Recent orders
Examine the Factors Affecting Cheating Behaviour Among Students
Examine the Factors Affecting Cheating Behaviour Among Students
Cheating behavior among students is an issue that has grabbed the attention of scholars over the last decade as new technologies and processes in learning continue to make it increasingly difficult to detect academic dishonesty. Cheating can be considered to be a pattern of behavior aligned with thought patterns that distinguish dishonest students from others. In examining the factors that affecting cheating among students, this essay presents that there is a relationship between societal actions, a cheating culture, and personal influencers and what dishonest students see as the right and easier path to follow.
One of the main motivations of cheating is an education system that focuses on performance, and a society that links excellence and job opportunities to top performance in schools. The result is that students feel pressured to perform in order to secure good jobs and compete for top positions in the professional realm. Cahn (2018) establishes a correlation between academic and professional integrity expressing that one role cannot be expected to display integrity and be absent in the next. However, this is not the position of a majority of dishonest students as they see cheating as a way of jumping the entry hurdle.
Personal factors such as poor class attendance, insufficient preparedness, workplace pressure, peer influence, and a culture of cheating are major influencers to the spiking rates of academic dishonesty. Rahimi and Goli (2016) found that academic dishonesty has spiked over the last decade becoming an issue of concern and continues to spread at an alarming rate. This is the same period that has seen an increase in online learning and unsupervised exam taking. Text A presented that cheating has shot up significantly with more than 55% of college heads identifying plagiarism in student papers as a real issue of concern. The personal and student factors influencing the increasing cheating behaviour are noted by Cahn (2018) to be an extension of a larger societal problem where people want to get ahead by all means. Therefore, the personal factors combine with societal expectations and a need to qualify for other professional requirements later in life.
In conclusion, cheating behavior among students cannot be pointed to a single phenomenon, but rather a myriad of factors that come together to influence behaviour. Societal pressure to perform, peer pressure, and student factors, and a culture of cheating are likely to continue pushing students to cheat. The discussion has established a relationship between societal actions, a cheating culture, and personal influencers in pushing students to cheat.
References
Cahn, E. S. (2018). Ethics in the Classroom: A Ten-Year Retrospective. Journal of Educators Online, 15(2), n2.
Rahim, M., & Goli, A. (2016). English Learning Achievement and EFL Learners’ Cheating Attitudes and Cheating Behaviors. International Education Studies, 9(2), 81-88.
Text A. Class Notes. Do Online Students Cheat More Often?
Examine the differences between formal and substantive equality in an Australian employment law context
Question 1: Examine the differences between formal and substantive equality in an Australian employment law context. To what extent do Australia’s federal and State anti-discrimination statutes address this distinction?
In order for there to be justice, persons must always be treated equally or comparable to other people in similar situations, as the principle of formal equality demands. To attain substantive equality, one must go beyond just accepting all people’s equality; one must also consider the inequalities that exist between diverse groups of people in order to have a better understanding of these distinctions. While both strive to attain equality, substantive equality goes a step further to ensure that everyone has equal access to opportunities.
Formal equality at work is described as the need that all employees of a company be treated similarly under a set of written rules. One example is opening up job opportunities to any and all (suitably qualified) candidates. This means that everyone who submits a solid application has a high chance of being hired for the position. Despite the fact that human nature is flawed by nature, formal equality is founded on the idea that all individuals should be treated equally. Everyone is capable of having some fundamental thoughts regarding issues of race, privilege, and age. It excludes workplace privilege, which occurs when one person benefits or enjoys advantages over another, even if done inadvertently. Although written rules and formal equality were developed with the best of intentions, applying them to groups who are not equal results in uneven outcomes. For example, although it may seem to be a logical policy to require that all workers have their hair cut short and clipped to the chin, this overlooks the reality that certain employees may be offended by the regulation due to their religious convictions. Formal equality has the advantage of producing a documented set of norms and principles that are applied to all corporate actions.
Formal equality, also known as rule equality, considers equality to be a question of gender-neutral treatment, implying that men and women should be treated equally in all situations. This method has the benefit of being straightforward, which is useful since no legislation may discriminate between men and women in any way. It is also politically acceptable since it is consistent with a liberal political viewpoint. It also conveys the vital message that women should not be labeled as “other.” Nonetheless, it has a number of serious problems. The commitment to treating men and women equally was not always evident. For example, if we continue to treat men and women equally in this day and age, it may emphasize the disadvantage women experience. When there is no similar male experience to back women’s claims to equal treatment, this paradigm provides nothing. This is one of the most common events at work. Furthermore, it is incapable of removing the structural barriers that women face in modern society.
Substantive equality goes beyond just recognizing the equality of all individuals and instead emphasizes the differences between diverse people groups in order to develop a longer-term deeper level of understanding. For dominant groups to attain substantive equality, they must relinquish their present structural advantages. Employing veterans with protected status or giving other minority groups, such as members of the LGBT community, the benefit of the doubt are instances of substantive equality in the workplace. It is feasible to make some headway toward achieving substantive equality among team members by obtaining cultural sensitivity training. Unlike formal equality programs, which lump everyone together into a single category, substantive equality attempts to evaluate and then account for any inequalities. Men and women may not necessarily have similar experiences in different circumstances, according to the egalitarian perspective. It contends that men and women should not always be treated equally and acknowledges gender differences. It also emphasizes the need of distinguishing women’s differences from men’s. Recognizing gender differences, such as the fact that women may bear children, can occasionally help achieve gender equality.
The traditional liberal notion of equality, which serves as the intellectual underpinning of the Anglo-Australian legal system, emphasizes formal equality, often known as equality before the law. Formal equality recognizes the Aristotelian principle that one should behave in the same manner to otherwise identical situations. However, Australian courts have often chosen constrictive and formalistic definitions of equality, discounting the idea that a person’s circumstances may differ. Australian courts have sometimes recognized the notion that fairness may need a flexible interpretation.
It is against the law in Australia to discriminate on the basis of a variety of protected characteristics, such as age, disability, race, sex, intersex status, gender identity, or sexual orientation, in some aspects of public life, such as education or employment. The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 are the pieces of legislation that make up Australia’s federal anti-discrimination statutes. At the state level, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) protects individuals against discrimination on the basis of neutrality in regard to the majority of the reasons for which discrimination may occur. The current and aforementioned anti-discrimination acts approved by the Commonwealth provides an important statutory foundation for advancing equality in Australia. When persons are put in certain circumstances, the law incorporates a number of protective measures that protect them against certain sorts of discrimination. Despite these beneficial characteristics, there are still many people and groups in Australian society that are vulnerable to prejudice, and perfect equality remains out of reach for at least some of them. Substantive equality allows a range of groups to be addressed in a variety of ways, ensuring that everyone has equal access to their human rights. Legitimate equality differs from formal equality, which is achieved when everyone is treated equally under the law. Formal equality may not be effective in reducing prejudice since it overlooks the many obstacles that various groups face.
Discussion of Business Ethics
Discussion of Business Ethics
Read Sandbu, Chapter 12: Fulfilling Social Contracts, Garrett Hardin’s article “The Tragedy of the Commons” and Michael J. Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy, Chapter 2:Incentives, and answer the following questions in no less than two paragraphs(5-7 sentences) each:
(1) In Sandbu’s re-formulation of John Rawls’s social contract theory of justice, what basic principles would it be rational for individuals to commit to in an imaginary social contract position for business transactions? Choosing the debate about shareholders vs. stakeholders or the Guidant dilemma, explain what the parties to a social contract for business would agree to? (Sandbu, 180-86)
Majority of people are prejudiced by their circumstances, but how can people agree to a “social contract” to regulate how the world can function. Philosopher John Rawls suggests that we should imagine that we are sitting under a curtain of denial that prevents us from understanding who we are and from interacting with our circumstances. By ignoring our conditions, we will think more critically about how communities can work. Two main concepts accompany Rawl’s curtain of ignorance: the principle of equality and the principle of distinction. According to the theory of freedom, the social contract should aim to ensure that everyone enjoys the greatest possible freedom without interference with the freedom of others.
According to the theory of differentiation, the social contract should ensure that everybody has an equitable chance to succeed. In other words, whether there are social or economic gaps in the social contract, they can support those who are the worse off. And all the benefits of the deal should be open to everyone. So according to Rawls, tackling difficult problems without a curtain of indifference, and applying these values will allow one to determine more reasonably how the laws of society can be organized. Fairness, as Rawls and many others claim, is the core of justice.
(2) What exactly is partial compliance theory, and why is such a theory needed? Choosing either the issue of deception or corruption, explain what rules or behavior in business– from the point of view of partial compliance theory–individuals would agree to in an imaginary social contract setting? (Sandbu,192-95)
Ideal philosophy suggests full conformity, people are subject to state laws and cooperate entirely with them. Not only do these laws need to be in place, but conformity with them is what leads to an optimal culture. Laws in ideal philosophy also outline what should take priority to make desirable circumstances appear and be preserved. Concerning the concept of absolute conformity with ideal theory, partial compliance is a function of non-ideal theory. Complete conformity cannot be accomplished within non-ideal theories because they take into account adverse societal circumstances that lead to harmful outcomes, such as crises. Partial conformity is more closely reminiscent of today’s functional social configuration, but another aspect that varies between ideal and non-ideal ideas is the realistic factor of both.
A lot of people are misunderstanding legal and ethical compliance. However, they are entirely different and call for different levels of conduct. In every meaning of the word, the terms are not synonymous. Rules are important to create and sustain a functioning society. Except for this, our world will be in disorder. Keeping with these legal requirements is purely compulsory: if we exceed these standards, we shall be disciplined under the rules of the statute. Compliance with corporate ethics, however, usually refers to the degree to which a corporation performs its business activities following relevant laws, statutes, and legislation. Yet this is just the baseline minimum. The ethical observance is founded on this premise and shows the values of a particular business executive or a specific organization. Ethical actions are usually perceived to be voluntary and personal—often based on our interpretation or our position of right and wrongADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“DOI”:”10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199908)8:5<369::AID-HEC456>3.0.CO;2-Q”,”ISSN”:”10579230″,”PMID”:”10470544″,”abstract”:”Individual attitudes to distributions of life years between two groups in a society are explored by means of an experiment. Subjects are asked to place themselves behind a veil of ignorance which is specified in terms of risk (known probabilities) for some subjects and in terms of uncertainty (unknown probabilities) for some subjects. The latter is argued to be the appropriate interpretation of Rawls’ notion. It is found that subjects exhibit convex preferences over life years for the two groups, and that preferences do not differ between the risk and the uncertainty specifications.”,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Andersson”,”given”:”Fredrik”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Lyttkens”,”given”:”Carl Hampus”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Health Economics”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”5″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“1999″,”8″,”1″]]},”page”:”369-378″,”publisher”:”John Wiley & Sons, Ltd”,”title”:”Preferences for equity in health behind a veil of ignorance”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”8″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=4e92bcdd-81ed-397e-8a1b-579aafbcf32e”]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Andersson & Lyttkens, 1999)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Andersson & Lyttkens, 1999)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Andersson & Lyttkens, 1999)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Andersson & Lyttkens, 1999).
(3) Explain how you understand the idea of the ‘tragedy of the commons.’ What does the ‘tragedy of the commons’ suggest about the future of our planet? In what way is Hardin’s “tragedy of the commons” a counter-argument to Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ approach to economics? (Read-only the sections of Hardin’s article titled “Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons” and “Pollution”.)
The tragedy of the commons is a very real economic problem where individuals seek to manipulate shared resources in such a way that demand far exceeds supply and, consequently, the resource becomes scarce for the whole. Every person has an opportunity to consume a resource, but at the cost of every other individual—no way to exclude others from consuming it. It was initially conceived by asking what would happen if every shepherd, acting in his self-interest, allowed his flock to graze in the common field. If everyone behaves in their apparent best interest, it results in unhealthy over-consumption (all the grass is consumed, to the detriment of all)
As demand for resources overwhelms supply, each person who consumes an additional unit directly harms others—and themselves, too—who can no longer enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is freely accessible to all individuals without barriers (i.e. “commons”). On the other side, the tragedy of the commons reappears in the form of environmental concerns. Here it is not a matter of getting anything out of the commons, but of putting something in the sewage, or toxic, radioactive, and heat waste into the water; noxious and harmful gases into the air; and irritating and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. Utility equations are much the same as before. The reasonable man finds that his share of the cost of the waste he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his waste before it is released. As this is valid for all of us, we are trapped in a system of “fouling our own nest,” as long as we function only as autonomous rational, free-entrepreneursADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“DOI”:”10.7135/upo9781843318637.006″,”ISBN”:”9781315092546″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Hardin”,”given”:”Garrett”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”International Environmental Governance”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”3859″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2017″]]},”page”:”47-52″,”title”:”The tragedy of the commons”,”type”:”chapter”,”volume”:”162″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=f79223de-3515-3160-bf29-802ef173a04e”]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Hardin, 2017)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Hardin, 2017)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Hardin, 2017)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Hardin, 2017).
(4) By what means can society achieve its environmental goals and what, according to your opinion, are the most effective means and why? READ MICHAEL J. SANDEL’S WHAT MONEY CAN’T BUY, CHAPTER 2: INCENTIVES, ESPECIALLY PP. 72-91, AND EXPLAIN IN WHAT WAY INCENTIVES PRESENT A CHALLENGE FOR ETHICS IN THE PRACTICE OF BUSINESS.
Hardin claims that human short-term desire – to take as much of a resource as possible – is in contrast to the welfare of society. If anyone were to act on this individual interest, the situation would worsen for society as a whole-the demand for a common resource would outweigh supply, and the resource would ultimately become fully inaccessible. Conversely, the exercise of restraint would reap long-term benefits for everyone as the common resource would remain availableADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“DOI”:”10.1504/IJGE.2018.097865″,”ISSN”:”17449936″,”abstract”:”The increase in the population level, followed by a subsequent expansion in national and international markets, has resulted in a rampant exploitation of public and common resources. Primarily, the paper addresses and analyses examples of the ‘land grabbing’ cases in Noida and West Bengal, ‘Kaveri river water dispute’ between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and the ‘Bhopal gas tragedy’ in Madhya Pradesh. The paper also emphasises the regulation and governance of the legitimate right of citizens over their own commons resources, using the methodology and concepts of the classical contributions of Garret Hardin’s important work, the “Tragedy of Commons”. The paper will suggest alternative ideas which might help to reduce the tragedy of commons by introducing Elinor Ostrom’s conflict resolving mechanisms. Furthermore, the paper would facilitate the design of strategies to promote and ensure more environmental justice and a more sustainable and reliable pattern of the development of the environment.”,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Kharkongor”,”given”:”Natalie West”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Singh Kanwar”,”given”:”Abhay Vir”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”International Journal of Green Economics”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”3-4″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2018″]]},”page”:”182-191″,”publisher”:”Inderscience Publishers”,”title”:”Tragedy of commons from Garret Hardin to elinor ostrom: A governance perspective, drawing excerpts from India”,”type”:”paper-conference”,”volume”:”12″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=30dbce3c-f2dd-3132-84fd-c0517d647303″]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Kharkongor & Singh Kanwar, 2018)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Kharkongor & Singh Kanwar, 2018)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Kharkongor & Singh Kanwar, 2018)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Kharkongor & Singh Kanwar, 2018). Ethical conduct allows one to comply with the required standards of the law, but it is not enough. For example, an action may be legal, which we consider being unethical. Companies today need to concentrate not only on compliance with the letter of the law but also on moving above and above the basic legal obligation to remember their stakeholders and to do what is right.
As the global population rises and the need for capital follows, the downsides of the Commons are becoming more evident. Some may argue that this will challenge the position and practicality of nation-states, leading to the redefinition of international governance. Besides, it may lead some to challenge the position of supranational governments, such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization; as resources become more scarce, some may argue that managing the commons may not have a solution at all. A possible alternative is to affix land rights to public spaces. For example, charging a toll to use the highway or imposing a wastewater tax will limit the number of users to those working in the best interests of others, not just themselves. Other options could involve government involvement or the implementation of methods to cause collective action, such as assigning a piece of land to small groups in the neighborhood to look after.
References
ADDIN Mendeley Bibliography CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersson, F., & Lyttkens, C. H. (1999). Preferences for equity in health behind a veil of ignorance. Health Economics, 8(5), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199908)8:5<369::AID-HEC456>3.0.CO;2-Q
Hardin, G. (2017). The tragedy of the commons. In International Environmental Governance (Vol. 162, Issue 3859, pp. 47–52). https://doi.org/10.7135/upo9781843318637.006
Kharkongor, N. W., & Singh Kanwar, A. V. (2018). The tragedy of commons from Garret Hardin to Elinor ostrom: A governance perspective, drawing excerpts from India. International Journal of Green Economics, 12(3–4), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGE.2018.097865