This post is one huge contradiction. It's a contradiction because cheating is the anti-thesis to a good work ethic. If you cheat your way through, then you are being dishonest in showing what work ethic you have.
I'm going to assume that you're challenging the viewpoint I made of the cheater. It was unfair of me to leave this to assumption: The issue of work ethic is moot, as the cheater already believes they have a strong work ethic when it matters. They believe that once they enter the workplace where they aren't in a "meaningless game" they'll be able to succeed there through hard work.
Critical Thinking Tangent:
The cynic views ethics from a standpoint of convenience. If one is cynical enough to believe that the whole system is a meaningless game then what else matters other than personal gain? Also, hypothetically(!), if one were to believe that degree requirements were simply in place to propagate unnecessary education programs, then why would they hold themselves to higher ethical standard than that corrupt (in their mind) institution/system? I still think the logic in a cheater's mind holds up.
What is ethical? Generally, ethics are defined by whatever philosophy is the most generally accepted. Personally, ethics are completely subjective. To a Christian, to try and save someone from eternal damnation in Hell is a gallant endeavor. To an Atheist, that same person is a misguided fool or worse: a deceitful propagandist. Within general modern philosophy, an ethical person would refuse to cheat on the logical assumption that if everyone did cheat, the system would fail to succeed properly. The cheater ethically assumes that everyone does what they can to get ahead, and that it is only fair they be given that same opportunity.
When it comes down to it, it's frightening how subjective "logic" really is. Objectivity really only leads to the values that contradict that which society champions. Pick up a Rand book and read what she calls "the virtue of selfishness" and how in her views, it is immoral to be anything but. The cases she makes are very different from mainstream philosophy, and very convincing. I'm not pushing Rand, but she's someone you should read if you are serious about logic or critical thinking, because chances are, she'll contradict your prejudices.
So in a nutshell: by your ethics, it might be contradictory, but ethics are completely relative.
Whether I believe any of this is anyone's guess. I could just be playing devil's advocate too