Today the search for information is much less labor-intensive than its processing and analysis. Therefore, in the preparation of work, it is often quite possible to limit the use of the Internet, which does not develop the analytical skills of students. As a result, the performance of the work is meaningless, since its main task is not being carried out. Students can motivate their unwillingness to analyze the questions of the given topic by the fact that they will still not be able to achieve the quality of work that more experienced people achieve. This is recommended to answer that in the work the author's conclusions are most important, his own vision of the question, and in the process of performing the task the person first of all learns himself, develops his own style and develops thinking. To achieve the effectiveness of such an approach with our mentality is quite difficult, a lot depends on the teacher, on his ability and desire to establish normal interaction with his students.
It is more difficult to deal with the "crowd effect" ("everyone does it!") And with those cases where the student's preference is not to acquire the maximum of knowledge, but simply to get an assessment. The most effective here is the direct struggle against plagiarism. In particular, one should not allow non-independent works to get high marks, since the latter demotivates: it makes no sense to write the work yourself and get a low estimate for it, when the borrowed works are evaluated higher. Then the effect of the crowd will automatically decrease. Again, the problem arises of the teachers' desire to check plagiarism, for which computers cannot be dispensed with. The necessary software for developers already exists, but so far its involvement is experimental and episodic.
The above general recommendations with minor modifications are applied in most foreign universities. Interesting additions to them. Thus, the Canadian University of Bishop's University warns students that plagiarism is not allowed not only in the finished work, but also in its draft version, handed over to the teacher for preliminary examination. The student can show his work to a friend, so that he "looked from the side" and pointed out possible errors in the logic of the text or the grammatical correctness of his writing. However, a colleague should not rewrite fragments of the text or help with its translation, if the required language is not native to the author of the work. And plagiarism at the university is considered a serious offense, because he "insults the teacher, is dishonest towards fellow students and to himself and destroys the process of university education." The University of Toronto emphasize that plagiarism ("literary theft") includes including rewriting a friend's homework or writing off on the exam. Interestingly, the students themselves consider the use of cheat sheets on the exam a more serious misconduct than the surrender during the semester of work performed by other people.
To expect the soon spread of the above-described academic standards in relation to "borrowing someone else's text," at least, is very optimistic. Perhaps, this will help the notorious "Bologna process". In any case, according to the stated requirements, even this article is plagiarism: the rules for citing have been violated, too much of the text has been written from sources, it is not always clear which abstracts are borrowed from sources and which ones belong to the author himself, etc. But the desire to acquaint the readers with the modern understanding of plagiarism as a negative phenomenon, as well as the peculiarities of the newspaper style, which do not allow us to give a complete list of literature at the end of the work, and in the text - page references, made it necessary to write the material in this way. I hope this will serve as a certain justification for the forced plagiarism allowed by the author of the article.