Introduction
The custom essay writing industry allows students to outsource their academic writing needs, There is an ongoing debate around whether utilizing these services constitutes cheating. One of the largest essay writing companies is Ultius, which has received accusations of enabling cheating through their model. This article will provide an in-depth look at the issue of Ultius cheating through exploring both sides of the argument and analyzing available evidence.
Does Outsourcing Writing Constitute Cheating?
There is no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes cheating in an academic setting. At its core, cheating typically involves claiming work is one’s own that was not independently created or allowing others to complete work on one’s behalf. Supporters of custom writing argue that outsourcing is not inherently cheating if the student transparently acknowledges assistance, while critics argue it circumvents the learning process and assessment of one’s own abilities. The determination often comes down to each individual school’s honor code and policies. Most explicitly prohibit handing in someone else’s work as one’s own without attribution or paying for/accepting a paper knowing it will be submitted for course credit fraudulently.
Evidence of Ultius Enabling Cheating
Accusations have been leveled against Ultius and other essay mills that their business models inherently enable and promote cheating. Critics argue companies profit from students seeking to fraudulently submit pre-written papers knowing academic integrity policies. Several key pieces of evidence support this perspective regarding Ultius:
Marketing that downplays attribution. Past Ultius advertisements emphasized quick turnaround and did not prominently discuss policies requiring transparent acknowledgment of third-party assistance. This could mislead students into believing papers can be directly submitted.
Lack of verification checks. Ultius does not require students to provide identification, course details, or instructor information to place orders. This allows for purchasing papers to potentially submit fraudulently without detection. Rival companies implement some verification of student identity and intended paper use.
Pricing structure. Ultius offers ultra-short deadlines and “urgent” orders at premium rates, features more conducive to last-minute cheating versus legitimate outsourcing. Discounts are also provided for repeat customers repeatedly purchasing pre-written work.
Copyscape findings. Independent analyses have found Ultius papers available for download that match submission records of students allegedly turning in plagiarized work for course credit without citation. This provides direct evidence of purchased papers being used for fraudulent academic dishonesty.
Lack of deterrents. Ultius does not appear to punish or ban customers found to have improperly submitted purchased work. Not enforcing contract terms regarding proper attribution removes disincentives for outright cheating.
No educating students. Critics argue Ultius and similar services should promote academic integrity by advising proper citation and ensuring students understand institutional policies if they are truly concerned with ethical outsourcing versus enabling cheating. Ultius provides no visible guidance on these issues.
Ultius’s Defense Against Cheating Claims
Ultius maintains they aim to operate ethically and their services are not inherently meant to enable cheating if papers are used properly. Key defenses include:
Contract terms require attribution. Ultius terms of service clarify all papers are intended for research/reference purposes only and must be properly cited or paraphrased, not directly submitted. Critics argue this is toothless without enforcement.
Cheating is the student’s choice. Ultius argues the onus is on students to abide by their school’s honor code, and outsourcing a paper does not necessarily equate to cheating if used with integrity by acknowledging assistance. Critics say the model risks enabling dishonest behavior.
Marketing now promotes ethical use. Ultius overhauled disclosures and marketing in recent years to more prominently explain papers are for reference/citation, not direct submission. Although past issues remain concerning according to critics.
No individual proof of impact. While Copyscape and other evidence suggests some purchased papers have been improperly submitted, Ultius maintains there is no definitive evidence directly implicating their company in individual cases of confirmed cheating. Correlation does not equal causation.
Following industry standards. Ultius argues their lack of identity/use verification and buyer punishments mirrors standard practices in the essay writing industry. While competitors have taken some additional precautions, full due diligence remains rare.
Weighing the Evidence on Ultius and Cheating
Upon examining the arguments and evidence on both sides, there are reasonable cases to be made. Outsourcing alone may not necessarily equate to cheating, and individual student choice/responsibility also comes into play. Ultius’ past promotional approaches and business operations seem to have created an environment conducive for abuse and plagiarism when papers are purchased for quick turnarounds or eminent deadlines. While the company claims marketing reforms, a lack of verification, monitoring submitted work or penalties for misuse undermines the argument they adequately deter improper handing in of pre-written papers. Overall, Ultius’ model appears to enable academic dishonesty more so than comparable services that implement prudent precautions, though direct causation in individual cases remains difficult to definitively prove without admissions of guilt or documented infractions. The debate over their role in cheating is likely to continue without resolution.
Conclusion
Outsourcing academic writing through custom paper companies occupies a gray area regarding what constitutes cheating according to different stakeholder viewpoints. While Ultius claims papers are intended for proper reference and not direct submission, evidence indicates their past marketing and lack of student/paper safeguards created an ecosystem vulnerable to abuse. Reforms have occurred, but prudent measures adhered to by competitors could better ensure academic integrity is upheld if papers are acquired. As long as disincentives for fraud remain limited and potential for misuse exists, accusations of complicity in cheating will persist against Ultius and similar services. Individual responsibility also factors in, and direct causality is challenging to prove. The debate reflects difficulties balancing innovation with upholding educational standards.
Andrew Stroud