Re:“They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
by sophacles on Wednesday April 21, 2021 @10:26AM
(#26890090)
The students do need a bit of punishment - they are adults who chose to act this way. In this context though, switching their advisor and requiring a different research track would be sufficient - that's a lot of work down the drain and a hard lesson. I agree that expulsion would be unfair - (assuming good faith scholarship) the advisor/student relationship is set up so that the students can learn to research effectively (which includes ethically) with guidance from a trusted researcher at a trusted institution. If the professor suggests or OKs a plan, it is reasonable for the students to believe it is a acceptable course of action.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:“They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
by ramraj07 on Wednesday April 21, 2021 @06:15PM
(#26896118)
If the student blatantly lied about why and how he made those commits then that’s grounds for expulsion though.
Re:“They introduce kernel bugs on purpose”
by sophacles on Wednesday April 21, 2021 @06:31PM
(#26896268)
1. What the student code at umn says and what i think the student deserves are vastly different things.
2. Something being grounds for expulsion and what a reasonable response would be are vastly different things.
3. The rules saying "up to and including" (aka grounds for) and the full range of punishment are not the same - the max of a range is not the entirety of the range.
4. So what?