A country’s global and wealth effectiveness relates to the way the educational system operates. Dishonesty in the academic realm weakens the high standard of education. Moreover, dishonesty does not work in favor of the academic system’s goals, which is to produce respectful and responsible people in the society. The standardization of academic cheating conducts impacts the soon-to-be decision makers of the land. Thus, the students’ practices and notions concerning academic integrity influence their business ethics as well as their individual values.
In recent years, there had been a growing interest in studying the ethical behavior due to the increasing rate of ethical scandals happening in the education industry. Misconduct in academics has been studied in various literary works. Such phenomenon is an ordinary activity for a lot of students. Nevertheless, the issue of cheating has become more serious, and studies show that there has been some rapid expansion in the number of students who cheat. Some researchers associate the increased rate in cheating incidences to the rapid technological advancements as well as the spread and expansion of the internet. These have paved the way for students to make use of their resources to cheat. To discourage cheating behaviors, it is essential to understand how students perceive things and the factors that influence their choice to perform dishonest acts.
Cheating, particularly among college students, has been widespread. In a study by Rokovski and Levy (2007), the rampant case of cheating has become an ethical concern to the business and academic communities. Federal legislation, as well as corporate scandals, has delivered greater attention to the ethical conduct of leaders in business and the function of higher education in honing and training the future leaders (Rokovsky & Levy, 2007). If students conduct dishonest and unethical behavior, they may bring this behavior with them in the workplace.
The availability of past and current examinations on the internet has facilitated cheating behaviors among the students (Thibodeau, 2007). In a frightening restoration of a basic method of cheating, among college students, substitutes are likewise accessible for hire to conduct accreditation examinations in the exchange over thousands of dollars of payment (Thibodeau, 2007).
Of various courses in college, business courses appear to be strongly fascinated in cheating activities. Simkin and McLeod (2010) recognized a strong linkage between college cheating and workplace cheating. Studies found that the inclination to cheat in college extends even up to the office. Such has been a concern among schools that prepare their students in entering the corporate world (Simkin & McLeod, 2010). An associated difficulty is the increasing community belief that business platforms comprise mechanisms that impart ethical conduct. Eastman et al. (2008) posit that in the insurance industry, ethical conduct influences certain businesses such as life liability as well as property-liability and the business success, reputations, as well as the professional associations of those conducting their duties in the field.
There are several factors that trigger students to cheat. According to Simkin and McLeod (2007), the first factor that motivates students to cheat is the opportunity. Even though this usually does not apply to cases in which exams are being proctored, this appears to be greatly apt in situations in which students can and have accessed to some resources online. In a study conducted by Abdolmohammadi and Baker (2008) concerning plagiarism, it was discovered that around 30% of the papers made by undergraduate students and one-fifth of the papers made by the graduate students were all lifted from different web sources. Simkin and McLeod (2007) further state that the second factor causing students to cheat is their strong desire to become successful. The majority of the students believe that to accomplish their goals, they need to cheat. Such behavior contradicts the goals of K-12 education. Athletes who are always engaged in various athletic activities reason out that cheating is the only answer for them who have limited time to study. Because there are no penalties imposed on students who are caught cheating, this only triggers for the greater incidence of cheating behaviors (Simkin & McLeod, 2007). A lot of professors refuse to prosecute the cheaters. A moral code is another factor that explains the cheating activities conducted by a majority of the students in college. In a study by Abdolmohammadi and Baker (2008), it was discovered that moral logic was an important variable that explains why high moral codes individuals seldom participate in cheating compared to those who do not have such high moral codes.
Cheating behaviors among college students seem to be a growing and pervasive phenomenon. This behavior is particularly a growing issue in business courses that commonly teach ethics yet discover that cheating is very rampant in their field. To reduce cases of cheating, Simkin and McLeod (2010) suggests further study of cases of students who simply cheat to be successful yet end up suffering negative consequences. It is also essential to reinforce intolerant culture towards cheating by creating a moral culture that does what is right instead of what is best for selfish reasons.
References
Abdolmohammadi, M. J., & Baker, C. R. (2008). Moral reasoning and questionable behavior. The CPA Journal, 78(11), 58.
Eastman, K. L., Eastman, J. K., & Iyer, R. (2008). Academic dishonesty: an exploratory study examining whether insurance students are different from other college students. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 11(1), 209-226.
Rakovski, C. C., & Levy, E. S. (2007). Academic dishonesty: Perceptions of business students. College Student Journal, 41(2), 466.
Simkin, M. G., & Simkin and McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat?.Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441-453.
Thibodeau, P. (2007). Cheating on IT Exams May Cast Doubt on Their Value-Thieves,'gunmen' look to profit from stolen technology certification tests. Computerworld, 41(18), 1.
