4 ms·

> If we stopped making it a game, without points to earn and rewards for points, people wouldn’t cheat. Nonsense. There is an incentive to cheat any time ther

> If we stopped making it a game, without points to earn and rewards for points, people wouldn’t cheat. Nonsense. There is an incentive to cheat any time there is a test, where capabilities are measured that are not routinely used. For example, if I were an engineer designing an elevator, it must meet its rated load limits times a hefty safety factor. That safety factor is a test, and if I were unscrupulous then I would have every incentive to "cheat" to falsely certify compliance. Under ordinary circumstances, that safety factor is left unused when the elevator is operated as per instructions, but the cheating covers up a latent problem with potentially catastrophic consequences. An academic degree isn't about a worthless piece of paper; it's ostensibly certification that the student has an acceptable mastery of the course material. Much of that material won't be used on a day-to-day basis, but it's still there, and it's still part of the credential that the graduate holds out to the world. But even if you're unconvinced by that, there's also the character signal at play. The "kind of person" who will cheat on an academic test is intuitively also the "kind of person" who will cheat in other areas of their professional life.

exrook 6y ago
Why not instead modify the test so that it more accurately measures the capabilities of interest instead? Such as in your elevator example, make it so that the operation of the elevator is tested with a heavy load approaching the desired safety factor, and evaluating the performance under this heavier than normal load? The idea being that the only way to "cheat" is to design a better elevator that can still meet the requirements. Of course the reason this isn't done is because of the extra cost of performing a more comprehensive test, but given how much students are paying for education, surely we could make some improvements over the status quo. I can't help but draw comparisons to SpaceX's starship development process vs that of the more traditional aerospace manufacturers. There isn't any way for the engineers to cheat because their work is tested under the target conditions and either passes[0] or fails[1][2]. The goal being to achieve the most efficient design that still meets requirements. [0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1259344535991140352 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1259344535991140352 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlDBjHa0NkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlDBjHa0NkU [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFXQ5SRCy74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFXQ5SRCy74
- caylus 6y ago
  > Such as in your elevator example, make it so that the operation of the elevator is tested with a heavy load approaching the desired safety factor, and evaluating the performance under this heavier than normal load? Yes, this is a reasonable way to test an elevator. "Cheating" in this context might mean surreptitiously swapping out the load for a lighter load, so that the elevator appears to pass the test while not actually supporting the heavy load during real operation. For a real-world example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal There is unlikely to be a silver bullet that can make any test completely immune to cheating.
cstrahan 6y ago
>> If we stopped making it a game, without points to earn and rewards for points, people wouldn’t cheat. > Nonsense. > There is an incentive to cheat any time there is a test, where capabilities are measured that are not routinely used. So stop issuing tests. Or more importantly, the schools could stop holding a record of students grades. Students could still takes tests to confirm their understanding, but their results wouldn't benefit (or hinder) them in any sort of hiring situation. If you sit through the classes, assuming 1) you've put in the work 2) the classes were taught well and 3) you posses sufficient intelligence/aptitude, you should finish with some useful skills. However, no one "graduates" in the sense that they currently do: no fancy paper slip to mount on the wall, no gold stars. School then has nothing to do with career outcome, at least not directly. This might seem unreasonable -- the employers of the world need some way to judge their fresh candidates! This is easily solved: people new to a field would start out as apprentices. With a year or more of experience on their resume, they may now switch employers as readily as anyone else does now -- employers, in my experience, don't often check their candidates' formal education at that point. But what about people who, at that point, would manipulate their way into a rewarding career without yielding any real value in return? At that point, we've just shifted the "game" to "get paid while being lazy and/or useless", right? Well, maybe, but nothing has really changed. People already brown nose. Companies are already rife with cronyism/nepotism/etc. Lazy and incompetent employees already exploit past association with big name companies to coast through their career and into cushy retirement. None of that has changed. The only things that really change in this hypothetical: universities are no longer the gatekeeper to people's future, people no longer feel the need to take on massive debt to study disciplines that they're not even sure they'd enjoy, and employers would be expected to invest a tiny amount (modest pay; the overhead of letting them shadow established employees) in new hires making their first entrance into the working world.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  The real practice of what you'll get is that the employer imposes the test, then is hyper-sensitive to cheating.
- unishark 6y ago
  I bet you this kind of policy would have the exact opposite effect you want it to. Unless your goal was to restrict access to fields to people who already have connections and experience even more. Because this is what happens in a "wild west" market where you can trust no credentials. All that's left is the personal recommendations of people you trust. University grades are a relatively-objective way of "democratizing" the system. You don't need nepotism, you can just work hard. Even if it isn't a perfect system (nothing is of course). Costs are a problem but that's driven by prestige whoring, not irrationality. The right majors/degrees are still worth the debt.
em-bee 6y ago
that's s pretty bleak outlook. some people have the integrity to not cheat on tests because it is simply wrong. to claim that everyone has an incentive to cheat is a very low opinion of humanity. trust noone. they are all out to get you.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- em-bee 6y ago
  (responding to a deleted comment, since it explains a downvote, which i appreciate, and therefore like to take the opportunity to clarify) > to claim that everyone has an incentive to cheat is a very low opinion of humanity. trust noone. they are all out to get you. I don't believe "everyone has an incentive" was ever stated, but regardless of that, if we could trust everyone with everything laws wouldn't need to exist. maybe this is a language issue. i understand 'there is an incentive' as something that is there generally motivating, as if it asks for that to happen. like advertising is an incentive to buy, and a stop sign is an incentive to stop or a green light is an incentive to go. but just like an open door may be an incentive to enter someones home, it is not an incentive to steal, and therefore i reject the idea that the existence of a test is an incentive to cheat. but to me "There is an incentive to cheat any time there is a test, where capabilities are measured that are not routinely used." says exactly that. most laws are created as a reaction to missbehavior. it's not about needing to trust everyone, but designing the system so that everyone can learn and assess their learning without needing to fear that failing that assessment will leave a permanent record. this is the problem with graded tests. they don't so much help me assess what i know and need to catch up on, but they grade how well i keep up with the classes progress. there is no way to catch up and have that test redone, showing that i have learned the material, even if i did. a top grade does not indicate that i learned everything, but also that i learned it at the pace the teacher wanted it. if i fail the first test, i have lost any chance to make a top grade for the rest of the year, even if i catch up and maybe surpass others.
- curryst 6y ago
  That assumes that everyone believes cheating is "simply wrong". Who is harmed by cheating? Unless you manage to cheat so well you blow the curve, you're not impacting anyone elses grades. And of course everyone has an incentive to cheat. Higher grades and lower time investment are the incentive. Those are basically universally appealing to college students. Having an incentive doesn't mean everyone is going to take the opportunity, as some feel it is wrong and others feel the risk doesn't justify the reward.
iovrthoughtthis 6y ago
“The ‘kind of person’ who will cheat on an academic teat is intuitively also the ‘kind of person’ who will cheat in other areas of professional life’. Ah, I see. Do you also believe in ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people? In my experience, all people are capable of cheating and given the uniquely require circumstances, most people will cheat. Integrity is a well supported, secure persons value.

exrook 6y ago

Why not instead modify the test so that it more accurately measures the capabilities of interest instead? Such as in your elevator example, make it so that the operation of the elevator is tested with a heavy load approaching the desired safety factor, and evaluating the performance under this heavier than normal load? The idea being that the only way to "cheat" is to design a better elevator that can still meet the requirements. Of course the reason this isn't done is because of the extra cost of performing a more comprehensive test, but given how much students are paying for education, surely we could make some improvements over the status quo. I can't help but draw comparisons to SpaceX's starship development process vs that of the more traditional aerospace manufacturers. There isn't any way for the engineers to cheat because their work is tested under the target conditions and either passes[0] or fails[1][2]. The goal being to achieve the most efficient design that still meets requirements. [0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1259344535991140352 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1259344535991140352 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlDBjHa0NkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlDBjHa0NkU [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFXQ5SRCy74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFXQ5SRCy74

caylus 6y ago
> Such as in your elevator example, make it so that the operation of the elevator is tested with a heavy load approaching the desired safety factor, and evaluating the performance under this heavier than normal load? Yes, this is a reasonable way to test an elevator. "Cheating" in this context might mean surreptitiously swapping out the load for a lighter load, so that the elevator appears to pass the test while not actually supporting the heavy load during real operation. For a real-world example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal There is unlikely to be a silver bullet that can make any test completely immune to cheating.

cstrahan 6y ago

>> If we stopped making it a game, without points to earn and rewards for points, people wouldn’t cheat. > Nonsense. > There is an incentive to cheat any time there is a test, where capabilities are measured that are not routinely used. So stop issuing tests. Or more importantly, the schools could stop holding a record of students grades. Students could still takes tests to confirm their understanding, but their results wouldn't benefit (or hinder) them in any sort of hiring situation. If you sit through the classes, assuming 1) you've put in the work 2) the classes were taught well and 3) you posses sufficient intelligence/aptitude, you should finish with some useful skills. However, no one "graduates" in the sense that they currently do: no fancy paper slip to mount on the wall, no gold stars. School then has nothing to do with career outcome, at least not directly. This might seem unreasonable -- the employers of the world need some way to judge their fresh candidates! This is easily solved: people new to a field would start out as apprentices. With a year or more of experience on their resume, they may now switch employers as readily as anyone else does now -- employers, in my experience, don't often check their candidates' formal education at that point. But what about people who, at that point, would manipulate their way into a rewarding career without yielding any real value in return? At that point, we've just shifted the "game" to "get paid while being lazy and/or useless", right? Well, maybe, but nothing has really changed. People already brown nose. Companies are already rife with cronyism/nepotism/etc. Lazy and incompetent employees already exploit past association with big name companies to coast through their career and into cushy retirement. None of that has changed. The only things that really change in this hypothetical: universities are no longer the gatekeeper to people's future, people no longer feel the need to take on massive debt to study disciplines that they're not even sure they'd enjoy, and employers would be expected to invest a tiny amount (modest pay; the overhead of letting them shadow established employees) in new hires making their first entrance into the working world.

renewiltord 6y ago
The real practice of what you'll get is that the employer imposes the test, then is hyper-sensitive to cheating.
unishark 6y ago
I bet you this kind of policy would have the exact opposite effect you want it to. Unless your goal was to restrict access to fields to people who already have connections and experience even more. Because this is what happens in a "wild west" market where you can trust no credentials. All that's left is the personal recommendations of people you trust. University grades are a relatively-objective way of "democratizing" the system. You don't need nepotism, you can just work hard. Even if it isn't a perfect system (nothing is of course). Costs are a problem but that's driven by prestige whoring, not irrationality. The right majors/degrees are still worth the debt.

em-bee 6y ago

that's s pretty bleak outlook. some people have the integrity to not cheat on tests because it is simply wrong. to claim that everyone has an incentive to cheat is a very low opinion of humanity. trust noone. they are all out to get you.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
em-bee 6y ago
(responding to a deleted comment, since it explains a downvote, which i appreciate, and therefore like to take the opportunity to clarify) > to claim that everyone has an incentive to cheat is a very low opinion of humanity. trust noone. they are all out to get you. I don't believe "everyone has an incentive" was ever stated, but regardless of that, if we could trust everyone with everything laws wouldn't need to exist. maybe this is a language issue. i understand 'there is an incentive' as something that is there generally motivating, as if it asks for that to happen. like advertising is an incentive to buy, and a stop sign is an incentive to stop or a green light is an incentive to go. but just like an open door may be an incentive to enter someones home, it is not an incentive to steal, and therefore i reject the idea that the existence of a test is an incentive to cheat. but to me "There is an incentive to cheat any time there is a test, where capabilities are measured that are not routinely used." says exactly that. most laws are created as a reaction to missbehavior. it's not about needing to trust everyone, but designing the system so that everyone can learn and assess their learning without needing to fear that failing that assessment will leave a permanent record. this is the problem with graded tests. they don't so much help me assess what i know and need to catch up on, but they grade how well i keep up with the classes progress. there is no way to catch up and have that test redone, showing that i have learned the material, even if i did. a top grade does not indicate that i learned everything, but also that i learned it at the pace the teacher wanted it. if i fail the first test, i have lost any chance to make a top grade for the rest of the year, even if i catch up and maybe surpass others.
curryst 6y ago
That assumes that everyone believes cheating is "simply wrong". Who is harmed by cheating? Unless you manage to cheat so well you blow the curve, you're not impacting anyone elses grades. And of course everyone has an incentive to cheat. Higher grades and lower time investment are the incentive. Those are basically universally appealing to college students. Having an incentive doesn't mean everyone is going to take the opportunity, as some feel it is wrong and others feel the risk doesn't justify the reward.

iovrthoughtthis 6y ago

“The ‘kind of person’ who will cheat on an academic teat is intuitively also the ‘kind of person’ who will cheat in other areas of professional life’. Ah, I see. Do you also believe in ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people? In my experience, all people are capable of cheating and given the uniquely require circumstances, most people will cheat. Integrity is a well supported, secure persons value.