SOS 110 and LIB 495 Course Due Dates and Organization hack

[Pats20]

The professor said "preferable," which means it's not mandatory.

For the assignments, professors often place a grading emphasis on your ability to incorporate their feedback into your assignments. This is why I would give them a chance to grade your prior assignment and not turn in the next one until 1-2 days before it's due.

This isn't my first rodeo.  Here's what the "professor" wrote to me after I called out the assignment changes:

Brian,
 
There was a problem with the assignment that you submitted. The SafeAssign program is a plagiarism detection tool that revealed a score of 44%. 

This suggests that there is content throughout the assignment that is the same or too similar to content from published sources e.g. books, articles or internet websites.

Remember that only changing a few words from a published source is not paraphrasing.

Please send a private message in the private mentor forum to address this issue.

Please indicate that you have read the explanation of the Safe Assign Program and watched the video.

Dr. Journey



This was my reply:

Hello Dr Journey,

I did review your comments and my submission.  As SafeAssign was covered in the syllabus, I did read this.    

In reviewing the originality report, the highlighted content includes common content like the question from the assignment and university name; a passage I quoted directly in quotes as well as referenced in the sources; and all of my seven references were highlighted. 

I am unaware of how else to cite a direct quote from a source or present a sentence that is not based on my original research.  I work in this field, but I am not qualified to submit a paper of my opinions without any references to back up my opinion.

For this assignment, I drew from seven different sources and all were cited in my references.  I drew the salient points to draw a conclusion about cybersecurity.  Where I drew on the sources, I cited them.

For example, here is one portion of a paragraph:

"Since the root cause of most cyber security incidents is a preventable human error, businesses should focus on employee awareness in addition to technological measures to minimize risk. (EC Council, 2021) Responsible business managers should develop a cybersecurity plan that includes employee awareness training, multi-factor authentication and technological barriers to minimize the risk of an attack on their business. (IBM Security X-Force, 2022) With cyber-attacks increasing 15% from 2020 to 2021, business is on notice that cyber-attacks and cybercrime merit their attention. Despite these statistics, a survey by UpCity reveals that 50% of businesses do not have a cybersecurity plan in place. (Brooks, 2022)"

In those three sentences, I cited three different sources.  EC Council's source indicate that the root cause of cyber security incidents is human error; IBM provided specific steps a business can make to reduce that risk and the Brooks article provided data in increases in cyberattacks year over year and the statistic that 50% do not have a cybersecurity plan. 
 If this was the incorrect method to cite other's work, is there a different way to do so?  These concepts were not mine but they belong to the sources I cited.


Basically, she gave me a zero because the orginality report highlighted my cover page, one direct quote and the entire references page.  I contested but will let you know when if the grade changes.

Her "preferable" turned out to be not to be questioned.

That’s scary. I hope it works out for you. It’s just common sense when most of the flagged material is cited direct quotes and the reference page.  Professors are in full control. They can make or break you. I don’t say too much to them. You won’t win with them. I just try to stay quiet and fly under the radar. Especially the English professors. They seem to care more about APA format than the actual content.