Morality of Solution Manuals For College Homework

I recently got into a discussion with a former professor about the morality of providing college students with a solution manual to problems in a textbook. I’ve taken several of my emails and re-written them here, polished up a tad bit.

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

Background Knowledge: Many college courses use textbooks to help provide reading material, as well as assign homework from. Many of these textbooks have a companion solution manual, published by the same publisher. Most professors attempt to tightly control access to these solution manuals.

The Question: Is providing students with a solution manual morally wrong?

I submit that the point of taking a college class is to learn useful knowledge and skills.

I submit that students are taking the class of their own free will, and in fact paying to take it.

I submit that if a student fails to learn material, the only being harmed is that student. (No one else!)

If a student was taking classes just for themselves, there would be no need for anything other than learning. No need to exams; No need to prove knowledge to anyone. However, this is rarely the case. Most commonly, students take college courses in order to get a degree (and therefore a more profitable job). Since Purdue (or whatever university is in question) grants this degree on the assumption that students are really learning the knowledge that is taught, Purdue is putting their name on the line to say that X student does know X knowledge. Therefore I'll concede that X knowledge needs to be tested in some way. Hence we have exams.

I therefore submit that the purpose of exams is to test knowledge, while the purpose of homework is only to help students learn.

This affects our current topic (a solution manual to homework problems in the textbook). If the sole purpose of homework is to help students learn, then testing and proving knowledge should be no part of it (That should only come into play during exams). It doesn't matter if a student knows the material during or after homework. From this it follows that homework should not only not be graded, it should be optional. In a perfect world, homework would be optional completely, and if turned in would be checked to provide feedback to students; it would not be graded though. This would allow students the opportunity to learn, without punishing them for not learning fast enough.

We don't live in a perfect world though, and there is also the consideration of how to we keep students involved. Many professors feel the need to force students to be involved. Hence homework is graded (and attendance is recorded). While I disagree with both of those, it's just the world we live in. We can mitigate them though, by making homework (and attendance) worth very little. And by dropping stupid homework policies like keeping track of how students complete homework. This brings us to the solution manual.

With students that use a solution manual, there are three possible situations (One might argue that 2 and 3are the same, but I'll address each separately for the sake of logical completeness).

1. Students attempt homework problems before looking at the solution manual, using it to check answers and help with areas they still don't understand
2. Students copy word for word from the manual without first attempting the assignment, but still pick up a lot of the knowledge just through memorization and repetition.
3. Students copy word for word from the manual without first attempting the assignment, and learn nothing.

Lets examining all three of these possible scenarios.

In scenario 1, students are learning the material without copying. I've found that most professors don't object to this, but also don't believe that it ever happens (assuming instead that students will always take the easy way, and that any other assumption is just nativity). Regardless of the frequency though, if no one objects, then it's not a problem.

In scenario 2, students are copying, but still learning. I've found that this scenario too is assumed to be highly unlikely by most people. And unlike scenarios 1, I'll concede that it probably is. However, again regardless of the frequency, if the student is still learning, then it's not a problem.

Finally, we have scenario 3 (The only area where there seems to be actual disagreement). These are the students who will look at the solution manual, copy word for word, and not learn anything. These students are the reason that professors for the most part try their hardest to remove solution manuals from general availability. But here is the thing. There's nothing wrong with students doing this, and here's why.

If you look at my assertions 3 and 4 together, I submit that students who are learning for themselves are responsible only to themselves. Responsibility to Purdue only comes into play when Purdue is putting it's name on the line to vouch for a student. Since exams cover the testing and validation of knowledge, Purdue is covered. Therefore until a student takes an exam (during homework, for example), they are responsible solely to themselves, not to Purdue (and not to professors). If a student doesn't want to learn, then a student doesn't have to learn. It follows that if a student doesn't want to complete homework assignments or do complete them in a way that doesn't help learning, then they don't have to, and professors shouldn't be attempting to force them. It is the professors' job to teach students who are willing to learn, not to control students who are unwilling to learn.

This covers all three possible situations that arise from students having a solution manual. If none of them are objectionable, then having a solution manual isn't objectionable. Additionally, another reason that banning solution manuals is silly is that going to office hours has the exact same result. Solutions are provided. And nearly every college course has office hours.

Facebook Friends

I listed a story last week on NPR concerning Facebook; more specifically the concept of ""Facebook Fatigue". The idea is that people have so many "friends" on Facebook that their newsfeed contains more information than can be reasonably processed. People spend so much time that they finally realize the only way to cope is just to leave Facebook, either temporarily or permanently. This story on NPR was about someone taking a different approach. Instead of deleting herself, the author deleted all of her friends. Thereby having zero newsfeed entries to watch.

Now, I fail to see the point in this. Deleting one's account and deleting all of one's friends has in the end the exact same effect. And it's really, really dumb. It's akin to someone who realizes, 'Woah, I eat too much food. What should I do? I know, I'll just eat NOTHING from now on." Anyone health expert (and anyone who isn't a complete moron) will tell you that literally starving yourself isn't a good idea.

The thing is, deleting everyone or just running away from Facebook is the lazy route. It's saying that yeah I have a problem, but I don't want to take the time to fix it so I'm just going to run away. An admission that one doesn't have the willpower to use this tool without abusing it.

The real fix is to just start using Facebook correctly. That starts by looking up the definition of friend. Merriam-Webster gives several definitions, such as "one attached to another by affection or esteem". My own definition of friend can be shown in the form of two questions:

1. If John was walking down the street and saw me without me seeing him, would John come over and say hi.
2. If I saw John walking down the street and saw him without him seeing me, would I come over and say hi. (Be honest!)

Now if the answer to both those questions isn't yes, then John isn't really my friend. He might be an acquaintance, or a classmate, or a co-worker. He's not a friend.

You can set your own definition of friend, the above is just mine. For less friends, go stricter; for more, maybe your definition is a little bit more lax. But when you come up with that definition, you stick with it. The solution to Facebook fatigue if you want to do it right, is to spend some time and go through your friends list. Go through person by person and decide if said person is really a friend by your definition.

Start with the easy stuff, delete anyone that you've never met. Maybe you added them to boost your numbers or because they added you. Either way, they certainly aren't really a friend. Next, start deleting the people you haven't seen in years. Your high school classmates, co-workers at a place you used to work, etc. See where that gets you in numbers. Finally start looking through people that you know currently. Maybe classmates, maybe co-workers. Just because you know someone vaguely doesn't make them a close friend.

One thing that will make this more rewarding is by keeping track of your numbers. Check how many you have before you start, and then check after you are finished. It'll probably feel pretty good looking at that second number and realizing how much unnecessary baggage you no longer have to see every day in your newsfeed. You could even set yourself a goal, or do this over time. Say you have 600 friends. Try to get down to 400, just remove the least connected people. Then wait a while and get used to it. Maybe you'll be okay right there, or maybe you want to go further and try to get to 200. (Even 200 is rather huge, how many people have 200 "real" friends?) Still, take your time. Eventually, you should try to get under 50. Anything under 50 means your Facebook friends list is approaching parity with your real life friends. If you can get there, you'll find yourself with no more Facebook fatigue. (Without having to give up Facebook entirely).

---

Of course as a side note, you can always change the formula. If you see one person that might not really be a friend but who is maybe useful for some other reason, keep 'em. Nothing is set in stone. Making your life better is the make goal, so if you have to bend the process, bend it.

Engineering - 6 Weeks In

I've now had a real engineering job for 6 weeks, and I think I'm starting to settle in. The first few weeks were mostly setting up the field office, buying desks and chairs, getting the tech up and running, setting up the paper trail, etc. The last month though, I've really started to get into things. My job consists primarily to two areas: Technical drawings, and being a conduit for questions (from sub-contractors to the official design engineers. In the past month, I've learned some things.

1.) Affter 4 years to get an engineering degree from Purdue, I know basically nothing about what is done here in the real world. I'd be frustrated except that I've realized that really...

2.) ...Entry level engineers are basically sponges. Or at least, good entry level engineers are. Sponges in that most of the job really is just soaking up knowledge and trying to learn as quickly as possible.

3.) The "Final Version" of a project schedules isn't complete until the project is. (Additionally, MS Project sucks.)

4.) In-company politics do happen, even especially at a small company. (One reason that I'm so low in the hierarchy at this point; I'm almost still an outsider, so I watch rather than participate).

5.) Fairness is a great thing in a boss. Everyone screws up, and I'm certainly no exception. Getting my ass chewed out after I do doesn't really bother me. But getting yelled at for doing what I was instructed to do (or not doing something that I was told not to bother with) gets old real fast. Having a boss that yells only when it's deserved is a treasure.

6.) Never buy a car from Hubler Chevrolet in Rushville. They'll pressure you, they'll lie to you, and they'll try to slip in $2400 in extra cost, hoping you won't read the contract. (Not directly related to the job, but I only bought a car because I have money from the job).

7.) Windows XP sucks.

8.) Computers that run Windows XP and are a decade old suck.

9.) 2013 HP Probooks running Windows 7 are wonderful.

10.) ALWAYS keep phones numbers and business cards.

11.) In the field, lamination is almost a necessity.

Dieting

Over the summer I started really heavily exercising, and in a period of 4 months went from being able to job for about 30 or 40 seconds to being able to run for over 10 minutes. I lost about 15 lbs, and overall felt better. Then I went back to Purdue and just put it all on hold.

Over the weekend though my girlfriend and I were talking about weight and the physical condition we are both in, and I'm now going to start it back up. This time I'm not just going to be exercising, but also counting/recording calories. For my current weight of 215 lb, 2700 calories/day will let me maintain my weight, and 2000 calories/day will let me lose 1 lb per week.

I've created an Excel sheet where I can put in food items each day and figure out my exact calorie intake. In my free time though I might turn that into a web application instead, to make input and display easier. I'm also going to start weighing myself every morning and putting that on the daily calorie sheet, just for record keeping and to see my progress.

The short term goal is to get under 200 lbs. Long term, I'm shooting for 170 lbs. That'll take a while, but the slower you work it off the more likely it is to stay off.

Online Tracking

I have to wonder if Facebook is in fact sharing my information despite their assurances that it doesn't happen. Today I opened up AccuWeather to check the radar and temperature for the day, and I saw on the side of the screen an advertisement for Pioneer Seed.

Now up until recently I had never heard of Pioneer. And I'd never seen ads for them on the internet. Well then I get a job working on a Pioneer Seed plant and suddenly I start seeing ads for them. The only places on the internet that I said anything about it are Facebook and LinkedIn. I updated my employment history on both just to keep it up to date. This means that either the internet just randomly decided that I was in the market for seed, after all these years ..... or that we are in fact being tracked by advertising companies, and that more significantly, they are getting info from Facebook/LinkedIn.

Wonderful.

How O'Charley's "Screwed" Us

My brother Alex is attending my alma mater (crazy to say that word now), Purdue, next year. He (or more accurately my parents), got some good news in the mail today. They are giving him the Presidential Scholarship, which is quite a bit of money that we won't have to pay, for all four years. So to celebrate, we took him out to O'Charleys.

It's one of his favorite restaurants, and probably favorite sit down one here in town. Only when we got there, we found a surprise. Upon ordering soup and getting it, my brother took a few bites and then saw, sitting in the soup, a giant iron screw. Pictures below:





The pictures are kind of blurry, but it was most certainly a screw, and a large one at that. This was on top of them having to try three times to get my hamburger right, twice to get my dad's drink correct, and one time just forgetting my own drink. Not the best service in the world.

The manager did apologize quite effusively, and comped our entire dinner drinks and the soup.
 

Holy Moly I'm Back

So you may have noticed that I haven't posted anything since October of last year. I can attribute this to my life getting busy. A, I met a girl. And B, I just recently graduated from Purdue and got a real job. Prairie Engineering was the lucky firm that snapped me up. I'm working on building a corn seed treatment facility in Rushville, Indiana.

Lets see, besides graduating, getting a job, and finding a lady, not much has changed. I'm still the libertarian, geeky, philosophical engineer that I've always been. One sad thing is that Catstache has sort of died down. I don't have time to do anything with it, unfortunately. It's still legally a company, but it's inactive.

I'll try to start posting here again. Most of the reason I haven't been is that it's been so long that every time I look at it I feel guilty for not posting, and so put it off. Well, here's the first one in months, so hopefully we'll break the trend. For now though, I'll leave you with a song.