I wanted to drop a quick blog on the 660 topic this week, ethics. I work a part-time job that deals with a lot of college students, some of which are SCC students. Anyway, I was talking with an SCC student about our online classes. The first thing she said to me really struck me. She mentioned she really wanted to take some of her classes online because they are "really easy and you can cheat." I think I paused for 90 seconds before I opened my mouth. I had to ask why she was so convinced on her assumptions. She answered with the ever popular notion that you can use your book during tests and even have someone else participate for you. I have heard all of those arguments before, so I moved onto her "easy theory".
She mentioned all the normal conveniences, no class, easier assignments, and no teacher. I asked her if she thought about how much work actually goes into an online class and that many times the students end up working harder in these classes.
To make a long story short (too late), you have a twenty year old college sophomore looking to take classes based on self perceptions that they are easy and a student can easily cheat. Where did she go wrong? Maybe, she didn't take a wrong turn, she's just driving down the same road as everyone else?
Should student's morals take precedent here? Shouldn't it be assumed that students should just know better? Where do they learn the "know better" concept? When you actually think about it, it's down right startling to think about the perceptions and practices of our younger students.
I wanted to conclude with the Pete Rose story. For those of you who don't know Pete Rose, he's Major League Baseball's all-time hits leader and a sure fire Hall of Famer. There is only one problem, Rose bet on baseball when he was a manager. First, he denied this action, but accepted a lifetime ban from the game. Later, he admitted he did bet on the game when he was set to release a book. I am sure sales had nothing to do with the timing.
The bottom line is this, Rose thought he wasn't doing anything wrong because he was betting his team would win. He is a student of the game, shouldn't he know the ethics of the game. His personal morals are a separate issue, but I don't think he can blame his situation on a gambling disease.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Great stuff here, Doug--I liked the way you use the Pete Rose story. I knew he was guilty from the start--they had signed checks, etc. and he still denied it. He's "Charlie Hustle," but I'm afraid his ethics and morals wouldn't grade too high....
Good reflection on the students part, also--it is alarming as you say....
Good job!
Al
Post a Comment