my pete peve again: Just because its in a book dosent give it credibility

[Vesayen]

If I make an argument based on the source text, that isn’t enough.

If a published author makes the EXACT same argument using the source text, in the same way I am, that is of course perfectly acceptable and I can use his argument! Why would I not want to bypass the middle man and save my time regurgitating what others have said? Of course I want to lessen my own personal "stock" in my work by filling it with the opinions of others!



Reason 384,724 I am convinced that any teacher or professor involved in the study of English or Literature is a bull@$*! artist: Logic doesn’t count as logic unless its in a book! Logic is logic and it takes no more or less space for me to simply put what someone else said, then to put my own. I guess if something is published it instantly has more credibility, I should start quoting "Mien Kemph" for future English papers, because if its published it has instant credibility!

I think we know who the morons are who fall for all these email scams:

"Send us money to get the money from a wealthy Ethiopian!"

"Enter to win fabulous prizes! just give us your bank account and pin number!"


English professors

[Cruddy]

I think someone is having problems with their educators, so all I can really offer is;

"Don't argue with the teacher. Just make lots of notes and use them as a buffoon figure in your memoirs."

[Spiffor]

I have a friend who wrote a paper (about electronic participation), where she found exactly the same concusions as our main professor, without reading the book where he exposed this idea. The assistant professor, who was correcting the paper, remained adamant that my friend quoted the text she did not read. The assistant could not believe that she found italone

[chequita guevara]

One of the things you're doing in college is learning how to source your material. Using your brain doesn't come 'till later.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Cruddy
I think someone is having problems with their educators, so all I can really offer is;

"Don't argue with the teacher. Just make lots of notes and use them as a buffoon figure in your memoirs."

lol good idea

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One of the things you're doing in college is learning how to source your material. Using your brain doesn't come 'till later.

I know how to use both, I find in most instances my brain is better, with source material as occasional reference.

[SpencerH]

Let me play devils advocate here. If the same argument has already been published then I, as an editor or professor, have to protect that work by insisting that you quote it since you have had the chance to read it.

[Vesayen]

I read the book about how John kills Bobby.

The overtones in the book, and some basic information about the book make it easy to argue how John killing Bobby is symbolic of something in the authors life.

I can explain this is deep, lengthy detail.

It dosent matter as of course I am a worthless unwashed fool, who knows nothing.


If I then find a book that makes an IDENTICAL argument to mine, I can of course use THAT, because if it is hard bound it must be true!

It's taking the emphasis off the work and focusing it on credability which pisses me off and shouldnt be an issue.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Vesayen
It dosent matter as of course I am a worthless unwashed fool, who knows nothing.

This is the key. You are still a student, I assume an undergrad. You are not published, your work has no credibility. That's how academia works.

Plus, as SpenceH's post infers, there would be a much bigger problem with plagerism than there is now if students weren't required to source every bit of information possible.

I know it sucks, but it will actually come in handy in the real world.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This is the key. You are still a student, I assume an undergrad. You are not published, your work has no credibility. That's how academia works.

And that is why I hate academia in non-technical fields.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Plus, as SpenceH's post infers, there would be a much bigger problem with plagerism than there is now if students weren't required to source every bit of information possible.

There is no effective way to catch the vast vast majority of people cheating, and if caught even on final exams they can usually talk their way out, so it hardly matters(another pet peeve of mine, hearing people talk loudly at a table near me about how they cheated on a final exam together, how one got caught and convined the teacher to only drop his grade half a letter).

[Ecthy]

If you don't accept any written source whatsoever, the argument per se is meaningless. If you accept sources with a good reputation, that's OK. Of course there are stupid books out there, but I'm always willing to accept an argument if it's based on a proper source.

[SpencerH]

Cheating at university is becoming endemic. The only solution is to use the companies that screen papers for plagarism and to expel the cheaters.

[Vesayen]

If they enforced the rules, and added a two strikes your out rule cheating would stop overnight.


I hate those services because most of them copyright your papers when you submit them, meaning you dont own your work anymore.... though I dont plan to ever use anything I write after its done, I have copies of everything I've written in the last ten yars. If I ever do, I wan the ability too.

[Japher]

I agree with your peeve Vesayen...

College is not about speaking your mind however, it's about learning or being schooled, not about getting an education. Such education comes with life experience, something a Prof who has spent his whole like acadamia will never know. The only thing they know is that the people in the books the regurgitate are respected for such an education and wish to teach it to others so that they may one day speak like them and sound smart... Think of Good Will Hunting.

Do what they tell ya, they way they want, because for your opinions to get observed you will need respect. Schooling is a big step in getting the respect of such people.

I have a friend who dropped out of Cal Tech due to financial reasons and started going to Sac State. Since he dropped out he has gotten straight As and now has two degrees (Physics and Math). He has become completey obsessed with getting a portion of his higher education from Cal Tech. Yet, they will not admit him because they don't recognize some of his courses, and even with the grades they believe that their own education is way above that of Sac State and will not except him unless he went to MIT or some BS Ivy League.

After pissing and moaning for a week I put into his head that he should not be so obsessed with learning from such snobs rather to get his PhD, get in the real world, earn some respect, and make it his goal to teach at Cal Tech rather than be some lowly student there.

Why this story? I don't know. I think it has something to do with working the system, going around the system, beating the system, and earning respect.

Yes, some guy has a similar opinion to yours and wrote in a book that is published. To prove your opinion hold weight you have to site his book. That sucks, but then again his opinion does hold more weight. Why? He sold the book didn't he?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
I agree with your peeve Vesayen...

College is not about speaking your mind however, it's about learning or being schooled, not about getting an education. Such education comes with life experience, something a Prof who has spent his whole like acadamia will never know.

I disagree. It is true that if you spend your life in academia, you will not fully understand what you learn and research. However, if you have been educated in academia and have real world experiene, you will have a much better understanding of what you are doing, definately more so than someone who never went on to school. You need both, an they are both important.

[Japher]

Che, that is exactly what I meant to say.

[Buck Birdseed]

Success in academia is no guarantee for success in life.* In fact, some of the greatest minds in history have found the strictly hierarchical structure stifling and intellectually stilted. I'm not sure to what extent it is but I do think that the "learn this first, learn the real stuff later" approach che favours is ridiculous and deprives the vast majority of college students of the most valuables skill academia should teach you, namely to be able to both construct and analyse arguments and to critically assess the value of various sources from a clear theoretical viewpoint.

I've got a friend who's currently a postgraduate at Cambridge, and she tells me she was amazed when she was writing her first essay there and her tutor told her that she needed a more argumentative structure. She had managed to get a first (highest grade) at York, one of the top ten universities in britain, withous having written a single properly structured essay carrying though an idea. Throughout her course she'd written essays purely by looking at her textual sources, examining the evidence, and then using one on the other and writing a conclusion. All she learned was the theories of others and how to copy them.

I've had tons of teachers encouraging me to do the same, discouraging any thought I had of my own etc., but luckily one of my subjects (philosophy) was such that such an approach was not possible, or I'm not sure where I would have ended up. I think it's crucial that people have ideas of their own and learn how to critically assess those of others through them... It really helps you in intellectual development if you can "slot" new facts into a theoretical framework you've built yourself.

*At least I hope it isn't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
the "learn this first, learn the real stuff later" approach che favours . . .

I don't favor it. I'm just saying that's the way it is.

[Tripledoc]

I think what the text says is not so interesting as how the text is styled and what means are employed to make the case convincing and interesting. Contrary to popular belief some academics are actually very skilled and proficient writers, and often there is great humour to be found there. For true insight however one should rely on intuition and not logic.

[Patroklos]

I don't think you have too much experiance with cheating if you think it is that easy to get away with, at least in paper writing which is what this thread is about. You don't even have to submit the paper. There are websites were a teacher can just type a line of text from you work and it will find anything with a certain percent similarity.

I was on the honor court at my school and we were ruthless. Most cases were people who tried to paraphrase, and we caught alot of them. Granted, my schools is MUCH more strict than most.

[asleepathewheel]

turnitin.com

a brilliant site

though still a bit flawed

[Mercator]

You've just solved your own problem. Print out this thread and show it to your profs.

[SpencerH]

I dont grade undergrad work. I do review articles for some decent journals in my field. My system works like this. If it relates to my work and cites me (as it should) it has a shot at passing my review. If it doesnt cite me, they dont know enough about the subject and I grind it into the dirt :laughs maniacally:

[Spiffor]

I hope there are only a handful of people in your field then.

[lord of the mark]

this sounds odd - when i was in school, in a humanities or social science class it generally was a good thing to make your own arguments, as long as you stayed close to the source material you were supposed to be studying. Long speculations were discouraged, but not a close reading of the text. Discussing a secondary source was important only IF the secondary material was what you were supposed to be studying and supposed to be responsible for - in which case you WERE supposed to discuss the secondary material, but you COULD disagree with it, as long as you marshalled evidence and reasoned argument - now what was considered REASONED argument of course varied with the bias of the teacher/ department - what would pass as reasoned argument for a Marxist sociology prof was considered BS in the Econ department.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
I've had tons of teachers encouraging me to do the same, discouraging any thought I had of my own etc., but luckily one of my subjects (philosophy) was such that such an approach was not possible, or I'm not sure where I would have ended up. I think it's crucial that people have ideas of their own and learn how to critically assess those of others through them... It really helps you in intellectual development if you can "slot" new facts into a theoretical framework you've built yourself.

I refuse to base my papers on others... what I DO do is analyze the source material myself, leaving gaps for secondary sources, then find those secondary sources to plug in.... works fine usually.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
this sounds odd - when i was in school, in a humanities or social science class it generally was a good thing to make your own arguments, as long as you stayed close to the source material you were supposed to be studying. Long speculations were discouraged, but not a close reading of the text. Discussing a secondary source was important only IF the secondary material was what you were supposed to be studying and supposed to be responsible for - in which case you WERE supposed to discuss the secondary material, but you COULD disagree with it, as long as you marshalled evidence and reasoned argument - now what was considered REASONED argument of course varied with the bias of the teacher/ department - what would pass as reasoned argument for a Marxist sociology prof was considered BS in the Econ department.

That is how it should be, lol.

[civman2000]

I'm in high school, and thankfully all of my English teachers have always emphasized developing your own idea and very strongly discouraged using any secondary sources unless they were required for the assignment.

[Japher]

That is how it should be, lol.

Blah!!! If everything were how it should be we'd all be communist! If you want the grade do what they want. If your going to work in the real world your going to have to learn to kiss a little arse and bend over every now and then............

[Vesayen]

I've inserted my nose into so much posterior this year I've lost my sense of smell-which may actually be benificial........ I learned how to be selectivly sycophantic before I got to college lol.

[GhengisFarb™]

Yep, maybe someone should tell Michael Moore we're on to this scam.