I agree with the young woman from NZUSA on Nine To Noon this morning, who suggested that the response from the University of Auckland could be sending a message of double standards to students. There is plaigarism and there is plaigarism. Universities regularly warn students of this sin--as something akin to matricide--but the problem is that there is often too little explanation as to what exactly it means, or it is just an after-thought in course outlines. One response I have had from ESL Chinese students, for example, is that they are 'paying respect' to source material through lumping in great chunks of (often unattributed) text. Another manifestation of this is when they cite an author but also add in the author's qualifications, their university affiliation, the names of their children...
My tack, in respect of general advice to students, is that the great majority of knowledge and thought has already been recorded and stored. They will undoubtedly call on this, in terms of quotation and paraphrasing, and all they need to do is acknowledge when and where they do this (as well as adding in their own analysis and explanations).
Go Jolisa. Great RNZ interview just now.
Yes, it was. The Listener arrived this morning, with more on this story. The only problem is that it is written by Joanne Black, which won't raise any expectations of fairnesss nor balance. Nevertheless, I wonder what the UoA wil think of the quote from American academic Margaret Soltan, "Pretending it didn't happen is the sort of thing a very provincial university wiill do"
Chris Knox on Campbell live tonight on 3 at 7.00pm
'fer sure. And we got two "yeahs" and lots of smiles.
No biting the hand that feeds ... those guys will defend a flawed system
So many flaws...assuming that "Presence in a room where a TV set is on" is the same as watching TV. Measuring only the visual signal and ignoring the use of the mute button. The sample size of the overall panel and sub-populations. Lumping all 55+ viewers into an undifferentiated mob. Absence of non-home-owning viewers (students, young professionals) etc etc
These days its the fifth estate, the blogs who are riding the white chargers of truth.
Astride wombats might be a better image!
So I heard. I deliberately avoided that session as I would only have got irate and everyone would have said, "There goes that Geoff Lealand again..."
They were probably trying hard not to laugh.
Or processing their invoices?
Incidentally, Brenda, I greatly appreciated your attack on the implausibility of TV ratings at the SPADA debate.
if I started a PA book club, would anybody come?
I quite fancy a Magazine Club. I would travel some distance to share the pleasure of a good piece from the Atlantic or Vanity Fair or The Word.
What I'm not looking forward to hearing in the next eight months is the passive aggressive resentment of rugby from some NZ soccer fans
Well put! I have noticed amongst some colleagues that following soccer serves as some point of difference; as an expression of an anti-rugby sentiment.
What they don't tell you is that in the A League 88 of those emotions are subtle variations on boredom and despair.
Which could be why what goes on in the crowd is often more interesting than what happens on the pitch? You have to do something to occupy the time, as the ball goes back-and-forth, back-and-forth and no goals are coming? I agree that the Wellington crowd was a very jolly lot but I have seen too many ugly soccer crowds in my life.
In Cardiff, they don't sell alcohol in the Millennium Stadium but turn the city into a giant booze zone (mobile booze barns on every corner). The city looks like a war zone after the event. But they do sell alcohol in the ground for rugby matches, which sort of says something?