News Forum - Thailand’s cheating lecturers – the stupid, lazy academics faking their research

[Thaiger]

Thailand’s cheating lecturers are under investigation as eight of the kingdom’s universities claim that a third of lecturers have submitted research papers that they bought on the internet and claimed as their own work. Sirirurg Songsivilai, permanent secretary of the department of higher education, told the media that… “Thirty-four universities have conducted separate investigations into …

The story Thailand’s cheating lecturers – the stupid, lazy academics faking their research as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Ramanathan.P]

It is not about cheating lecturers. It is also about who qualifies them for those research papers and what is the mechanism to qualify them. It is also the quality of the panel that qualifies them. Does those who are sitting in the panel to qualify the research papers also cheat? If that is the case then it makes no difference as those who have reached up also have cheated and hence the followers also follow that path

[kalyan]

I am glad to hear this in news, this is one of the reason no country send their students to thailand for education, neither the thailand students are recognised for prospective job.  Most of the Phd guys you talk to them you can understand what they really know and what they acheived.  It is grass root problem of education to higher levels.

 

[Grumpish]

One of the reasons why a degree earned in Thailand is regarded as almost worthless by most multi-nationals unless it's is backed up by a post-graduate qualification earned abroad (same goes for India). 

[Poolie]

That means all the Indian certified doctors in UK are unqualified. Good heavens!

[Ramanathan.P]

37 minutes ago, Poolie said:

That means all the Indian certified doctors in UK are unqualified. Good heavens!

Are you saying that the UK medical body is qualified to qualify unqualified doctors? Well if that is what the system in UK is, then let it be. 

[Poolie]

Just following the previous posters observations, is all. No names, no pack drill.

[Chatogaster]

 

There are 2 independent types of productivity relevant here but they seem to be fused in the mindset of some people.

A cheating teacher isn't a useless teacher just on account of cheating (that's something between the university and the teacher). If a student was taught by any such a teacher, it wouldn't depreciate their studies (that's something between the teacher and the student).

One type of productivity is defined in terms of the number publications (Not enough? … down go the funding and/or career prospects. Somebody did exceptionally well? … up goes the threshold for all). 

The other type is based on teaching ability (a combination of teaching skills and expertise/in-depth knowledge). 

Looking at who's behind the cheating "mules", it seems that universities are at the very least complicit in the act of cheating by neglecting to find the right balance between both types (i.e. by preferring outdoing other universities by having more publications rather than having better teachers, which isn't easily expressed in a single number).

[Grumpish]

3 hours ago, Ramanathan.P said:

Are you saying that the UK medical body is qualified to qualify unqualified doctors? Well if that is what the system in UK is, then let it be. 

Or maybe qualified to determine if those qualifications are not worth the paper they are printed on because they were bought instead of earned the hard way?

[Pinetree]

1 hour ago, Chatogaster said:

A cheating teacher isn't a useless teacher just on account of cheating (that's something between the university and the teacher). If a student was taught by any such a teacher, it wouldn't depreciate their studies (that's something between the teacher and the student).

That is a most ridiculous statement. A cheating teacher has no, or little, moral compass and is in no position to teach others, or to be in a position to inference others who are vulnerable to being taught by someone who is suspect and dishonest.  By definition they are not only unqualified,  they are people with a serious character defect, therefore useless in that profession. 

[Skip]

11 hours ago, Chatogaster said:

There are 2 independent types of productivity relevant here but they seem to be fused in the mindset of some people.

A cheating teacher isn't a useless teacher just on account of cheating (that's something between the university and the teacher). If a student was taught by any such a teacher, it wouldn't depreciate their studies (that's something between the teacher and the student).

One type of productivity is defined in terms of the number publications (Not enough? … down go the funding and/or career prospects. Somebody did exceptionally well? … up goes the threshold for all). 

The other type is based on teaching ability (a combination of teaching skills and expertise/in-depth knowledge). 

Looking at who's behind the cheating "mules", it seems that universities are at the very least complicit in the act of cheating by neglecting to find the right balance between both types (i.e. by preferring outdoing other universities by having more publications rather than having better teachers, which isn't easily expressed in a single number).

So your point of view is that corruption (cheating the system) is ok

[Grumpish]

14 hours ago, Chatogaster said:

A cheating teacher isn't a useless teacher just on account of cheating (that's something between the university and the teacher). If a student was taught by any such a teacher, it wouldn't depreciate their studies (that's something between the teacher and the student).

Not necessarily a useless teacher, however a willingness to cheat in one professional area makes suspect the integrity and professionalism of everything else that they do.