# Don't even try to tell us it's not plagiarized!
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [March 9, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903 "2010-03-09T21:01:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 12
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [April 19, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/221 "2010-04-19T21:05:36Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> Sentence A and Sentence B are mutually exclusive. If you have a good thesis with an “airtight” analysis, your interpretation of what the author “meant” is \*exactly \*as valid as anyone else’s.
You can have airtight logic and still be wrong, for example, if you start from some false assumptions.
And since the instructor went on to comment that it was clear the student hadn’t read any outside materials (which was meant as praise of course) we may have an idea as to why the student might have been the victim of some false assumptions.
---
### Author:  [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/222 "2010-04-20T14:04:46Z")
Hrm. I still don’t see how you can have a good \*literary \*analysis that starts from a “false assumption,” when what you start from is the text itself. All of the analysis is then built off of that text.
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/223 "2010-04-20T22:21:12Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> Hrm. I still don’t see how you can have a good \*literary \*analysis that starts from a “false assumption,” when what you start from is the text itself. All of the analysis is then built off of that text.
You could if you don’t understand some of the background & terms used.
For example, stories of 75-150 years ago will talk about 2 people “making love”. In current language, that is pretty much an euphemism for sexual intercourse. But back then, it wasn’t – it referred to what we would call ‘flirting’ or ‘courting’ – much different meaning. If you didn’t understand that, your analysis of the text could be quite logically consistent, but way off base.
---
### Author:  [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/224 "2010-04-20T22:40:14Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> Sentence A and Sentence B are mutually exclusive. If you have a good thesis with an “airtight” analysis, your interpretation of what the author “meant” is \*exactly \*as valid as anyone else’s.
I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. You can say “This poem meant X” and get praised for original and logically consistent analysis but if the actual author is on record as stating, “I meant Y, not X, by this poem” then your interpretation of what the author meant is still wrong. If we’re talking about a generic interpretation of the poem independent of the author’s intent then maybe you are onto something, but if we are talking about what the author meant then not all logically consistent analysis meet this criteria.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/225 "2010-04-20T22:48:04Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#):
>
> For example, stories of 75-150 years ago will talk about 2 people “making love”. In current language, that is pretty much an euphemism for sexual intercourse. But back then, it wasn’t – it referred to what we would call ‘flirting’ or ‘courting’ – much different meaning. If you didn’t understand that, your analysis of the text could be quite logically consistent, but way off base.
Indeed. Back then, the euphamism for sexual intercourse was “Calvin Coolidging.”
---
### Author:  [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/226 "2010-04-20T23:07:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> Indeed. Back then, the euphamism for sexual intercourse was “Calvin Coolidging.”
They had to be silent to avoid scaring the horses, after all.
---
### Author:  [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2010, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/227 "2010-04-20T23:23:50Z")
It’s entirely possible to get basic facts wrong about a story–say, in terms of events, characters, actions–and then go on (incorrectly) from there.
On another note: What do you folks think of the “FD” (failure with dishonesty) grade discussed here?:
> **[B.C. university introduces grade worse than F](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-university-introduces-grade-worse-than-f-1.424919)**
>
> It used to be that the worst grade you could receive in school was an F, and that was bad enough. But now B.C.'s Simon Fraser University is taking punishment to a whole new level.
---
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/228 "2010-04-21T03:45:23Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#):
>
> He couldn’t do much at all.
>
> The essay is theirs, they retain the copyright on it, and they certainly have the right to sell it to this site, or any other publisher if they want. It’s future people who would buy that essay and try to pass it off as their own who are cheating.
Not true!
According to APAv6 you can plagarize yourself since a paper is supposed to be original research so it could be plagerism depending on the assignment.
---
### Author:  [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/229 "2010-04-21T04:15:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> Indeed. Back then, the euphamism for sexual intercourse was “Calvin Coolidging.”
Ahh, Coolidging with Irma Lou under a scratchy horsehair blanket, waving the ol’ college pennant (if ya geit mah drift) before the big game.
And, yes, we did frighten the horse once or thrice.
---
### Author:  [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2010, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/230 "2010-04-21T06:24:05Z")
> [@Spoons](#):
>
> I also found this with Chinese students when I was a TA, years ago. They were mainly from Hong Kong, and had come to Canada to study. Anyway, it was a little odd, to say the least, when their exam papers were marked–they had indeed memorized and regurgitated entire chunks of the textbook. It was a proctored exam, with students allowed nothing at their desks except a pen while proctors walked up and down the aisles, so we knew that there had been no copying or cribbing from materials smuggled in. Besides, the textbook excerpts were much too long to be scrawled on an arm hidden in a sleeve, or on the back of a watch.
This is the thing with Chinese education system, even in Singapore. The exams reward you for memorization, and this is how we are taught. We learn mathematics through drilling, spelling through spelling tests, remember the periodic table and etc. Which may be why we tend to excel in engineering rather than the more creative industry.
---
### Author:  [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/231 "2010-04-21T14:30:21Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> Indeed. Back then, the euphamism for sexual intercourse was “Calvin Coolidging.”
Then what would William H. Tafting involve? I’m almost afraid to ask. _ **- Og** _.
---
### Author:  [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2010, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/232 "2010-04-21T14:54:17Z")
> [@Trans Fat Og](#):
>
> Then what would William H. Tafting involve? I’m almost afraid to ask. _ **- Og** _.
It means to get stuck in a bathtub.
Oh, and Teddy Roosevelting? That’s having sex with a large gay man.
So you really don’t want to be all Tafting in the middle of your Teddys or else you’ll frighten your Coolidges. Or, um, something like that.
---
### Author:  [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/233 "2010-04-21T21:02:00Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#):
>
> You could if you don’t understand some of the background & terms used.
Good point. (And a good example–I know exactly what you’re talking about.)
> [@Driver8](#):
>
> I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. You can say “This poem meant X” and get praised for original and logically consistent analysis but if the actual author is on record as stating, “I meant Y, not X, by this poem” then your interpretation of what the author meant is still wrong.
Actually, I’d disagree with that. Taking such a strict interpretation of the “meaning” of works of art (whether literature, music, poetry, sculpture, whatever) turns all criticism into, essentially, historical research. Ultimately, what the author intends is irrelevant; IMO, the best part of analysis and criticism is what it reveals about both our own society/culture and the society/culture of the author, as well as the connections between the two.
Example: In a creative writing course I took in high school, one of my poems was being discussed. One of the other students had a remarkable insight into the meaning of the poem–one that I never intended. However, I could very much see how he could reach such a conclusion. The poem became a lens through which his personal experience was focused. Therefore, his interpretation was just as valid as my original intention.
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/234 "2010-04-21T22:49:44Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#):
>
> Actually, I’d disagree with that. Taking such a strict interpretation of the “meaning” of works of art (whether literature, music, poetry, sculpture, whatever) turns all criticism into, essentially, historical research. Ultimately, what the author intends is irrelevant; IMO, the best part of analysis and criticism is what it reveals about both our own society/culture and the society/culture of the author, as well as the connections between the two.
Well, but I think there’s an important distinction between **what the poem itself means** and **what its author meant or intended to say by it** (and I think **Driver8** did make that distinction).
---
### Author:  [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/235 "2010-04-22T15:54:21Z")
Good point. Of course, \*then \*we get into issues such as (a) can we take an author at their word about what they “meant” by a work and (b) should we ever even get into what the author meant vs. what the work means. 😃
---
### Author:  [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/236 "2010-04-22T16:41:51Z")
> [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](#):
>
> This is the thing with Chinese education system, even in Singapore. The exams reward you for memorization.. Which may be why we tend to excel in engineering rather than the more creative industry.
That’s funny, given that in engineering school in Spain you’re pretty much not expected to memorize anything. For most exams you even get to bring in “cheat sheets” done to the professor’s specs (for example, “include the formulae and where to apply them, but no detailed application examples”); the “cheat sheet” may even be handed in for grading. The ones who have a reputation for memorizing the whole book and regurgitating it back are the Humanities folks, and specially the Law students (reputedly, they spend 8 months partying and missing class, followed by a month of cramming like crazy - yes, the reputation is exagerated, but they do most of their work right before exams).
---
### Author:  [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)
#### Post date: [April 23, 2010, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/237 "2010-04-23T11:39:13Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Paging athelas.
[Bwahahahahahaha!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12320873&postcount=139) 😉
---
### Author:  [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/238 "2010-04-28T21:06:49Z")
I just got another one yesterday, from yet another sad case who was failing the class anyway. According to the progress report she had me fill out (before I found said paper), she’s failing everything she’s taking. The plagiarism doesn’t help.
---
### Author:  [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/239 "2010-04-28T21:29:00Z")
If she were smart enough to pass, she wouldn’t be plagarizing in such a way as to get caught doing it.
---
### Author:  [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903/240 "2010-04-28T22:57:56Z")
> [@mhendo](#):
>
> It’s an interesting issue.
>
> If the seller of the paper is a student at University A, and the buyer is a student at University B, i wonder if University A’s academic dishonesty policy would apply? I don’t think i’ve ever seen an AD policy that dealt specifically with this type of situation.
Humm - not that I’m planning on doing this (I’d rather make extra $$ by cheating on my taxes), but I graduated a couple of years ago.
I wonder if my University could somehow take my degree away if I decided to sell old term papers on this site? I assume not, but I’m rather honest to a fault (well, except lying about cheating on my taxes) and I’m probably not a very good criminal/cheat.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903.md?page=11)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-even-try-to-tell-us-its-not-plagiarized/531903.md?page=13)