That's a bit of an overreach, isn't it, calling my writing incoherent and incompetent? (Edit: Parent clarified that "you" is meant to mean a hypothetical student, not me.) If more information is needed, as was the case here, we can ask questions. That's got nothing to do with author competence. It's not an essay contest. And why assume we know it all, filling in the gaps like that? In a discussion of ethics, this is a qualitative issue to say the least.
The concept of competence as you describe it is also very much a vague, subjective concern out of which you've just attempted to carve a covert competence contract. This leaves your blind spot unguarded because you are unknowingly making the discussion focus on you and your own competence level.
And this is a big part of why "hyper ethical" subjective ethics people struggle--they assume their view is right and don't ask questions of others.
I haven't said anything about your writing at all. Maybe it wasn't clear enough that I meant "you" as in "someone" or "one". I'm sorry it was possible to misunderstand my general statement as a personal attack.
This doesn't have to do with me either -- the market will determine whether any one person is valuable enough to employ (or promote). My only claims are that being able to write makes one more valuable, and that plagiarizing assignments at school fails to teach one to write.
Ah, I see what you mean, that it was not meant to refer to my level of competence. :) I did indeed read the "you" wrong. Thank you for the clarification.
Except that it clearly isn’t. There are all kinds of people in positions of power who are clearly incompetent in many of the skills we would want them to be expert in.
Often cheating enabled them to pass the gatekeepers and attain their position.
(Edit: Thanks for the clarification on the other comment--I had read the "you" wrong)
Sure, that example absolutely works. One reason why you wouldn't cheat is that you know that a specific outcome you want requires something of you that you must learn. I found it striking just how rare this was, though. We can fault students for not having made up their minds, but I found that many of them are just really open to new directions, and this can help to enable part of the plagiarism equation, but it's also something of a gift...
Anyway, talking to my students I discovered that the discipline is really often completely up in the air. So while the rhetorical / imaginary student's path for the purposes of argument might be be "study math -> work in applied math," quite often it's "study phil -> work in I don't know what" or similar.
The students who plagiarize with this mindset are really quite something. It's nuanced--they're smart about it, leaving no final question on which points against them can rest. For example, the student submits a first prospective paper in which they quote-paste for pages on end and then plagiarize not by direct-copy, but by reading and then re-hashing someone else's conclusion from a book or another paper, and they get a C+. Well, if a B- is all they need in the class, they are good to go. Then they take a reactive / tactical stance and only change this approach in the future if they absolutely have to.
This pattern happens over and over. If you attempt to pin the student down on qualitative issues, they have a number of tools to use here. You have to be ready for extreme negotiation. They _may not be able_ to learn about quality, ethics, etc. Shocking sometimes but it's a struggle for many. One of the most common negotiation techniques is, "I just...I don't understand. I'm really not that smart" and then they start crying or leave the room in a rage. This can instantly shut down a professor with average or greater levels of sympathy. The student converted the negotiating professor's original value proposition into a risky interpersonal issue. If further negotiations occur, they will find ways to illustrate why things are unfair to them. What is the prof going to do about that? Do they even have time for it at all?
Then you can go back to students who are in the "study math -> work in applied math" group. You look outside of the math classes and you can see the same pattern. They know wasted effort when they see it, or think they do. And again--some, not all. Savvy employers also weed out some of these people but then other employers hire them because they desire tactical cleverness in their organization, and they recognize it when they see it. Maybe it's how they got the boss job in the first place.
Not an assumption at all. That's from my subjective past experience, from having conducted qualitative research experiences in this area as I interviewed and taught students. I shared that experience in my original reply and would love for anyone else to do the same, referring us to their past experiences even anecdotally, rather than forecasting woe via subjective intuition.
My real world experience has taught me many developers cannot write (code or prose) and would rather jump in front of a bus than write their own original code. The next time I am tasked with candidate selection I will use an essay assignment as the first round of filtering.
The concept of competence as you describe it is also very much a vague, subjective concern out of which you've just attempted to carve a covert competence contract. This leaves your blind spot unguarded because you are unknowingly making the discussion focus on you and your own competence level.
And this is a big part of why "hyper ethical" subjective ethics people struggle--they assume their view is right and don't ask questions of others.