I was chatting with a friend about life, and the topic rolled around to issues of grading and busting cheaters. Which led me to speculate about how awesome it would be if that awful reality show “Cheaters” was about academic dishonesty. Which led me to write the following:
CHEATERS: ACADEMIA
Scene: at bucolic college campus, a professor calls up a PI.
Prof: “I think I have a case of cheating, but I need evidence.”
PI: “Give me the details – I’ll build up a dossier.”
Night vision camera shots of the professor at the computer using Turn-it-in
PI: “These cases all start out the same. That small nagging voice of doubt in the back of the head. The normally sloppy student shows a new attention to grammar and turn of phrase. New words start appearing and the student gets vague when asked where they’re from. Eventually, even the most naive instructor realizes something is going on. And then they come to me.”
Cut to interview with professor, in a strained voice: “I don’t want to believe it is true, but I just can’t hide from the truth anymore. I need to know. I need to know if any of this was ever real.” waves papers around
Scene: PI rolls up in a van outside an academic building to meet with the professor.
PI: “I have some things to show you – are you ready?”
Prof: “Yes – I need to know.”
PI: “We’ve been monitoring your student’s work for the past week. First, we look at this essay. At the end of the first paragraph, we see this complex sentence – it is similar to this passage on p. 67 of the text, but you’ll notice that while there are no quote marks, the text is listed in the bibliography.”
Prof, nods: “He always was forgetful about explicit citation – we used to laugh about that.”
PI: “Later in the essay, we see him approach the question of the author’s approach to the question, and you see him start this paragraph with a claim about postmodern existentialism…..”
Prof, quiet: “He never saw that in any class with me….”
PI: “And then here, this entire paragraph is an exact match for this article found in the author’s entry in Wikipedia.”
Prof: “The bastard!!!!! Not with that whore!!!!!”
Scene: The PI and Professor roll up in the van to the campus computer center. They approach the student, working inside.
Student, looking up from computer, open to Ask.com: “What are you doing here?” hits Alt-Tab
Prof: “Shut up! I know what you did!”
Student: “What are you talking about?”
Prof: “Don’t lie to me! I know what you’re doing here! I know all about you and those websites. All that talk of background research, and using the web to familiarize yourself with the vocabulary – how long has this been going on?”
Student, defensive: “It was just that one time. I swear. I couldn’t help it. I was just checking a date, and then I read it. I didn’t mean to do it. I didn’t even realize I was repeating what it said. It was an accident!”
Prof: “Accident! If it wasn’t anything, why didn’t you mention it? Why didn’t you give me a citation? You knew it was wrong, and you didn’t want me to find out.”
Student: “What can I do? I’m sorry. Let me make it up. Let me write it again. I’ll do anything. I don’t want to lose this class.”
Prof: “You’ve got to be kidding me. You had your chance with me. I want you out of my class now. You’re not going to make a fool of me again.”
Student: “This is all your fault. You were never there for me. I wanted to learn from you, but you were always in meetings. The web was there for me when you weren’t. All of my friends say I deserve better. My mom is always telling me you don’t understand me and my needs. I’m glad to finally be done with you.”
The PI and his burly henchmen separate the two – fade to post-interviews
Student: “Whatever. I already had a transfer to another college. I was just hanging around for the transfer credits. I’ve already moved on.”
Prof, sadly: “I just don’t know anymore. I really thought this one was special. I just don’t know when I’m going to trust again. Maybe they’ll take some time to think about what happened and come back. I think we might still be able to make it work….”
Meta meta meta weblogging
There are some in-jokes that a casual viewer will miss, but I still recommend episode two of zefrank explaining videoblogging. If you’re interested in web 2.0 publishing, you’ll like his rundown of videoblogging style guidelines, and if you follow videoblogs (or web popularity in general) you’ll like his snark about rankings and traffic measurements.
More Weekend Fun
Wish you could type faster? There are tons of these typing games out there, but Word Shoot: Spell Fast or Die! is actually really well done [via Clicked]. As the game gets more difficult you can’t succeed if you have to look at your hands, and unlike most of these games there is actually a liittle bit of strategy. Plus, the graphics are cute.
Difficulty signed accumulated midnight
Another internet list, but a pretty fun one at that: The 50 Worst Video Game Names Of All Time. The list is pretty good, made, of course, by the humor of the commentary attached to each entry. And the provision of the link to this awesome random word generator to make your own awful titles. The student game I’ve been playing recently that’s name refers to non-Euclidean geometry would probably fall around number 27, right after “Ninja Hamster”.
Communicating at Cross-Purposes
While taken from real life conversation in an ad agency, I suspect these “overheard” snippets of conversation at advertising agencies will ring true to anyone working with clients on design [via India, Ink]. Sure, much like “stupid user” humor, the humor is a catharsis but the professional has to realize that part of their job is to facilitate conversation with non-experts without demeaning them. On the other hand, how can you not love:
“I like the design but I think it ‘ll look better stripping all graphical elements, it ‘ll look more web 2.0-ish” (Agency, Creative Director to Designer)
or:
“It’s amazing how well you interpreted the brief. This piece is exactly what we wanted, you could not have made it any better, I love it. But I also think it’s too good. This is for a bigger client, a more international one. We’re not like that. See if you can do something shittier that we can use.” (Client, Marketing Manager)
Web 2.0 doesn’t share its toys
In an interesting detour in the question of what “Web 2.0” really means, Nicholas Carr (of “Does IT Matter” fame) takes on Lessig in his weblog post Web 2.0lier than thou and challenges Lessig’s claim that Web 2.0 is synonymous with unrestricted sharing of information (and consequently that services with built in restrictions such as YouTube are not Web 2.0). Carr asserts that this is not an accurate portrayal of the current web, and that Lessig’s moralistic take on Web 2.0 is idealistic utopianism. All of the sharing just furthers industry and in fact exploits th creative individual by asking them to provide the content from which industry will now profit without any financial benefit to themselves. If anything, Carr claims, Web 2.0 is exploitive.
I know that except for a de.licio.us account I basically avoid contributing content off of my own domain because I don’t want to give up that much control. But, really, I don’t see the essential difference between Facebook and YouTube as compared to usenet and personal webpages and weblogs and Wikipedia. There’s no revolution – the media just wants a new buzz word under which to rerun the same gee whiz stories they’ve been running for the past decade.
Math is still hard
From last week over at badscience, this is one of the most succinct and compelling examples I’ve seen of why everyone needs to know math, particularly prob/stats math. The example centers on a legal case and everyone involved’s inability to compare two conditional probabilities. Or, more properly, that the relevant thing to compare is conditional probabilities. It’s one of those situations where knowing how to do the calculations isn’t as important as knowing what the calculation you should be doing is.
Wait – that’s what *we’re* doing, right?
Computing changes our world – not a new idea – but this registration-required NYTimes essay (you’re using BugMeNot, right?) summarizes what some computer scientists think is, and isn’t, coming. Predictions? More interdisciplinary impact and more policy issues requiring knowledgable leadership. Data mining in social networks as a promenent theme (I’m guessing the whiteboard scribbles in the photo at the top of the page are illustrating clusters…) It all suggests to me that getting more people educated about the fundamental capabilities of techology and the implications of its use is going to get more important to us over the next decade too.
Squeaky sausage dogs
Next time someone commits you to making balloon animals, head on over to How to Twist a Balloon Dog for awesome step-by-step instructions and a cute little animated gif of the process in action. Then go twack the person who committed you to making balloon animals over the head with a blunt instrument.
Not another sweater
For T, some Friday fun, because he’s never seen it, and because I made a promise: How To Dance Properly, the silly videos that eventually led to the show with zefrank. Read the blurbs under the video – they make it funnier.
Bonus dance video: Evolution of Dance