Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 1171668, member: 40"] That's a laughable conclusion. There's rationalization, and then there's burying your head in the sand while repeating "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" over and over again in order to conveniently ignore the facts being reported. I'm a former academic, and the notion that these were not fake classes is complete bunk. That "they required work" -- with blatant disregard to the rampant plagarism and academic fraud that was perpetrated -- is completely irrelevant. Last time I checked, having students pretend to make a token effort isn't "work." To imply that looking up information on the internet to plagarize requires "work" necessitates requires applying the loosest possible definition of what the word means. Rewriting somebody else's paper and submitting it as my own might also be said to require "work," by your definition. There's a reason why college students aren't awarded college credits for undertaking such "work." "Work" isn't the benchmark for earning a passing grade, or for a college course being deemed appropriate for conveying a certain amount of credits. Every academic institution has clearly deliniated criteria to calculate the amount of class room time / contact time, and course work required for any specific class to qualify for 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 or more college credits. I don't even have to look up UNC's specifications to know that none of the classes socially engineered by Crowder meet the minimum thresholds of any such criteria in place at North Carolina. You are right that many [most?] colleges have "easy A" courses, with some professors requiring less work or grading less stringently than others. Equating those type of classes to what we're hearing described at UNC under Crowder is an intellectually dishonest comparison. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?