Comment Unclear scope, inconsistent argument (Score 1) 444
The linked article is very poorly argued. The author says he's worked at as an educator for students from the second-grade to college seniors. Does he mean his thesis to apply across all those levels? Is it supposed to apply even to senior level work in one's own major, even where that major is in a humanities or social science field? What about graduate level work?
I've done tests, not papers for intro classes I've taught, but I'd almost certainly do papers, not tests for senior level courses. Context makes a big difference here.
Also, he sometimes speaks very broadly 'the term paper is dead.' Does that mean stop assigning term papers altogether? The arguments provided at best support two much weaker theses:
1) Coherent cutting and pasting is a valuable skill of its own that should perhaps be taught/tested
2) Term papers are relied on more heavily than they should be in grading.
It's a long way from those two to a strong interpretation of 'the term paper is dead.'
Also, he sometimes comes close to outright contradicting himself: "The problem isn't due to a dramatic decline in young people's moral character, nor the rise of the Internet and its endless bounty. The problem is that schools have relied too long and too heavily on the paper as the most significant method of evaluating students. But that's going to have to change."
But why is it going to have to change? The very next sentence seems to answer answer: Because "Internet plagiarism is growing at a rapid pace, according to recent studies and the anecdotal evidence I hear from my former colleagues in education -- and there's no end in sight."
So is the problem the tools made possible by the internet, or isn't it?
I've done tests, not papers for intro classes I've taught, but I'd almost certainly do papers, not tests for senior level courses. Context makes a big difference here.
Also, he sometimes speaks very broadly 'the term paper is dead.' Does that mean stop assigning term papers altogether? The arguments provided at best support two much weaker theses:
1) Coherent cutting and pasting is a valuable skill of its own that should perhaps be taught/tested
2) Term papers are relied on more heavily than they should be in grading.
It's a long way from those two to a strong interpretation of 'the term paper is dead.'
Also, he sometimes comes close to outright contradicting himself: "The problem isn't due to a dramatic decline in young people's moral character, nor the rise of the Internet and its endless bounty. The problem is that schools have relied too long and too heavily on the paper as the most significant method of evaluating students. But that's going to have to change."
But why is it going to have to change? The very next sentence seems to answer answer: Because "Internet plagiarism is growing at a rapid pace, according to recent studies and the anecdotal evidence I hear from my former colleagues in education -- and there's no end in sight."
So is the problem the tools made possible by the internet, or isn't it?
