Ha, I also had professors take the meta on this and reply that: if you have the will to collect, sort, manage, archive and circulate the past course material, you will do just fine in the real world and do our school proud (just as project managers, not technical staff). Good old rationality is winning philosophy.
To be more explicit: This is done by fraternities and sororities. (Or sometimes StudyBlue). I wouldn’t exactly say that it’s about will—it’s mostly about being “hooked up”. Also, keep in mind you are punishing students who don’t participate due to ethical scruples.
I think professors who take the meta on this are using the is/ought fallacy to rationalize doing what is more convenient.
Very true and valid points, especially regarding being hooked up, I overemphasised the work involved. There is no doubt some rationalizing for convenience on top of the very real is/ought mentality (that I was caught in until I had to write a coherent reply).
The below is on how students should exam instead of how professors should exam, which are tangent on your points. But I wrote it, so i’m going to post it.
Don’t forget the very students that are ‘hooked up’ with fraternity exam libraries and StudyBlue (that I’m not familiar with) become the productive employees that are ‘networked’ with their professional organizations and peers.
Those students are handicapping themselves based on their perceived ethical right thing. This is a similar argument to the ‘we shouldn’t be shallow so I’m not going to play the appearances game’. You are not winning by taking an ethical high ground, you are forfeiting for the sake of your ego.
Maybe there is something to exam writing in a way that captures that there is more to a successful university graduate than course mastery, but any attempt to defend it from the exam writers end looks very is/ought.
that I was caught in until I had to write a coherent reply
Upvote for catching yourself
Those students are handicapping themselves based on their perceived ethical right thing. This is a similar argument to the ‘we shouldn’t be shallow so I’m not going to play the appearances game’. You are not winning by taking an ethical high ground, you are forfeiting for the sake of your ego.
You could say that… or you could say that they don’t wish to sacrifice to Moloch. You’ve got an argument that allows you to give into any and all perverse incentives here. Collectively, you’ll lose the prisoner’s dilemma, you’ll lose the tragedy of the commons, you’ll collectively lose in general wherever perverse incentives rear their heads even while individually winning. Where does it end? Why not just pay another student to take the test for you and write your name? Who would notice in a large classroom? It’s just smart management to hire people who have a comparative advantage, right? The movers and shakers of tomorrow need to learn that skill!
Refusing to play the appearance game is arguably about ego (or counter-signalling, or apathy) but I don’t think that applies here because no one actually believes being appearance-conscious is immoral...shallow, at worst, maybe.
Rationality is winning, but winning is having the world arranged according to your preferences and most people’s preferences include moral preferences. If cheating on a test makes you feel like scum, makes you feel like you’ve lost, and perpetuates an incentive structure that you’d rather did not exist… how is that rationality?
Are we comfortable saying that this a conflict between ethical altruism and ethical egoism?
I acknowledge the arguments are sound from the altruist perspective. If I argue them, my arguments will not be altruistic. Lets retable this discussion for elsewhere as ‘a convince me altruism is better’ discussion, without limiting the discussion to post secondary testing. There is a popular perspective that if you are rational, you will agree the altruism is the answer. I’m not convinced of that yet.
If altruism/egoism is too narrow, we can use wants-to-kill-Moloch versus Moloch-can’t-be-killed-so-make-your-sacrifice.
I’m comfortable with that. I don’t think rationality == altruism, but I do think if altruism is your preference than it’s irrational to not be altruistic, and I further think the typical human prefers to be altruistic even if they don’t realize it yet. I think altruistic humans are happier than non-altruistic ones, and the “warm fuzzy” variants of altruism cause happiness. (Cheating is like the anti warm fuzzy. It is a cold slimy.)
Like I said
Rationality is winning, but winning is having the world arranged according to your preferences and most people’s preferences include moral preferences.
Absent that last clause, you can get into a debate about when altruism is-and-is-not rational (and at that point we’re not talking about morality and we are talking about game theory, so we should stop using the word “altruism” and instead use “cooperation”), but since we’re all human beings here I implicitly took it as a terminal value. I agree that there can be rational minds that do not work that way.
Ha, I also had professors take the meta on this and reply that: if you have the will to collect, sort, manage, archive and circulate the past course material, you will do just fine in the real world and do our school proud (just as project managers, not technical staff). Good old rationality is winning philosophy.
To be more explicit: This is done by fraternities and sororities. (Or sometimes StudyBlue). I wouldn’t exactly say that it’s about will—it’s mostly about being “hooked up”. Also, keep in mind you are punishing students who don’t participate due to ethical scruples.
I think professors who take the meta on this are using the is/ought fallacy to rationalize doing what is more convenient.
Very true and valid points, especially regarding being hooked up, I overemphasised the work involved. There is no doubt some rationalizing for convenience on top of the very real is/ought mentality (that I was caught in until I had to write a coherent reply).
The below is on how students should exam instead of how professors should exam, which are tangent on your points. But I wrote it, so i’m going to post it.
Don’t forget the very students that are ‘hooked up’ with fraternity exam libraries and StudyBlue (that I’m not familiar with) become the productive employees that are ‘networked’ with their professional organizations and peers.
Those students are handicapping themselves based on their perceived ethical right thing. This is a similar argument to the ‘we shouldn’t be shallow so I’m not going to play the appearances game’. You are not winning by taking an ethical high ground, you are forfeiting for the sake of your ego.
Maybe there is something to exam writing in a way that captures that there is more to a successful university graduate than course mastery, but any attempt to defend it from the exam writers end looks very is/ought.
Upvote for catching yourself
You could say that… or you could say that they don’t wish to sacrifice to Moloch. You’ve got an argument that allows you to give into any and all perverse incentives here. Collectively, you’ll lose the prisoner’s dilemma, you’ll lose the tragedy of the commons, you’ll collectively lose in general wherever perverse incentives rear their heads even while individually winning. Where does it end? Why not just pay another student to take the test for you and write your name? Who would notice in a large classroom? It’s just smart management to hire people who have a comparative advantage, right? The movers and shakers of tomorrow need to learn that skill!
Refusing to play the appearance game is arguably about ego (or counter-signalling, or apathy) but I don’t think that applies here because no one actually believes being appearance-conscious is immoral...shallow, at worst, maybe.
Rationality is winning, but winning is having the world arranged according to your preferences and most people’s preferences include moral preferences. If cheating on a test makes you feel like scum, makes you feel like you’ve lost, and perpetuates an incentive structure that you’d rather did not exist… how is that rationality?
Are we comfortable saying that this a conflict between ethical altruism and ethical egoism?
I acknowledge the arguments are sound from the altruist perspective. If I argue them, my arguments will not be altruistic. Lets retable this discussion for elsewhere as ‘a convince me altruism is better’ discussion, without limiting the discussion to post secondary testing. There is a popular perspective that if you are rational, you will agree the altruism is the answer. I’m not convinced of that yet.
If altruism/egoism is too narrow, we can use wants-to-kill-Moloch versus Moloch-can’t-be-killed-so-make-your-sacrifice.
I’m comfortable with that. I don’t think rationality == altruism, but I do think if altruism is your preference than it’s irrational to not be altruistic, and I further think the typical human prefers to be altruistic even if they don’t realize it yet. I think altruistic humans are happier than non-altruistic ones, and the “warm fuzzy” variants of altruism cause happiness. (Cheating is like the anti warm fuzzy. It is a cold slimy.)
Like I said
Absent that last clause, you can get into a debate about when altruism is-and-is-not rational (and at that point we’re not talking about morality and we are talking about game theory, so we should stop using the word “altruism” and instead use “cooperation”), but since we’re all human beings here I implicitly took it as a terminal value. I agree that there can be rational minds that do not work that way.