The Awards: 7

I (humbly) note that I've been placed on the Department of Psychology's Honour Roll with Distinction (HRD) for the three courses I taught in Winter, 2012. Plus, I was also placed on the HRD based on the evaluations of the PSYCO 496/498 Individual Research/Individual Study students I supervised over the past three years. That means I've been awarded HRD a grand total of 101 times. Thanks!

Now, by popular request, here are some of the best comments on my evaluations from Winter, 2012. As always, sarcasm filters are off. Beware!

From PSYCO 365:
Dr Loepelmen (?) was a good prof overall. However, explanation of concepts boils down to stating studies that didn’t work, then those that did. I know it’s important to study all aspects of theories, but spending such an excessive amount of time on weak theories feels like a total waste of time.

(But, see, it’s not all about getting the “right” answer or the “correct” theory, but about the process of science--the weighing and evaluating evidence. This may be a shift from 200-level courses, but that’s what I’m trying to do in my higher-level courses.)

Loepelmann is a sweetheart, but his teaching is kind of strange. He randomly starts a new section, making all the lectures blend together. Personally, this makes it difficult to really learn the topics.

(I do try to make things flow, but that’s often very difficult to do.)

Dr. Loepelmann sometimes says things in a way that make it seem like he’s trying to make himself look better in light of other profs ex. “no other prof tell you when the evaluation day is” or “no other 300-level course has Advanced in the title.” He is an excellent prof and I love taking his classes but sometimes phrases like that put people off.

(The way I remember it was, I asked if any other profs put the course evaluation on their syllabus. At the undergraduate level, there are also: PSYCO 414: Advanced Methods: Monte Carlo Techniques, and PSYCO 423: Advanced Topics in Developmental Psychology. My point was that there are very few courses with "advanced" in the name.)

Although exams were tough, I felt adequately warned.
Exams were tough, but fair since it is a 300-level course.

(I did warn you. True dat.)

Professor Lopelmann made this course worth going to every day. I really appreciate the humour perfectly slotted into an enthusiastic lecture every day. I wish I could always be so excited to go to every class.

(It’s fun for me to go to class every day, too.)

Being so stressed about your written exams turns this course into absolute hell.
I feel the fact that the tests are all written is unfair to those students that get stressed by written exams.

(Sorry about that, but I do want to challenge students, and written exams are appropriate for a 300-level course.)

Fuck you for constantly making fun of my accent. I’m from rural Alberta. This is how I talk. Go to hell you prick.

(You’re from rural Alberta--hey, me too: Lacombe, Alberta!--but you have a Southern U.S. accent? Because that’s what I’m going for. You must really have a hate on for Larry the Cable Guy, whose accent is an imitation. By the way, I actually wasn’t making fun of you, personally.)

Loepelmann as a prof is annoying in general -- his anecdotes aren’t funny (although he seems to think they are).

(I get that a lot.)

I thought the quizzes were a great way to make sure I kept up with the material…It’s really easy to fall behind in post-secondary courses and this helped me stay on top of everything.

(I’m glad that helped.)

It’s very sad that you perception courses are ending as I have really enjoyed taking them.
I am very disappointed that this class is being cancelled. I believe the study of perception is very valid and should be offered in this format.

(If I’m not allowed to teach advanced perception as a special topics (PSYCO 403) course--then I’ll be really disappointed. But if I can, having a smaller class will allow me to do things like have students write papers, for example.)

I would have enjoyed having an essay assignment to pursue the current research about a specific topic in greater depth.

(That’s what I’m talking about!)

One of my favourite profs at UofA =) The course material can be dry at times but Loepelmann makes learning it enjoyable…he’s the only prof in my 3 years that I can honestly say that about.

(Thanks.)

From PSYCO 104:
He talks to us as if we were babies with a sarcastic tone in order to be funny. He has a great collection of jokes; however, it the Tone of voice he has when explaining concepts which pisses me off.

(Aww, widdle bitty sad because big bad instwuctor has a tone of voice? That’s an example of sarcastic baby talk. Seriously, what tone of voice?)

Making students read the textbook is very time consuming.

(Yeah, and making you take all of these courses for your degree is, too. Sheesh!)

Instead of making us read the whole text, could you make life easier and tell us specifically what we need to read?

(Oh all right: Every second word.)

Exams should be more on lecture content, and less on textbook. If we don’t cover the content in class, it shouldn’t be on the exam.

(Oh all right. Lectures will now go from 3 hours/week to 30 hours/week so I can cover everything in the textbook. You’re welcome.)

You know when you make jokes and maybe one person laughed? It was probably always me.

(Thanks, mom.)

Information was so simplified, that at times it was incorrect, and I felt unsure if I could trust the validity of a lot of the information.

(I do my best to strive for accuracy. If there’s something incorrect, please let me know and I’ll do my best to correct it, and let everyone know.)

I am disappointed with how the instructor chose to portray Freud. He made a valuable contribution to psychology, and his underlying thesis that ‘Dreams have meaning’ is a concept that is not disproven. The teaching clearly biased this material by inappropriately portraying Freud as the ‘butt of a joke’. Showing pictures of action-figure Freud + making fun of dream symbols was unnecessary. And I felt personally insulted when the instructor insinuated Freud was a homosexual, as if that was the cause of his ‘ridiculous’ claims.

(You are correct: Freud’s thesis has not been disproven--but that’s because it’s not falsifiable. That makes it more of a...philosophy than a scientific theory. Those dream symbols we went through in class? Those are from Freud’s writing. I didn’t make those up. And I did NOT mean to imply anything about Freud’s sexuality. Yes, Freud was fond of smoking cigars, but “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”)

• I object to the fact Arts students need to take Science courses. The style of teaching, learning and assesment is not compatible with the Liberal arts education I am trying to get.
• If the faculty, the province and the university provided proper funding, this class could be smaller then the massive size it currently is.
• M.C. testing is NOT a good method of evaluating a wide range of students, it rewards those who can ‘Bark on demand.’

(1. Wikipedia seems to think that liberal arts includes social sciences, psychology, and science. I guess the UofA does, too. 2. I agree. 3. See #2.)

I liked his jokes + when he brought his daughters to class. I’ll babysit =)

(I only brought them because school/daycare won’t take them if they’re vomiting. Er, still want to babysit?)

From PSYCO 267:
So cute and short! With his little drinking cup! Guess you’re going to get the teaching award for the 9371th time?

(My...little...drinking cup? I’ll have you know it’s a full-sized mug. You can buy it at the Bookstore. And I’ve only won the Honour Roll (with Distinction) 101 times.)

The NOTE’S NEVER Matched the textbook!

(Never? At all? Maybe you’re just focusing on the differences. Or you bought the wrong textbook.)

Excellent instructor. I did not use the textbook the entire course.

(Um, OK. Are you bragging?)

The book was basically all I needed to read.

(Um, OK. Are you bragging?)

Terrific, knowledgeable professor, but his lecture notes were lacking “substance.” His notes were often just a glimpse and taste of what would be on the exam.
Karsten went too in depth during class on topics, when on the exams the questions were rather general.

(*Sigh* So this is the kind of problem I face: my notes are insubstantial to some people, but too substantial to others.)

I found I could not leave to go to the washroom during class because I would miss a word in my notes.

(If you gotta go, you gotta go. If you do miss a fill-in word, I encourage you to come up at the end of class and I will help you out. Or you can try asking someone else in class.)

Loepelmann makes a very difficult course interesting to learn. The only reason I took this course is because I knew he was teaching it. His enthusiasm encouraged me to work harder and I did way better than I expected to. Best prof I have had a the U of A in my 3 years here.

(Thanks for the kind words.)

The Virtual Labs rarely worked, had great difficulties with them as they did not print. I could only get the labs to work in Google Chrome.

(I, too, am not impressed with them, and I’ve talked to the published about that. I am evaluating other options. Thanks for the info about Chrome.)

My one complaint is the labs. It took me failing 3-4 different labs to understand how to answer questions. Neither our prof or TA would help answer questions which was very frustrating from a students’ perspective.

(My TA this term was a very strict marker; I tried to encourage her to be more lenient on labs later in the term. I’m sorry that my feedback on questions was limited. I do that on purpose, because I frequently email along the lines of “Here’s my answer. Is it right?” I can’t answer emails like that; it’s not fair to the rest of the class if I pre-mark your answers. So that’s why I and the TA are ambiguous. But it seems like you were able to adjust and improve your marks over the duration of the term, and that’s great to see.)

The prof knows his stuff, but makes very annoying clicking sounds when he talks, and lecture in a very strange way.

(I don’t *tic* know what *tic* clicking sounds you’re *tic* talking about. I apologized a bunch of times for the stupid microphone in that classroom, which kept making annoying clicking sounds. Sorry if you missed that.)

Mic would break up a lot in class - so it was a little hard at times to hear him thoroughly.
One setback would be the microphone cutting in and out throughout the class. Hopefully that can be resolved for future classes.

(Sorry about that. See, it was the mic and not me.)

Awesome prof!

(That doesn’t help me at all! But thanks!)

I am going to write a collection of words that pop into my head. Maybe this will reveal something about my inner psyche.
peanuts  searing  Nike  snow  cayenne pepper
uncanny  trivial  Steve Jobs  sprinkles  annoying
happy  magikarp  hawaii  wishes  shut up
toaster  futile  halo  dolphin  por favor
beard  Don Cheadle

(I was eating peanuts while searing my Nike shoes with snow and cayenne pepper.
It was uncanny how trivial Steve Jobs-shaped sprinkles can be--and annoying.
My happy Magikarp comes from Hawaii (it wishes!). Shut up!
My toaster made a futile attempt to play Halo, but my dolphin did say por favor.
Who has a beard--Don Cheadle?)

Why aren't you studying?

The Cuts

As you’ve probably heard, the Faculty of Arts, like all other Faculties, has had to chop 2% from its budget. The Department of Psychology, which receives its operational funding from Arts (despite offering courses in both Arts and Science), has been directly affected by this AdPReP (Administrative Process Review Project).

It is with great sadness that I report two long-time administrative staff in the Department of Psychology general office have been laid off. Bev has been working in the office for 28 years, and Jan for 23. Their layoffs necessitated a reorganization, which prompted resignations from Kathy (an admin assistant for the past 29 years), Sharon (who has been coordinating research participation for 14 years), and my assistant, Chris, who has been bailing me out for 17 years.

These five ladies have made up the core of the Department’s administrative staff. They, and their collective knowledge, will be missed terribly. If there was anything anyone wanted to know about the Department, among the five of them, they knew. Where are the scantron sheets? When’s the deadline for submitting my indents? What was the name of that grad student who worked with Alan Kingstone in the mid-90’s?

Chris, in particular, has saved my backside more times than I can remember. See, I have this frequent habit of very carefully slamming my office door shut, thus safely locking my office keys inside. Chris has a spare that she’s loaned me so I can retrieve my keys and return them to her with a sheepish “thanks--again.” She’s always had all of my paperwork ready for me in advance, booked rooms for me, and even went to my class in 2004 to tell them I wouldn’t be coming, as I was still at the hospital after the birth of my first daughter.

I’m going to miss all of these great people. I want to thank Bev, Jan, Kathy, Sharon, and Chris for the years of hard work they’ve contributed to the Department of Psychology. And I would like to wish all of them the best in their future work and personal lives. I’m going to miss all of you.

My job (and that of others, too) is going to be a bit harder to do. If I’m a bit late to class, or arrive sweating, out of breath, and stressed out, you’ll know why. (Don’t ask me, “Did you lock your keys in your office again?” please.)

Why aren’t you studying?

The Awards: 6

Although I was nominated, I didn’t win the Kathleen W. Klawe Prize for Excellence in Teaching of Large Classes this year. Oh, well. Congrats to the winner in the Department of Chemistry.

I did, however, receive two TUTAs: one for "The Fine Print" in my syllabus, and the other was shared by everyone who taught in Spring, 2011 term (the award was: we were all named to the Teaching Honour Roll--every single instructor).  Oh, and I also made the Teaching Honour Roll with Distinction for all of my Fall, 2011 courses. Let’s see what kind of feedback I got in PSYCO 104.

(***Warning! Snarkiness filters are now disengaged! Proceed at your own risk!***)

“...the pacing of classes was too slow. As a result, I found it difficult to focus in class & often times drifted into Stage 1 sleep. If anything, I prefer Dr. L’s blog to the class - sorry.”

(Good application of knowledge about sleep stages there. However, blog material will not be on the exam.)

“Class is to slow. Move faster through material during class in order to cover all topics in text. Then students do not have to learn a majority of exam material on their own.”

(So...in university...you don’t want to learn material on your own? Really?)

“Very biased towards evolution. did not know textbook information was needed for midterm 1. Would be nice if turned speakers louder.”

(1. It is a science course, right? 2. I told you in class that most questions would come from the textbook, and that information is also on the syllabus. 3. Please let me know this before the course is over. Thanks.)

“Dr Loepelmann, here’s a haiku for you.
     Dr. Loepelmann
     You are the ray of sunshine
     Of my gloomy life.
Best prof evarrrrr!!”

(Nice! Thanks! Um, sorry about your life, though.)

“I believe that examining on questions in the textbook NOT covered in class is [not] fair to students. Important aspects of the course which is tested on exams should all be covered in class.”
“I would recommend if he could just base his exam on his notes or specifically tell us which page or information from the text his exam will be on.”
“The amount of information included in the course are not all tested so should therefore not be used.”
“I didn’t purchase a textbook and there was nothing on them that wasn’t discussed in class or was in the notes.”
“...liked how the textbook made up the majority of the test questions, yet the lecture notes expanded on the ideas of gave a different viewpoint instead of simply rehashing what we’ve already seen in the textbook.”
 “The textbook was boring and too long. The instructor’s exams were TOO HARD for a 100 level course. We have to study both the textbook and his notes for the exams. Are you kidding me? The information from the two sources doesn’t at all relate. I will never recommend this instructor to anyone, in fact I will tell them to avoid him. I hate Dr. Loepelmann.” [f-bomb deleted from comment]

(Thanks for spelling my name right.)

“LOVE THE FUTURAMA REFERENCES, HOPE TO SEE ONE ON THE FINAL.”

(“Good news, everyone! There was!” Also, STOP SHOUTING.)

“Dr. Loepelmann is a top class teacher. Entertaining, fun, friendly, open, are words I would use to describe him. I have a certain phobia of questions. I was taught as a child that ‘there is no such things as a stupid question’ but I never believed that. Dr. Loepelmann is someone I feel comfortable bringing my questions to.”

(Thank you. And you’re welcome.)

“We should go for a Beer!”

(Only if you can find beer with caffeine in it.)

“Learned much about my future desired profession.”

(Good luck to you, future psychologist.)

“Dr. Loepelmann always had jokes up his sleeve in every lecture. I would like to know if he comes up with them before the lecture, or on the spot.”

(Yes.)

“Karsten Loepelmann is the bomb. So fun and funny and intelligent.”

(You have no proof of that.)

“Dress up everyday!!! In Jedi uniforms!!!”

(No!!!)

“I really appreciate the ‘For Further Reading’ section. It shows the dedication of the teacher and allows those who are interested to pursue more info. Thank you.”
“I found myself researching what we learned outside of class -- a very good sign.”

(Keep on learning...!)

Here are some comments from my PSYCO 267: Perception class:

“To the Department: Why would you cancel this course? It was so refreshing to take a course that emphasized understanding and not just simply memorizing...Perception is a worthwhile subject!”
“I am disappointed that this class will no longer.”
“This class shouldn’t be cancelled. What were they thinking.”
“So sad it’s being cancelled.”
“Don’t get rid of PSYCO 267! It’s an interesting & valuable addition to any aspiring psychologist’s repertoire.”
“[heart] perception”
“The loss of PSYCH 267 as a course is a travesty!”

(Just to be clear: PSYCO 267 will be renamed PSYCO 367. It is PSYCO 365: Advanced Perception that will be killed. However, I plan to teach it as a special topics course. So it’s not dead, just a zombie.)

“Multiply choice was designed to trick students and not reflect their knowledge. It is also not fair that the tests were more heavily weighted on text.”

(I don’t understand. How is that not fair? I did tell you about the weighting.)

“Dr. Loepelmann spoke VERY quietly and was always very hard to hear.”

(PLEASE let me know this before the course is over. My time machine is in the shop.)

“Instructor was overall not helpful when it came to notes for missed classes. Offers no assistance - Insists students find help from other students - Not him.”
“Thanks for emailing me the notes when I needed them!”

(Er, um...right. Sorry. And you're welcome.)

“Wonderful to see lots of recent research applied into the course...”

(Thanks.)

“Excellent instructor, deserving of a raise.”

(Aw. Thanks, mom!)

“Stay funny.”

(I wish.)

“...the instructor seemed like he would fit in on The Big Bang Theory. That was awesome.”

(But they already have a short, handsome nerd with glasses.)

“The amount of animal abuse talked about in this course bothered me and affected my learning as an intelligent, compassionate human being. Other research options are available and should be used in modern research. Animals are not ours to use for research, entertainment, or personal gain. The intelligence of humans can be measured by their compassion and understanding for the suffering of others.”

(No animals were harmed in the making of this blog.)

“Nice prof; attempted to make dry material interesting. Give him A for effort =)”

(Sorry, there are no grades for effort in university. Oh, and I’m not a prof, technically.)

“I wish you posted more on your blog through the term. You have some serious nerd credibility. Although you responded to every comment but mine on one post so I was kind of pissed at you for a week. Now I feel sad. Sorry...Live long and prosper.”

(May the force be with you.)

Why aren’t you studying?

The Sigmund Freud Action Figure

In my last post, I mentioned waiting anxiously for my Sigmund Freud action figure to come in the mail. I'm pleased to report that it has arrived. Say hello to my little friend!

I am, however, now faced with a dilemma. Do I take him (it?) out of the package? Because then he won't be MIP anymore.

On the other hand, he is a toy, and toys should be played with (as "The Transporter Malfunction" taught us). But, as that Big Bang Theory episode also taught us, toys can get broken.

Out of the package (with the great big "SIGMUND FREUD" label), however, he just looks like an old white guy in a suit--doesn't even look like Viggo Mortensen. Heck, he could be mistaken for Wilhelm Wundt if you don't look too closely.

So in the box he stays. You can see him (it?) if you visit me during my office hours. But no playing with him. Anyway, that would be...weird.

(Yes, you can buy one of your very own.)

Why aren't you studying?

The Lost & Found

Ever felt like you were losing your mind? I sure did. I had a bad week: I lost my mailbox key. Argh! My wife had long ago misplaced the spare one. When that happens, you have to notify Canada Post and they’ll re-key your mailbox. That costs $29. In the meantime, you can’t access your mail. My Sigmund Freud action figure is going to arrive any day now!

Then, I misplaced my office keys. Argh! I can still get into my office--I just have to sheepishly ask my admin assistant for a spare key, and end up looking like some absentminded professor. How embarrassing!

Luckily, I found my office keys, right on the floor at home where I, er, dropped them. And my younger daughter found my mail key, right on the floor at home where I, er, dropped it. Then I noticed I lost my USB flash drives. D’oh!

This wasn’t as extreme an event as you might imagine. No, there was no “sensitive information” on them, just all of my lectures and some backups. Anything important was encrypted with TrueCrypt. I thought for sure I had left the drives in their little wallet in my intro psych classroom, but they weren’t there. Well, no big loss. I had already ordered a new 32 GB USB 3.0 flash drive anyway. More than anything else, it was just further proof that I was losing my mind.

So the next day, I went to my perception class, and a student came up to me and asked me if I had lost my wallet. Whaaaaat? No, not my wallet-wallet, my USB drive wallet. Turns out he gave a presentation in my intro psych classroom and found it where I, er, dropped it. It had some of my business cards in it, so that’s how he knew it was mine (thanks!).

So it turns out that I’m not actually losing my mind, I’m just losing a lot of stuff, and then getting it back.

I’ve found a lot of things in classrooms over the years, and have had a lot of things turned in to me by honest students. Things like wallets and phones I usually bring to the Psychology Department Office, and have the admin staff open it up and contact the owner. Other items without ID in them, like flash drives, MP3 players, and calculators, are usually left in the classroom, in the lockable drawer at the front, or sometimes are given to Campus 5-0. They have a lost & found service; their office is 11390-87 Avenue (Education Carpark). Finally, mitts, sweaters, water bottles, etc. are usually just left in the classroom, until the end of term. After that, I don’t know where they go.

There’s usually a lot of lost stuff that accumulates. Please, people, try to hang on to your stuff.

Why aren’t you studying?

The New Chairs

Check out my fancy new ergonomic office chairs. Woot!

A few weeks ago, we in the department were asked if we wanted new office chairs. It's probably surprising that, in this climate of budget shortfalls, such an extravagant expenditure would be possible. Well, there's "hard money" and "soft money." Hard money funds things that are required, like the salaries of staff and faculty, but soft money comes and goes. The recent (and ongoing) budget cuts affect hard money. (Alarmingly, because I am not a professor, I am apparently paid out of soft money. Eek! Keeping fingers crossed!) Anyway, these chairs are funded out of soft money.

I had the option to decline these new chairs and just keep my old ones. If I had done that, I would have saved the university some money. So why did I opt to get new chairs?

Getting new chairs is not a common thing. In fact, it's become a once-in-a-generation event. Literally. The old chairs I had in my office were around since before my time--they were new before I was an undergraduate. Yup, they're around 30 years old. If I had chosen to stick with my old chairs, new chairs might not come around again for another 30 years. If my contract is not renewed, wouldn't the person who inherits my office like to have chairs from this century?
In case you think I'm a spendthrift, I did turn down the offers of new filing cabinets and new desks. (And I'm still going to use my old gray-and-beige chair--I brought this one from home. It was a birthday present that I used at home, but as a spent more and more time in my office, it just made sense to move it to campus permanently.)

On the other hand, I did accept the offer of a box of paper and some "Department of Psychology"-branded pens. Oh, and then there's my iPad 2 that the university... But that's another post.

Why aren't you studying?

UPDATE #1: My fellow Faculty Lecturer, Dr Jennifer Passey, also decided to get a new desk for her office. That is, she wanted to have a desk--period. Since she was hired, she's only had a table to serve as her desk!

UPDATE #2: Almost forgot to mention--I also got a foam rubber brain with "Department of Psychology" on it. Mmm, brains.

UPDATE #3: It's like Christmas! Today in my mailbox, there was a box of pencils, a roll of tape, a staples, a box of staples, a staple remover, paper clips. sticky notes, a highlighter, a ruler, and two red pens. My desk drawer is stuffed!

The Academic Dishonesty

I spent a whole lot of time this weekend writing a letter to the Dean about a case of “academic dishonesty” (i.e., cheating) in one of my classes. This is not fun for me--I do not cackle with glee, exclaiming, “I’ve got you now!” in a Darth Vader-like voice. (I only do that when I’m marking exams--kidding!)

My TA in the course--who is very sharp--noticed that some answers on a written assignment were, um, identical to those on a website you might have heard of: Wikipedia. Now, there’s nothing wrong with going to the Internet to look for answers to a question--I’m googling and wikipedia-ing (?) all the time. What is important is making the right use of your sources.

First of all, this means deciding, is it a credible source? Is the information presented credible? Is it correct? Does it apply to what I’m even looking for?

If you decide to use that information, it is essential (required, OK?) that you make it clear and explicit that the ideas you are presenting are not your own. You cannot just cut-and-paste your answers. No, no, no. At the very least, you must (again, this is required) paraphrase from the original source. That means that you have to put it in your own words. How do you do that? The UofA Libraries have great information on what to do, and how to do it. Student handouts are available at the Guide to Plagiarism and Cyber-Plagiarism.

Here are examples of good and bad paraphrasing, from the Purdue Online Writing Lab:

The original passage:
Students frequently overuse direct quotation in taking notes, and as a result they overuse quotations in the final [research] paper. Probably only about 10% of your final manuscript should appear as directly quoted matter. Therefore, you should strive to limit the amount of exact transcribing of source materials while taking notes. Lester, James D. Writing Research Papers. 2nd ed. (1976): 46-47.

A plagiarized version:
Students often use too many direct quotations when they take notes, resulting in too many of them in the final research paper. In fact, probably only about 10% of the final copy should consist of directly quoted material. So it is important to limit the amount of source material copied while taking notes.

A legitimate paraphrase:
In research papers students often quote excessively, failing to keep quoted material down to a desirable level. Since the problem usually originates during note taking, it is essential to minimize the material recorded verbatim (Lester 46-47).

See the differences? And look how the legitimate version includes a reference to the source of the information. All those names and dates in my courses? Those are citations to who did the research--I certainly didn’t do that study or make up that theory. It would be ridiculous for me to claim that I did.

You also shouldn't, say, hand in another student's work and pass it off as your own. Students may think that's harder to catch, but you'd be surprised. (Sorry, but I'm not going to explain how that works, but it is possible.)

The bottom line for all of this is: Do your own work. There is value in doing that--you’re getting an education. If all you do is cut-‘n-paste (and get away with it), what are you going to do when you’re in a job and have to do work for real? When there’s nowhere to cut from? That’s when you’ll be in real trouble.

Plus, if no one plagiarizes, I won’t have to spend time on the weekend writing letters to the Dean.

Why aren’t you studying?