Rodriguez-Lopez 1

Rene Rodriguez-Lopez
Professor Jordan Ruyle
8 February 2016
CW 109C
Summary for essay 2: There is no Harvard Cheating Scandal by Farhad Manjoo for the Slate
Group
Rene- this is a good start, but you still have a lot of work to do on your summary. One major area
for improvement is to integrate signal phrases into your summary. This is a vital step in summary
writing. Including signal phrases means that you need to write your summary so readers know
that youre reporting someone elses words and ideas. Include 2-3 signal phrases per paragraphManjoo points out that, he warns that, Manjoo claims that
Also, you have paraphrased many of the important ideas from the article, but the organization of
these ideas in your summary is confusing. You can clarify this confusion by deciding what each
paragraph should be about and working to stick to that topic- group all of the ideas about the
importance of collaborating into one paragraph. Then you can group other similar ideas into
different paragraphs.
Finally, make sure that you have one introduction, 2-4 body paragraphs, and 1 conclusion
paragraph that ends with a couple of sentences giving your personal point of view on the topic.
Set these few sentences off with In my opinion, or My feeling is that or another phrase that
will signal to your reader that youre transitioning from summary to commentary.
See my comments for further revision ideas. Let me know if you have questions.
Over 100 Harvard students were accused for cheating on their final for Introduction to
Congress. Some university officials say the case is unlike any other. Crimson states some
students were plagiarizing; however, many of them did not copy each other as they collaborated
to answer the challenging questions. They should be praise for their cooperation as it mirrors the
type of work environment they will do in the real world but instead universities view this type of
teamwork as a means of cheating. Some students told New York Times that collaboration was
encouraged as their teaching fellows constructed their courses through an array of teaching

Rodriguez-Lopez 2

styles, even the instructor, Matthew B. Platt, sometimes advocated group work. Thus, it was not
unusual for students to exchange notes and reading material.
Some fellows assisted students on the final exam, as they cleared what some questions
were asking. Even though the exam explicitly stated, students may not discuss the exam with
others - this includes resident tutors, writing centers, etc it contradicts the methods they have
used to learn throughout the entire course, and the valuable teamwork skills they would need
throughout their careers in the real world. Thus, the students are not to blame but the tests
structure is to blame. Plus, the students who were unlucky enough to have poor teaching fellows
had no choice but to collaborate with each other. A lot of the questions consisted of how students
can think of discrepancies within the U.S. Government, it would not make sense to answer these
complex questions alone. It makes even less sense for the professor Platt to cancel his office
hours during the period of the final exam. The students had no choice but to collaborate. It does
not make sense to accuse these students because in order to succeed in the real world, they need
to inherit the techniques of the so-called cheaters.
The opposition has a case that group work makes it difficult to assess who engaged with
the material and who merely copied off their peers because they all have similar answers.
Universities still have many opportunities to measure individual academic performance through
in-class timed exams. However, with this open book, note, and web exam students were
essentially work together if they were to use sources as Wikipedia or Quora because those are
sources were built on teamwork. Its time to teach students that working together is a critical skill
needed for the real world, it time for the universities to prepare their students for whats to come.