"There is no 'cheating' in interpreting"

I frequently say this to my students and talk about "using one's resources." I truly do believe you can't cheat - if you know the topic to be interpreted ahead of time and google it, read through wikipedia on the topic, or even find the text itself ahead of time - that is not cheating - that is using your resources. A great tool and demonstrates thinking like a professional interpreter. 

Likewise, if a student who is attempting consecutive interpreting for the first time has seen a sample interpretation by their instructor, another student, or a professional interpreter that is not "cheating." That, again, is using one's resources. 

At the start of my teaching career, I was reluctant (but willing) to share a sample of my interpretation with my students for fear that they would be intimidated or that they would think my way was "THE" way to approach things. I was afraid they would see it as a "model" rather than a sample. I have always been willing to share a sample of my work with my students. I have even articulated that to them but they have rarely asked. I'm not sure what that is in response to. 

What I have noticed in my more recent terms as a professor is that when I do provide a sample of work, they learn from it. I am more likely now to either offer a sample to them or decide to do a sample on my own without waiting for a request.  Of late, most of the comments I get about sharing a sample have to do with students recognizing potential controls they could employ in their work. There is an air of "permission" in the discussion. Students are generally unsure of what is "allowed" in interpreting. When they observe an experienced interpreter work they get a better sense of what is "allowed" and what kinds of decisions are made by working interpreters. 

I think the value of sharing my sample with them live is that they then have access to my thought process, I can let them know my experience with the text, they can collect data on my work, I can share my perspective after doing the sample, and they can pose questions about the data they collected on the sample. This is much more beneficial in the long run than viewing "model" interpretations produced by interpreters who are not local and who cannot be accessed to find out about how decisions were made and what they were thinking. 

Circling back to "there is no 'cheating' in interpreting," if a student views a sample of work and is able to replicate a part of that in their work sample, that is not "cheating" but rather a demonstration of skill development and incorporation of new tools that student now has in their repository. A good thing!