Aside from fatuous presumption about professors and a certain closeminded shortsightedness, there is really nothing wrong with this attitude. Perhaps you have the gift of knowing what it is you truly want and literature isn’t on the list. Fine. As long as you are willing to accept the evaluation you earn by your work. If you don’t care, and you admit you don’t care, do what you will and take your lumps. It’s the cheating that defrauds you and everyone around you. People have given lots of good explanations for the intellectual values involved. In addition to those, I would not cheat for the simple reason that it makes me a phony. I don’t want to be that kind of person and I don’t care for their company much, either.
E.D.-- Your education doesn’t rely on that one final course, of course, as much as it relies on ALL the credit you earned up to and including that point.
To use another imperfect analogy, if you’re running a marathon, can you just stop a half-mile short of the finish line (because someone misinformed you as to where the finish line was) and then bitch that the stupid final half-mile is no measure of your marathoning abilities? It’s running the whole race that lets you legitimately call yourself a marathoner, and it’s insulting to everyone who finishes the race that you’ve decided that obviously a half-mile is no big deal so you’re calling yourself a marathoner anyway. That piece of paper certifies that you’ve done ALL the work, not just some of it, or the work that you felt like doing.
Is there a good reason that a degree takes 128 credits (say)? Not really. One institution, or one certifying board, could decide that it’s 124 credits or 132. But no one says, “Hey, man, whatever. 132, 122, whatever you like is cool.” By your logic ,you could argue that every one of these measures is actually a course too many, and eventually you’ll be awarding college degrees for showing up and plunking down the tuition money. Which is why people like you are not going to be in charge of making those decisions any time soon.
Mozman and Fretful Porpentine–thanks for the kind words. Reprint anything you like–only make sure you cite your sources 
For someone who wants others to respect him for earning a degree, you’re kind of short on respect for your Lit professor here, don’t you think? He earns a Ph. D. (actually, that’s almost the least of what he does to get a job teaching college) and you, without a bachelor’s, are equating your knowledge of literature, its value, college curricula (which are devised not by one petty egotistical professor but dozens of them) with his. This doesn’t strike you as maybe a little self-aggrandinzing and presumtuous?
Oh look, it’s the web site from hell. :dubious:
Lucky me.
Unlucky pure , and his/her ilk, if my colleagues (like
pseudo.r.r.– pardon the abbrevation) and I happen to catch 'em. They make it so easy, we don’t even have to try. Google is our best pal.
Oh, and while they’re at it, why not just forge some registration cards so as to get priority in adding a class and push other students out of the way? Somebody will catch on sooner or later–and suspend the corner-cutters from college, leaving them with a permanent and completely deserved stain on their records. They, too, were seeking a goal, but went about it the wrong way. That’s why they’re no longer welcome.
But then… some people cannot be dissuaded from taking risks and being self-destructive. Can’t save 'em all, though God knows we try.
I cannot respond to Atrael or Evil Death’s situations, because I’m not qualified, but I can to pure’s. Before moving into the software industry, I was an analyst and AVP in the financial industry. From your posts, you seem to be in the early stages as a research analyst for a (Canadian) financial company. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
What you have said is, if I may paraphrase, something along the lines of “I didn’t do the work that didn’t interest me, and I didn’t need to because it doesn’t affect my chosen profession” Fair enough, and good luck to you.
What you missed by cheating on those “uninteresting” courses is this: Critical thinking, synthetic thinking, taking a position and defending it (although you aren’t doing too badly here), creative thinking. Notice how different types of thinking keep popping up there? Much of college isn’t about who was thrown out of windows in Prauge, it’s about teaching you how to ask and answer questions on your own. As Fretful said, its the process that you are supposed to be learning. If they are not teaching that, then by all means you are aggrieved.
As a side point, I know you have had at least one work assignment that you felt was useless/a waste of your time/bureaucratic hoop-jumping, but which your boss required you to complete. I’m pretty sure he or she would be upset if you paid some-one you met on the street to complete that for you. So there you go, another benefit of doing the “uninteresting” work! 
More seriously, you say that “most” of the workers in your profession do not need to think creatively. I would have to agree. If you want to, you can certainly aim for mediocrity. In the financial industry this has been enshrined as “following the market” and is a recognized strategy. You will recommend AOL/Time Warner-type mergers, and Enron-type companies, simply because that is the general market consensus. You will not be punished for this, no matter how bad your recommendations, because the markets are doing the same thing. As I said, this is a recognized strategy, and I wish you luck. After all, there needs to be an average in any industry.
If you wish to exceed expectations, then you will have to think creatively, synthetically, and critically. You will have to take an unpopular position and defend it against your co-workers and even supervisors. You will also have to learn to lose an argument gracefully. And maybe, just maybe, by handing your Literature prof a paper about how Hamlet is overrated and contrasting it with the much more contemporary and relevent work By All Means Necessary by KRS-One, you might develope such skills.
Or maybe not. But you didn’t give that process a chance. pseudotriton has said why this cheats him, I’m just trying to say why it might cheat you.
I learn alot for it’s own sake. Like i said before, I love learning about things i’m interested in. I love watching documentaries about ancient history, I love reading about the romans, what i don’t like is having my future hinge on my knowledge of the romans or history. I’m interested in it and i like it, but I’m not good at it. I’d happily take those classes all day long if they didn’t count towards my GPA.
I have zero problem with learning things that aren’t particularly useful if they interest me Please don’t equate useful with interesting, because they’re very different. There were some classes i took as electives because they interested me, but not enough. To get the credits i needed I had to take alot of stuff that didn’t interest me, and was not useful. It’s the double whammy that kills ya!
I’m sorry, that philosophy is just wrong. Being forced to take it just makes me hate it more.
Those are two examples of people that can’t do their jobs. If you called a plumber over and asked him to help with a physics problem and he couldn’t would it mean he’s a bad plumber? No, because physics has no bearing on the ability to do his job. I do my job just fine even though I can’t analyze a character’s motivations from a book written from a long dead author.
AAnd I was responding to the question of originality and new ideas. Your wet basement is not the first one in history. SOmeone else figured out what to do, and he learned it. Auto mechanic? SOme thing. Somebody else figured out how to fix the problem, and he learned it. Typical mechanics and plumbers don’t make up new ways to fix things, they use the methods someone else figured out.
Yes they do, no arguement here. The difference is, they learn things that matter to them or interest them. What if the American Medical Association mandated that doctors had to take a class on embroidering and pass it? AMA says that embroidering is an essential skill, and if you can’t do it, you can’t be a doctor. It shows that they have the capacity to learn. Plus good embroidery skills make for nice stitches.
Sounds ridiculous doesn’ it? Yet we do the same thing every time a kid walks into an english class. Most of the writing working people do is akin to stitching. Yes, there are people that NEED to have excellent writing skills, but why does every single student (I’m assuming an entry level english class is a requirement at every university) have to be able to write at that level? Alot of professional writers (magazine, newspaper writers) don’t even write at that level.
No. Straight up, take the guy who didn’t admit to it. I would never admit it. :o
welby(the guy who posted his academic requirements) Brings something to mind. He’s taking a degree in IT, yet he has to fulfill such requirements as “western civilization, US history, Literature and natural sciences.” I wonder how Fine arts students would feel if they had to take courses such as “Computer programming, matrix algebra, human resources, and symbloic logic” in order to get their degree. AFAIK, there are no such requirements for Art history majors, or political science students. Why are they allowed to get off so easy?
I really hope it doesn’t end up in the pit.
I for one would be perfectly willing to work hard and accept the consequences of my piss poor work in a meaningless course if it didn’t cost me a career. If I work my ass off and fail a class at university, it coud cost me a degree, which WILL cost me the career i desire. Even if i scrape by and pass it’ll lower my GPA which will lower my chance at getting the job i want. That’s the problem.
That’s your perogative.
pseudotriton ruber ruber, in regards to your marathon analogy, I’ll have to agree with you. Even though I didn’t REALLY do all the work I should have done to GET(admittedly, I did not EARN) my degree, the powers that be think I did. Evil Death, you gotta bite the bullet to get your degree. The degree doesn’t mean you’re a good <insert job here>, it just means you have a degree. You are still a good <IJH> with or without one. The University doesn’t care though, they just want their requirements met.
And i personally don’t want a degree for respect (all my colleagues have one), it was just a ticket to get my foot in the door.
And I am in no way proud of what I did, or encouraging others to do the same. I just don’t think it’s as clear cut black and white like it was made out to be before my OP. People who cheat in all facets of life do suck. I cheated my way through one part of life.
I also have no respect for people who cheat their way through the most important parts of what they do. I consider steroids cheating and I have no respect for athletes who use them. Something like that is wrong because it’s the basic core of what they do. I would have no respect for a finance major who cheated his way through finance. But i cheated my way through english, a geology class, a religion course, etc. My business courses were all me. That’s why I think that though what I did was wrong, it wasn’t that wrong.
and please excuse my spellling, very long day and I’m way too tired to check it.
Pure-I feel sorry for you. You missed out on one of the greatest things about college which is learning about things that don’t otherwise interest you. Anybody can learn on their own about whatever interests him/her but one of the joys of higher education is being exposed to people who are passionate about subjects you thought could never interest you and maybe discovering new passions of your own. Granted, my college only had a few liberal arts requirements for us Chemistry majors but I spent my time getting as varied an education as possible. I feel bad that while you got a degree, you aparantly did not take advantage of the opportunity to also get an education.
Also-I use physics every day in medicine! Treatment of high blood pressure requires understanding the relationship between flow rates, wall tension, and cross-sectional area. Finally, a course in embroidery just might improve hand-eye coordination and lead to better suturing-I believe it would be a great addition to the standard medical curriculum.
My logic, Rubber Boy? My logic has nothing to do with the number of courses taken. It has to do with the nature of those courses.
I was able to complete my Science degree with an Arts course. Nor was it one of the aforementioned first year courses designed “to keep the idiots out”; it was a second year course in a subject so useless outside academia as to be obscene. And yet because of it, despite having improved my knowledge base by an effective zero I’m suddenly worth a degree.
If I’d had to take a science course to acquire three letters after my name, I would have no issue. I shouldn’t be being informed by happy university staff that I can take this History course that is a common dodge - quote unquote - for people in my position because it’s really easy and it has no prerequisites. Science degrees should indicate an education in science - certainly once you’re past the first year. This is what Atrael was trying to say, with the difference that I’m not complaining about the base courses.
Incidentally, Rubber Boy, I suggest that the next time you feel the urge to patronise someone, you keep your loud, offensive, arrogant mouth shut until you have the first clue of what they and you are talking about.
My, we’re getting closer and closer to that Pit Thread all the time…I just love it when students mouth off (anonymously, of course), telling me how they’re so much smarter than I am. You know it, E.D., and of course I’m just overwhelmed by your mastery of argumentation here (to say nothing of your reading skills, unless you mean someone other than me by “Rubber Boy”–but maybe the SCIENTIFIC nomenclature confused you, which doesn’t exactly astonish me). But what are we two against the opinion of all the rest of society that credits a Ph. D. with more knowledge than a high school grad (or did you cheat your way to that one, too?)
Moderator’s Note: Evil Death, this is NOT the Pit, so keep it civil.
That was civil. I note that he’s trying for uncivil, though.
Which part did you find uncivil? Specifically, more uncivil than keeping my “loud, offensive, arrogant mouth shut”?
Better yet, why not respond to mypoint about your apparent misunderstanding of my username, which comes from the latinate nomenclature used by scientists. (“Ruber” may look like “rubber” but it means something else entirely, which you might know if you’d studied biology.) Is this because you didn’t go into biology? Then perhaps you’d like to expand your argument to excluding ALL the areas of academic study not directly related to one’s eventual line of work, and not merely those worthless fields in the humanities?
Let’s say all 128 credits of your college degree were directly related to the exact field you want to work in. Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?
You can choose to give an uncivil reply, of course, but in that case why NOT just take this to the Pit, where we can exchange some thoughts on that level? Or you could stay here and deal with the questions I’m posing, which might make for an interesting discussion. You might even learn something.
Why, I believe that would be the way you elected to judge me on the basis of a massively flawed interpretation of one post, in a manner that dripped contempt with every word. Of course, that was before you went on to groundlessly accuse me of cheating to attain my qualifications.
**
It’s called “parody”. Learn to love it.
**
Bad; it would be overspecialising and reducing your options as a result. OTOH, requiring Philosophy 101 as part of an IT degree is the academic equivalent of teaching javelin-throwing as part of the game of 8-ball pool.
**
You already took it to that level, so don’t come over all hurt now.
Which part would you like to discuss first, just so we don’t get all tangled up here?
- I do have contempt for you–I’ve openly said as much previously in this thread (though I applied that word specifically to “pure,” it plainly applies to all plagiarists and, to a degree, all defenders of plagiarism.) But I tried to express my contempt civilly, as “pure” has already acknowledged.
Are you defending plagiarism? I thought you were. If you’re not defending it, I do apologize for misreading you. Are you saying that you’ve attained your degree without violating the academic integrity of your institution? Please clarify–I owe you another apology if you’re merely defending plagiarism in theory while being scrupulously scholarly in your actual practices.
- Ah, a self-proclaimed despiser of the humanities believes he can educate me in the meaning and use of the term “parody.” What you wrote in no way comes even close to “parody.” Your average Bio 101 student would have recognized, as you plainly did not, my user name as typical scientific nomenclature, and if he then wanted to parody it, might have remarked on the species of flower or fish or mammal it described. (It’s none of those, but you can just look it up if you like, and then proclaim that you knew it all along. No one will buy that, but you can try.) Calling me “Rubber boy” qualifies as “namecalling,” maybe; true parody would require you to mimic my writing style, which I think you would find difficult to do.
This one would be more fun in the Pit, I think.
-
Okay, this one we can follow through on usefully. I vote we pursue this thought. So you’re saying (correct me if I’m wrong here) that you’re willing to study SOME things that turn out to have no practical value in your career? If that’s right, could you tell me why you’re willing to study those things?
-
I’m not hurt at all. Aside from the massive waste of time (for both of us), I’d love to get all over you in the Pit. I have to be polite and professional with all the plagiarists I confront on my job–going at you in the Pit would let me discharge some of the frustration I feel.
Please pick one of the above to go into first. (I obviously prefer #3, but I’ll go wherever you choose.)
I’m not defending plagiarism in theory or in practice 0 I can’t abide cheats. The thread had taken a divergence into “Why do I have to take these courses that are unrelated to my degree anyway?”, which had received the response “Because We Corporation says so”. My reply was a further comment on the lack of justification for taking said courses, not “Then we should rise up and cheat on them!”, and how you could interpret it as such is beyond me.
That said, it does give some insight into why certain people would want to cheat - if they feel that time they could more profitably spend on “legitimate” study is being wasted.
**
Never said I despised them - I actually quite like philosophy, and at one point intended to take my degree in Philosophy, Logic and Metaphysics. It just doesn’t fit or belong in a science degree, and that’s what I signed up for.
**
Don’t misquote me. Taking 50% Psychology credits and 50% Comp Sci credits doesn’t mean you’ve wasted half your time unless you become a system analyst. <rimshot> Keeping career options open is good, but the more courses like Phil. 101 you take, the less widely within the sciences/arts/humanities you can diversify.
Oh, and can anyone tell me why I’m not allowed to edit my own posts?
To clarify my point 1), above:
I assumed you were defending plagiarism as an appropriate corrective to the arbitrary requirements of academe, a common rationalization for cheating, when you wrote
"Here’s an example slightly better than Atrael’s.
Through no fault of my own - my advisor didn’t give me any one of six vital pieces of information - I was left with an incomplete degree in 1996, one unit short of graduating as a Bachelor of Science. I’ve just taken a course to complete that degree, in History and Philosophy of Science.
How am I better educated now than I was six years ago? I already had all the courses in Computer Science, Mathematics and Psychology completed - I just needed this course to push me over an arbitrary limit.
So the answer is, I am no better educated now than I was then. I’m no better an employee than I was four months ago before I began this course. I just have a piece of paper that says I am."
So some university requirements are less relevant to your life than others are?
<sarcastic tone: Gosh, what a shock. How could that possibly be?
You actually had to take a course in some subject that you weren’t interested in? Why didn’t the meanies at your university understand that when they designed the undergraduate curriculum, and prevent this cruel and unusual punishment from being imposed on you? (etc. end sarcastic tone.>)
Does this realization allow you to then decide that if the university could commit an act so deeply flawed, it’s okay then for you commit plagiarism in your History of Science course as partial compensation for enduring such a hardship? Or does it just allow you to proclaim that those dunderheads who designed the curriculum just made a huge blunder which you disagree with? Your institution probably printed a list of distribution requirements that you could have viewed when you entered. Why didn’t you get all outraged at that point, and drop out of any institution so badly designed? Because for whatever reason you wanted their degree? Well, to get their degree, you need to take their courses.
Look, everybody would rather every degree program be set up to emphasize their own strengths and interests, not just you. It’s absurd to allow undergraduates to set up whatever curricula they like and then issue a diploma attesting that they’ve gotten a broad, carefully designed education. People work very hard to design curricula that balance specialization with breadth–what makes you more expert than the scientists who serve on curriculum committees?
“how you could interpret it as such is beyond me.”
Um, because this was a thread whose OP was plagiarism, and the “unfairness” of required courses is a common defense of plagiarism. If your point wasn’t to defend plagiarism, then tell me what it was (and what it was doing here.)
“It just doesn’t fit or belong in a science degree, and that’s what I signed up for.” So you say. Your university says otherwise–do you want to defend how you’re wiser than the professors who designed your curriculum? You read (or should have read) what you were signing up for; now you’re proclaiming that what you DID sign up for is what you didn’t sign up for.
"Don’t misquote me. " I wasn’t quoting you, so I couldn’t possibly be misquoting you. I was trying to restate and clarify what I thought your position was. If you really want to get into this, you’re going to have to be much more specific than just denouncing distribution requirements. You’re going to have to explain (beyond your own personal interests) why certain courses are useless to science students, why certain others are fairly useful, and others still are essential. This is a long, somewhat technical, complicated issue in curriculum design, however, so be warned it will take you several hours to get up to speed in discussing it intelligently, and you seem to resent spending your time on things out of your field. Maybe you’d rather just dismiss this whole area of discussion, and proclaim that you don’t wanna take nasty stuff that doesn’t help you in your major, and let it go at that.
Then take it there, and stop pissing in the pool. The both of you. Now.