No Snitching
With the NBA playoffs and Boalt finals on everyones' minds, I'm sure all of you know where I am going with that subject line. That's right: it's either (a) Carmelo Anthony's star turn in a gritty, low-budget movie last year, or (b) a curious portion of Holly Parrish's email today on exam guidelines. OK, actually, it's just (b). Let's talk about this paranthetical section for a moment:
I found this aside troubling, and a bit silly, on a number of levels. First of all, I find it hard to believe that Boalt students seriously "intend to cheat", or would be doing so openly that Dean O could find out, but perhaps that's just naivete. Note the assertion is not made as if Dean O merely "heard a rumor", but that she had confirmed the students' alleged intention. Has she? And how would Dean Ortiz come about all this information? Her web of informants? And was there actually serious faculty resistance to doing away with Examsoft? We never really heard about the decision-making process on that, so I just don't know. The whole scenario (students plotting to cheat, Dean O uncovering their nefarious plans, and the threat to reinstate Examsoft (OH NO!) "if this becomes an issue") strikes me as both unlikely and needlessly hyperbolic. It reminds me of a parent issuing a threat to a truculent child: "I'm going to get you pizza for dinner, but you have to eat your vegetables. I have heard -- and I'm not going to tell you how -- that you don't intend to eat your vegetables. If you don't eat your vegetables we won't get you pizza for dinner again. When your mother and I discussed this, we were worried that if we got pizza then you wouldn't eat your vegetables. We're getting you pizza because we trust that you will eat your vegetables."* I don't know. Exam studying makes me really grumpy, and the way that section was worded just struck me as a bit condescending.
None of the foregoing should be read as an endorsement of cheating or the administration's active efforts to ensure that cheating does not occur. It's just a plea that the administration at Boalt interact with students as adults. The rest of the email makes it clear that use of electronic resources under the new procedures (including "cutting and pasting") is forbidden. That should be sufficient, without adding in innuendo and rumor-mongering and threats.
That said, Boalties, don't cheat on your exams. Even if you're not caught, it's probably not worth either the effort or the risk considering the pernicious effects such behavior will have on your karma and your conscience. Moreover, if your are caught, it could get you suspended (I would have thought expelled, but whatever) and it could result in the reinstatement of the dreaded Examsoft. All that, and it's just incredibly lame. Don't be lame.
*Lengthy analogy kind funny on its own, but especially when you consider that the "pizza"/good stuff that they're offering us is really just a slightly more convenient and less technologically cumbersome way TO TAKE A LAW SCHOOL EXAM. Wow, talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. They figure out a way to administer an exam more efficiently, and here I am comparing it to some kind of reward. It reminds me of the old saw about law firm partnership: Partnership is like a pie-eating contest where the prize for first place is more pie.
(Note: it's come to the attention of Dean Ortiz that some students intend to cheat by pasting material in to their exam answers. This is absolutely an Honor Code violation and offenders risk suspension. Furthermore, we will have to return to using Examsoft if this becomes an issue. There was significant opposition to doing away with Examsoft because of the fear of cheating by students. The faculty decided to permit exams to be taken without Examsoft because they trust students will behave honorably.)
I found this aside troubling, and a bit silly, on a number of levels. First of all, I find it hard to believe that Boalt students seriously "intend to cheat", or would be doing so openly that Dean O could find out, but perhaps that's just naivete. Note the assertion is not made as if Dean O merely "heard a rumor", but that she had confirmed the students' alleged intention. Has she? And how would Dean Ortiz come about all this information? Her web of informants? And was there actually serious faculty resistance to doing away with Examsoft? We never really heard about the decision-making process on that, so I just don't know. The whole scenario (students plotting to cheat, Dean O uncovering their nefarious plans, and the threat to reinstate Examsoft (OH NO!) "if this becomes an issue") strikes me as both unlikely and needlessly hyperbolic. It reminds me of a parent issuing a threat to a truculent child: "I'm going to get you pizza for dinner, but you have to eat your vegetables. I have heard -- and I'm not going to tell you how -- that you don't intend to eat your vegetables. If you don't eat your vegetables we won't get you pizza for dinner again. When your mother and I discussed this, we were worried that if we got pizza then you wouldn't eat your vegetables. We're getting you pizza because we trust that you will eat your vegetables."* I don't know. Exam studying makes me really grumpy, and the way that section was worded just struck me as a bit condescending.
None of the foregoing should be read as an endorsement of cheating or the administration's active efforts to ensure that cheating does not occur. It's just a plea that the administration at Boalt interact with students as adults. The rest of the email makes it clear that use of electronic resources under the new procedures (including "cutting and pasting") is forbidden. That should be sufficient, without adding in innuendo and rumor-mongering and threats.
That said, Boalties, don't cheat on your exams. Even if you're not caught, it's probably not worth either the effort or the risk considering the pernicious effects such behavior will have on your karma and your conscience. Moreover, if your are caught, it could get you suspended (I would have thought expelled, but whatever) and it could result in the reinstatement of the dreaded Examsoft. All that, and it's just incredibly lame. Don't be lame.
*Lengthy analogy kind funny on its own, but especially when you consider that the "pizza"/good stuff that they're offering us is really just a slightly more convenient and less technologically cumbersome way TO TAKE A LAW SCHOOL EXAM. Wow, talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. They figure out a way to administer an exam more efficiently, and here I am comparing it to some kind of reward. It reminds me of the old saw about law firm partnership: Partnership is like a pie-eating contest where the prize for first place is more pie.
Labels: 0L/1L Advice, Honor Code
posted by Anonymous at 6:39 PM
10 Comments:
The idea of being prohibited from cutting and pasting seems extremely naive on the part of the administration. What exactly do they think we're doing with our outlines? But since apparently that too is now a violation of the cumbersome honor code, which seems to have more additions to it than, well, Boalt Hall, I'll oblige. I'll just retype word for word what I have in front of me.
Dare I propose a wall of shame for cheaters in the locker room, or perhaps in the annals of this blog?
Cutting and pasting didn't even occur to me.
I thought the cheating would entail using FIND to skip around to parts of your outline quickly without having to flip through the paper copy. Silly me.
The cutting and pasting prohibition makes sense in that some students still use(gasp) bluebook exams. Using find and cut and paste effectively gives laptop users more time than bluebook writers.
I'm a 0L and admittedly naive, but not being able to use find or cut and paste seems rediculous. If people choose not to use a laptop, that's their choice. They are choosing to give up that ability. I'd hope that that restriction would change before I got there.
Or am I too wet behind the ears for not understanding?
PS I didnt know that Boalt didnt use Examsoft. It seems that all other tier 1 schools at least do. There's no requirements for laptopos or particular software? Also, how would they ever find out you used cut and paste versus typing it in?
It's based on the honor code kid. There's no big brother looking over your shoulder. Just a bunch of random strangers.
I'll have more to say on this later.
As a 2L, to an 0L, a bit of unsolicited advice.
1) spell check.
2) Let's assume the purpose of a law school examination is to assess the quality of legal reasoning and argumentation/presentation. Their choice of laptop or handwritten should be largely irrelevant. If the rules can be structured so as to diminish any potential advantage of one writing method over the other, what's the problem with that? It fulfills the aim of the examination more faithfully than shurgging one's shoulders and saying "well, those silly hand-writers 'chose' to handicap themselves."
3) Why in the world would you, as a prospective (I assume, but perhaps you have nothing to do with law school) go around to all the other "tier 1" schools (whatever that means) finding out if they use Examsoft? And why does it really matter what all the other tier 1 schools do?
4) All of the above aside, I am not sure being able to cut and paste would be the advantage some seem to think it is. It might be nice to have a concise statement of the rule at the ready, but I suspect one would spend as much time using "find" and "cut and paste" as one would simply typing it in off a well-organized printed outline. And a successful exam rarely calls for regurgitation of whatever is in the outline. The application of the law (sometimes multiple rules) to the facts, that's the trick. I've never found an outline all that helpful, except where I've totally blanked on a case or rule.
10:27...CLAP CLAP CLAP!!! If only I could give AmJurs for anonymous comments.
late to the conversation I realize. BUT, as a 1L with a closed book torts exam looming on monday, the cut and paste, white colored font, and other various cheating scams thrown around are quite a real concern.
I guess I have to have faith in my fellow Boalties that no one is so concerned about grades here that they'd dare risk violating the honor code when the opportunity to cheat has been basically thrown in their lap. But seriously, if anyone has faced Ms. Swamp's* closed book torts exams, you'd realize people are desperate.
Anyway, just wanted to share the point of view of a silly 1L whose worries at this point aren't being able to use FIND, but being able to memorize and apply Wigmore's theories on res ipsa.
*(note the Ms. Swamp is a reference to the well loved book, Ms. Nelson is Missing. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395401461/104-1288310-5255920?v=glance&n=283155)
Wiggmore? Torts? Don't you mean Prosser? Kid I hope you have some cheating tricks up your sleeve.
All kidding aside, you bring up a good point about closed book exams. But then again, you could just leave and go to the "bathroom." So, it's not any different than previous honor code concerns.
Post a Comment
<< Home