yes for whomever organized such a curse and didn't give such guidance.
And besides curse asked for project to do something. It did. It printed lines.
We can call the email gimmick, the marketeering strategy, making a turd look good.
Don't blame students for failure of whomever designed the curse.
It's plausible to me that they weren't provided with what they needed precisely because pervasive cheating allowed their predecessor classmates to complete the assignments.
This can depend a lot on the context, which we don't have a lot of.
Looking at this a different way, they gave first-year students, likely with no established pre-requistites, an open-ended project with fixed hardware but no expectation to submit the final project for review. If they wanted to verify the students actually developed a working program, they could have easily asked for the Pi's to be returned along with the source code.
A project like this was likely intended to get the students to think about the "what" and not worry so much about the "how." Faking it entirely may have gone a bit further than intended, but would still meet the goal of getting the students to think about what they could do with this computer (if they knew how)
While university instructors can vastly underestimate student's creativity, they are, generally speaking, not stupid. At the very least, they know if you don't tell students to submit their work, you can often count on them doing as little as possible.
> If they wanted to verify the students actually developed a working program, they could have easily asked for the Pi's to be returned along with the source code.
Wait, is your argument honestly "it's not cheating because they just trusted the students"?
There's a huge difference between demoing something as "this is what we did" vs "we didn't quite get there, but this is what we're envisioning."
Edit: You all are responding very weirdly. The cheating is because you're presenting "something" that is not that thing. Put a dog in a dress and call it a pretty woman and I'll call you a conman.
> Put a dog in a dress and call it a pretty woman and I'll call you a conman.
Well if you're the TA and you're unwilling/too lazy to call out the conman, I call you an accomplice! Also, since when was the ideal scientific rigour ever build on interpersonal trust?
I'd call it cheating too but yeah. I like the pi and sensors though. Sounds like the start of something cool. Wish I could get a product like this to put in my roof to detect leaks. That would be useful.
It depends on what the intention of the assignment was. If it was primarily to help the students understand what these devices _could_ be used for, then it's fine. If it was to have them actually do it, well, then the professor should have at least tried to verify that. Given that it's for first-years who have no experience programming, it really could be either.
> It was our first comp sci class ever, we were given raspberry pi's. We had no coding experience or guidance, and were asked to create "something".
Garbage in, garbage out.
Wow this is such an awful excuse.
Here’s a whole list of projects intended for kids.
https://all3dp.com/2/best-raspberry-pi-projects-for-kids/
It includes building out a whole weather station which includes a humidity sensor as one of the many things it can do.
> Wow this is such an awful excuse.
yes for whomever organized such a curse and didn't give such guidance.
And besides curse asked for project to do something. It did. It printed lines. We can call the email gimmick, the marketeering strategy, making a turd look good.
Don't blame students for failure of whomever designed the curse.
3 replies →
Creativity is a good thing, sad to see trust abused this way.
More like cheaters in, cheaters out.
It's plausible to me that they weren't provided with what they needed precisely because pervasive cheating allowed their predecessor classmates to complete the assignments.
This can depend a lot on the context, which we don't have a lot of.
Looking at this a different way, they gave first-year students, likely with no established pre-requistites, an open-ended project with fixed hardware but no expectation to submit the final project for review. If they wanted to verify the students actually developed a working program, they could have easily asked for the Pi's to be returned along with the source code.
A project like this was likely intended to get the students to think about the "what" and not worry so much about the "how." Faking it entirely may have gone a bit further than intended, but would still meet the goal of getting the students to think about what they could do with this computer (if they knew how)
While university instructors can vastly underestimate student's creativity, they are, generally speaking, not stupid. At the very least, they know if you don't tell students to submit their work, you can often count on them doing as little as possible.
> If they wanted to verify the students actually developed a working program, they could have easily asked for the Pi's to be returned along with the source code.
Wait, is your argument honestly "it's not cheating because they just trusted the students"?
There's a huge difference between demoing something as "this is what we did" vs "we didn't quite get there, but this is what we're envisioning."
Edit: You all are responding very weirdly. The cheating is because you're presenting "something" that is not that thing. Put a dog in a dress and call it a pretty woman and I'll call you a conman.
No, the argument is, "It's not cheating because it wasn't a programming assignment."
> Put a dog in a dress and call it a pretty woman and I'll call you a conman.
Well if you're the TA and you're unwilling/too lazy to call out the conman, I call you an accomplice! Also, since when was the ideal scientific rigour ever build on interpersonal trust?
No, it’s not cheating because the ask was “something” not “some program”
6 replies →
It certainly reflects poorly on the institution for not requiring anything other than a dog and pony show for grading.
BS. The CEO of one of the largest public companies just did it and he is fine. Board and shareholders all happy.
I gleefully await Matt Levine’s article on AI demos as securities fraud.
Well done, you're halfway to secure a job at Google, no eh ethics/morals needed.
Of course it's cheating
It's very obviously cheating. They didn't do what the assignment asked.
I'd call it cheating too but yeah. I like the pi and sensors though. Sounds like the start of something cool. Wish I could get a product like this to put in my roof to detect leaks. That would be useful.
If the teacher was competent, they would've asked to see the code.
The view up on that high horse must be interesting! Were you the kid who reminded teachers about homework?
Literally all that matters is that they passed.
> Were you the kid who reminded teachers about homework?
Are you trying to bully me or something? Not going to work with me. You've revealed your poor character with that comment.
Kind of? Yes but they still demonstrated as much as was expected from them, which was very little to begin with.
It depends on what the intention of the assignment was. If it was primarily to help the students understand what these devices _could_ be used for, then it's fine. If it was to have them actually do it, well, then the professor should have at least tried to verify that. Given that it's for first-years who have no experience programming, it really could be either.