Academic dishonesty

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 139471

Combined answer to Sherry, Marianne S, Merrylinks, Steve/bboyminn,
Valky, Janet, Lupinlore, and finally Eggplant, in that order (no
meaning in the order), so if you want to find my reply to your
particular post, just jump forward :-)

---

Sherry wrote, in message 139410:
"I was quite shocked to find that people here
considered Harry's use of the handwritten notes in his text book to be
cheating."

Del replies:
It's not the fact that he's using the notes that's a problem for me.
It's the fact that he's hiding it, that he's pretending to act without
them, that he's pretending that all the ameliorations come from him.

Sherry wrote:
"I'm an excellent cook, and I rarely take a recipe and follow it
exactly. instead, I usually add a pinch of this or that to make it
better."

Del replies:
Well, that's some MAJOR differences between you and Harry here.

First, Harry is a good Potion-maker, but not an excellent one, as
demonstrated by the fact that he *had* to use the HBP notes to make
his potions turn out OK. Left with the original recipes, he couldn't
make his potions turn out the right way.

Second, Harry didn't make a single modification *on his own*. Unlike
you, he never relied on his own instincts and skills to make things
better. He did exactly the opposite of what you did: he *stuck* to the
recipe. Just a better recipe.

Sherry wrote:
"So, the rehab counselor asked the teacher, did the things Sherry
prepared come out properly? Yes, he said. Well, then, she replied, it
doesn't matter how she did it. The results are what matters."

Del replies:
I agree, in fact. So let's look at the results that Harry got while
following the initial recipes: they are poor. The fact that ultimately
the potions came out great has very little to do with Harry's skills
and creativity, and very much to do with Snape discovering surer ways
of making a potion work out. Basically, it's like if you had used a
bread mix to make your bread, something to which you just have to add
water and put it in the oven, and it always works out fine. What would
that say about your ability to actually make bread? Nothing, IMO.

Sherry wrote:
"There's no way that Snape's method of teaching, waving a wand and
directions being written on a board teaches the students anything more
about the intricacies of potion making than Harry following the HBP
book did."

Del replies:
I disagree, because you're taking Snape's practical lessons apart from
his theoretical lessons. Snape was constantly setting theory essays to
his students, in which they had to explain the different properties of
ingredients, for example. And when Harry once failed a potion, he had
to write an essay explaining why it failed.

Sherry wrote:
"Hermione was just suffering from sour grapes for being beaten, for
once in her life, and by someone she considers intellectually inferior
to herself."

Del replies:
The problem is that Harry IS inferior to her as far as potion-making
goes! He doesn't understand the theory at all, he doesn't have the
slightest idea of how to prepare potions. Without the HBP book, he's
lost! Hermione, on the other hand, understands the theory, the
interactions between the different ingredients, and is developing a
sense of the art of potion-making. So I find it completely justified
that she should be upset at Harry getting better grades than her.

Let's compare this to DADA. Can you imagine how Harry would feel if
Ron found a one-of-a-kind book that told him how to easily produce a
Patronus, and used it in class, and got a better grade than Harry who
produced a Patronus the good ol' way? Or if the book told Ron how to
produce silent magic without actually learning it the hard way, and
Ron got better grades at silent fighting than Harry did? Don't you
think that Harry would think that Ron cheated, and that he doesn't
deserve to get better grades than Harry who is so much better skilled
at DADA than Ron?

---

Marianne S wrote, in message 139413:
" Had Snape really and fully taught Hermione everything he could,
rather than just showing her HOW to make potions while not encouraging
her understanding, she probably would have done much better in
Slughorn's class."

Del replies:
For what it's worth, Slughorn doesn't seem to be doing any better. We
*never* see him explain to anyone why their potion turned out bad.
Even when Ernie took a risk and tried to invent his own potion,
Slughorn did not reward his risk-taking at all, by discussing with him
what went wrong and what he should have done instead. Very very
disappointing in a NEWT class, IMO.

---

Merrylinks,

I appreciate your input in message 139415, but you are comparing a
cooperative professional environment to a competitive academic one,
and I personally think that such a comparison is not valid. Even in
6th year, the students at Hogwarts are *not* researchers or even lab
workers, they are still only pupils. This is made extremely clear by
the fact that Ernie's attempt at original creation was completely and
utterly dismissed by the teacher. When Slughorn said "surprise me", he
was only asking his students to choose their own potion *in the book*.
Nor are the students *ever* asked how a potion could be improved or
anything of that nature. Slughorn doesn't even take adavantage of
Harry's improvements to explain to the class why the modifications
Harry used produced the results they did.

Unlike in your lab, learning how to make a potion is the end-all of
potion class. Slughorn is not after ameliorations or creativity. We
know that because first, he doesn't *ask* for creativity, only for
results, and second he doesn't reward creativity when another student
tries and fails. The students are not in a cooperative research
environment, they are in a competitive one: they compete against each
other and against the scale of the perfect potion. This competition is
supposed to be fair because all students are supposed to have the same
books, the same ingredients, the same time. But it turns out that
Harry has access to a book that not only he doesn't share with almost
anybody else, but he also keeps secret from the teacher. This is an
unfair advantage IMO.

---

Steve/bboyminn wrote, in message 139418:

"Let's change the scenrio slightly. Let's say that Harry found a nice
detailed Potions book at the bookstore or in the library, and brought
that to class because he felt it was a more up-to-date and more
accurate referecence than a 50 year old text book. Would you still
have the same view of his cheating, even if you don't consider it
/technically/ cheating?"

Del replies:
No I wouldn't, for two obvious reasons:

1. If he can find it in the library or in a bookstore, then so (money
problems put aside) can everyone else. No more unfair advantage. 

2. Slughorn would *know* that Harry is using alternate sources. He
wouldn't be misled into thinking that Harry made up all the
improvements himself. When Harry adds this or that, Slughorn would
just have to take a look at the book, and he would instantly know why
Harry did it: "Ah yes, I see you followed So-and-so's recommandation".

So Harry wouldn't be getting high praises for something that he didn't
do and that almost nobody else can do.

---

Valky wrote, in message 139421:
"Harry may have separate notations to the other class members, however
he still must translate those instructions into manual precision, and
accurately manifest the written instructions into real life potion.
Without these things, it is highly unlikely that any set of
instructions would make any difference. If we are still yet comparing
this with a chemistry prac then Harry's skills are most definitely in
credit."

Del replies:
I would agree with you if we didn't know for sure that, when he
followed the same instructions as the rest of the class, Harry did not
do very well. That's even the reason he chose to try the HBP's notes:
because he was getting desperate of making the potion turn out OK. So
we *know* that Harry is not extremely good at following a set of
instructions. If he were, he would have made his potions turn out
quite fine without having to resort to using the HBP's notes.

Valky wrote:
"I'd like to add another thought to this. I wonder if the Potion
Recipes in Snapes textbook are the same recipes that he would have
been casting onto his blackboard for the class to follow, had he been
a NEWT potions master. If it were the case, then it is possible that
Hary's potions performance in HBP is actually representative of what
he would always have been capable of with Snape lessons but no actual
Snape in the room sabotaging him every few minutes. I think this might
be a Theory, you know, even Hermione didn't do all so well as usual
without Snape as her teacher, I noticed."

Del replies:
It's a strong possibility. But it doesn't change the fact that Harry
didn't deserve all the praise he got from Slughorn, and that he was
competing unfairly against his classmates and knew it very well.

---

Janet wrote, in message 139428:
"Now, if we are to evaluate the teaching styles and methods of the two
teachers, Slughorn does come off better than Snape."

Del replies:
Not much, as far as I am concerned. 

* He didn't research the available books to find a better one than the
one that was used 50 years ago.

* He doesn't seem to intervene much during the lessons to help the
students out. He just tells them which potion to make, and then judges
the potions at the end of the class. A good teacher, IMO, would make
sure that no student gets hopelessly stuck.

* He *never* discusses why a potion didn't turn out right. That's my
biggest beef with him. He just looks dismissively at those potions
that didn't work out, and that's it. Not a word with the students to
see if they understand what they did wrong.

* He never explains to the class why Harry's potions turned out better.

IOW, for all it's worth, Slughorn might as well be sleeping for the
entire length of the class! And that's a strong sign of bad teaching
in my book.

I seem to remember seeing Flitwick and McGonagall, in previous books,
going around during the practical exercises, and correcting the
students' moves and incantations. They didn't just tell them "practise
that charm", and then have them line up at the end of the class and
show what they could do. They actually went around and *taught* them
what to do.

And of course this is *exactly* what Harry did in the DA too, and
that's why he was such an effective teacher: because he went around
and corrected the other kids.

But Slughorn doesn't do any of that, so I don't see him as a good
teacher. But at least, he's not nasty :-)

---

Lupinlore wrote, in message 139430:
"No one at Hogwarts or in the Wizarding World seems very interested in
the students learning patterns of thought or theoretical
understanding."

Del replies:
I completely disagree. 

* The students are systematically given essays about the theoretical
aspect of magic. In ALL classes: Potions, Charms, Transfigurations,
Herbology, Care of Magical Creatures, Astronomy, hey even in
Divination! Diagrams, essays, charts, and what-nots, the students are
made to study the theory of their subjects quite thoroughly. Most of
the homework they get is theoretical, and they get tons of it.

* The NEWT students are also given LOADS of additional books to read.

* The teachers *expect* the students to actually study the curriculum
outside the class. Slughorn, for example, didn't expand on the Third
Law of Whoever, because he assumed the students had all read the
books, like Hermione.

* And of course, there is such a thing as Theory OWLs and probably
NEWTs too...

Lupinlore wrote:
"All of the classes at Hogwarts are applied classes"

Del replies:
Agreed, but the classes are only one part of the studies at Hogwarts.
Homework is the other part, a very prominent part, and an extremely
theoretical too.

Lupinlore wrote:
"The types of classes that would, logically, be necessary for the
liberal and theoretical study of magic are suspiciously absent. To
mention just the most basic, since spells are phrased in Latin a
theoretical understanding of magic would logically require education
in at least the basics of the Latin language. How could you phrase a
new spell properly if you don't know the differences among the
Indicative (what does something) the Accusative (what something is
done to) and the Ablative (what something is done with)? Yet this
crucial and necessary subject is completely absent from Hogwarts."

Del replies:
I've been thinking about that, and I think there's a simple answer to
that problem: the basics of Latin are taught to the students as they
go along. Whenever a new word comes up, the teacher explains it, and
explains why it is in such or such case. And the words that the
students are going to need are given to them beforehand.

Not to mention that there are probably Basic Latin books in the
library, so it's up to the students to go through them if they have a
problem.

Lupinlore wrote:
"In short, I think that Snape and Slugworth (and McGonagall and Sprout
and Hagrid and everybody else on the faculty except Dumbledore) would
totally disagree with you. They would say that making a potion that
works IS what really matters, and theoretical understanding is at best
only of secondary importance -- and probably not important for the
average wizard at all."

Del replies:
And I think they would disagree with you :-) I think they care more
about the students understanding what they are doing, and thus being
able to reproduce what they've done in class, and being able to
improvise when needed, than about them getting it right once in class.

Their job is to get the students ready to enter a professional
training right away, after all. I doubt St Mungo's, for example, would
be happy to have to train someone who doesn't actually know its plants
in-depth, but only has a surface knowledge of Herbology. And I doubt
the Aurors would want someone who can make Mobilicorpus work but who
has no idea how to apply the same charm to another object.

Lupinlore wrote:
"After all, understanding is something any mere muggle could do.
Actually DOING magic, THAT makes a wizard!"

Del replies:
That makes a stupid wizard, one that won't improve the world he lives
in, for sure.

What you're saying is equivalent to saying that a computer technician
doesn't need to know how electronics work, he just needs to know where
to plug the cables. Except that when something that isn't in the books
happens, that technician becomes utterly worthless.

Lupinlore wrote:
"Since we know from JKR that their are no Wizarding universities, at
least not in Britain, I suspect that those who want more theoretical
knowledge are expected to learn it after graduating from Hogwarts
through a combination of independent study and informal apprenticeship."

Del replies:
That's not at all the way I see things in the Potterverse. But to each
his own :-)

Lupinlore wrote:
"We think in terms of giving people basic understanding and
theoretical knowledge, which are then applied to practical problems.
However, historically it was much more common to emphasize practical
skills first and foremost, the idea being that relatively few people
would ever have the need, or the ability, to learn the "advanced"
ideas that lay behind applied techniques."

Del replies:
Except that we know that Hogwarts is supposed to prepare the kids for
ALL magical avenues they might choose upon graduation. Whether they
want to stay at home, or become Aurors, Healers, bus drivers, or Dark
Lords, they MUST have learned the bases at Hogwarts, and they will
learn the details after graduation. So it seems pretty clear to me
that Hogwarts is where the kids learn the theory and the general bases
of magic, and then they go on learning the more applied skills.

---

Eggplant wrote, in message 139436:
"In our world a good chemistry professor would praise a student to
high heaven who went to the library and found a little known method to
perform an experiment that was superior to the one given in the textbook."

Del replies:
Yes, he would, because the student would have actually put *work* in
his research. But Harry didn't do any of that.

Eggplant wrote:
"And wasn't there a scene where Slughorn praised a student for adding
a bit of peppermint even though it was unconventional?"

Del replies:
IIRC, that was Harry, thanks to the HBP...

Eggplant wrote:
"That appears to be true, but I have seen little evidence that any of
the students, Hermione included, have much understanding why potions
work as they do; certainly just following the crummy instructions in
the standard textbook won't enlighten them."

Del replies:
Hermione at least had an idea of what to do when they had to create
that multiple antidote. She knew the principles, she knew the spells,
she knew the ingredients and their antidotes. Harry knew none of this.

And yes, following instructions can be the very best way to learn some
things: when the recipe tells you, "cut the chocolate in little
pieces, and put in the microwave for 30 seconds", you immediately
learn what microwaving does to chocolate. Granted, this one was
obvious, but there are many many things to be learned, whether in
cooking, chemistry or potions, simply by following a recipe.

Eggplant wrote:
"Even if you disagree with my take on it, "pretty disgusted" seems
like very strong language to me,"

Del replies:
It might be strong language, but it describes what I feel about it.
And if "pretty disgusted" is strong, then I wonder what you would
think of horrified, revulsed, appalled, and such niceties. I was
disgusted because I didn't expect Harry to cheat simply so he could
get good grades and praises. It's lame, IMO, and not at all up to his
usual standard.

Wew, that was some post...

As usual, this is all JMO, of course :-)

Del