Moral based question:

The answer is in black and white. It isn't a formula or some pie in the sky college debate. Cheating is what ever the professor and the college says it is. That's all there is to it.

Since when has there been ethics in Business? There is only one rule in the business world and that's to make money. That's why it's called business.

Paragraph 1: Ends don't justify means - Regardless of whether or not you could gain an advantage by breaking the rules, to do so is wrong. (I may be reading this wrong as Trample may be merely affirming that "cheating" is a definable term without attaching any ethical implications to the definition).

Paragraph 2: Ends justify means. - Regardless of the rules, the goal is the only thing that matters and anything done in pursuit of that goal is right.

Paragraph 1: Ends don't justify means - Regardless of whether or not you could gain an advantage by breaking the rules, to do so is wrong. (I may be reading this wrong as Trample may be merely affirming that "cheating" is a definable term without attaching any ethical implications to the definition).

Paragraph 2: Ends justify means. - Regardless of the rules, the goal is the only thing that matters and anything done in pursuit of that goal is right.

What I mean is that the professor and the college set the rules and or guidelines. To go outside of them is cheating. If those rules are unclear then they, not a blog, should be consulted. To come on here and ask seems like self-justification.

I was BSing on the last paragraph. I deal with people who try to cheat my business every day. To put ethics and business in the same phrase is just funny to me, especially these days. There are a lot of ethical business people. I just don't work with many of them.

It's my nature to think of the worst first. I'm sure Dasael is an all right dude.

Morally, I'd clear it up with the professor. Ask the professor to clarify his response by asking if calculators are to be cleared, and would you be able to program in any formulas you would need to use. That way you are in the clear and it can't be used against you...

However, what I always laugh at (not that Daseal would do this) was those students who programmed stuff into their calculators/cheat sheets and didn't know how to use the information. They just assumed that having the formulas, they would be able to figure out when to use them. I had several friends fail out of statistics and calculus because they didn't study and figured they could "cheat" their way to an A with the stuff programmed into the calculators, and then used the wrong formulas and equations.

Yeah seriously. Some of my buddies in high school would spend HOURS programming every last word and number from their notebooks into their calculators before Calc and Physics tests, and they would still get very mediocre grades. If they had just spent that time actually studying....

Trample: In that case, this situation isn't cheating. If the professor didn't want this then he has multiple options:

1. No Calculators. 2. Only a 4 function calculator. 3. Explicitly say "No programs, text, etc in the calculators." The rules are set by both the in class syllabus and what the professor says. I keep seeing people say, on a regular basis, 'breaking the rules.' However, there are no rules in place. This is an easy situation for a professor to avoid, if they want to, and all professors fully understand what these calculators are capable of doing.

At this point, it doesn't matter. I know all but one -- and thats getting going straight from me reading 500 times right before the test to where people normally put their names.

Daseal, I guess I missed the answer to this, but did you ever point blank ask the professor? Or the TA's if the class has them?

Trample: In that case, this situation isn't cheating. If the professor didn't want this then he has multiple options:

1. No Calculators. 2. Only a 4 function calculator. 3. Explicitly say "No programs, text, etc in the calculators." The rules are set by both the in class syllabus and what the professor says. I keep seeing people say, on a regular basis, 'breaking the rules.' However, there are no rules in place. This is an easy situation for a professor to avoid, if they want to, and all professors fully understand what these calculators are capable of doing.

At this point, it doesn't matter. I know all but one -- and thats getting going straight from me reading 500 times right before the test to where people normally put their names.

I knew you could do it.

As someone who's already done this (on a TI-84 never-the-less), it's definitely cheating. With that said, it's not particularly helpful cheating. If you have to go to the formulas every few seconds, it's going to be tough to stay in a rhythm that is conducive to successful test taking.

In general, I prefer not to cheat because I treat grades as more of a way to see how apt I am/am not at certain lessons rather than a chance to show everything I know. If I feel I'm going into a situation where clearly, the test is just going to be an unmitigated disaster that's totally unhelpful to me, I'm not above doing something to show that I do understand what I'm supposed to.

From either perspective, I'd say you are making the right decision.

From the same perspective, Holding is cheating in blocking. If you do it and don't get caught, you've saved your team from failure, but that doesn't change the fact that you screwed up and were out of position. If you do it and get caught, you are penalized ten yards, best case scenario.

The spirit of the rule is that you are supposed to not hold a man who has beaten you fairly. But if that was the direct result of the rule, there would never be any holding. It's still a part of the game, even though it's technically cheating the opponent.

Daseal, I guess I missed the answer to this, but did you ever point blank ask the professor? Or the TA's if the class has them?

Well, of course not, then there would be no "moral" dilemma.

Only in ignorance do we contemplate morality. <-- I am not sure what that means, but it sure sounds deep.

JoeRedskin, you're a lawyer. If there's a practice that's looked down upon, but a corporation can do it via a loophole. Is it wrong? Answer: absolutely not, it's legal. I'm just trying to find out what makes this situation any different in the minds of most folks.