Professor Richard Quinn was so disgusted by evidence that many of his students had cheated in their midterm exam that he gave them a lecture that he hoped would teach them a life-long lesson.
In the lecture, Prof Quinn told the class he had enough evidence from statistical analysis and other investigatory techniques to identify most cheats, but instead of handing the list over to the university authorities for discipling, he proposed a deal.
He said: “I don’t want to have to explain to your parents why you didn’t graduate, so I went to the Dean and I made a deal. The deal is you can either wait it out and hope that we don’t identify you, or you can identify yourself to your lab instructor and you can complete the rest of the course and the grade you get in the course is the grade you earned in the course.”
Prof Quinn also added a requirement for those who came forward complete a four hour course in ethics. In return there would be no permanent record of the cheating.
So far more than 200 students have admitted to cheating.
It’s one thing to read the article, but it’s another to actually hear the beginning of his speech. You can see the speech here.
In my opinion, the 200 students that admitted to cheating just fell for a major bluff.
This guy seems very intelligent, and apparently has a sizable group of lab instructors… so why didn't they write their own test questions to begin with (especially if they can accomplish it over a 96 hour period)? If you're a professor and you're using questions provided with the textbook, it should be very obvious that students will have access to those questions.
Just as lazy as the students were with not studying, he and his ta's were in not writing their own test questions.
Pingback: UCF Midterm Fail, Lazy Professors + Student Cheating « Political Perspectives
As an aspiring academic (I'm in the postdoc world right now), I found more wrong with Prof. Quinn's speech than right with it. I felt like I was listening to another grand proclamation from another ivory tower chatterbox. He missed a genuine opportunity to turn this into a teaching moment on ethics. (Of course, ethics are in the eye of the beholder–I don't think the students are at fault here. But he does, and that's his prerogative.)
"The manual's inside cover says that this material is restricted to…" and "So does that mean using this material is wrong?" and "What about old exams?" and "What about fraternity test banks?" and "What about illicit downloads?" Instead of lecturing and chastising and threatening, use a little Socratic method and teach the kids something.