"Cheating" is good. School teachers and professors should not be the arbiters of how much money you earn later in life, but they are based on their subjective assessment of you (via grades).
Many do not realize the intensely adversarial relationship one is in with a teacher. You are not there to learn. You are there to get an A. In the case of social sciences, you support the ideas your professor espouses. In the case of CS, you do whatever it takes to get your code running as the assignment specifies.
Anything else is idealism which will harm your future earning potential. It's insulting to ask kids to surrender their future earning potential due to "ethics" in an academic world where ever top tier conferences and journals are filled with unreproducible BS science.
The people you're cheating are not your professors but your peers. For better or for worse, grades are used to rank people and mete out further opportunities and benefits. The professors already have jobs.
Let's unbox that a bit. In what sense are one's peers cheated when an individual cheats?
If the course were going to have 20% A-level students and now has 50% A-level students, what has been taken from the initial 20%? They were still going to be able to put on their résumé "4.0 GPA from Suchandsuch University."
Many do not realize the intensely adversarial relationship one is in with a teacher. You are not there to learn. You are there to get an A. In the case of social sciences, you support the ideas your professor espouses. In the case of CS, you do whatever it takes to get your code running as the assignment specifies.
Anything else is idealism which will harm your future earning potential. It's insulting to ask kids to surrender their future earning potential due to "ethics" in an academic world where ever top tier conferences and journals are filled with unreproducible BS science.