write. But in any other class...

Lets hypothetically say we're in a computer science class and our assignment is to write an essay on the supremacy of the C++ language. There's all these English department goals of becoming a better writer that would be met by my pitiful attempt to glorify polymorphism. But the C++ goal of learning to be a better C++ programmer would be best met by extensive reading and research to find the best Stroustrup quote. If I were involved in the academic scene of converting papers into salary via cooperation with other researchers, I need to quote my coworkers accurately to share the revenue appropriately. However what if I don't have the goal of playing that game? In a learning environment in casual verbal conversation I might tell my C++ instructor that C++ main() returns an int. Yet if I write that down as I just did, I'm committing the academic sin of plagiarism by not properly footnoting Stroustrup, that's a direct quote from him. But I'm not trying to play the academic game, I'm trying to learn to program, and develop good taste by copying the right people. It seems a little unfair to grade students based on playing a different game than they signed up for. Even if the institutional goal is to produce little academics, in practice almost none of the kids will become academics.

That's a very authoritarian example of copying a guy at the top; but it also applies to lower level copying.

They're not necessarily wrong or self destructive, just kids on a different path with different priorities.

[cutemonster]

I was going to write sth similar -- that if a writing assignment seems pointless from a student's point of view, and s/he thinks the study time is better spent in other ways, maybe coding a software program instead,

Then to some extent I could sympathize with those who plagiarize. ... If it's to save time for something more on topic they think.

But if it's a writing class, then, no! Or writing about history or society etc

[themodelplumber]

> Power struggle between teachers and students via...

Uh, did I say that, or were you intuiting? Not exactly a learner's approach :D

> Plagiarizing some work doesn't really hurt the work, it hurts you.

Except when it benefits you? This is the subjective perception I was talking about. That their mindset differs does not instantly make them wrong, especially when you can throw a dime out the window and hit an educated professional who falls short of the best (heaven forbid the "perfect") ethical standard.

Ethics is, and should be, hard. If you put words into my mouth, is your position ethical? This stuff requires the ability to stick around, listen, learn, and stay in the game, moreso if you plan to claim the high ground.

[infogulch]

This isn't a subjective ethics problem. It's a competence problem. If you can't formulate your own thoughts into a coherent statement (the purpose of learning to write) then you'll be useless to anyone that needs new coherent arguments.

[themodelplumber]

That's a bit of an overreach, isn't it, calling my writing incoherent and incompetent? (Edit: Parent clarified that "you" is meant to mean a hypothetical student, not me.) If more information is needed, as was the case here, we can ask questions. That's got nothing to do with author competence. It's not an essay contest. And why assume we know it all, filling in the gaps like that? In a discussion of ethics, this is a qualitative issue to say the least.

The concept of competence as you describe it is also very much a vague, subjective concern out of which you've just attempted to carve a covert competence contract. This leaves your blind spot unguarded because you are unknowingly making the discussion focus on you and your own competence level.

And this is a big part of why "hyper ethical" subjective ethics people struggle--they assume their view is right and don't ask questions of others.

[infogulch]

I haven't said anything about your writing at all. Maybe it wasn't clear enough that I meant "you" as in "someone" or "one". I'm sorry it was possible to misunderstand my general statement as a personal attack.

This doesn't have to do with me either -- the market will determine whether any one person is valuable enough to employ (or promote). My only claims are that being able to write makes one more valuable, and that plagiarizing assignments at school fails to teach one to write.

[jariel]

His statement was very matter of fact.

If students don't bother to do the work, they won't develop any competence in the discipline.

It would be like sending someone for Scala training, only to have them skip all of the work, buy the answers to the quiz, get the accreditation.

University is about much more than 'skill acquisition' but there is a lot of that. Cheating is almost universally pointless.

[austincheney]

It’s not an overreach. The competence is a product of originality and independence.

> And this is a big part of why "hyper ethical" subjective ethics people struggle--they assume their view is right and don't ask questions of others.

That is itself quite the assumption.

[renewiltord]

> Uh, did I say that, or were you intuiting?

What is it with this everywhere on HN these days where people assume every response someone makes is a refutation? It's a conversation, dude. People will take it places. Sometimes people will build on ideas you mention. Other times people will take an incident and draw their own conclusions. Other times people will draw on a similar incident or talk about a related concept.

I'll accept my off-topic downvotes since that is fair but this is so frustrating.

[themodelplumber]

Hmm, I think it's only fair that we zoom in a bit from "everyone on HN complaints" to the details in question. Otherwise it makes it appear that you want to avoid discussing details in question which directly flow into the qualitative nature of this discussion.

I just re-read what you wrote. If you're saying your response was not a refutation, given that you wrote "is not best characterized as," I think it's pretty clear as to why that could be misunderstood, to say the least. It seems clear to me that you were replying in direct disagreement and also projecting words I never said right into your reasoning. And further, it now seems as if you're claiming that I'm being assumptive. This is just compounding, not helping.

I think specifics are important here because it's unfortunately common for people to attempt to sweep pesky details under their subjective-ethical rug in the name of [hand wave]. Since this is an ethics discussion some due concern to communicating ethically seems reasonable to expect. If that's frustrating, maybe you can at least see the frustration on both sides.

[andrewxdiamond]

I wonder if a similar principle is at play when people throw links at each other in place of a debate

[StupidPeople]

> Plagiarizing some work doesn't really hurt the work, it hurts you

Except learning isn't really the reason most go. It's to get a well paid job at the end of it.

[andykx]

I returned to college after 10 years in the insurance industry. I’ve always viewed programming as a hobby, but decided to take the leap and pursue a career that I might actually enjoy.

Anyway, I notice a lot of younger students have this attitude and it frankly causes them to produce really crappy work. As long as they pass the class, they don’t really care to absorb the material.

I can’t help but wonder what kind of job they’re hoping to get when they leave school. What will happen when they get a technical interview? I can’t imagine them doing anything beyond answering phones at a company’s IT Help Desk.

I dunno. I listen to every word the professors say as if they’re telling me the secret to eternal life while half the class is dozing off.

[freeone3000]

The one class I took in college that was relevant to my job, at all, was the AI course on structured vector machines, which were irrelevant after two years. For most programs, correctness is a nice-to-have, forget speed or responsiveness or data structure choice.. and in production code, non-technical and constant factors override theoretical solutions. University computer science courses, on the whole, are quickly obsolete or obsolete to begin with, incompatible with software development as it's practiced, and are best reviewed in the week before seeking a new job to score well on leetcode. The best skills you're going to learn are the metacognition you're picking up in university, the ability to learn new languages and adapt to new environments and solve new problems, not anything that's actually taught.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> What will happen when they get a technical interview? I can’t imagine them doing anything beyond answering phones at a company’s IT Help Desk.

My experience says you'd be very surprised. As in most fields, networking, charisma, and ability to bullshit play a substantial role in IT hiring.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> I listen to every word the professors say as if they’re telling me the secret to eternal life while half the class is dozing off.

This is absolutely brilliant.

[austincheney]

As a software developer my education has nothing to do with a job or my salary.

[tripzilch]

> > Plagiarizing some work doesn't really hurt the work, it hurts you

> Except learning isn't really the reason most go. It's to get a well paid job at the end of it.

There's no contradiction here.

[throwgeorge]

>Plagiarizing some work doesn't really hurt the work, it hurts you.

and a job well done is its own reward right? i think it's very pretentious to say that to a person who's attending school in order to improve their lot in life (because credentials count for so much); that what's more important than the credential is some abstract notion of improvement. you might as well cast it in terms of sin and salvation.

[coffeecat]

But isn't this abstract notion of improvement supposed to be the entire point of education? It feels to me like education's purpose is undermined by its role as a prerequisite for a middle-class career. "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

[themodelplumber]

Abstract or not, it's completely qualitative / subjective. Easy to argue. Very easy. Try it: Pick a specific, abstract notion, name the institution, and talk to the students.

[infogulch]

> and a job well done is its own reward right?

Sure, if the life you want is to be at a desk for 8 hours a day regurgitating your superior's existing biases back at them, go ahead. I find employers much prefer someone that can attack a real problem and think critically about potential solutions from multiple levels of analysis. If all you're good at is chewing someone else's cud and spitting it out with a slightly different word order then you're useless to people that actually want to solve problems.

And, sorry to say, credentials are counting for less and less every year. If employers have to take a year to train you to think critically, then what use does a credential serve as a filter? I wonder why that's happening...

[HenryBemis]

(for work) I have both "plaigiarised" a policy that I found on the internet, AND written one using as source the ToC of 2-3 other policies, but did the fill-ups all by myself. I learned nothing from copy&paste, I gained plenty from typing it up from scratch myself (even added points that the ToC's were missing).

The clients got the same value (they wanted a v1 policy, and they got one). I became better by doing the work, so next time I had a discussion on the matter I felt that I controlled the discussion instead of pitching in.

Faking it till you make it has the risk that you fake it forever and you become the paradigm of the Peter Principle.

Walking the walk takes more time but always benefits in the long run.

I have met plenty of people though that take the risk to never grow/evolve and stay in their comfort zone because they just want the base salary to fund their hobbies and they get no sense of accomplishment through their work (for many reasons)(I am not getting into this discussion).

Edit: Ps: I now work like this (when asked to develop a policy for a new client): spend some time thinking of key points (technology changes fast enough in some areas), drop a couple of examples for each bullet point, and then "plagiarise" from previously made work. This way I have prepared part of the downstream Procedures. You would think that a Policy is high (enough) level so it shouldn't need frequent changes, but different clients want different things.

[tripzilch]

> a person who's attending school in order to improve their lot in life (because credentials count for so much)

If every person at the school had this reasoning, the credentials wouldn't count for anything.

The credentials only count for something if enough of the people graduating are actually fulfilling this promise of self improvement in the subject of their studies.

The cheaters are literally freeloading off the prestige of the credentials produced by the people who do put in the effort. If that group of people did not exist, the credentials would be useless to the cheaters as well.

[airstrike]

> in order to improve their lot in life (because credentials count for so much);

Those credentials only matter insofar as they describe the likely caliber of the alumni that come from that particular school. Being a terrible student isn't going to help the value of your degree a whole lot...

[xelxebar]

> Plagiarizing some work doesn't really hurt the work, it hurts you.

Funny enough, this idea is almost certainly one you are plagairising. Perhaps you could find nuance, depth, and understanding by turning those words on themself?

Somehow I feel like most of the debate here centers on these words:

> The purpose of <foo> is <bar>.

That little word "the" there at the beginning seems a bit myopic to me. I mean, clearly, something like writing functions in more ways than one. Here are some other potential purposes of writing, off the top of my head:

* Deconstruct your personal ontology,

* Intrinsic artistic value,

* Emotional expression,

* Elucidation of unconscious grammatical habits,

* Social signaling.

Any of those are perfectly functional operations of the writing act, and a few of them actually benefit by plagiarising (Identifying these is left as an exercise for the reader). Of course, saying that "university should allow students to operate under any possible goal framework" is a different matter, but hopefully that at least points toward one way of thinking with more nuance about plagiarism.

[noetic_techy]

I've seen this myself, and I think this sort of moral relativism is pretty bad for society in general. You can spin a story of victim hood or power dynamic to justify anything unethical. What should be a fair transaction becomes a game of who can backstab first and who is left holding the bag. This I think leads to a breakdown in the fabric that keep things stable eventually.

[ThrowawayR2]

The problem is that these people will plagiarize their previous employers' code when working on your codebase and your code when they move on to their next employer or will also plagiarize FOSS code without worrying about the niceties of licensing. Their perceptions are one thing but the legal reality makes these sort of people hazardous to employ.

[themodelplumber]

Except when their boss hired them because they're clever and can solve extant work problems (huge workload) via a happily-localized scope of concern. I've seen this easily placed back on the employer. Non-FOSS versions happen in various industries all the time.

You can make the argument that legal teams exist to relieve the very potent pressure of this uncomfortable situation for those on both ends. There are truths here that flow right up to the top and all the way to the bottom. Attacking those perspectives is too hard. Better in some ways to set up social norms around it. Thus, lawyers, the concept of win-win negotiation, etc. Just when your anger is boiling over you learn that the C-levels want you to drop the moral crusade.

[jariel]

This is a thoughtful comment, at the same time, it's some pretty scary postmodernism.

Advocating cheating because it helps a student from possibly lesser means achieve their 'check-box' in education is missing the point, in a very serious way.

We can always strive to have an open mind, to try and be sympathetic to the plight of others - but the Truth is pretty much still the Truth.

Plagiarism is not a controversial subject in the context you've mentioned, it's just wrong in every sense.

More pragmatically - if someone is in a situation wherein their need for the 'checkbox degree' outweighs their actual need to learn something, then they almost assuredly should not be there. It's pointless for society to be spending a lot of energy and resources only for people to waste them, and it ruins the credibility of the system. I'm not unaware of the fact that a lot of Uni may feel like jumping through hoops, but even then, if the hoops are merely jumped through, we're learning something. Uni is not meant to be enlightening at every step, it's also, like everything a grind.

A 'free public Uni' is going to attract a wide swath of students, and there will necessarily be all sorts of issues, probably very low graduation rates, challenges in communicating the material. I totally support the idea, at the same time, we should strive to maintain the credibility of our own ideals and institutions. Universities are there to help develop character, they're not just about 'absorbing data'. In the long run, it's worth it.

[throwawaygh]

The "checkbox degree" hypothesis is mostly false. Some companies do require a degrees, yes. But that's a minimum requirement. Literally zero companies promise a job to everyone with a degree.

It's a bit difficult for me to believe that there are highly competent people who would be effective employees now, but for whom cheating is easier than doing the work. Remember: cheating (without getting caught) takes time too.

I can write a few page essay on any given topic much faster than I can figure out how to copy/pasta that essay without getting caught.

I can implement most undergraduate programming assignments faster than I can figure out how obfuscate someone else's code enough to fool cheat detectors.

Etc.

The subset of people who are truly competent but for whom cheating is easier than doing the work has to be vanishingly small.

[bonoboTP]

It depends, like many things, this is very nuanced.

In my time at university, I knew many capable and bright people who cheated once in a while, but only in well-picked cases, not as their general policy. For example if there was a mandatory bullshit subject, or something that they regarded as worthless waste of time etc. and rather spent the time on the important things.

I think it's a very naive shielded "good boy" view of the world that there is some simple rigid moral rule like never lie, never cheat etc. It may work in a benevolent environment like rich protective parents and never dealing with adversity. One has to develop one's own sense of justice.

This can be easily misconstrued. The point isn't to believe in nothing, be exploitative and selfish. Rather, be mindful and don't just blindly follow someone's bullshit. Indeed much of the purpose of education is to kill this ability and to certify the capability for blind obedience and jumping through hoops without ever questioning it.

One guy I mentioned in the above parts is actually really honest in general and sometimes I wonder how he gets away with it in corporate environments, saying straight nos, not putting up with colleagues criticizing him for working too fast etc. I've usually been much more careful but he's more successful. And it's an art of picking your battles, refusing bullshit, sometimes openly sometimes secretly (at least don't lie to yourself), sometimes making a stink, sometimes just complaining to fellow students, knowing the unwritten lore of which courses are unofficially considered "cheats allowed" by most talented students and probably the teacher included.

The world is complicated, but for shielded kids with underdeveloped social skills it can be hard to learn how widespread "rule bending" is in real adult life and how much this is basically known, expected and part of life.

Again, this is not to say be selfish and disregard others. Rather, think for yourself, know when something is bullshit (there is lots of fancy official institutional stamped-and-signed authoritative bullshit out there, often coming from people who know it's bullshit but either don't care of feel their hands are tied).

[SupplyChainGuy]

I agree. I'm a CS major and am forced to take a class on history. The class is entirely online and the teacher doesn't seem to really care one bit. The entire class is just random quizzes that can easily be googled/ Just follow along on quizlet.

I have two options; Read the super boring textbook for 5 hours, take the test legit and get an 80% or I quizlett the test get 100% and spend the next 5 hours listening to Dan Carlins "Hardcore History" Podcast which i find much more informative and enjoyable.

[bonoboTP]

I had similar cases with "business" and "management" courses in my computer engineering degree. While understanding business thinking is definitely an important part of being a computer engineer, these courses were utter bullshit and everyone knew it. So everyone I knew cheated, it was an open secret.

But the university wanted to boast that they are modern and prepare students for business stuff: look, we even require business-related courses in our program! But actually it was some nonsense like memorize various lists, like the 5 different aspects of whatever, some pseudo-mathy formulas, etc. I mean, if you take me that seriously to give me this type of nonsense as "learning material" then I will take you precisely as seriously when it comes to the exam.

[javert]

> Can you justify it in seconds, with something that's not simply a subjective perception or largely-covert moral construct of your own

You are making this way too complicated.

It's honesty vs. dishonesty.

Those of us playing on team honesty are right to view the dishonest as playing on the opposite team.

Which team is actually morally right, is the complex issue.

[BeetleB]

> You are making this way too complicated.

> It's honesty vs. dishonesty.

Kind of like you're either a criminal or you're not. If you drive 58mph on a 55mph zone you are. Otherwise you're not.

Binary positions are always convenient, once you pick a side.

[sooheon]

This is a great meta level view of the moral perception landscape, the individual replies advocating for one particular prescriptive position or the other are missing the forest for the trees.

[tripzilch]

> Since then I've been exposed to additional perspectives on plagiarism. It is an extremely deep and nuanced topic.

There are deep and nuanced ways in which people tell themselves and others how ethical they think they are taking credit for other people's work.

It's not really something that is up for discussion whether it's bad. The rules are pretty clear, and for serious higher education the punishments are extremely harsh. And deservedly so.

What does it even matter what it says on your diploma if you cheated your way to getting it?

These people might pat themselves on the chest for being oh so clever in subverting the system or whatever, but what does it really mean? That you're good at cheating, unwilling to do the work, and gladly take credit for other people's work. In other words, being a useless turd.

You could have been studying astronomy, physics, math ... but instead all that you really proved is that you're good at cheating.

[cosmodisk]

People are extremely good at justifying their own actions in any shape and form. Reminds me ex's mother,who was a hard core church goer and was undeclaring profits from her company. When asked why would she do such thing,her excuse was that the taxes are way too high( the country was within top 20 countries in the world when it comes to taxes). Another thing is that usually these things don't happen all at once but rather gradually. The same is observable in companies,where corruption start from tiny things and evolve over time.

[TallGuyShort]

... the Testing Center!? Hey I went there too.

But I don't see how this is more nuanced that being honest or dishonest. I really pride myself on being able to see where a lot of opposing viewpoints are coming from, but I can't see how any of the people you describe are doing much more than lying to themselves about what they're doing.

[wisty]

How is this different to the following?

"Using counterfeit money is arguably OK because some of the people who use it might need it, or see the need to earn a living as a needless waste of time as long as there's idiots who'll accept fake currency".

[SkyBelow]

The issue with counterfeit money is that it devalues the worth of all other money.

But given who holds the majority of the money being devalued, given the extent that money is already being devalued for the benefit of some at the expense of others, and given that the idea of taking a relative to wealth portion from the group for the benefit of the poor is a form of redistribution the group already engages in regardless of the consent of the giver, I think you can easily construct an argument that it is not immoral to use counterfeit money as long as you pick the right targets.

[mrybczyn]

Plagiarism as a means to acquire a university degree devalues the worth of all other degrees...

[wisty]

Plenty of people can construct arguments that breaking the rules are acceptable when they do it.

[christiansakai]

Wait, this is interesting. I thought plagiarism is universally bad? Can someone explain?

[sooheon]

themodelplumber is a perceptive observer of human psychology, and they've described some of the ways people justify cheating with one narrative or the other. This isn't advocating for cheating or plagiarism, just hypothesizing why some brains are happy to do it.

[imtringued]

People have to justify bad things otherwise they wouldn't do them. This is how we get racism, antisemitism and discrimination in general. A lot of taboo activities have an initial moral barrier and once you break it there is nothing stopping you from doing it over and over again.

[gentleman11]

Plagiarism was very widespread in my university. The students doing it were simply not punished

[Melting_Harps]

> At the time, my hyper-religious mind was blown to see students outright cheating in the Testing Center.

Then you would have lost your mind during some of my upper division STEM courses, where the normal class average is in the mid 40% on the high end and high 30s most semesters. We had a class average of ~83% in one of them, and when the professor was in total disbelief about how blatant they were being (several didn't even try not to get 100%) he got upset and decided to stop re-using the previous year's exams that were circulating amongst the Frats/Sororities and the class average dropped back down to low 30% for the last 2 Midterms and finals. This personally helped me as I got my average to a B+ range after my Lab scores were included.

Academia, be it online of IRL, it always going to have that element of corruption, there has just been so much money to be made that it drew the worst from other sectors into its administrations. Eric Weinstein goes into the depth about the artificial scarcity within STEM that was created in the US to favour a 'race to the bottom' approach to wages since the the 90s, and he went to both MIT and Harvard!

My best professors were often disillusioned and jaded after having been in Academia for a few decades, one even having to petition and protest to the Dean of their departments to be paid for having taught back to back Summer courses during the budget cuts. A person who went to Oxford for his BSc, no less...

All of this is taking place while hearing about some high ranking official or executive is in the process of being disgraced for having plagiarized their Masters or PhD thesis decades ago, which begs the question how the hell did it pass back then? Don't they all have to go through dissertations defenses and have academic advisors who are PhD or Post Docs in the very same department?

I won't even talk about the administrative led favoritism and vetting they did for foreign students during my time there, either.

I'm a proponent of of Online Learning in general, especially as its disrupting the Brick and Mortar University exploitation model; you can now get a Masters in Electrical Engineering from CU Boulder entirely via Coursera for $20k with installments and Financial Aid available where applicable, whereas that's not even the total cost of a single year of Undergraduate studies there. Which really sucks for incoming students, but could be a net boon if they can start reaching the undergrad degrees in time now that most Universities are having to do that due to COVID.

I just think its worth keeping in mind that this institution (academia) doesn't deserve to be regarded anything more than the corrupt money-pit that it is, which occasionally avails itself to allow brilliant minds to excel in their field, after having exploited them to publish and use their labs until the can make a name for themselves and operate outside of it. I just think about the wasted Human capital, talent, and drive that you only have when you're young, naive and idealistic and determined to make make a difference in the World.

[sjy]

All universities have pretty serious problems at this point, but we can't write off all of academia as a "corrupt money-pit." It sounds like you are generalising from your own experience at a single institution, and there are a lot of bad universities out there.

[dart600]

This detailed reply is fantastic. I want to paint a narrative in acrylic. (Perhaps just my mood today). It will have a plummer modeling on a catwalk as a moral war rages of cool fashion balconies meet the vision of the dog fights in a proverbial rotation of another fresh coat to the red carpet. See u in the concrete warehouse just short of arms reach, but certainly out of the limelight. Or in. Or out. Or in. Which is real?

You're welcome!

[uopeoplestudent]

> The new institution, learning I had been attending U of the P, promptly told me that U of the P credits would not transfer. Universal transferability in question, I opted out.

Yes, many schools will not accept coursework from nationally accredited universities. This includes coursework from UoPeople. You will not be able to apply for many graduate schools as well. A degree from UoPeople definitely comes with limits, and I wish the school was a little more forward about that. (There are lots of discussions about this on the internal social network.)

[eikenberry]

This isn't restricted to untraditional schools. At least one of our local state universities have stopped accepting credits from the community colleges due to the practice of transferring for the final couple years. Might be something similar going on here. It might be that they want the degree to represent the full 4 year experience at the school or it might just be the money. The cynic in me prefers the latter.

[topkai22]

If that was happening in my state I’d definitely be writing my representatives to take action and change that- transferability to a university while being able to live at home and pay less was quite explicitly one of the points of having a community college system when I was growing up.

[throwawaygh]

Many state universities changed those transfer policies when states made deep higher ed budget cuts during the great recession. The alternative in our state was closing branch campuses (thereby making college even less accessible for most of the state).

Lots of universities in the US are lavish and expensive. Our state's branch campuses are the definition of utilitarian. Tuition is some of the lowest in the country. Salaries for professors at the branch campuses are lower than what we pay our high school teachers. Very little admin overhead. There's simply not much to cut.

Anyways, not saying it's right. But if you cut higher ed budgets, higher ed will get more expensive to the end user. Especially if the system was already hyper-efficient. Limiting transfer credits is pretty much the only way to make things more expensive to the end user without increasing tuition.

[topkai22]

Sounds like the set up in your state is to have branch campuses try to serve many of the needs that community colleges serve (or used to serve) in my state.

Whatever the setup, I think it is access to higher education at as local level is important.

[xythian]

A number of states ended up enacting laws to solve this exact problem. Lawmakers had to force the big state universities to accept transfer credits from community and regional colleges.

[non-entity]

> Might be something similar going on here. It might be that they want the degree to represent the full 4 year experience at the school or it might just be the money. The cynic in me prefers the latter.

Everything I've ever heard about and learned of the college admissions and pricing situation makes me prefer that latter.

[uopeoplestudent]

That's surprising. Around me it's mostly been the opposite with schools signing transfer agreements and the community colleges developing programs specifically for students who plan to transfer.

Though, in the case of UoPeople, it's purely about nationally accreditation lacking the prestige (and sometimes rigor) of regional accreditation. It's been that way for at least a couple of decades since I started reading up on higher ed.

[cguess]

A degree says something about the student. I completely understand why universities would not want to accept credits from school below their own qualification level. If they confer a degree to a student that student is representing the university's education quality to everyone that hires them or works with them.

Spending three years at a community college and expecting the credits to transfer to a major university makes no sense for the institution. At that point they did a minority of your training, why would they recommend you?

[pfranz]

I follow your logic, but I really think it's about money since they also put up barriers for testing out of classes.

Usually, a strong state-run community college program lets an Associates degree earned at a community college transfer into any public state university as a Junior. Most non-degree focused classes directly transfer. Going between states (staying in the same regional accreditation) seems to be difficult and not all states are set up like I had described. The theory being that someone who isn't quite ready for university has an opportunity to catch up and in my experience it gives more options when popular prerequisites are full. So the state has a reason to push for this.

I'm also skeptical about universities pointing to their qualification level because I've interviewed graduates from many well known universities and was kind of floored at the basic things many candidates seemed completely unfamiliar with.

Nationally accredited organizations don't have anyone pushing for this relationship. This seems to generally work for those schools because they can advertise as accredited, get a fig leaf of transferring credits, but usually want you to stay and complete tranning there. Most tend to be vocational which makes a lot of that moot.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Your example (3 years) is extreme. I could not get 15 CS credits to transfer from one private, 2nd tier US college to another (Boston university). BU refused and i took the classes again and paid for them twice. It put me in the rare position of being able to compare the quality of education at the two institutions side by side.

[skinnymuch]

Hah! Don’t leave us hanging. What was your experience between the two for classes?

I took some community college programming classes in NJ and NYC. Didn’t have to repeat the ones I did. I was in awe at how weak the curriculum was in both cases. It’s not the student’s faults imo that their programming skills were lacking. The classes weren’t challenging.

Yet some of them eventually transferred to State Uni for comp sci. It really amazed me. Wonder how they fared and if that just means that specific state school is just really easy too.

[awirth]

I'd be curious to hear your observations. I did BA/MS at BU in CS (CAS of course) and found the classes often hit or miss, but the ones that were good were really good. That being said, I did have an interest in theoretical CS while many CS undergrads do not, which is what the department emphasizes.

[TedDoesntTalk]

The student:professor ratios at Boston University CS classes were much higher. I didn't realize the importance of that until i had this comparison with the other institution.

It led to many fewer questions by students, teachers assistants (something the other institution did not have and did not need because one professor could attend to all of his students), and in general less interaction between students with each other and with professors/TAs.

The curriculum at both were essentially the same for this set of classes.

[eikenberry]

I agree except for the fact that these are both state run public schools, part of the same state school system. Citizens should be able to switch between them freely based on the needs of the time and how they wish to pursue their education.

[pnw_hazor]

CCs don't teach Junior or Senior (300 or 400 lv) courses. If you stay at one longer than two years it is because you are going part-time or started with college-prep courses.

I spent 3 years (including Summers) at a CC then transferred into a top 10 engineering program. The 'extra' time was required because I needed to take a year of math classes before calculus.

And IMO, the CC's pre-engineering program left me better prepared for the university's department/major coursework than some of my peers who started at the university.

[rootusrootus]

> Spending three years at a community college

This makes no sense. Spend as long as you want at the community college, transfer all the credits you want, by definition they will all be 1xx or 2xx classes. Your degree will require half the classes to be 3xx & 4xx, so you will always have to spend at least two years at the university.

[cancerSpreads]

The STEM in me says, it should all be the same.

[pvg]

one of our local state universities have stopped accepting credits from the community colleges

Do you remember which state and university?

[dart600]

Yes I was slightly piffed. Yet, the professor was notably intelligent and very professional. My comment was for others wondering if it was a scam. Its not a scam, it's real, but preferably for people seeking a multicultural experience along with their general educational knowledge, irregardless of the loss of highly guaranteed nontransferrability. Perhaps if one is retired, for example, it would simply be an amazing choice. :)

[uopeoplestudent]

Speaking on your comment about plagiarism, my second term there was a student who submitted their Java homework in a Word document. It contained two screenshots. The first was of the NetBeans IDE. The second was of their browser opened to a Github page that contained the answer to the assignment. They'd un-destructively cropped the second using Word. They made it look like it was typed into NetBeans. I was able to track down the original source.

[orzig]

Sometimes laziness shoots the moon and becomes artistic genius

[vegai_]

>there were a number of classmates whom could not grasp

Sorry, pet peeve. It's "who". "Classmates" are the ones doing "could not grasp" instead of "could not grasp" being done to them.

[UncleSam]

Any easy trick I use to help remember which to use is to replace who/whom with he/him to see which makes more sense in the context.

"He" could not grasp. => "Who" could not grasp.

I should vote for "him" => "Whom" should I vote for?

[coderintherye]

Not to invalidate your observation, but plagiarism is a hot topic at any college or university. I attended 6 different ones and in all of them it was top or near the top of concerns.

[S111663]

I am sorry to hear that your transfer of credit was not possible between UoPeople and the more standard institution. But I think that you should not feel bad or think that because the transfer was not possible implies that UoPeople standard is low or questionable. I say so because transfer of credit depends on the university in question, University A may refuse but University B may accepts and both universities are of high standard. For example, there are universities of higher standards out there that accepts transfer of credit from UoPeople, all you need do is to first of all carry out a research to know such universities before you apply rather than applying before requesting for transfer of credit which might not be possible. As for the aspect of plagiarism, I must say that it is a serious offense and at UoPeople, many students have not grasp the idea because they did not take their orientation classes and foundation courses seriously else they will not be ignorant or be victims. So putting all these together truly makes one feels that studies at UoPeople is not like higher education, but on the other hand, everything being equal,if you are a student at UoPeople, then it means that you should be responsible to follow all the instructions and rules governing the platform right to the end of your study then you will feel that UoPeople is more than a higher education center. NB: There is no institution in the world without a downside that affects the student as well.

[SkyBelow]

>there were a number of classmates whom could not grasp the idea of plagiarism being unethical

It might help to define what form of plagiarism you encountered as there are some behaviors that count as plagiarism (at least were counted as such back in my college ethics class) which I never found any valid reasoning for. I have no difficulty understanding the ethical issues of passing off someone else's work as your own, but you can also plagiarize by passing off your own work as your own.

[Illesam]

I've just completed my first term with UoPeople. I agree that I learned a lot about plagiarism and even had the opportunity to report some!

For me UoPeople is a blessing. I'm able to pursue a higher education all while working and supporting my family. This will give me so many new opportunities for better careers when I eventually move back to the states.

The educational method is challenging. I do like peer assessment, but I feel that some peers don't really try when grading. I like to give grades that are warranted, good or bad. Being told my work is not good with no correction is highly vexing.

I hope to continue to grow as a student with UoPeople and see others do the same.

[TrackerFF]

I mean, that's probably true, but even students at the absolute top universities are capable of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Harvard_cheating_scandal

[cancerSpreads]

The more students you meet at "top Universities" the more the illusion of superiority disappears.

The students are mind numbingly average. (But don't worry they will let you know what college they went to 12 years ago)

Heck if the job requires any communication, you might be better off finding someone humble or someone who needs to prove themselves.

Or maybe the best of these students go on to work at companies that pay 250k/yr and I just don't meet them.

[throwawaygh]

I attended a no-name college and went to a top-tier university for my phd (think mit/stanford/cmu/berkeley). I also taught at a different top-tier university. Everything below is specific to CS.

I think that top-tier universities are different in the top 20% and bottom 20% of students. The top 20% because you won't find those types of people at no-name. The bottom 20% because they're at least not completely incompetent (unlike the bottom 20% at no-name).

Here's how I break it down:

Top 20% of students at top universities: They really are that good. Also, they are the ones who benefit most from the intense curriculum at top universities. So they start off really good and actually do get a force multiplier effect from the comparatively very rigorous course-work. Most of these students end up on rapid trajectories in industry or with NSF fellowships.

Average students at top universities: Most of these students would be in the top 10% of the class at a no-name college. Still quite good, but nothing special.

Bottom 20% of students at top tier universities: Really nothing special. Comparable to the average student at no-name. Contrast with the bottom 20% at no-name, many of whom couldn't fizzbuzz on their first attempt in our senior interview prep course.

So, top tier places are really characterized by their top 20% and bottom 20%. The top 20% really are quite amazing to work with. The bottom 20% are at least not incompetent.

One last note:

> Or maybe the best of these students go on to work at companies that pay 250k/yr and I just don't meet them.

Most of my students at top-tier had offers in the $150K - $250K range. So if your sample of top-tier university CS students is sampled exclusively from non-entry-level engineers who did not receive offers in the $250K range, you're almost certainly sampling from the bottom 20% of top-tier graduates.

[GordonS]

> However, I also saw a grossly wide range of educational professionalism in the students

Your specific example of plagiarism is odd; I'm not sure what's difficult to grasp there. But wide ranging dedication (or professionalism if you prefer to call it that) is pretty standard at brick and mortar universities - it's pretty standard for a subset of people to prefer the partying and socialising aspects, and also pretty standard for quite a lot of people to drop out altogether.

[stormdennis]

The saying goes: copying from one person is plagiarism, copying from many is research.

[leethargo]

But in the latter case, sources are properly referenced?

[territop]

plagiarism was how the germans caught up on the industrial revolution. plagiarism is how china cought up to the western world. the strict argument on this is that ideas cannot be owned. no one owns an idea. ideas just float around and can be left aside or captured. that's how i think about it anyways.

[wrkronmiller]

There's a moral argument w/r/t the concept of stealing IP, but in the context of education there is arguably more damage being done.

If you steal a design for a jet turbine, you still have to learn how it works and you add that understanding to your personal/corporate skillset. Basically you have learned a secret.

If you have someone write your college essay for you, then you probably do so in order to avoid putting in the work to write the essay yourself. Basically, you have learned nothing.

I know there's nuance to both but I think your argument is overly-reductive.

[territop]

Oh yeah you're right let's not mix that both. I thought he strictly meant the first.