http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/mbacheat_1.html

"Many of these students reportedly believe cheating is an accepted practice in business. More than half (56%) of M.B.A. candidates say they cheated in the past year. For the study, cheating was defined as plagiarizing, copying other students' work and bringing prohibited materials into exams."

"...54% of graduate engineering students, 50% of students in the physical sciences, 49% of medical and other health-care students, 45% of law students, 43% of graduate students in the arts and 39% of graduate students in the social sciences and humanities readily admitting to cheating..."

"...many more students probably cheat than admit in the study."

Wow, what a quality group of high-level thinkers we're producing. Really not all that surprising. I've been saying for years now that a degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Not too surprising that companies are hiring more and more self-taught experts then those with degrees.

...The future of this planet...
We.Are.****ed.

The term "cheating" needs to be refined because it doesn't differentiate from "I cheated once" and "I cheat all the time".

I'm sure they ask them IF they cheat, not HAVE they cheated. IF they cheat means that they do it currently (as in, it's a part of there accepted social belief...which the article indicates).

"Many of these students reportedly believe cheating is an accepted practice in business. More than half (56%) of M.B.A. candidates say they cheated in the past year. For the study, cheating was defined as plagiarizing, copying other students' work and bringing prohibited materials into exams."

Last time I systematically cheated was like 6 or 7 years ago when I wrote some German words on my pen and checked them during the test.

So this is why I'm getting bad marks. Everyone else is cheating.

When I was in Spanish my junior year of high school, we had o do dictations. My friend and I found the pafg in the book where thedictation came from, opened our text books, but them on he floor, and just copied the paragraph from the book.

No, it simply means that business students are the most honest

I havent cheated on a test. I feel left out:(

My roomate is a business major. He lies a lot.

Well said!

Is that why you bought yours from a diploma mill?

That's why I'm an art major.
Where "plagiarizing" becomes "paying homage."

I think you mean "cheap knock off."

OMG ZULLY.

Also, /me rapes your face.

1. I did not

2. "...argumentum ad hominem or personal attack fallacy; that is, attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X but by attacking the person who asserted..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

3. Grow up

I think he may have been making a slight poke at your inability to grasp the fundamental, simple, basic underlying principles of the laws of physics.

My engineering degree is definitely worth the paper it's printed on

Yeah, a lot of people cheat. A lot of people think it is perfectly fine. A lot of smart people. The disregard for ethics is sad.

I have never cheated and never will. It's about principle.

Unless the fundamental, simple, basic underlying principles of the laws of physics are wrong...

They aren't.

Not to be cheeky, but those laws have put men on the moon, broke sound barriers and designed millions of structures that hold our society together.

Cheeky cheeky cheeky. That's the strangest word ever.

That's very polite of you, but if this is friend14 (and I think it is) it's not really nessecary.

The result of the difference between the incorrect formula's and the correct formula's is generally less then 15% which then is ussually lost in rounding for most applications. But this is off topic. If you want to engage me in a debate of physics, then I'd suggest either doing it via PM's or starting a new thread.

Tracer, this is Friend14 (I've stated so on several occassions). However, one should always be polite, else they run the risk of committing a logical fallacy in their arguement.

Ok that thing about errors is such utter rubbish that I'll just ignore it from now on. Also, politeness and correctness in logic are two completely seperate things.
For an example take Jon'C. Often impolite to the point of being rude, but almost never wrong

(In fact I can't leave the errors thing. Correct and incorret are incomparable abstracts with no quantitive relationship between them other than their very definitions, and also apart from that the most common arithmetic errors involve decimal errors and and unit errors all of which involve powers of ten!)

/Leaving it at that

I dunno where he gets 15% from; the error between calculated values and experimental values for even stuff like Newton's Laws of gravitation (which we KNOW aren't true) are several orders of magnitude less than that (in most situations; yeah it kind of breaks down with relativistic effects, but it's still useful).

I'd hope that if we were getting errors af 15% in our theoretical calculations, that we'd just throw the theories out and start from scratch.

From an e-mail correspondance with a fellow progressive thinker, Mr. Novak:

"Several years ago, I did a measurement of Joules constant by stiring water with an electric motor. The difference between the correct definition of energy (KE=mv) and the incorrect one (KE=½mv²) was about 15% in terms of the amount of heat in the water. This shows that the false definition of energy is a close shadow of the correct definition. Such a small difference can generally go unnoticed."

It was agreed that the most profound impact was conceptual in design and the error was compounded through the history of classical physics up through Einstein's 'Relativity'.

No.

Yes. But you can continue to live in your Ivory Tower if you wish.

And I shall, safe in the knowledge of how and why it stands up.

You go live in your mental tower, and don't cry to me when falls over due to the weight of BS that has been shovelled up to the top.

You gave a simple "No" with no indication of exactly what it is that you are contending with. You are shutting something out before you even have all of the research....which is exactly how everyone in the "Ivory Tower of Science" reacts to such.

Mr. Novak does a thorough job of explaining why the formula for Kinetic Energy is wrong:
http://nov55.com/ener.html

A while back I made a statement about Force sub instantaneous equals mass times velocity where 'Force sub Instantaneous' was a 'place-holder' varible for that which Force measure for any unit of t such that Ft=F sub i. At the time, I was merely focused on the time value as it relates to acceleration. However, since my discussions with Mr. Novak, it is clear that my 'place-holder' (F sub i) is actually KE (Kinetic Energy). We agreed that the following definitions were true:

Kinetic Energy - Is the specific Mass and Velocity of an object at any given moment in time.

KE = mv

Force - Force is the measure of the change in mass and the change in velocity over a period of time.

F = (m1 - m2)(v2-v1)/(t2-t1) or, more simply:
F = delta ma OR F = delta KE/t

Note: delta m is used because in the case of a rocket, the mass (hull + fuel) is reduced over the period of time in which it is measured.

Stop it with your 'fyzikse duhgree'.

We know you don't know ****, go peddle your stupidity elsewhere.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Stop it with your 'fyzikse duhgree'.

We know you don't know ****, go peddle your stupidity elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

Whatever you say princess.