- 最后登录
- 2009-12-18
- 在线时间
- 110 小时
- 寄托币
- 341
- 声望
- 5
- 注册时间
- 2008-5-27
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 3
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 248
- UID
- 2498528
- 声望
- 5
- 寄托币
- 341
- 注册时间
- 2008-5-27
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 3
|
TOPIC: ARGUMENT242 - The following appeared as an editorial in the student newspaper of Groveton College.
"To combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college and university students, these institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton's, which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated. Groveton's honor code replaced an old-fashioned system in which students were closely monitored by teachers and an average of thirty cases of cheating per year were reported. The honor code has proven far more successful: in the first year it was in place, students reported twenty-one cases of cheating; five years later, this figure had dropped to fourteen. Moreover, in a recent survey conducted by the Groveton honor council, a majority of students said that they would be less likely to cheat with an honor code in place than without."
The arguer asserts that the use of Groveton's honor code can reduce the number of students who cheat in their academic endeavors. He gives three reasons to support his argument, which is supervising and impeaching among students, the honor code has got achievements, and a survey from students shows it well. To scrutinize these reasons, none of them can guarantee the effectiveness of honor code.
At the beginning, the arguer fails to provide enough testimony materials to make sure the pragmatic function of honor code. No evidence shows whether agreement of not cheating by students is in the form of writings or orals. If the orals are chosen, unfortunately, no institution or people can keep it in the earnest way. Whether the students notify their faculty without considering when they find cheaters is doubtful to every student. On the one hand, they are suspicious of the real function to do that; on the other hand, most of students would choose not to inform faculty after they consider the relationship between them. Besides, without confirming the real cheaters, the student tell the suspect one to the faculty, which is in doubt in a democracy and completely legal system nation.
In the second place, the arguer puts out the seemingly persuasive data which is 21 cases at their first year compared to 30 cases in the old system, 14 cases after 5 years. But after carefully analyze the causes about that, neither can it be the attestation of honor code' effective. After the honor code council takes over the old system, there is no sign to show it is honor code’s influence to get that good performance. It is sound ground to believe that students enrolled when the honor code took over the old system’s place are more talent and sagacious than before. In addition, it is persuasive that the college and university bring about a lot of new teachers who are more erudite and pundit; last but not least, based on their bad reputation on cheating, the school has already improved the teaching method which can greatly enhance interest and enthusiasm. All the three reasons can make the number of cheating students decrease.
Finally, the survey report that Groveton honor council supported arises many suspicion. The Groveton honor council himself went to investigate and get the conclusion. The reality and reliability of the report from them can't make people believe. Besides, whether the method they investigated is objective, whether the number of students they asked is convinced, and whether students told the truth or not are all unknown. Therefore, there is no reason to trust the survey report.
All in all, all the three reasons that the arguer gives are unable to reveal the honor code is a good way to keep students from cheating. Either the arguer shows other persuasive evidences to support his idea, or he should think over other ways to restrain cheating. |
|