|
In a public university of 30,000 students, feeling like an individual
among the masses is a challenge. With huge class
sizes, limited specialized courses, and a lack of personal attention,
the reality is that many students at UCLA feel like a number and
not an individual. Although the goal of university life is in part
to develop unique, freethinking minds, the larger system often times
gets the better of the individual. In this system, achievement and
success are measured solely through grades.
Consequently, students learn that in order to define themselves
they must strive for better grades as compared to their peers. The
implications are that the university becomes a system of ranking
instead of a system of learning, and students strive for top grades
instead of new knowledge. Grade dependency drives greater student
apathy and is a factor in fostering academic dishonesty. Apathy
and academic dishonesty are both significant student issues at UCLA
because in a large, grade-based environment students are struggling
to define themselves as individuals and to succeed. As a student
at UCLA I have experienced first hand these negative consequences
of a large, grade-centered university and wish that my educational
experience could have been more personal and individualized.
Apathetic student
attitudes are detrimental to UCLA because they reflect that
students no longer care about their education and drive what Paul
Trout, an English professor at Montana State University-Bozeman,
describes as “anti-intellectualism.” His article, “Student
Anti-Intellectualism and the Dumbing Down of the University,”
found on The Montana Professor, a website composed of scholarly
articles, describes the various actions, or lack of action, students
demonstrate in resisting their education. Trout list includes skipping
class, lack of preparation, learning only enough to get a good grade,
and refusing to participate in class discussion. I would add that
student apathy also causes academic dishonesty along with the aforementioned
outcomes and behaviors. If students do not care about their classes
and majors, then minimum effort for maximum results becomes the
ultimate goal. Trout continues to support his claim of “anti-intellectualism”
by citing UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute which
recently found that students were “increasingly disengaged
from the academic experience,” were more bored, and spent
less time studying than ever before. New methods of achievement
in the system, including cheating, have become the ultimate result
as students and faculty submit to the priority of grades in university
life. Professors and administrators allow “anti-intellectual”
behaviors such as cheating to persist due to the role of economics
as the driving force behind a successful university. Sustainable
and growing student enrollment means larger university budgets.
In order to maintain student numbers the university must ensure
that students feel successful and happy; to a large extent, their
positive evaluation is measured by grades. The university is an
economic institution for students as well, where grades are their
currency. Paul
Trout’s article explains, “The consumer model implies
that students buy grades by paying for them through learning. Students
who subscribe to this notion try to be consumers by paying—that
is learning—as little as possible.” As a student at
UCLA I am recognized only by my student ID number and my grade point
average, this anonymity has left me extremely unmotivated at times.
While I have never submitted to academic dishonesty in order to
meet my need for good grades nor my apathy toward learning, I have
cheated my education through nominal effort and little concern for
my studies.
While an apathetic attitude is disconcerting
enough, the issue of cheating has much larger consequences for the
university student. For example, the Office of the Dean of Students
at UCLA, which exists to meet student needs and concerns, addresses
the issue of academic dishonesty blatantly in a formal letter to
all students. The office’s website provides this definition:
“As specified in the UCLA
Student Conduct Code, violations or attempted violations of
academic dishonesty include, but are not limited to, cheating, fabrication,
plagiarism, multiple submissions or facilitating academic dishonest.”
The university takes a zero-tolerance policy to all forms of academic
dishonesty resulting in suspension or dismissal. UCLA is not alone
in its strict policies, yet all across the country cheating at the
college level continues to flourish. UCLA’s Dean of Students
penalizes hundreds of students each year for academic dishonesty
and The UCLA Office of Instructional development in its discussion
of academic dishonesty cites that numerous university surveys
across the nation have reported 75% of students admitting to some
form of academic fraud. Now stop and think: What is your image of
a cheating student? Most people may picture a hung-over, irresponsible
college partier who decided that it was more important to celebrate
Wednesday of 5th week than study for their midterm. Or perhaps a
cheater is the star football player who can run a touchdown but
cannot pass his classes without “advanced tutoring”
from the athletic department. While
both of these stereotypes may exist at UCLA and other higher learning
institutions they do not comprise the description of the typical
student guilty of academic dishonesty. UCLA’s campus newspaper
and its web counterpart, the Daily
Bruin Online, have had numerous articles and editorials over
the years referencing the issue of cheating on campus. In a December
2003 article, “Cheaters hurt themselves, entire campus,”
the author found that it was the highly competitive students, not
those near failure, who opted out of studying for cheating at UCLA.
Their methods are numerous. From carefully calculated seating formations,
to fake student ID cards, and even bringing in pre-written essays
in blue books, students are effectively removing learning from the
equation and still totaling up the desired grades. But the question
still remains: Why cheat?
The answer is: Why not? For many students cheating
is all too easy. Large classes, TA proctoring, and technological
advances have assisted in allowing academic dishonesty to flourish
at the university level. The student is faced with a cost-benefit
analysis. This aspect of cheating is the focus of an article in
the bimonthly magazine, Clarion, produced by The Pope Center, a
public policy think tank devoted to issues of higher education.
In his article, “The Cost of Cheating,” Jon Sanders
cites Economics professor William O. Shropshire of Oglethorpe University
for his understanding of the economic tie students have with learning.
Shropshire
states, “Students want to succeed and for this they want good
grades to get into the right graduate school or to get the right
job. Graduate schools and jobs are benefits. The costs of obtaining
these benefits are low: students think what they learn does not
matter, that it is easier to cheat than to study, and that there
is not much chance of being caught. The benefits from cheating outweigh
the cost, so they cheat.” Students find that they can cheat
without getting caught because professors are not reporting incidents,
the Internet and other communication advances are providing accessible
and simple solutions, and huge universities have created students
without individual identities whose actions can easily go unnoticed.
Shropshire’s opinion is that the university system is at fault
because it promotes an attitude of “getting” as opposed
to “being.” Students view the university as an institution
that gives them grades in a purely instrumental fashion, because,
in many respects, it simply handouts grades for a completion of
tasks. What is needed, he concludes, is for the university "to
convey to students that the academic part of college life is valuable
in itself, that is, valuable as an arena for becoming what they
want to be." While Universities can and are cracking down on
cheating through better testing methods, new fraud detecting software,
and more pronounced standards, I agree with Shropshire that the
change needs to go beyond such specific tactics to a change in the
goals and attitude of the university and the student.
A substantive change in the way both students
and the universities view education would not only help mitigate
indirect problems such as academic dishonesty, but would primarily
address student apathy and a need for individualism. The university
needs to focus on reasons for student apathy and confront them directly.
A better method of student evaluations,
an open forum for student/professor/administrator discussion, and
proper academic and career counseling are all options that would
not only address student concern but give the student a more personalized
college experience. A large university based primarily on grades
does nothing more for students than convince them that their grades
are the most important criteria for their future success. In this
mass-audience environment they will make choices solely for their
own personal advancement. But, if students could be treated as individuals
they would learn to appreciate their education beyond its economic
benefits and take an interest in learning within the collective
university environment.
Alternative Sources:
http://www.turnitin.com/static/products_services/latest_facts.html
http://www.usatoday.com/life/2001-06-11-cheaters.htm
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27246
http://mklau.tripod.com/ucla.html
http://www.norwich.edu/guidon/16nov2000/plagiarism.html
http://www.getgoodgrades.com/latest.html
http://www.csubak.edu/Runner/archive/2002/Mar13/news3.html
|