Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This is a Varsity survey. They are a notoriously unreliable source of info, no sensible person can trust them for 1 second.

    Many of the stats, e.g. the high figure for law undergrads, include exam only courses.

    I LOLOLOLOL at people like Yawn who seem to think that this somehow means that Oxbridge isn't academically brilliant. Lets be realistic for a second here. You can hardly get by at Oxbridge just by cheating.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Brook Taylor)
    I notice you declined to state the third explanation, that it is highly possible (and even probable, I'd say) that such statistics would appear if other institutions were surveyed as well. And we mustn't forget that this was an online poll, and thus is only a reflection upon those who spend a considerable amount of time online. What about those who opt not to tempt themselves to browse when they should be working, but instead knuckle down and get the consistently high grades that do come out of these institutions?

    Edit: I'm not pro-Oxbridge, anti-anti-Oxbridge, or pro-plagiarism. On the contrary, I am completely against plagiarism, but understand that statistics only tell part of the story.
    Too true.

    On an issue such as plagiarism, this would apply to all universities and probably some more than others.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by yawn)
    The highly able are supposedly competent enough to work at high speed with little error so the work-load is not a reasonable explanation for plagiarising.
    Apart from that this is a ridiculous definition of 'highly able' (anecdotally, high speed and little error are two things I'm pretty awful at, and yet I clearly had enough 'ability' to get a first last year), you seem to be implying that - for example - the two essays every 10-11 weeks that arts students at many good universities seem to get and the eight essays every eight weeks that Oxbridge students seem to get are somehow equivalent. I don't know where/what you study/studied, but if you were at Oxford/Cambridge, you'd either be one of these irritating people who can just seemingly do absolutely anything that's thrown at them (who are completely exceptional even here), or you'd change your mind rather quickly.

    I've resorted to "cheating" on insignificant pieces of work before (by which I mean nothing more destructive than that someone else solved a maths problem and I read a line or two of their solution to get onto the right track), firstly because the workload is so huge that even if you worked at 100% efficiency you still wouldn't finish a week's work in a week unless you sacrificed any other commitments (e.g. sports, music, social life, eating...) for it, and secondly because collaborative effort is how you come to understand others' views on difficult concepts and therefore get to understand the concepts yourself, and is definitely not anything the vast majority of us would consider doing on pieces of work that actually counted towards our final grade. Your claim that this makes us less 'highly able' is ridiculous - look at our exam scores, look at our exam papers, and tell us we're not doing something right.
    Offline

    13
    I LOLOLOLOL at people like Yawn who seem to think that this somehow means that Oxbridge isn't academically brilliant.
    If students are unable to complete their essays in time because of a heavy work-load; and this is given as an excuse for plagiarism; and the most highly able are identified in great measure by their ability to grasp new concepts and work at a rapid pace with very few errors....then yes, it indicates that those who are studying at Oxbridge because supposedly, they are in the top two percentile are not as academically brilliant as is portrayed.

    Now, look again at your LOLOLOLOL and think before you post. :rolleyes:

    Edit: for the benefit of generalebrity: According to world-wide concensus on identification of the highly able - one of the indicators is the ability to work rapidly with rare errors. If you don't fulfil this criteria, maybe you're not 'highly' able but merely able as are many uni undergrads.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Lol at the Cambridge students being all defensive..

    We know your dirty little secret now

    However, in all seriousness, some students could have just meant copying and pasting without quoting the source etc. And, how accurate is that source really?

    If it is true, I'm sure the percentage is just as high/higher at other universities to be fair.

    Still, ha ha ha... :p:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC REN)
    Wow, way to misinterpret what he said...

    I don't know you or what subject you do but I don't believe that every thought you have ever written down and submitted has been either entirely your own or referenced suitably. Have you never spoken to another student or your tutor about what you're going to add in your essay? Have you never reproduced a mathematical proof from your lecture notes? etc. These are both examples of plagiarism by the definition given by Cambridge University

    You'd be a fool to take that survey seriously anyway.
    Telling my lecturer what I'm going to add to an essay isn't plagiarism, it only is if a lecturer tells me. A lecturer has never advised me on what to write, ever, only given me advice on how to approach writing an essay.

    So at Cambridge you get so much help that tutors will tell you what to write? :rolleyes:

    No, I reference absolutely everything. Every idea I have in an essay I back up with a referenced example. If I paraphrase some arguement I put it into quotation marks too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by she)
    Telling my lecturer what I'm going to add to an essay isn't plagiarism, it only is if a lecturer tells me. A lecturer has never advised me on what to write, ever, only given me advice on how to approach writing an essay.
    I don't really believe you that you've never, even if only subconsciously, had an opinion formed which wasn't your own and yet went into an essay.
    So at Cambridge you get so much help that tutors will tell you what to write? :rolleyes:
    Yep that is exactly what I said isn't it?

    No, I reference absolutely everything. Every idea I have in an essay I back up with a referenced example. If I paraphrase some arguement I put it into quotation marks too.
    Great, whatever. I'm sure during your a-levels and whatever you never put forward an idea proposed by your teacher or spark notes or something as well...

    The last essay I wrote was for geology and I'm not arrogant enough to believe that practically every point I made in it hasn't been thought of, and probably published somewhere, by someone else before me. I haven't read all these sources, and will have acknowledged only a small fraction of them, but that means **** all given the definition of plagiarism I was using earlier.

    Until you are researching a totally new topic (which I guess does happen in arts degrees a bit earlier than sciences) then some plagiarism is pretty much unavoidable, even if it is subconscious. Get off your high horse, this isn't an argument about Cambridge, I'm just saying that plagiarism (when defined in such a loose/broad sense) really isn't the same as cheating and in exam situations can be pretty much unavoidable but doesn't make you any more or less stupid, or moral for that matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Varsity is a *****, tabloidy rag. No-one in Cambridge takes it seriously. Sources are normally the jounalist's mate and the survey was conducted in a completely unscientific way. It was pointed out that if you were asked to participate in a survey on plagiarism, you're more likely to do so if you cheat because you want to encourage the belief that cheating is necessary to cope with the work set.

    The other point is that, if you applied the university's definition of plagiarism to every bit of work you hand in to a supervisor, nearly everyone is a plagiarist. I am, for example, since I occasionally work through example sheets with a friend. This is sanctioned by my dos, but technically, according to the university, makes me a plagiarist. The definition should only really apply to accredited coursework- it is a fault of the definition that it applies to supervision work.

    I would also point out that the only possible person you cheat is yourself if you cheat on supervision essays- supervisions are designed to improve your knowledge and no amount of cheating will help you in tripos exams.

    But of course, no-one ever lets the facts get in the way of a good story.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You can live with yourself, knowing that any rewards you may gain are not because of your own efforts?

    Are you morally bereft?
    I know that any rewards I gain, I deserve.

    I am not morally bereft. I certainly can live with myself. I know that I will overall leave the world having improved it.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by yawn)
    Edit: for the benefit of generalebrity: According to world-wide concensus on identification of the highly able - one of the indicators is the ability to work rapidly with rare errors. If you don't fulfil this criteria, maybe you're not 'highly' able but merely able as are many uni undergrads.
    Your consensus is wrong, then, or at least inappropriate in the context. In my experience, generalebriety is clearly exceptionally able, and that is a reflection of the fact that what matters in many uni maths exams is how well someone understands a topic. Often, minor calculation errors are not heavily penalised by examiners, and rapid speed is not a necessity if someone is well-prepared and can answer questions at a steady rate. I can do some calculations extremely quickly, but I'm not going to get a good mark if I can bash out some 3x3 orthogonal P, such that P^tAP is diagonal, in 2 minutes and then spend 18 minutes failing to prove the general existence theorem, but generalebriety is going to get far more marks if he could do that calculation with a sign error or two in 10 minutes, and then prove the general existence theorem in the remaining 10 minutes. (He probably wouldn't make an error, but hear me out.) This simple example suggests that your unsuitable definition is grossly insufficient for any satisfactory appraisal of ability.
    Offline

    1
    Surprised me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    too much sniffing the line of coke and smoking green means no time to do essays and revision = cheat ... thats what I say hahaha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what a load of ********, what kind of moron would go to the trouble of cheating when it's far more straightforward to just write a load of rubbish. its not like the essays count for anything so no one cares if they suck.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I copy and paste from my own stuff a lot. To be honest I don't see their problem with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Advanced Subsidiary)
    Cambridge students are weak. Joking but they are annoying. I hate the way they speak.

    bite me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    I copy and paste from my own stuff a lot. To be honest I don't see their problem with it.
    that it's plagiarism and against the rules is what's wrong with it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by yawn)
    Edit: for the benefit of generalebrity: According to world-wide concensus on identification of the highly able - one of the indicators is the ability to work rapidly with rare errors. If you don't fulfil this criteria, maybe you're not 'highly' able but merely able as are many uni undergrads.
    I don't agree with this allegedly "world-wide" consensus. I am able to work rapidly with rare errors when I understand a topic, and I am able to accumulate new understanding (rapidly, with rare errors), but the rate at which I am given material to learn is at least the rate at which I can learn it. Oxford and Cambridge are not havens for the hopelessly intelligent to sit back and laugh about how easy their work is - the universities are designed to test us to our limits, and beyond, and if we were all able to work so rapidly and with such rare errors that our workload was essentially trivial, we'd all be geniuses (and moreover the universities wouldn't be doing their job right).

    Remember also that we are graded largely by examination, in which we couldn't collaborate if we wanted to (and it wouldn't help), and we're required to work rapidly and with rare errors. And given the high standards that Oxford and Cambridge consistently achieve, I think it's rather unfair for you to say that a student isn't "highly able" if he/she cheats in a minor way on an insignificant bit of work out of laziness, lack of time, or anything else. Sometimes it even helps - I hate having to do it (as anyone frequenting the maths forum will know), but sometimes just seeing part of a solution to an easy question you're stuck on will make something click and help you to do the rest of the problem sheet, which will not only consolidate the new knowledge you've just gained but also help you to gain a lot more knowledge from the harder questions on the sheet, and of course allow you to then move onto other work, enabling you to work with just as much eventual productivity (i.e. in the exam, you'll be able to do it) and yet much faster. Perhaps that's just the nature of my subject, but given the number of people who do it and the high grades Oxford and Cambridge achieve... well, I won't insult your intelligence in committing the logical fallacy of suggesting that the two are correlated, but let me put it this way: "cheating" on insignificant pieces of work certainly isn't harming us.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vapid slut magician)
    that it's plagiarism and against the rules is what's wrong with it.
    I only care about the rules when there is a possibility of me being punished for breaking them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    I only care about the rules when there is a possibility of me being punished for breaking them.
    well you would be penalised heavily in an exam for plagiarising yourself.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC REN)
    I don't really believe you that you've never, even if only subconsciously, had an opinion formed which wasn't your own and yet went into an essay.

    Yep that is exactly what I said isn't it?


    Great, whatever. I'm sure during your a-levels and whatever you never put forward an idea proposed by your teacher or spark notes or something as well...

    The last essay I wrote was for geology and I'm not arrogant enough to believe that practically every point I made in it hasn't been thought of, and probably published somewhere, by someone else before me. I haven't read all these sources, and will have acknowledged only a small fraction of them, but that means **** all given the definition of plagiarism I was using earlier.

    Until you are researching a totally new topic (which I guess does happen in arts degrees a bit earlier than sciences) then some plagiarism is pretty much unavoidable, even if it is subconscious. Get off your high horse, this isn't an argument about Cambridge, I'm just saying that plagiarism (when defined in such a loose/broad sense) really isn't the same as cheating and in exam situations can be pretty much unavoidable but doesn't make you any more or less stupid, or moral for that matter.
    Did I say I was coming up with new ideas for my essays? No, I didn't. I said that I referenced every idea that I put forward.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.