If I've gone to all the trouble to study for an exam anyway, just in case, then I'd much rather actually take the exam to check my knowledge. The article tries to paint this result as a case of solidarity and coordination, rather than slacking and intimidation. "on the day of the exam, all the students arrived half an hour early and stood outside the doors to make sure no one went into the exam room"; what is this, a picket line?
I had a few classes that had three exams and a final, and the grading policy dropped the lowest exam score. Even when I got 100% or more on the first two exams, and got explicitly told by the professor that the exam was optional and I didn't need to show up, I still took the last one, because why not check the knowledge I studied?
Given the intimidation factor, I'd probably end up asking the professor if I could take the exam outside of the normal class time anonymously, and leave people to guess based on who isn't in the same class the next term.
I find your approach distasteful. And that's putting it charitably, to be honest.
The idea that you would feign solidarity in a social experiment with real consequences so you could screw fellow students surreptitiously is just as bad (I would argue worse) than the intimidation you are presuming existed. In fact, even under the presumption that intimidation occurs, you are admitting to happily screwing over other students who would have been happy to take the test, but for the intimidation. So the fellow victims of the "crime" get punished once by them, and then again, by you.
If you actually want to take a principled stand, you'd have to do something shocking like.. be honest with everyone with what you intend on doing, and why.
As someone who has been bullied in school for actually, you know, trying to learn and take the tests I find his approach perfectly ok. You don't know what intimidation is like until you've been on the receiving end of it and a whole class of people your own age telling you you can't do what you came to school for can be pretty intimidating.
Ya! Its way too easy to get caught up in a crowd/mob even if its not something you really believe in. There is just pressure to follow. The really brave people is the one who boycotts the exam on his own without any expectation that others will follow them, and with the expectation that nothing will really happen and they'll just get a zero. You know, real consequences with little upside. Then you are being principled!
> As someone who has been bullied in school for actually, you know, trying to learn and take the tests I find his approach perfectly ok. You don't know what intimidation is like until you've been on the receiving end of it and a whole class of people your own age telling you you can't do what you came to school for can be pretty intimidating.
"Wanting to learn and take the test" (let's call it the education principle) is every bit a principle worth standing for. But so is honesty. There is far more education going on here than what is on that test. I'd argue if you are actually willing to surreptitiously screw your fellow classmates, bullies and bullied alike, for the sake of both "taking the test" and avoiding intimidation, I'd hope you are self-reflective enough to realize what this teaches you about yourself.
The way I see it: "the education principle", honesty, and easy. You get to pick two. And I'm going to criticize any (ostensible -- in the case of the students themselves) adult who advocates picking the dishonest path. At some point we put away our childish things and we solve our problems like adults.
People who cheerfully exploit mob dynamics to intimidate others don't have a claim on the honesty of those they attempt to intimidate. That argument reminds me of bullies who complain when they meet an unexpected defeat that their intended victim was not 'fighting fair'. The willingness to initiate force, whether individually or in a group, does not confer any sort of moral authority whatsoever. Indeed, the physical authority garnered from the exercise of force is often sought as a substitute for the lack of moral authority.
I wouldn't feign solidarity; if coordination occurred ahead of time, I'd indicate that I didn't plan to skip the exam. I just said that I'd rather not try to push past the picket line at exam time.
Logically speaking, you are correct, but human beings are rarely logical; even less so when there's a group of them.
Taking the test may provide self-validation, but it will do so at the expense of all of your classmates failing the course. In the end all you'll prove is that you were so inept (socially) that you were willing to sacrifice all of your peers for nothing more than pride.
Pride? No, partially a desire to actually get all of the education you are digging yourself into debt for, partially out of annoyance of a childish prank, and even more partially out of annoyance at a childish prank that assumes your cooperation.
If they want to be a bunch of clowns, that isn't my business. If they choose to make their clowning my business, then I am not responsible for the fallout when I don't fall into step with them.
And make no mistake about it, there was without a doubt social pressure and coercion in this situation. Your response to me demonstrates that quite clearly. If a cornerstone of your prank is your peers not being "squares", then your prank is coercive.
Agreed. If this is really about checking your knowledge, it would probably not be hard to convince the prof or TA to let you get feedback on a practice final, for no grade, without screwing over the rest of the class. Or you could just use what you learned to code a project and put it online for real peer review.
If you just want to check your knowledge why not ask the professor if you can come by his office sometime during the vast amount of time he'll save from not having to grade a bunch of exams (presuming he wasn't going to have his TAs grade the finals -- I remember my professors grading finals themselves since TAs had their own finals to take, and because it was the final, after all), and go over stuff with him then? I'd much rather have a direct discussion with my professor than a paper exam.
And considering the fittingness of exploiting this loophole for a CS course -- what a great illustration of an unanticipated consequence of a system's rules being followed exactly! -- you'd have to be a huge jerk to want to screw over everyone else in the class just to check your knowledge.
Edit: I don't think it would work like you envision it anyway. The professor would have to in on it, and good luck getting him to help screw over everyone else. I can't see a professor who was a good enough sport to honor this policy despite the unexpected way it was used letting you take it in a way that left everyone else with 0s, and only you with a 100. For instance, if he shows up the day of the exam and says "unfortunately, someone already took it anonymously" then everyone else just gets to play a game of spot-the-missing-student while taking the exam. (I suppose you could show up and pretend to take it a second time...)
>>>> you'd have to be a huge jerk to want to screw over everyone else in the class just to check your knowledge.
No you don't. You don't owe anybody to behave according to their expectations, even if your behaving so would be wonderful for them. It's not your duty and you're not a jerk if you don't comply with their wishes. You are free to do either, and they are free to convince you, but saying "oh, we expected you to do this and you don't and this sucks for us so you're a jerk" is bullshit. Nobody has obligation to help his fellow student to cheat.
Just like how you don't have to clean up your garbage in public, and like how when you have a heard of cows, you don't have to listen to the other farmers in coordinating the use of the fields.
I think sacrificing a test (which the professor himself said was nitpicky) to teach students about public coordination and working together to avoid a tragedy of the commons is not bullshit, nor will it ever be bullshit.
If your cheat involves executing something far more difficult then actually studying and acing the test, cheat away.
If having to take a test is a tragedy for you, maybe you shouln't have enrolled in the class for starters. For me it is a normal outcome and presenting it as if it is a huge disaster everybody has moral obligation to help avoiding is nonsense.
And how does not having to take the final hurt his education?
He can still study just as much as he would've before.
He still has access to resources to check the results of that studying.
I'm extremely skeptical of concerns that it would have a significant negative impact on future classes that this exam could've potentially weeded people out before. It could happen, though when I was TA'ing most weeding-out usually happened before the final...
I guess the anonymously-screw-everyone-else solution would also give him the opportunity to have a spectacularly sociopathic answer to that YC application "hacked a non-software system" question...
Frankly, if you're going to screw things up for everyone else like this, given that it doesn't actually let you learn anything more than you could've anyway, the least you can do is to do it face to face. Heck, I'd be secretly hoping that one of the "guards" did try to start something physical. Then he'd both bomb the final and be in trouble for assault or whatever.
Forget educational merit, he paid for the damn test. Is it so unreasonable for him to want to take it?
If his peers want to make it a matter of "do something you don't want to do, or else you are a 'square'", then they can kindly fuck off.
The only proper way to organize a prank of this sort is with an anonymous vote. If there was not an anonymous vote, I would anonymously choose to not participate.
What I'm trying to get at is that I see no moral "they were mean bullies!" high ground here, since a final is not required for one to be educated by a class. Anyone wanting the screw the rest of the class over was "mean" first. Anyone who intimidated anyone else into going along looks bad; so does anyone who didn't want to go along so that their fellow students would do worse. It's absurd to look at is as "I paid for that test." Education as paying for tests is a bug, not a feature.
Elsewhere in the thread you call it "clowning." I call it "hacking." The educational value of learning that sometimes you can get things done in non-traditional ways, and everyone ends up well off as a result, is far higher than the educational value of taking yet another exam.
"Moral high-ground" has nothing to do with it. As stated in the article, there is absolutely no ethical obligation to play along. The expectation that everyone should follow along is absurd for the reasons that I laid out, but those points are not about morality or ethics.
I have laid out how to perform this "hack" ethically however: If, and only if, an anonymous unanimous vote performed would there be any ethical obligation to go along with it. Without that it is not a "hack" ...unless your definition of "hack" permits coercion. If coercion is considered unnecessary, then there is no reason to not hold an anonymous unanimous vote.
Each participant must be given the opportunity to opt-in, without any coercion whatsoever. Is that really an unreasonable ask?
If I were handed a ballot for this prank, I would vote No. (Why do I want to take the test? Many reasons, some I have already covered, some I have not. Frankly it is no ones business but my own and has no bearing on the ethics of the situation) If they then proceeded to attempt it anyway, their failing grades would not be my problem. If they neglected to hold the vote and assumed my participation, their failing grades would similarly not be my problem. If they held a vote, and I voted Yes, but then took the test anyway, then I would be the jackass.
You can "hack" as much as you want, but others do not have obligation to follow your wishes. The fact that so many people think others are obliged to do what they want and if they don't they are "jerks" who "screw them over" is a sad symptom of current entitlement culture, where everybody considers himself king of the world for no reason at all but for being there.
You are free to hold yourself to any standard you like. It still does not create any obligations on others. If you give to charity, that doesn't mean your neighbor is obliged to match your donation. If you think he has - this is a clear sign of entitlement, you feel entitled to control his actions and have hin behave the way you like.
What is the practical difference between "person A being obliged to do something for B", and "B being entitled to something from A"?
If you universalize your moral obligation, then we end up with a system that is in practice no different than everyone feeling entitled to things from others. That you choose to handle yourself in that manner is great, but you cannot universalize it without creating a society of entitlement.
You are completely and totally ignoring the point.
Wanting to take the test is not problematic. Opting out of the boycott and taking the test is not problematic. Allowing everyone to believe he is joining the boycott, and secretly taking the test anyway is dishonest douchebaggery of the highest order.
There are alternate solutions to this problem that do not involve both skipping out on the educational value you perceive to result from taking this take while simultaneously fucking over every one of your classmates, including "innocent victims" who felt pressured into joining the boycot.
I, or any other hypothetical student, am under absolutely no obligation to explain myself or report my actions to some frat kids who want to skip out on studying.
If I indicated, through an anonymous vote, that I would participate in their boycott but did not, then I would be a jackass. In absence of such an indication, what I choose to do or not do, say or not say, is my business alone.
"Punish them"?!? Give me a fucking break. How entitled can you be?
I'm not being colourful when I say "frat kids". They literally had frat kids "guarding" the exam to ensure that nobody entered. I reject your implication that I have any obligation to engage in honest non-anonymous discourse with groups like that.
Again, there are two general avenues here that you can take assuming you want to receive the "benefit" of having taken the test.
You can do it in a way that benefits you but completely fucks over a bunch of other students, including others who may have been "bullied" against their will. Or you can find a way to do it in a way that benefits you and has zero impact on others.
Knowingly and stubbornly committing to doing the former is a dick thing to do, and kind of makes you an asshole. Not the type of "asshole" that acts to further their own self-interest. But the type of asshole who actively acts to subvert the interests of others.
How about I do nothing except take my exam as normal?
Oh no, that would be a dick thing to do. Actively subverting them... by taking an exam in a class they also happen to be enrolled in... Pure entitlement culture.
If they ask, they won't fuck themselves over. If they don't ask, they will fuck themselves over. They are responsible for what happens to them. As long as they do not ask me for my input, I have no responsibility for their actions.
For the record: for a computer systems course I TAed, the two professors, myself and the other TA spent 6 hours total in a room grading, for midterms and finals. For two different semesters. So, it varies.
Intimidation probably played a role in people not taking the exam, but they weren't there soley for intimidation. If someone did walk in to take the exam, they all would have done the same - they were there in case someone did, they would avoid the 0.
"A couple of Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike) brothers guarded the doors."
What would have happened if you had tried to go past these guards? Would they have said, "Oh damn, well, he really wanted to go in, guess we'll all have to take the test"? Or would they have restrained you? (which may be considered battery or possibly false imprisonment)
This could have very easily turned into a lawsuit or a criminal case if any student had decided to take the test.
Correct, which is why I said "intimidation probably played a role." I don't know how much, but I find it likely it was there. But my point was that even if they applied no intimidation, they would have still shown up to avoid getting that 0.
Collective-action Prisoner's Dilemma. And everyone cooperated! You might have acted rationally had you decided to take the exam, but you'll find that social pressure will occasionally make everyone (a) much nicer than you, and (b) in blatant disregard of game-theoretic rationality.
Actually, to make it a real case of Prisoner's Dilemma, he could have given the students who took the test a 100 and everyone else a 0, but given everyone an 80 if no one took the test. Which I would have found much more interesting.
> You might have acted rationally had you decided to take the exam, but you'll find that social pressure will occasionally make everyone (a) much nicer than you, and (b) in blatant disregard of game-theoretic rationality.
I definitely would have acted rationally, because I place very little value on getting to skip an exam or on proving a point about the grading system, and much more value on actually getting the education I paid for.
> Actually, to make it a real case of Prisoner's Dilemma, he could have given the students who took the test a 100 and everyone else a 0, but given everyone an 80 if no one took the test. Which I would have found much more interesting.
It's already a real case of the prisoner's dilemma, but with different rewards for different people depending on what they value. Most of the students in the article placed a higher value on not having to take the exam. I would place a higher value on taking the exam.
> I definitely would have acted rationally, because I place very little value on getting to skip an exam or on proving a point about the grading system, and much more value on actually getting the education I paid for.
Do you mind explaining the thought process behind this? I find it to be quite a stretch to suggest that a 50 minute evaluation at the end of the semester would be such an integral component of the learning that occurs during a semester that foregoing it would jeopardize "getting the education I paid for."
One exam might not be a make-or-break event, but why miss an opportunity? Besides, I usually find tests (particularly challenging ones) fun, contrary to the prevailing sentiment of dread or resentment.
It seems unlikely you would've been been able to check your knowledge due to the nature of the grading system being employed.
In my experience, getting a final exam back complete with annotations and corrections is generally not done: you simply get a grade reported. In the case of you being the only one taking the exam (e.g., the professor let you take it after everyone decided not to show up), you would've gotten an automatic 100.
That is to say, you could very well not know anything correctly, not realize it, and be none the wiser when you get your grade back.
I wonder what they would do if somebody said "screw you guys, I've studied for the exam and I want to take it". Would they resort to violence? Would campus security have to be involved?
I had a few classes that had three exams and a final, and the grading policy dropped the lowest exam score. Even when I got 100% or more on the first two exams, and got explicitly told by the professor that the exam was optional and I didn't need to show up, I still took the last one, because why not check the knowledge I studied?
Given the intimidation factor, I'd probably end up asking the professor if I could take the exam outside of the normal class time anonymously, and leave people to guess based on who isn't in the same class the next term.