Wiki contents

Journals

2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Week 03

 

Well, what a week. It has been a bit of a rollercoaster, but before reflecting on this weeks events, let me take you back to another occasion that I recall.

 

About a year ago I went to the funeral of a friend of mine, Ray Richards. Ray was a very well known publisher and as such knew all of New Zealand’s literary giants. He was quite a bit older than me and I enjoyed his company. On Anzac days he loved to regale us with his wartime tales of flying in the Pacific and his exploits with landing on aircraft carriers. Because of this Navy connection, his funeral service was held at the Naval Base in Devonport. All the New Zealand literati were there, including Professor Witi Ihimaera from University of Auckland who gave a very nice speech. I was telling another friend of mine what a lovely speech Witi had given. His immediate response was ‘Did he write it himself’? This was a reference to publishing The Trowenna Sea (Ihemaera, 2009) that included large sections that were apparently plagiarised. The University awarded Professor Ihimaera a $50k prize for the work. The book was later recalled after howls of protest. Plagiarism, apparently, was alive at the University of Auckland!

 

Fast forward to this week and we have a situation in our MGMT300 class that looks a lot like cheating has gone on. When Marina stood in front of the class and explained the process that the selection committee used, I was quite stunned. They had seemingly ignored most of the data supplied on the ‘CV’s’ and assembled teams on the basis of how high their share holder value was. It later transpired that they had first isolated their own CV’s. After the work was done, they were the remainder who formed the last, or first, team. We were not informed that this is how the selection committee formed their team but this was revealed later at a meeting of the CEO’s who were also informed that after allocating all the teams, the sixth member was the only person left who did not have a team. He just happened to have scored the highest SHV of the whole class at around $170. It was decided at the meeting that we would convene the next day to make a collaborative decision on what should be done. This did not happen. Peter announced that there would be no penalty or consequence for their collusion. As a concession to the other competitors Peter announced that should the selection team be the winners, he will allow the team that comes second to also take the 5% bonus. It sounds like cheating, it feels like cheating and it looks like cheating. My conclusion is that cheating is acceptable behaviour in the MGMT300 class!

 

I hold no bitterness or rancour to anyone involved as there is little danger of the team that I am in claiming the 5% bonus. We are not in that league. There are however a dozen or more teams who may be disadvantaged. I am lucky to be in a team that is perfectly balanced with three women and three men, three extroverts, three introverts and six people who will each do their best to help one another to complete the assignment to the best of our collective ability. We may not win the competition for SHV but we will be in with a very good chance to win the competition for collaboration, fairness and honesty!

 

Ihemaera, W. (2009). The Trowenna Sea. Auckland: Raupo.

 

5 Comments

  1. Hello

    Oh wow - that was quite the reflection, you definitely have some strong opinions. I agree with the unfortunate event that has occurred did put strain on the rest of the teams and was unfair. Yet I plead you to try to see the other side of the story, I am in no way justifying their behaviour. So I was reading a journal from a team member from that team and it seemed they had different intentions from what was presented. They should have informed us themselves and we as a class should have determined what happened, because we are the ones who are affected. I felt rather disappointed that Peter promised a collaborative approach and then took that choice away from us.

    I wish you had connected some of the readings to this, but then again this is your journal and your choice and I enjoyed it regardless. Dont underestimate your team, maybe because your team is balanced and of a collaborative nature you may just take out the 5%. All the best ! (smile)

     

  2. Hi Stephen

    I thoroughly enjoyed your reflection because you felt very strong about things that were said and done.  I appreciate your mention of your friend - Ray and the fact that the University of Auckland does have a very strict policy surrounding plagiarism therefore, cheating.  It did feel that the student voice was being muffled.  My take; in regards to your reflection pretty much says that if you are the customer in the real business world and as students we are the customers to the University - the customer is always right.  In addition, I would agree with Purnima to adding into your writing this week's readings and like he said, it is your choice and for what you have written - it wasn't warranted.  However, I do not agree with Purnima for his way of thinking that there is two sides to this ''situation'' because he obviously did not care to what was said, to belittle those that were honest and fair. I believe you have written the facts of this situation accurately.  In relation to the competition, go hard and relish the experience.  Good luck ...

    1. Im a girl. LOL hahaha all good

      And once again facts are also objective in how they are used. I respect your opinion as well as Stephen's, but I dont understand what you were trying to say when you used "belittle those that were honest and fair". 

      1. I apologise Purnima, I did not know you are female and now I do.  Secondly- in relation to ''belittle those that were honest and fair'' is when Marina announced on that Thursday in regards to those that had a low SHV, even adding that these students should think about dis-enrolling from the class, and then find out later what she did unintentionally - is not fair and not her call.  If anything - to undermine someone's integrity and dignity on that Thursday in HSB 352 was not the right thing to do. I was not happy and many others too - check out there learning journals. 

        1. All good. (smile) I agree with your statement and I did see many journals talking along the same lines. Lets hope this week is much more positive. (smile)