> We had a particularly articulate young man in our graduating class that argued that checking the book is ultimately not cheating in the world of professional CS and software development.
My school's CS department defaulted to allowing students to use almost any available resource (unless specifically indicated otherwise). But you were required to write down what resources you used.
So a professor might assign a whole pile of nasty algorithm proofs, and say, "You're allowed to work in groups to find the general solution. But you need to write down your group members, and you need to do your own writeups." Tests were in person but not especially proctored. The penalty for cheating was a heavy suspension and a transcript annotation, with permanent expulsion for a second offense.
This actually worked pretty well, back in the day.
Totally agree. Generally my response to that situation is usually, "wait you did that from memory without looking it up? That's super irresponsible, check your work or use an existing ___".
He convinced one professor, possibly two, but if he had any more luck than that, I wasn’t in those classes with him.
Most of what we do is synthesizing facts into knowledge. But I know from copious personal experience that there is a wide grey area between recalling a fact at will and forgetting it exists entirely. I am fairly good at recalling concepts in general terms. Y might be applicable in this case, but I need to check the details to be sure/explain how.
Which is also why I think banning computers from planning meetings is stupid. You want us to agree to do things without being able to spot check any of our hunches that will drastically effect our estimates? That’s a winning plan /s.