›
To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).

Anyone ever recycle any assignments?

randomuser
edited April 2008 in General
Not as in submit the same essay twice, but say you did a giant chunk of research for something unrelated--then for another course you can just barely fit it in to make sense in the context of your new project, but you make it work?

I just saved myself 6 hours or so, its what I love about presentations sometimes, when youre presenting verbally you can get away with so much more bullshitting than in essays
«1

Comments

  • Broken Lizard
    edited February 2008
    I use the same ideas but other than that no.
    I sometimes use the same sources. For example, text books from 100 level crim courses.
  • Insatiable
    edited February 2008
    I recycled both essays and research. Works very well, I mean all of your mistakes are in front of you, just fix them up and you'll recieve a sure A. Do it if you can and make life easier for yourself.
  • vonnie
    edited February 2008
    Me too! Great way to save time and effort :)
  • JayDub
    edited February 2008
    Academic Dishonesty at its greatest.
  • Insatiable
    edited February 2008
    JayDub;22060 said:
    Academic Dishonesty at its greatest.
    Now what makes you so high and mighty?
  • vonnie
    edited February 2008
    JayDub;22060 said:
    Academic Dishonesty at its greatest.
    Technically it's still all your work haha.
  • Morro
    edited February 2008
    I don't see anything dishonest about recycling your own work.

    If that was bad, AC/DC would be on Death Row. :p
  • imelting
    edited February 2008
    its all fair game, u put in the work b4, if its relevant and you can use it in a constructive way, go right ahead
  • IVTIVT
    edited February 2008
    JayDub;22060 said:
    Academic Dishonesty at its greatest.
    For Computing Science, if its your code, you can use it as you please.
  • JayDub
    edited February 2008
    Hmm... I seem to remember every professor in every class I have ever had telling us not to do this because it is plagiarizing yourself. Yes, you can do that. Look up the academic rules of the school.
  • Broken Lizard
    edited February 2008
    my prof the other day was arguing about this, saying how many people get the exact same article published in many journals so why can't students use the same paper for different assignments, lol.
  • Morro
    edited February 2008
    Plagarism is defined as using another's work without citation. You can't plagarize yourself. It's like stealing from yourself. Not possible.
  • IVTIVT
    edited February 2008
    JayDub;22072 said:
    Hmm... I seem to remember every professor in every class I have ever had telling us not to do this because it is plagiarizing yourself. Yes, you can do that. Look up the academic rules of the school.
    David Mitchell in cmpt126 told us that we can reuse code as we see fit. Maybe its just him?
  • EricJ
    edited February 2008
    IVT;22088 said:
    David Mitchell in cmpt126 told us that we can reuse code as we see fit. Maybe its just him?
    Code is somewhat different. If you make some nifty functions or classes or whatever to make your life easier, it would only make sense to be able to reuse them!
  • Insatiable
    edited February 2008
    JayDub;22072 said:
    Hmm... I seem to remember every professor in every class I have ever had telling us not to do this because it is plagiarizing yourself. Yes, you can do that. Look up the academic rules of the school.
    :omg: "yes, you can do that" because it's actually possible, or "yes, you can do that" because" somebody tells you it's possible?

    You can't just take what people tell you and digest it, without even examining the concepts on which the notion of plagiarism is based :thumbs_down:

    According to the dictionary, any act of plagiarization is an act in which one takes another's work--either by directly copying it and not acknowledging it or by closely imitating it--and tries to pass it off as one's own. Hence, we see that a necessary condition for plagiarism or plagiarization is the presence of another party (or at least two separate parties) :secret:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarization

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism

    Now, how does copying from yourself or taking your own work and using it in another class amount to plagiarism? Just because a professor tells you it's plagiarism, won't necessarily mean that that is so. You ought to think on your own instead of believing everything people tell you and being so credulous :angry:

    But hey, if you're so righteous and want to play by the rules (and make life harder for yourself), who am I to tell you what's what?
  • JayDub
    edited February 2008
    So when you get caught for this you will realize that I am correct as it is possible to plagiarize yourself. Don't believe, I don't care, cause it's your own ass on the line.

    It is due to the academic standards we have at this glorious university. If by using a piece of work you have previously submitted in the past, then it is plagiarism.

    As for me, I rarely have to write essays so it's not like it is a burden to me to write one.
  • Broken Lizard
    edited February 2008
    meh, odds of getting caught are probably 0.1% lol
  • Ether
    edited February 2008
    I'm pretty sure John Fogerty of CCR was sued for plagiarizing himself. Somebody claimed that a song he wrote was too similar to another song he wrote, and sued him.

    edit: Fogerty won the case. The judge decided it was impossible for artists to plagiarize themselves.

    So there you go. It's legal in music... possibly not in academics.
  • Broken Lizard
    edited February 2008
    how the hell can someone sue someone over something that wasn't theirs.

    OMG IM SUING YOU BECAUSE YOU WROTE A SONG!!!
  • NukeChem
    edited February 2008
    That plagiarizing yourself thing has always struck me as ridiculous. Just because it's considered academic dishonesty to use the same work twice (I think it's been made a rule so that coursework can be evaluated in terms of actually doing the work mandated for the course so all students can be evaluated to a similar standard. After all, people who re-do, say, Chem 126, have done the labs already yet it would hardly be fair for them to be allowed to skip labs and just resubmit last semester's experimental results.) does not mean it is logically sensible that one can plagiarize oneself.

    As an example, Ravi Batra and Paul Krugman have both re-used portions of their books and/or newspaper articles in subsequent writings and this usage is as far as I can tell quite legitimate. (Batra even goes the extra mile and cites himself on the few times he re-uses substantial portions of previous work, heehee. :tongue: )
  • Shi2
    edited February 2008
    It's not allowed but most people still do it anyways. And the definition someone gave me was that we are not allowed to use the work we submitted for one course for another different course.

    I personally just modify my old work for the better so that it's not the exact original and then submit it.
  • JayDub
    edited April 2008
    I don't remember how this discuss ended off but look at this

    http://www.sfu.ca/policies/teaching/t10-02.htm

    Specifically Section 3.0b

    I will quote it here if you are too lazy to open that link :P

    3.0 Forms of Academic Dishonesty

    The illustrations presented below are considered to be representative but not definitive nor exhaustive of activities which could be considered to constitute academic dishonesty.
    ...
    b. Submitting the same essay, presentation, or assignment more than once whether the earlier submission was at this or another institution, unless prior approval has been obtained.
  • Jimmy
    edited April 2008
    ^ or you can just paraphrase/cite yourself in third person and give yourself credit :)
  • primexx
    edited April 2008
    IVT;22069 said:
    For Computing Science, if its your code, you can use it as you please.
    IVT;22088 said:
    David Mitchell in cmpt126 told us that we can reuse code as we see fit. Maybe its just him?
    compsci is kind of its own special category though.
    Morro;22084 said:
    Plagarism is defined as using another's work without citation. You can't plagarize yourself. It's like stealing from yourself. Not possible.
    Have you ever read the definition of plagiarism?
    Insatiable;22117 said:
    According to the dictionary...
    Frankly the university doesn't give a fuck about what the dictionary says. University policy states very clearly that reusing your own work is plagiarism. You're welcome to try and argue your little dictionary definition in front of senate, but don't be surprised if none of them buy into your crap.
    NukeChem;22528 said:
    As an example, Ravi Batra and Paul Krugman have both re-used portions of their books and/or newspaper articles in subsequent writings and this usage is as far as I can tell quite legitimate. (Batra even goes the extra mile and cites himself on the few times he re-uses substantial portions of previous work, heehee. :tongue: )
    Books are kind of different though, since most aren't in the academia (and they're not graded), they could get away with a bit more leniency.
    Jimmy Tung;27221 said:
    ^ or you can just paraphrase/cite yourself in third person and give yourself credit :)
    exactly :)
  • Insatiable
    edited April 2008
    primexx;27290 said:
    Have you ever read the definition of plagiarism?
    Have you? Read the fucking dictionary. You need another party for there to be plagiarism. Copying from yourself will never logically amount to plagiarism.
    primexx;27290 said:
    Frankly the university doesn't give a fuck about what the dictionary says. University policy states very clearly that reusing your own work is plagiarism. You're welcome to try and argue your little dictionary definition in front of senate, but don't be surprised if none of them buy into your crap.
    Just because the univeristy makes the rules, doesn't mean that the rules are fair or even logical. They can prohibit certain acts (taking your own work), but considering that act as plagiarism is simply illogical. However, even if they prohibit recycling, a double standard may exist: graduates can do this freely (a master's thesis can serve as the basis for a doctorla thesis), so why can't undergraduates? What is so special about being a graduate?

    If I were to argue this in front of a neutral arbiter, I know I'd win (not to sound arrogant or anything, it's just that university policies have no logical basis). But since we can't question the university's policies, I wouldn't stand a chance arguing this in front of the senate.
  • Shi2
    edited April 2008
    For those of you who've taken a few phil classes, you'll know that it's always the same few philosophers. So just use parts of your work from other phil classes, modify it a bit so it suits the topic, and there's a brand new essay to submit.
  • primexx
    edited April 2008
    Insatiable;27338 said:
    Have you? Read the fucking dictionary. You need another party for there to be plagiarism. Copying from yourself will never logically amount to plagiarism.
    I don't give a fuck about the dictionary definition either. And yes, I have read the real definition of plagiarism.
    Insatiable;27338 said:

    Just because the univeristy makes the rules, doesn't mean that the rules are fair or even logical. They can prohibit certain acts (taking your own work), but considering that act as plagiarism is simply illogical. However, even if they prohibit recycling, a double standard may exist: graduates can do this freely (a master's thesis can serve as the basis for a doctorla thesis), so why can't undergraduates? What is so special about being a graduate?

    If I were to argue this in front of a neutral arbiter, I know I'd win (not to sound arrogant or anything, it's just that university policies have no logical basis). But since we can't question the university's policies, I wouldn't stand a chance arguing this in front of the senate.
    If you have a problem with the rules you're welcome to try and change it, it doesn't excuse you from not abiding by them.

    And I could tell you right now that you could find as many neutral arbiter you like, the university policies would win every.single.time.
  • cassie1013
    edited April 2008
    I've used a lot of the same sources, but because I'm lazy, I don't leave enough time to go and sample some other parts of essays.

    It's actually quite easy to do because I'm in communication, but it ends up coming out the same way anyway, so meh.
  • Insatiable
    edited April 2008
    primexx;27353 said:
    I don't give a fuck about the dictionary definition either. And yes, I have read the real definition of plagiarism.
    :omg: Have you now? Well maybe the dictionary and I have it wrong then. What is the real definition of plagiarism? Would you type it out or show me where I could find it?
    primexx;27353 said:
    If you have a problem with the rules you're welcome to try and change it, it doesn't excuse you from not abiding by them.

    And I could tell you right now that you could find as many neutral arbiter you like, the university policies would win every.single.time.
    Well, like I said, if the university considers copying from yourself as plagiarism (which it by logic and by definition isn't), then it would be easy to prove my case in front of a neutral arbiter (and by neutral arbiter I mean someone who doesn't always think that the university is right). Just because there are rules, doesn't mean that those rules are fair or logically based. And again, how come graduates can easily copy from themselves and undergraduates can't? Shouldn't that be against the rules?
  • JayDub
    edited April 2008
    It doesn't matter if you are or some neutral arbiter does not agree with the rules.

    If a government makes laws and you are in their country or territories, it does not matter if you agree with them or think they are logical, you still have to abide by them and no judge will say, "well that law doesn't make sense or is logically based and fair". They are laws and you have to abide by them. If you don't like them then you can go elsewhere.

Leave a Comment