Wednesday, September 20, 2006
M.B.A. Students More Likely To Cheat Than Other Grad Students
Liar, liar, business suit pant on fire:
So what is it about business students that makes them more likely to cheat than other students?
Are they generally more dishonest, more deceptive, more crooked than other students - including law students?
And if so many business students (and thus future business people) admit to being dishonest and crooked, why don't business people get the same reputation that, say, lawyers get?
And one more thing: if 56% of M.B.A. students are admitting to cheating in grad school, you have to think that another 10%-20% lied about it - putting the total numbers of business school cheaters in the 3 out of 4 range.
Which seems about right to me when I watch the various business people, snake oil salesman, and other crooks show up on Kudlow and Company.
Or the businesspeople currently operating the White House and the Grand Old Party leadership.
(Hat Tip to Raw Story)
When it comes to cheating in graduate school, a new study finds that M.B.A. students are the champs.
A survey of 5,331 students at 32 graduate schools in the United States and Canada found an "alarming" amount of cheating across disciplines, but more among the nation's future business leaders. Fifty-six percent of graduate business students admitted they had cheated at least once in the last year, compared with 47 percent of non-business students.
The students, who were surveyed between 2002 and 2004, told researchers from Pennsylvania State, Rutgers and Washington State Universities that the most important reason for cheating was that they thought that other students were doing it.
"People tend to do what they think other people are doing," said Linda Klebe Trevino, one of the researchers and a professor of organizational behavior at Penn State's Smeal College of Business. "The fact that other people are doing it creates an environment where this is normative."
The study asked about 13 different types of cheating, ranging from copying a classmate's test answers to lifting sentences from the Internet without attribution.
The results come amid a growing list of corporate ethics scandals, including faulty accounting to boost earnings, and, more recently, the backdating of stock options grants, a tactic that makes executive pay even more lucrative. While there is no proof that students who would cheat on a test might later cheat stockholders, the researchers said it made sense that people who would bend one rule might bend another.
...
Several studies have found that undergraduate business students are more inclined to cheat than others, but this is the first to report on graduate students at multiple schools, Trevino said. The study, released yesterday, has been accepted for publication by the Academy of Management Learning and Education, she said.
So what is it about business students that makes them more likely to cheat than other students?
Are they generally more dishonest, more deceptive, more crooked than other students - including law students?
And if so many business students (and thus future business people) admit to being dishonest and crooked, why don't business people get the same reputation that, say, lawyers get?
And one more thing: if 56% of M.B.A. students are admitting to cheating in grad school, you have to think that another 10%-20% lied about it - putting the total numbers of business school cheaters in the 3 out of 4 range.
Which seems about right to me when I watch the various business people, snake oil salesman, and other crooks show up on Kudlow and Company.
Or the businesspeople currently operating the White House and the Grand Old Party leadership.
(Hat Tip to Raw Story)
Comments:
<< Home
reality, in yet another ridiculous post, you pasted:
"The students...told researchers...that the most important reason for cheating was that they thought that other students were doing it."
If 47% or 56% of students are cheating, then those who believe cheating is widespread are right.
Meanwhile, this "survey" is bogus nonsense. It's humorous too.
If 56% of business students admitted they cheated ONCE in the last year versus 47% of non-business students, it's clear business students are more honest.
You copied:
"The study asked about 13 different types of cheating, ranging from copying a classmate's test answers to lifting sentences from the Internet without attribution."
With 13 different forms of "cheating" to choose from, I'm certain that much closer to 100% of college and graduate students "cheated" at least once in the last year.
Meanwhile, you've attempted to create a self-identifying class of wrong-does by equating anonymous responses to a college survey with many complex business issues faced in the corporate world today.
There is nothing illegal about stock options. It may be true that company managements award them a little too freely. But that's not equivalent to wrongdoing. Corporate leaders are much more likely to push the limits of rules than intentionally violate laws. They seek the best professional advice when doing so.
Is there any moral difference between pushing the limits in business and pushing the limits in sports? No. Do athletes "cheat" without getting caught? Yes. Probably in almost every contest. Mark McGwire, perhaps?
Do public school teachers "cheat"? Yes. Do they inflate grades to relieve themselves of problem students? Yes.
Do politicians "cheat?" No. How can that be? We've entered an era of utter shamelessness. Thus, lying isn't taboo. What's more, there's no shame among those who are caught.
Take Yvette Clarke, who won the Democratic primary for the 11th Congressional district in Brooklyn last week.
She has always claimed she was a GRADUATE of Oberlin College. BIG LIE. She never graduated from Oberlin or any other college. Yet she won the primary race. She is now assured of winning the seatbecause the very crooked Brooklyn political machine has made it all but impossible for Republicans to gain any traction unless they are stealth-Democrats running as Republicans, like Bloomberg.
It's worth noting that the 11th Congressional district was created for Shirley Chisholm, the first black congresswoman. Clarke's dishonesty -- cheating -- would appall Chisholm. Maybe Clarke was a business student during her unsuccessful and incomplete college career.
Do auto repair shops ever over-charge customers? Have movie reviewers ever praised pictures you thought were insufferable? Is that "cheating"?
Do news reporters report news objectively, or do they harbor biases and agendas? Is this cheating?
Based on all the ways in which corners are cut to get all things done in life, the "cheating" rate equals the injury rate in the NFL -- 100%.
"The students...told researchers...that the most important reason for cheating was that they thought that other students were doing it."
If 47% or 56% of students are cheating, then those who believe cheating is widespread are right.
Meanwhile, this "survey" is bogus nonsense. It's humorous too.
If 56% of business students admitted they cheated ONCE in the last year versus 47% of non-business students, it's clear business students are more honest.
You copied:
"The study asked about 13 different types of cheating, ranging from copying a classmate's test answers to lifting sentences from the Internet without attribution."
With 13 different forms of "cheating" to choose from, I'm certain that much closer to 100% of college and graduate students "cheated" at least once in the last year.
Meanwhile, you've attempted to create a self-identifying class of wrong-does by equating anonymous responses to a college survey with many complex business issues faced in the corporate world today.
There is nothing illegal about stock options. It may be true that company managements award them a little too freely. But that's not equivalent to wrongdoing. Corporate leaders are much more likely to push the limits of rules than intentionally violate laws. They seek the best professional advice when doing so.
Is there any moral difference between pushing the limits in business and pushing the limits in sports? No. Do athletes "cheat" without getting caught? Yes. Probably in almost every contest. Mark McGwire, perhaps?
Do public school teachers "cheat"? Yes. Do they inflate grades to relieve themselves of problem students? Yes.
Do politicians "cheat?" No. How can that be? We've entered an era of utter shamelessness. Thus, lying isn't taboo. What's more, there's no shame among those who are caught.
Take Yvette Clarke, who won the Democratic primary for the 11th Congressional district in Brooklyn last week.
She has always claimed she was a GRADUATE of Oberlin College. BIG LIE. She never graduated from Oberlin or any other college. Yet she won the primary race. She is now assured of winning the seatbecause the very crooked Brooklyn political machine has made it all but impossible for Republicans to gain any traction unless they are stealth-Democrats running as Republicans, like Bloomberg.
It's worth noting that the 11th Congressional district was created for Shirley Chisholm, the first black congresswoman. Clarke's dishonesty -- cheating -- would appall Chisholm. Maybe Clarke was a business student during her unsuccessful and incomplete college career.
Do auto repair shops ever over-charge customers? Have movie reviewers ever praised pictures you thought were insufferable? Is that "cheating"?
Do news reporters report news objectively, or do they harbor biases and agendas? Is this cheating?
Based on all the ways in which corners are cut to get all things done in life, the "cheating" rate equals the injury rate in the NFL -- 100%.
You said:
Meanwhile, you've attempted to create a self-identifying class of wrong-does by equating anonymous responses to a college survey with many complex business issues faced in the corporate world today.
Actually, the article I quoted did that first.
Meanwhile, you've attempted to create a self-identifying class of wrong-does by equating anonymous responses to a college survey with many complex business issues faced in the corporate world today.
Actually, the article I quoted did that first.
reality, show me an environment in which no "cheating" occurs?
Show me a society where honesty reigns and every member exhibits unquestionable rectitude.
That article was a no more than a practicle joke played on those who believed it.
You need to work on your comprehension. I noticed this when you completely misread the puff piece in the NY Times about Bill Clinton. You described it as a salacious attack on him instead of gentle article about what a swell husband he's been to Hillary as she begins her White House run.
By the way, this is YOUR blog. Therefore, when you print the opinions of others, I consider their opinions to be your opinions when you've made it clear you favor them.
Post a Comment
Show me a society where honesty reigns and every member exhibits unquestionable rectitude.
That article was a no more than a practicle joke played on those who believed it.
You need to work on your comprehension. I noticed this when you completely misread the puff piece in the NY Times about Bill Clinton. You described it as a salacious attack on him instead of gentle article about what a swell husband he's been to Hillary as she begins her White House run.
By the way, this is YOUR blog. Therefore, when you print the opinions of others, I consider their opinions to be your opinions when you've made it clear you favor them.
<< Home
