Ok, I am bloody confused right about now.
I've finally found an example of what is expected from the Harvard Referencing System which goes pretty much like this:
"Introduction
Fashion retailers are consistently recognised as the most prolific of international retailers (Hollander, 1970; Fernie et al., 1998; Doherty, 2000; Moore et al., 2000; Wigley and Moore, 2007). While the general fashion and general merchandise fashion retailers (Moore, 2000) have been the focus of some academic attention (Laulajainen, 1991; Moore, 1997; Doherty, 2000; Doherty and Alexander, 2004, 2006), luxury or designer fashion retailers have attracted more consistent attention and form the basis of the current work (Laulajainen, 1992; Fernie et al., 1997; Moore et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2004)."
From: "Flagship stores as a market entry method: the perspective of luxury fashion retailing"
This basically looks like Copying & Pasting multiple parts from almost the same sources to form sentences and paragraphs.....how is this an essay??? It's a freaking jigsaw!! As far as I can tell, the whole article looks pretty much like that...and I seriously have no idea what this is supposed to represent.
Apparently it's supposed to mean you understand what you're reading and can stuff it together to make a coherent point...which I seriously don't get cos it just looks like a legal form of plagiarism to me.
Also, what makes it even more baffling is that we're supposed to be writing for a Research Proposal, assuming we were working in a company. I have no idea about British companies but if I gave this to any one of my ex-bosses I'd get it tossed back and told to actually use my brain instead of just taking what others say.
*bangs head on table*
Perhaps I really shouldn't bother to use my head and just do the same if it guarantees me good marks!! In which case I just don't see the point to this.
Simply put....if you want a damned essay just say you want a damned essay! Don't give it to us and ask us to think like Marketing Managers or Brand Managers because seriously no self-respecting working person would do this! Academics! Pah!
A wolf is a wolf, even if you dump layers of sheepskin on them! *scowls*
This is what being in academics require:lots of referencing to show that u hv done your homework.it isn't plagiarism bcos the article quoted excerpts and mentioned the references,which was what Selva expected frm us.
ReplyDeleteAs usual,what is expected frm the academic point of view is very different frm what the industry actually does. It is frustrating at some point,but soon you'll get used to the fact that all these r for academic purposes only,so,to hell with it.grit ur teeth n give them what they want.
Cheers darl,it will be over soon :)
Actually, I know this is necessary but the reason why I was mad is simply because there in no thought process and yet they mark you for a perceived thought process! Apparently how well you piece the jigsaw together is how well you are marked. Or rather, how many references. It seems the longer the ref list the higher the marks which is, of course, irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteThe dumb dumb part is they keep rubbing it home that this is supposed to help when we are working. HOW is this supposed to help when they don't wanna hear how much we understand from what we read but how well we...type it? And maaaaannnnnnn if I did this at work I can tell you terus MAMPUS~!
And then they confuse us all the more by telling us we have to write from a working point of view...which isn't what they want at all. At least I'm sure Selva was consistent in that point. I just wish those dumb academics would just SAY what they want instead of all the cryptic crap they keep spouting which changes every week.
Who said Western education was supposed to teach critical thinking? Absolute BS~!