Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uwmcsd1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jerry
From: jerry@uwmcsd1.UUCP (Jerry Lieberthal)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: "Editing output, is it the only problem?"
Message-ID: <545@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 02:45:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmcsd1.545
Posted: Wed Sep 25 02:45:45 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 04:04:42 EDT
References: <5560@fortune.UUCP> <2958@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wi-Milwaukee, Computing Services Div
Lines: 35

> > The big problem was more of code copying.  People would trace through
> > the class directories for people who either accidently or purposly
> > left permissions to their directories and files so the world could
> =======
> > It is real hard for an instructor to
> > notice this so most people got away with it.
> =======
> 
>      I guess it all comes down to whether you're skimming the code or studying
> it.  I grade using the latter.  You can tell a lot more about how much work
> the student did by studying the code than by studying the output.
> 
> 
> Brian H. Powell

I agree with Brian's statement.  I also used the method of studying the code,
and also paying attention (somewhat scant, tho') to the output. I usually did
not have a problem telling what was original, and what was not.  There were
usually about 40 - 60 submissions during a grading spell.

Also, I had the fortunate aspect of using a machine so difficult for student
work  (and was able to disguise a lot of the job control) that they didn't
have time to try and figure out how to rip off other's work.  The machine we
are *still* using for some work is a Sperry 1100.  The hardware may be 
reasonable, but the software lacks greatly....

-- 


------------------------------------------------

	- jerry     University  of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
		    Computing Services Division
		    {ihnp4, uwvax, uwmacc}!uwmcsd1!jerry
		    uwmcsd1!jerry@wisc-rsch.ARPA