User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:47:22 AM EDT
[#1]
In engineering school, we called this "efficient use of resources"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:48:54 AM EDT
[#2]
You should cite your previous work as a reference. I have seen dismissals for not doing so.
However, most schools don't take honor codes that seriously. Cite your previous work, and leave it to the discretion of your instructor - can't go wrong with this approach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:55:10 AM EDT
[#3]
Cheating is always an appropriate response when the opportunity arises.
The only thing that matters is to win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 10:58:05 AM EDT
[#4]
Who's paying for the class?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:06:44 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks, I know MLA and have used that site before. I have written papers for History and Biological Anthropology, I'm not full retard.....just partial . There is a website used by the CC that I'm attending that stores your papers and checks for plagiarism. I however never had to submit any of my papers for 091 to that site, so I doubt they would ever be flagged. I am going to do new material though, I can't bear to think of Arfcom viewing me as lazy or a self plagiarizer.Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Your new best friend. It's not perfect, but it does most of the heavy lifting. Thank me later... Thanks, I know MLA and have used that site before. I have written papers for History and Biological Anthropology, I'm not full retard.....just partial . There is a website used by the CC that I'm attending that stores your papers and checks for plagiarism. I however never had to submit any of my papers for 091 to that site, so I doubt they would ever be flagged. I am going to do new material though, I can't bear to think of Arfcom viewing me as lazy or a self plagiarizer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:29:02 AM EDT
[#6]
Take your old paper and reword it/add content to match the level of the class. If the previous paper has suggestions on it from the person who graded it, incorporate them.
Turning in the exact same paper to a higher level class will get you a low grade, so improve it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:38:44 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take your old paper and reword it/add content to match the level of the class. If the previous paper has suggestions on it from the person who graded it, incorporate them. Turning in the exact same paper to a higher level class will get you a low grade, so improve it. This. Mad Magazine figured this out decades ago.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:44:17 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At my University it's considered plagiarism to reuse your own work from other classes. Stupid I know. But might want to check to make sure it's not the same for yours. Good luck. Eta: A guy a couple years ago (only know about him from older friends) was expelled for reusing work he had done his freshman year, he was a senior at the time. The professor said that since the paper had been used before it was plagiarism against himself. The school council decided to expel him after that  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:50:00 AM EDT
[#9]
I had to do a research paper in High School English class. I was able to turn it in for my Research Paper requirement for English 101 in College. LOL
In fact my HS English Lit teacher told us to hand on to it for that reason! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 11:57:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It belongs to the school as soon as you submit it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You wrote it, it's belongs to you. Not cheating. It belongs to the school as soon as you submit it. No, no it doesn't.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:06:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i'm not trying to come at you here, but this is part of the problem--developing an argument by citing stuff that other people have written about the topic is not research, except in very specific circumstances. the majority of the time, that kind of writing is either an essay or a background section. research involves the collection of data, not other writers' arguments (unless you're researching something like why those writers argued the way that they did). what most students i've encountered think of as research is actually a review of literature (i was no different--i had to learn the hard way). for example, if the assignment is to research something like the lewis and clark expedition, they'll go out and collect a bunch of scholarly citations about the expedition, rather than developing actual data out of the expedition journal written by L&C. so what they wind up producing is a summary of what other people think, assembled into an argument that has no original research to support it. that's an essay, not a research paper. i ran smack into this, and it was a really humbling experience. the vast majority of the undergrad writing i've edited or graded shows the same problem. the tragic part is that most people intuitively understand the concept of research when they think of it in non-academic ways. i use the example of tony romo a lot when i tutor students. if your thesis is that romo is a crappy QB, your data are going to come from what romo does in football games, not what ESPN or NFL films says about what he does in football games. but when it comes to assignments, most student research amounts to collecting the minimum number of media stories to cite. DK has a ton more experience than i do, so i'll defer to him. but i suspect he'll agree with me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... honestly, arfcom is a better writing lab than most low-level comp courses. hand a kid 'the craft of research,' 'the elements of style,' and toss him in the deep end of GD. a year of evolution, abortion, and civil war threads will have him writing at the graduate level. Huh... My ENG102 class was a legitimate 12 page research paper that had something like 25 cites from different sources. We had to find an issue we cared about, develop a thesis, etc. Honestly, it was one of the best classes I took in college because my prof was a hardass. i'm not trying to come at you here, but this is part of the problem--developing an argument by citing stuff that other people have written about the topic is not research, except in very specific circumstances. the majority of the time, that kind of writing is either an essay or a background section. research involves the collection of data, not other writers' arguments (unless you're researching something like why those writers argued the way that they did). what most students i've encountered think of as research is actually a review of literature (i was no different--i had to learn the hard way). for example, if the assignment is to research something like the lewis and clark expedition, they'll go out and collect a bunch of scholarly citations about the expedition, rather than developing actual data out of the expedition journal written by L&C. so what they wind up producing is a summary of what other people think, assembled into an argument that has no original research to support it. that's an essay, not a research paper. i ran smack into this, and it was a really humbling experience. the vast majority of the undergrad writing i've edited or graded shows the same problem. the tragic part is that most people intuitively understand the concept of research when they think of it in non-academic ways. i use the example of tony romo a lot when i tutor students. if your thesis is that romo is a crappy QB, your data are going to come from what romo does in football games, not what ESPN or NFL films says about what he does in football games. but when it comes to assignments, most student research amounts to collecting the minimum number of media stories to cite. DK has a ton more experience than i do, so i'll defer to him. but i suspect he'll agree with me. Sirensong is correct. Most people seem to think that "research" is synonymous with "look stuff up" or "summarize what others have said" - when in reality it's about using data (either new data or archival data) and analysis to generate new knowledge. I think the issue is that in middle school or whenver, kids are asked to "research" stuff and write papers about it, and at that stage it really IS just a matter of looking stuff up and summarizing it - which is a good skill (essentially a literature review) for kids to learn. The PROBLEM becomes that nobody then seems to later explain to those kids that those types of assignments were just meant to teach the first step of "research" (which should always be a survey of the existing literature) - and that actual "research" involves far more steps. So I don't think lots of students are really to blame for the misunderstanding - but it's a dropped ball somewhere in the educational system (presumably high school), where nobody actually bothers to explain what research means. Plus, it's rare for undergrads to be asked to actually DO any research. At many institutions, it's not actually until grad school that anyone seriously expects a student to do even rudimentary research. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:09:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In principle it should be fine, but be sure to check the specific policies at your universities. I know that at some universities, what you describe would in fact be considered cheating. Is it too late to change the class? I'd hate to be paying money for a repeat of stuff I'd already done. Yeah. My university allowed students to study previous tests from the same class. It was up to the prof to change the test. Well, one tenured prof didn't give a fuck and used the same test for years. Everyone just studied the old tests.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:10:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
John Fogerty says "You can't plagiarize yourself!" As Mr. Goose Lover said: you have to check school policies. At some schools you do have to cite your own earlier works -- as for turning in an old assignment wholesale, it may not fly. Gotta talk to the instructor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:13:48 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yes. self-plagiarism is a breach of academic ethics, and is taken quite seriously. i'm not kidding. your work for the course is supposed to be original work. if you are not producing original work for an assignment, it is an offense. I got burned on this. My paper impressed Teacher #2 so much that she showed it to Teacher #1. Who had also been impressed enough the previous year to remember it. I entered the hot water. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:16:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got burned on this. My paper impressed Teacher #2 so much that she showed it to Teacher #1. Who had also been impressed enough the previous year to remember it. I entered the hot water. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
yes. self-plagiarism is a breach of academic ethics, and is taken quite seriously. i'm not kidding. your work for the course is supposed to be original work. if you are not producing original work for an assignment, it is an offense. I got burned on this. My paper impressed Teacher #2 so much that she showed it to Teacher #1. Who had also been impressed enough the previous year to remember it. I entered the hot water. My little brother got nailed back in HS.. he found one of my old papers on the computer, changed the name and turned it in. I had the same teacher about 5 years earlier, and she had a good memory. 
Oh well, he's a surgeon now, so I guess he survived the hit to his academic integrity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:22:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Nope... It's called efficiency. As long as it's your work, I see no issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:24:50 PM EDT
[#17]
I tried the same thing at Colorado State University. My first paper came back as an F because there was content from past work I've submitted.
Do it once and play stupid if your prof says something. That's exactly what I did. Prof gave me an F and I submitted new work for the rest of the class. Now if you happen to get expelled on the first occurrence for trying this don't blame me!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:28:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Nope... It's called efficiency. As long as it's your work, I see no issue. If only what was easy or we thought was 'ok' was school policy... It is academic dishonesty no matter how you cut it. Personally, considering what college classes cost I would take a different perspective and do the entire assignment over again. You'd have to be a fool to pay someone thousands of dollars so that you could just cut/paste your way to a piece of paper. That's more like anti-efficiency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:33:20 PM EDT
[#19]
When I was in 11 grade, I had to do a 10 page book report on the Scarlet letter. I changed schools half way through the year, and sure enough the new school required a 10 page book report on a book of my choice. You bet your ass I just reprinted the same report and handed it in... Best part was, in 12th grade we got a new English teacher, when she told us the name of the book we had to do our senior book report on was the Scarlet letter I just smiled.. Oddly enough, the same paper got 3 different grades
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 12:51:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Not cheating
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:08:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In principle it should be fine, but be sure to check the specific policies at your universities. I know that at some universities, what you describe would in fact be considered cheating. Is it too late to change the class? I'd hate to be paying money for a repeat of stuff I'd already done. Does your Univ use TurnItIn or a similar service? If so, papers are automatically uploaded to a database and then checked against new submissions for plagarism. Still... can you plagiarize... yourself? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:11:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes/kinda/no/maybe/probably(not). Do the work again. Otherwise you'd be selling yourself short. I'd go with this. Use the old work as a foundation and build on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 1:33:46 PM EDT
[#23]
A USMA classmate of mine got kicked out for turning-in an English paper he wrote in high school.
YOLO- You only lie once
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:18:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sirensong is correct. Most people seem to think that "research" is synonymous with "look stuff up" or "summarize what others have said" - when in reality it's about using data (either new data or archival data) and analysis to generate new knowledge. I think the issue is that in middle school or whenver, kids are asked to "research" stuff and write papers about it, and at that stage it really IS just a matter of looking stuff up and summarizing it - which is a good skill (essentially a literature review) for kids to learn. The PROBLEM becomes that nobody then seems to later explain to those kids that those types of assignments were just meant to teach the first step of "research" (which should always be a survey of the existing literature) - and that actual "research" involves far more steps. So I don't think lots of students are really to blame for the misunderstanding - but it's a dropped ball somewhere in the educational system (presumably high school), where nobody actually bothers to explain what research means. Plus, it's rare for undergrads to be asked to actually DO any research. At many institutions, it's not actually until grad school that anyone seriously expects a student to do even rudimentary research. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... honestly, arfcom is a better writing lab than most low-level comp courses. hand a kid 'the craft of research,' 'the elements of style,' and toss him in the deep end of GD. a year of evolution, abortion, and civil war threads will have him writing at the graduate level. Huh... My ENG102 class was a legitimate 12 page research paper that had something like 25 cites from different sources. We had to find an issue we cared about, develop a thesis, etc. Honestly, it was one of the best classes I took in college because my prof was a hardass. i'm not trying to come at you here, but this is part of the problem--developing an argument by citing stuff that other people have written about the topic is not research, except in very specific circumstances. the majority of the time, that kind of writing is either an essay or a background section. research involves the collection of data, not other writers' arguments (unless you're researching something like why those writers argued the way that they did). what most students i've encountered think of as research is actually a review of literature (i was no different--i had to learn the hard way). for example, if the assignment is to research something like the lewis and clark expedition, they'll go out and collect a bunch of scholarly citations about the expedition, rather than developing actual data out of the expedition journal written by L&C. so what they wind up producing is a summary of what other people think, assembled into an argument that has no original research to support it. that's an essay, not a research paper. i ran smack into this, and it was a really humbling experience. the vast majority of the undergrad writing i've edited or graded shows the same problem. the tragic part is that most people intuitively understand the concept of research when they think of it in non-academic ways. i use the example of tony romo a lot when i tutor students. if your thesis is that romo is a crappy QB, your data are going to come from what romo does in football games, not what ESPN or NFL films says about what he does in football games. but when it comes to assignments, most student research amounts to collecting the minimum number of media stories to cite. DK has a ton more experience than i do, so i'll defer to him. but i suspect he'll agree with me. Sirensong is correct. Most people seem to think that "research" is synonymous with "look stuff up" or "summarize what others have said" - when in reality it's about using data (either new data or archival data) and analysis to generate new knowledge. I think the issue is that in middle school or whenver, kids are asked to "research" stuff and write papers about it, and at that stage it really IS just a matter of looking stuff up and summarizing it - which is a good skill (essentially a literature review) for kids to learn. The PROBLEM becomes that nobody then seems to later explain to those kids that those types of assignments were just meant to teach the first step of "research" (which should always be a survey of the existing literature) - and that actual "research" involves far more steps. So I don't think lots of students are really to blame for the misunderstanding - but it's a dropped ball somewhere in the educational system (presumably high school), where nobody actually bothers to explain what research means. Plus, it's rare for undergrads to be asked to actually DO any research. At many institutions, it's not actually until grad school that anyone seriously expects a student to do even rudimentary research. While I agree with you both to a point, I think you're as much wrong as you are right. It's a matter of perspective. You may legitimately research a topic using someone else's observations. Most historical research is performed that way. The important part is that the student is learning to find knowledge systematically. An English student might be asked to research plate tectonics to learn about scientific journals and papers, but they aren't expected to fill in the knowledge gaps in that field of study. I believe what you're both referring to is known as field research: "Any activity aimed at collecting primary (original or otherwise unavailable) data, using methods such as face-to-face interviewing, telephone and postal surveys, and direct observation." Now I'm going to go sip a vodka martini. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:31:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I agree with you both to a point, I think you're as much wrong as you are right. It's a matter of perspective. You may legitimately research a topic using someone else's observations. Most historical research is performed that way. The important part is that the student is learning to find knowledge systematically. An English student might be asked to research plate tectonics to learn about scientific journals and papers, but they aren't expected to fill in the knowledge gaps in that field of study. I believe what you're both referring to is known as field research: "Any activity aimed at collecting primary (original or otherwise unavailable) data, using methods such as face-to-face interviewing, telephone and postal surveys, and direct observation." Now I'm going to go sip a vodka martini. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... honestly, arfcom is a better writing lab than most low-level comp courses. hand a kid 'the craft of research,' 'the elements of style,' and toss him in the deep end of GD. a year of evolution, abortion, and civil war threads will have him writing at the graduate level. Huh... My ENG102 class was a legitimate 12 page research paper that had something like 25 cites from different sources. We had to find an issue we cared about, develop a thesis, etc. Honestly, it was one of the best classes I took in college because my prof was a hardass. i'm not trying to come at you here, but this is part of the problem--developing an argument by citing stuff that other people have written about the topic is not research, except in very specific circumstances. the majority of the time, that kind of writing is either an essay or a background section. research involves the collection of data, not other writers' arguments (unless you're researching something like why those writers argued the way that they did). what most students i've encountered think of as research is actually a review of literature (i was no different--i had to learn the hard way). for example, if the assignment is to research something like the lewis and clark expedition, they'll go out and collect a bunch of scholarly citations about the expedition, rather than developing actual data out of the expedition journal written by L&C. so what they wind up producing is a summary of what other people think, assembled into an argument that has no original research to support it. that's an essay, not a research paper. i ran smack into this, and it was a really humbling experience. the vast majority of the undergrad writing i've edited or graded shows the same problem. the tragic part is that most people intuitively understand the concept of research when they think of it in non-academic ways. i use the example of tony romo a lot when i tutor students. if your thesis is that romo is a crappy QB, your data are going to come from what romo does in football games, not what ESPN or NFL films says about what he does in football games. but when it comes to assignments, most student research amounts to collecting the minimum number of media stories to cite. DK has a ton more experience than i do, so i'll defer to him. but i suspect he'll agree with me. Sirensong is correct. Most people seem to think that "research" is synonymous with "look stuff up" or "summarize what others have said" - when in reality it's about using data (either new data or archival data) and analysis to generate new knowledge. I think the issue is that in middle school or whenver, kids are asked to "research" stuff and write papers about it, and at that stage it really IS just a matter of looking stuff up and summarizing it - which is a good skill (essentially a literature review) for kids to learn. The PROBLEM becomes that nobody then seems to later explain to those kids that those types of assignments were just meant to teach the first step of "research" (which should always be a survey of the existing literature) - and that actual "research" involves far more steps. So I don't think lots of students are really to blame for the misunderstanding - but it's a dropped ball somewhere in the educational system (presumably high school), where nobody actually bothers to explain what research means. Plus, it's rare for undergrads to be asked to actually DO any research. At many institutions, it's not actually until grad school that anyone seriously expects a student to do even rudimentary research. While I agree with you both to a point, I think you're as much wrong as you are right. It's a matter of perspective. You may legitimately research a topic using someone else's observations. Most historical research is performed that way. The important part is that the student is learning to find knowledge systematically. An English student might be asked to research plate tectonics to learn about scientific journals and papers, but they aren't expected to fill in the knowledge gaps in that field of study. I believe what you're both referring to is known as field research: "Any activity aimed at collecting primary (original or otherwise unavailable) data, using methods such as face-to-face interviewing, telephone and postal surveys, and direct observation." Now I'm going to go sip a vodka martini. Actually, what we are referring to would probably more accurately be described as empirical research. Field research is just a subset of empirical research, just like experimental research, archival research, etc. There are also distinctions such as qualitative vs. quantitative research. As such, you could be doing qualitative research in the field, or quantitative research in the lab, and so forth. Sirensong and I are essentially being anal-retentive and are talking about the TECHNICAL meaning of the word research - but the issue is that the meaning of the word has become so diluted (by the incorrect or misuse of the term) that the "accepted" meaning is now so broad as to be almost meaningless. Someone might be planning to go on vacation and trying to decide on what rental car to get, and say "hold on, let me do some research" as they go online for 10 minutes to explore their options. I think the point that sirensong and I are making is that such an activity is NOT research in any technical meaning of the term, but the sloppiness seems to have become part of our language, so in terms of what it generally accepted by the mouth-breating public, I guess it's no longer wrong. Even though it's wrong. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:41:57 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, what we are referring to would probably more accurately be described as empirical research. Field research is just a subset of empirical research, just like experimental research, archival research, etc. There are also distinctions such as qualitative vs. quantitative research. As such, you could be doing qualitative research in the field, or quantitative research in the lab, and so forth. Sirensong and I are essentially being anal-retentive and are talking about the TECHNICAL meaning of the word research - but the issue is that the meaning of the word has become so diluted (by the incorrect or misuse of the term) that the "accepted" meaning is now so broad as to be almost meaningless. Someone might be planning to go on vacation and trying to decide on what rental car to get, and say "hold on, let me do some research" as they go online for 10 minutes to explore their options. I think the point that sirensong and I are making is that such an activity is NOT research in any technical meaning of the term, but the sloppiness seems to have become part of our language, so in terms of what it generally accepted by the mouth-breating public, I guess it's no longer wrong. Even though it's wrong. I think you're being too strict for a very basic word. Any systematic search for knowledge is research. When someone researches rental car prices, I personally expect them to be able to cite multiple sources, explain pros and cons, and give me a somewhat educated opinion on what the best option is. And sometimes, that may very well only take 10 minutes, especially when you have an automated research system like Kayak. A more perfunctory search of a single place for a single price...no, not research. That's just looking up the price. Sound fair? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:43:49 PM EDT
[#27]
I had a BIS 101 class and then next semester i has a CIS 101 class (both basic computer classes) , same thing as OP. same book, same assignments. I talked to my teacher (of the 2nd "repeat" class) and told them this and she asked if i had the assignments done. i gave her my thumb drive and the next day she told me i got a 100% and didnt have to come to class. Unfortunately I couldnt get into another class for that semester :/
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:45:39 PM EDT
[#28]
no...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:47:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had a BIS 101 class and then next semester i has a CIS 101 class (both basic computer classes) , same thing as OP. same book, same assignments. I talked to my teacher (of the 2nd "repeat" class) and told them this and she asked if i had the assignments done. i gave her my thumb drive and the next day she told me i got a 100% and didnt have to come to class. Unfortunately I couldnt get into another class for that semester :/ I'm surprised your advisor didn't smack you for taking both BIS and CIS 101. That's how Associates degrees become 7 year degrees. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 2:48:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you're being too strict for a very basic word. Any systematic search for knowledge is research. When someone researches rental car prices, I personally expect them to be able to cite multiple sources, explain pros and cons, and give me a somewhat educated opinion on what the best option is. And sometimes, that may very well only take 10 minutes, especially when you have an automated research system like Kayak. A more perfunctory search of a single place for a single price...no, not research. That's just looking up the price. Sound fair? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Actually, what we are referring to would probably more accurately be described as empirical research. Field research is just a subset of empirical research, just like experimental research, archival research, etc. There are also distinctions such as qualitative vs. quantitative research. As such, you could be doing qualitative research in the field, or quantitative research in the lab, and so forth. Sirensong and I are essentially being anal-retentive and are talking about the TECHNICAL meaning of the word research - but the issue is that the meaning of the word has become so diluted (by the incorrect or misuse of the term) that the "accepted" meaning is now so broad as to be almost meaningless. Someone might be planning to go on vacation and trying to decide on what rental car to get, and say "hold on, let me do some research" as they go online for 10 minutes to explore their options. I think the point that sirensong and I are making is that such an activity is NOT research in any technical meaning of the term, but the sloppiness seems to have become part of our language, so in terms of what it generally accepted by the mouth-breating public, I guess it's no longer wrong. Even though it's wrong. I think you're being too strict for a very basic word. Any systematic search for knowledge is research. When someone researches rental car prices, I personally expect them to be able to cite multiple sources, explain pros and cons, and give me a somewhat educated opinion on what the best option is. And sometimes, that may very well only take 10 minutes, especially when you have an automated research system like Kayak. A more perfunctory search of a single place for a single price...no, not research. That's just looking up the price. Sound fair? I am not interested in being fair - I am interested in being anal-retentive! 
As a result, I am still going to disagree  - with the caveat that I accept that the commonly accepted meaning of the word is different from what I want it to be (and believe it should be).
My position is that a "search" for information is qualitatively different from "research" - the former is merely a collection and cataloging of known information and facts (regardless of how extensive or systematic it is), whereas the latter is the generation of new knowledge by analyzing existing (or newly collected) data. To me, that's as different as night and day. I acknowledge that I am fighting a losing battle, and that kids today think that looking something up on wikipedia and facebook constitutes "research" but I look down upon them with disdain from my ivory tower.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 3:45:53 PM EDT
[#31]
I completely agree with what DK or sirensong are saying about "real research," but I stand by the fact that what ENG102 teaches you is how to write the research paper. Instead of getting you all worked up over the details, they keep you in a comfort zone topic-wise while they teach you the basics of how to write the paper, format it, write annotated bibs, etc.
My senior thesis was a legit research paper. It had math and all the cool scatterplot graphs and whatnot. It examined the relationship of gun rights to social contract theory using international statistics on gun ownership, gun rights freedoms/laws, vs international property rights, income tax brackets, etc. It was pretty cool, and it was actually very hard. I spent way more time reading about Pearsons R vs the actual argumentative portion of my paper... The important thing was, that I was still using a lot of the things I learned in 102. I would post it here but I don't want to get my teeth kicked in over a paper I already turned in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 3:55:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yes. self-plagiarism is a breach of academic ethics, and is taken quite seriously. i'm not kidding. your work for the course is supposed to be original work. if you are not producing original work for an assignment, it is an offense. What if you cite yourself? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:18:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if you cite yourself? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
yes. self-plagiarism is a breach of academic ethics, and is taken quite seriously. i'm not kidding. your work for the course is supposed to be original work. if you are not producing original work for an assignment, it is an offense. What if you cite yourself? The you violate the school policy on doing "original work" for each class.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:30:19 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i've met very few students who do not need remedial writing instruction. our department does extensive work with recruiters and large employers for skills development, and the biggest complaint every year is that college graduates on the whole cannot write effectively. the internet is a text-driven world, but writing quality is steadily decreasing because students aren't taught basic claim-reasons-evidence argumentation. writing a paper is very simple: claim: tony romo sucks as a QB reasons: he panics, he makes poor decisions because he tries to do too much, and he cares more about golf. evidence: week 7 of 2012, on 3rd and 13, blablabla. in game 12 of 2008, he did blablabla. his demeanor in the postgame interview...and so forth. this forms a distinct pattern, which shows that the reasons i mentioned are accurate. because of this, my claim is accurate. here's a final paragraph to sum this up in case you forgot it. that's all there is to it. but people get intimidated, and wind up making a mess of it because they were never taught properly. for most students, writing is about meeting a page minimum and digging up the minimum number of sources. they're thinking about everything but communicating a point clearly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You had to take a remedial English class?  i've met very few students who do not need remedial writing instruction. our department does extensive work with recruiters and large employers for skills development, and the biggest complaint every year is that college graduates on the whole cannot write effectively. the internet is a text-driven world, but writing quality is steadily decreasing because students aren't taught basic claim-reasons-evidence argumentation. writing a paper is very simple: claim: tony romo sucks as a QB reasons: he panics, he makes poor decisions because he tries to do too much, and he cares more about golf. evidence: week 7 of 2012, on 3rd and 13, blablabla. in game 12 of 2008, he did blablabla. his demeanor in the postgame interview...and so forth. this forms a distinct pattern, which shows that the reasons i mentioned are accurate. because of this, my claim is accurate. here's a final paragraph to sum this up in case you forgot it. that's all there is to it. but people get intimidated, and wind up making a mess of it because they were never taught properly. for most students, writing is about meeting a page minimum and digging up the minimum number of sources. they're thinking about everything but communicating a point clearly. That is my experience as well. Of the 25 students in my intro class this semester I only had one that turned in a paper that I considered to be good. That is not to say that the rest of my students were dumb, but that they just did not have the skills to conduct basic research, and then articulate that research into a coherent paper. Research and writing are skills that needs to be developed. Of course one of them had to do a half assed attempted at plagiarism in this class as well. Pro tip: If you rip a paragraph from the internet, then make sure you change the font to correspond to the rest of your paper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:33:40 PM EDT
[#35]
Turn yourself in immediately.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 5:11:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I am taking English 102 as a summer class. The teacher happens to be using the same book from my English 091 class. Same stories to be read, same questions to be answered and same writing projects to be done. Is it cheating if I turned my own old work back in? HA! YES! Fuck you, that's why! No, it's fine. Fuck them. What are they going to do, say you don't know the material? Get your A and laugh about it. Just practice good OPSEC. While I was in college I took an electronics class. I'd been through Air Force Avionics electronics school and worked avionics for several years prior to me taking that class. I took it in lieu to a physics class because I knew that it'd be an easy A. The class covered in a semester what I had to learn in a week. Resistor theory. I could have taught the class myself. My problem is that I didn't practice good OPSEC and would routinely screw around, stare out the window, draw, and sleep then take the tests and get 100%. The Professor, Mr Goke, decided that he'd throw a curveball at me and toss a find the Xc in a parallel circuit. Thinking nothing of it, I answered it correctly. He hadn't taught that in the class and I didn't know it because I never paid attention. The next day he had a question on the quiz that was explaining, in writing, the function of the diodes and result of a bridge wave rectifier on an AC signal, and of course, I answered it correctly, and in essay form no less. He confronted me later that day and asked why I even took the class if I wasn't going to learn anything. I said that it was physics and I wanted an easy A and there's nothing wrong with what I did. So he said he was going to make it so I couldn't pass the quizzes. His problem was that though he was an electrical engineer, I had a working knowledge of electronics. Finally he told me that either I help him and be the aid and help him teach the or I'd fail the class. I became the aid and it was probably one of the best experiences in college I ever had. Jim Goke had that whole "Mad Scientist" thing about him. I once watched him put a screwdriver across a full Farad capacitor, and then wonder why everyone's electronic devices within ten feet no longer worked. It was awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:22:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I agree with you both to a point, I think you're as much wrong as you are right. It's a matter of perspective. You may legitimately research a topic using someone else's observations. Most historical research is performed that way. The important part is that the student is learning to find knowledge systematically. An English student might be asked to research plate tectonics to learn about scientific journals and papers, but they aren't expected to fill in the knowledge gaps in that field of study. I believe what you're both referring to is known as field research: "Any activity aimed at collecting primary (original or otherwise unavailable) data, using methods such as face-to-face interviewing, telephone and postal surveys, and direct observation." Now I'm going to go sip a vodka martini. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:...
Quoted:
i'm not trying to come at you here, but this is part of the problem--developing an argument by citing stuff that other people have written about the topic is not research, except in very specific circumstances. While I agree with you both to a point, I think you're as much wrong as you are right. It's a matter of perspective. You may legitimately research a topic using someone else's observations. Most historical research is performed that way. The important part is that the student is learning to find knowledge systematically. An English student might be asked to research plate tectonics to learn about scientific journals and papers, but they aren't expected to fill in the knowledge gaps in that field of study. I believe what you're both referring to is known as field research: "Any activity aimed at collecting primary (original or otherwise unavailable) data, using methods such as face-to-face interviewing, telephone and postal surveys, and direct observation." Now I'm going to go sip a vodka martini. i recognize that it's possible to research using observations done by others. my stuff is all squishy qualitatives using newspaper archives, so i have to use sayer-inspired terms like 'triangulation' and such. but there are specific circumstances and methods lend rigor to this form of research, and those generally aren't taught at the undergrad level. you're right in that english students aren't being asked to address voids in the geological literature, but to do academic research properly, they need to be able to answer a question with data. these do not need to be quantitative or scientific--it would be perfectly acceptable to research something like "what was the framers' intent WRT the 2A?" but if that is the research question, the data need to come from the framers, not from what scalia or sotomayor or some scholar says about the framers' intent. it's possible to research other peoples' perspectives on intent, but that calls for a different research question, and the data attach to different things (the commentators, not the framers). one could attempt to triangulate intent from multiple perspectives, but even in that case the data need to aim at the framers themselves, not what other people have argued about them. otherwise it's just a summary recombined into a contingent argument ("if these other people's arguments are right, then i'm right") without ever really answering the research question. an english major might research the use of floral imagery in romantic poetry, but he still needs to be answering a question with data, not merely summarizing what other scholars have written about such imagery. otherwise the object of the research is the other scholars, not the poets. i do agree with you regarding systematic searching--the goal should be to learn a process. DK brings out the problem exactly. students are only taught a small part of the process, so they wind up learning to trust untrustworthy things ("but that's what wiki says--i did my research!"). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:30:49 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I completely agree with what DK or sirensong are saying about "real research," but I stand by the fact that what ENG102 teaches you is how to write the research paper. Instead of getting you all worked up over the details, they keep you in a comfort zone topic-wise while they teach you the basics of how to write the paper, format it, write annotated bibs, etc. My senior thesis was a legit research paper. It had math and all the cool scatterplot graphs and whatnot. It examined the relationship of gun rights to social contract theory using international statistics on gun ownership, gun rights freedoms/laws, vs international property rights, income tax brackets, etc. It was pretty cool, and it was actually very hard. I spent way more time reading about Pearsons R vs the actual argumentative portion of my paper... The important thing was, that I was still using a lot of the things I learned in 102. I would post it here but I don't want to get my teeth kicked in over a paper I already turned in. sounds like a great paper, truly. i wish i'd had that class 20 years ago. never be afraid to get your teeth kicked in over a paper, though--it's just part of the process. you do your research (which is never quite as groundbreaking as you thought it would be) and you put it out there knowing that it's going to get slammed (or even worse, people will be extra-nice about it). it will suck, but the suckage will make the next one will suck less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:35:00 PM EDT
[#39]
The teacher won't fuck with you, he/she probably thinks you're a gang member with all them tats, bro. Or, you were in prison long enough to get a really good artist that cost you a shit ton of cigarette cartons. Either way, you're good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:37:02 PM EDT
[#40]
If it's your work, I'd say it's not cheating, it's efficient. Part of the secret of success is learning to be efficient.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:50:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It belongs to the school as soon as you submit it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You wrote it, it's belongs to you. Not cheating. It belongs to the school as soon as you submit it. Please elaborate how they own it using IP jurisprudence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:52:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Your own work, no.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:53:44 PM EDT
[#43]
He'll I've recycled high school papers for college before. I tweaked them of course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 6:55:49 PM EDT
[#44]
If your English skills are decent, you should be able to CLEP it and not bother with any assignments.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:07:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yes. self-plagiarism is a breach of academic ethics, and is taken quite seriously. i'm not kidding. your work for the course is supposed to be original work. if you are not producing original work for an assignment, it is an offense. That is one of the stupidest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard of in my life. Fuck whoever came up with that shit. Fuck them in the ear. Then fuck them in the other ear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 7:43:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is one of the stupidest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard of in my life. Fuck whoever came up with that shit. Fuck them in the ear. Then fuck them in the other ear. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
yes. self-plagiarism is a breach of academic ethics, and is taken quite seriously. i'm not kidding. your work for the course is supposed to be original work. if you are not producing original work for an assignment, it is an offense. That is one of the stupidest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard of in my life. Fuck whoever came up with that shit. Fuck them in the ear. Then fuck them in the other ear. the most important part of university is learning discipline. academic discipline is not just a synonym for 'subject'. it is the heart of a proper education. most people don't want an education--they want a certificate of participation. learning discipline involves doing a lot of stuff that most people don't like doing, like work. if you are not being compelled to do work in any course, you are not learning. if you are turning in old work instead of producing new work, you are dodging work in an effort to take the easy road to your participation trophy. that attitude is pervasive in GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:39:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the most important part of university is learning discipline. academic discipline is not just a synonym for 'subject'. it is the heart of a proper education. most people don't want an education--they want a certificate of participation. learning discipline involves doing a lot of stuff that most people don't like doing, like work. if you are not being compelled to do work in any course, you are not learning. if you are turning in old work instead of producing new work, you are dodging work in an effort to take the easy road to your participation trophy. that attitude is pervasive in GD. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
yes. self-plagiarism is a breach of academic ethics, and is taken quite seriously. i'm not kidding. your work for the course is supposed to be original work. if you are not producing original work for an assignment, it is an offense. That is one of the stupidest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard of in my life. Fuck whoever came up with that shit. Fuck them in the ear. Then fuck them in the other ear. the most important part of university is learning discipline. academic discipline is not just a synonym for 'subject'. it is the heart of a proper education. most people don't want an education--they want a certificate of participation. learning discipline involves doing a lot of stuff that most people don't like doing, like work. if you are not being compelled to do work in any course, you are not learning. if you are turning in old work instead of producing new work, you are dodging work in an effort to take the easy road to your participation trophy. that attitude is pervasive in GD. Dude, I was an accounting major, worked in my dad's pizza shop on Saturdays, worked as an intern 20 hours a week for one of the big 4, vice president of the accounting fraternity (another 10 hours a week), all at the same time, plus did VITA (volunteer tax work), and was a rep for a cpa review firm during some periods of all of that. I know a little about discipline... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 8:46:47 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well since it's your own work I'm going to say no. You might want to tweak it & try to get a better grade though. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
