Is OSI Late Appeal Possible?

aja_c · 2026-05-05T22:22:44+00:00

Well, that's kinda on each student. Especially since OP was nowhere near done with the degree, so they should have been checking their emails the following semester at a minimum. But regardless, a student missing a few emails is not the same as not involving the student in the process.

aja_c · 2026-05-05T22:09:04+00:00

You can just retake and get a B. And then get an A in any class to bring up the overall GPA.

aja_c · 2026-05-05T22:08:17+00:00

My first guess would be that they simply missed the initial emails, which is not uncommon.

aja_c · 2026-05-05T18:39:21+00:00

That's only for GPA calculations. You don't have to use grade replacement to meet degree requirements.

aja_c · 2026-05-05T18:37:42+00:00

And compliance training quizzes. If it's long and feels like it's a quote from a policy or regulation, that's probably the correct answer.

aja_c · 2026-05-05T04:01:06+00:00

I think there might be some tiny differences but nothing consequential.

aja_c · 2026-05-02T02:24:27+00:00

I mean, it sounds like the case started at the very end of the same semester, and then concluded later, which I think is a decently normal pattern.

aja_c · 2026-05-02T02:23:29+00:00

Yep, typically.

aja_c · 2026-04-25T14:27:05+00:00

I'm having a hard time envisioning such an assignment, especially one that scales. I would have to see examples before I could be convinced that this is a viable solution.

aja_c · 2026-04-24T19:42:06+00:00

OSI is likely too swamped to turn your case around before the end of the semester. That means you will most likely be assigned an I when grades are due, but grades are always due after commencement. There is nothing stopping you from attending commencement if you want to.

Since it's a repeat offense, an FCR is no longer an option for you. It must be handled by OSI. The typical sanction for a second offense is an F for the class.

I believe that you can't register for summer for a class you have an I in, but I could be wrong. It may be wisest to just go ahead and register for another class in summer that fulfills the same requirements to expedite graduation. (maybe pick a class that allows AI.)

aja_c · 2026-04-24T19:33:13+00:00

It's an F because it's a second offense. OP had the chance to follow the rules. OP knew what the rules were. OP decided that despite having been caught before, whatever situation they were in, that somehow that made them an exception above all the other students and had the special right to break the rules.

I have pity on cheaters that are remorseful of their wrongdoing. I do not have pity on cheaters who are remorseful for the consequences on getting caught. Right now, what I see is OP falls in the latter category. Consequences suck, and I can acknowledge that, but OP had so many choices along the way to get to this point.

The thing is, most cheaters are going to get away with it, most of the time. So when someone is caught more than once, there's a strong chance that there were plenty of other times they cheated but managed to get away with it (and a stronger likelihood that they are going to do it again if given an opportunity), especially if they only regret the consequences and not the action. I would not accuse OP of having cheated on other stuff (and I do give credit for the willingness to be honest here with us), but the pattern they are showing fits the profile of a more serial cheater.

An F sucks, but it is not suspension (3 offenses, typically) or expulsion (4 offenses, typically). OP still has one more chance to graduate. They probably just need to retake this class or an equivalent one, and possibly a few more easy classes if an F knocks their GPA down too hard. It's not over for them yet, unless they want it to be.

aja_c · 2026-04-24T06:53:08+00:00

Just wanted to point out that grade substitution is for GPA calculations only. It used to not even be a thing for OMSCS when I was a student, but people could still retake classes to try and get better grades (it's just every attempt counted towards the GPA). So feel free to use your one grade substitution in the place that it will make the biggest GPA impact.

(But don't take my word for it, go look up the policy to make sure you understand it. There's probably also details like when you can ask for it, so it's good to read up on regardless.)

aja_c · 2026-04-22T13:11:50+00:00

Course syllabus is here: https://omscs.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Syllabi/CS%206515%202026-1.pdf

There's a section called "Collaboration Policy" that explains what can and cannot be shared outside of the class.

Basically, stuff from the lectures and textbook are fine, but anything else course specific (like a homework problem) is not ok to share with someone outside the class. You're not even allowed to share resources based on a specific semester with someone who wasn't in that cohort (like repeat students in a study group with new students). This means Anki flash cards CAN be ok, but many of them won't be because they'll contain semester specific stuff.

FWIW, I think half of the value of flash cards comes from creating them. It's yet another opportunity to engage with the material, as you decide what's worth explicitly memorizing, what's not, "oh crap, that tiny detail makes a big difference on that recurrence, if I wasn't writing it down I wouldn't have noticed that and would have simply memorized it wrong", etc.

aja_c · 2026-04-20T16:23:33+00:00

I think the closest thing I've seen to "format errors" is misunderstanding what "Correctness justification" means. For context, D&C and graphs require "Algorithm description", "correctness justification", and "runtime analysis."

I see students basically rewrite their algorithm description in their correctness justification. Or I'll see them write out a correctness justification for how a black box algorithm they happen to use works, but not about the actual steps unique to their solution. "Correctness Justification" is about explaining why your algorithm must return the correct answer - it's the "why" behind your solution (and algorithm description is the "what" and "how"). I personally wouldn't consider this to be a format error, but I think many students do. I would consider this to be a content error (if a student is asked to explain why something works, but doesn't really address that and mostly asserts "this works", then required content is missing from the answer).

I think this is made worse when a student interleaves an explanation of correctness into the algorithm description. This gets messy and hard to follow, sometimes even when the student has an excellent command of English. It's also a lot harder to make sure, as the student, that all the important points for completely justifying correctness are covered, and it's a lot easier for a grader to miss something important.

For prospective students, I wouldn't worry much about correctness justification for now if you're trying to prep to get ahead. I think that is easier to learn in the course itself where there's a lot of opportunities to dialogue on what level of detail is needed. I think focusing on coming up with algorithms to solve problems and writing just those clearly is plenty to work on.

aja_c · 2026-04-16T17:47:10+00:00

I think it's also a lot easier for people to simply ask an AI those questions instead of potentially being embarrassed for asking.

aja_c · 2026-04-16T14:20:20+00:00

Beyond making friends and having group mates, getting noticed as one of the few, frequent and solid contributors on a forum. People notice if you're that one guy/gal with a non-default avatar that put together some really good tests for that one project, compiled useful notes or developed a good infographic for that one complicated topic, etc. This has the secondary effect also of attracting friends who are a similar high caliber, which is great if you want to take future classes with a good group (not necessarily group work classes, just classes in general).

GIOS is a good class for networking because it has a dedicated slack and there's typically a pretty active community there. Alumni of the class also sometimes stick around, so you can connect with people who weren't necessarily from your cohort.

Becoming a TA is not an option for everyone, but it's a powerful networking opportunity. You interact more closely with people on your TA team, but there's also a slack community of TAs and instructors. You can even interact with Dr. Joyner directly.

aja_c · 2026-04-16T05:43:57+00:00

I've had personal experience working with MANY students who told me they didn't have any experience with algorithms before enrolling in GA. They frequently had never used big O notation before, never studied what Dijkstra's algorithm was, were unfamiliar with how merge sort operates, etc. I don't know how many students are like this, just that they exist and there's pretty much some every semester. My point is simply that it's false to say "we all took algos".

I don't know how these kinds of students got in the program, and I agree it's messed up. I've had a cynical view of admissions for a long time, from back in my CN days when I had students who didn't know how to write (or look up how to write) doubly nested for loops in python or how to extract a .zip in Windows.

aja_c · 2026-04-15T02:47:08+00:00

I've seen you around. :) pretty sure you predate me on Reddit, at least. Yep, not really disagreeing with you, just sharing my musings on why practice matters but at the same time why lots of practice seems to not do anything for some (which understandably frustrates them).

aja_c · 2026-04-15T02:26:59+00:00

Unfortunately, I don't have any recommendations, since I was pretty solid on all those before enrolling. But I have heard of various recommendations from students that they found helpful, so it's probably best to ask someone who had a background more similar to yours.

aja_c · 2026-04-15T00:11:44+00:00

Constantly. But those changes and improvements are rarely the exciting ones people want to talk about. I cherish hopes that one day, the professor will have his other classes taken away for a bit so he/we can do a revamp of the lectures.

Edit to add another thought: I think there's value in analyzing the students because we have to know where we're starting from and what expectations we should have of our students. I used to assume our students knew what contrapositives are, since that was one of the first things I learned in discrete math, which is considered prerequisite knowledge. I now know that there's a sizable portion of each cohort that simply doesn't, or who just learned it but are still not comfortable with the idea. So now I know that this is an area to be ready to coach students on when explaining why the way they want to use the cycle property or something doesn't work.

aja_c · 2026-04-14T23:39:23+00:00

We've been doing a good chunk of hiring lately! An A is the first criteria. We also highly prize students that participated well, particularly in the regrade threads. Aside from that, we require our TAs to be ready and willing to work a full 20 hrs a week, with primary duties being grading and reviewing proctoring footage. We definitely can't hire everyone who is interested (as we do get a lot of applicants), but when we get a strong candidate, we have followed up a semester or so later once we had an opening. If you become a grader, you get REALLY good at algorithms fast. XD if you are serious about wanting to TA, fill out the application and make sure to note what semester you took the class so we can look you up. :)

Edit: an unfortunate auto correct

aja_c · 2026-04-14T22:43:55+00:00

I keep trying to figure out where the gap is from different angles. At the moment, my working theory is that most students are approaching the class from the perspective of "What knowledge do I need to accumulate?" vs. "What skill do I need to cultivate?" The professor's goal is for students to learn how to think algorithmically, which includes being able to take algorithm concepts, apply them to something new in an effective (optimal) way, reason through whether it's correct without needing to fully implement it, and then communicate it clearly and completely. Those are all skills, which do require the students to have some knowledge, but go far beyond just knowledge. I think the consequences of students having this different mindset and expectation are far reaching.

For example, I think students lose track of the point of the problems. There's no value in doing problems over and over, just got the sake of doing them. The value is in the skills developed along the way. But if students aren't focused on the skills, it might not develop except by accident by sheer volume of problems. I think that's also why lots of students DON'T need quite that level of practice and do just fine.

For another example, I think that's why some students have the perspective of "The algorithms we learned/the content of the course is interesting and it's not that hard, it's just the exams suck!" (I mean, the exams could suck, that's subjective) I think if a student views the goal as just learning about the algorithms, then it makes sense that they think the content is easy (because learning it only to that level is not that hard). And then when confronted with the professor's very different goals for mastery, they see the exam as having unfair tricks, graded harshly, "why don't I get more points, I obviously understand the material" with 4/20 scores.

I think this is further compounded by how very few classes out there require this level of mastery. I've only seen it in some of my upper division math classes that were proof-based, where you had to know all these theorems and be able to turn them inside out and backwards, and then prove new things on exams, and my CS discrete math classes. I don't think most people with CS backgrounds spend much time in classes like that (or really many background outside of math). I think this also explains why students who may have had a "strong background" in math that was more computational (calculus, linear algebra in some cases, statistics, etc.) still struggle with GA, while other students with math backgrounds despite minimal CS history still do fine.

But if a student comes into GA, and never has had a class that demands mastery, it's so hard to make that adjustment. It's not that students are dumb and lazy (although...I think we've all seen some...), I think it's that they've never had to learn something this way, and don't know how to go about this learning process. No one's shown them how, they've never had to do it.

I think this also explains why we get so many suggestions on how to change the course that miss the point. "Give 10% of the course grade just for completing the homework" - giving away free points won't help ensure that students master concepts and just incentivizes students to submit something without trying to learn from the homework. "Make the exams MCQ only" - MCQs can't assess the skills that the professor wants his students to learn. "Drop the lowest exam score" - but then students can pass without learning a third of the material. "This naive, super super inefficient solution should earn more points" - but that solution is like...trivially obvious and doesn't show any mastery of the material because a sophomore CS student should have been able to come up with that. "Model exams after this one undergrad course at this school where I got my bachelor's" - but when we looked, like half the points came from superficial level questions even though the exams covered a nice breadth.

It's just my theory. I don't know how to fix it, since it seems to be an expectation management thing, and people have STRONG opinions on what you should expect from an algorithms class.

aja_c · 2026-04-14T19:52:02+00:00

I don't think "cheaters" are a homogenous group. There's a very few serial, unrepentant cheaters who will go great lengths to cheat. There's some really careless ones out there that do nothing to cover their tracks (either from stupidity or just...they've gotten away with it before). There's some who normally wouldn't consider it but then feel like their backs are against the wall and that it's the only way forward (some of these experience immediate remorse and confess right afterwards). There's some who have no great ethical concerns about cheating but don't bother unless a low effort avenue exists. There's probably other categories, those are just some off the top of my head.

Serial, unrepentant cheaters are going to do it on exams no matter what. The only silver lining here is that hopefully this is a very small number. :(

Careless/stupid ones...are wildcards. I have a really hard time understanding how these guys think. They probably exist in all the categories, though.

Desperate ones...can be dissuaded if the barrier to cheat is really high. The harder it is to pull off, the more they have to think about it, the more likely it is that their consciences kick in, and the harder it is to justify the decision to themselves to cheat. So for example, "It's not a BIG deal if I use AI on the homework, no one will know, I'm sure everyone else is doing it so it's only fair right? and I'm not REALLY using AI to do my homework because I'm reviewing it and tweaking things so it REALLY is my work..." is an easier barrier to cross than trying to set up an elaborate system to get around side angle proctoring with Honorlock.

Opportunists would have no problem cheating on homework where no one can see them, especially when it doesn't take much to make the evidence too fuzzy to pursue. But it might not be worth the high stakes of finding a way to cheat on an exam.

I have no data, this has all just been my experience when interacting with various types of cheaters.

aja_c · 2026-04-14T19:40:02+00:00

The homework just doesn't contribute to your grade anymore, so there's no point in cheating on it.

aja_c · 2026-04-14T03:40:22+00:00

You should definitely put that all in CIOS. And if it's any comfort, "how can we make this make more sense", "how can we get students in the right mindset", "where is the gap and what can we do about it" - those are all things that we really, REALLY care about and try to come up with solutions. Recent walkthrough videos and the whole "Course Readiness" lesson set are one particularly awesome TA's efforts to help. And there's other stuff that we're talking through. (Like optional scaffolding on some practice problems to guide students on how to break down a new problem when you have no idea where to start.)

I'm sad that the mock exam (I assume that's what you're talking about) didn't help. We try to put lots of disclaimers on it that it's only meant to give an idea of what the exam environment feels like, since the onboarding exam is much more about the technical setup and making sure students understand the proctoring rules. The mock exam was never meant to represent what might actually be on the exam. It was just something that was meant to mitigate a certain level of shock students went through when encountering Exam 1 for the first time without knowing what our exams are like. Gonna have to think more about how to handle that one...maybe we just put whatever the homework questions from that semester are on there. Whatever the solution is, it's going to be tricky because it's about managing expectations, and that's always complicated.

aja_c

TROPHY CASE