4 ms·

The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did. There's a point where it's not imm

The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did. There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. Avoiding increasingly-overcrowded housing situations is I think one of them. If Stanford's standards for these housing waivers are sufficiently broad that 38% of their students quality, isn't that a problem with Stanford's definitions, not with "cheating"?

ahmeneeroe-v2 11mo ago
In the culture I grew up in, this was considered cheating.
- delichon 11mo ago
  A culture that honored truth telling and integrity. Was that long ago or far away?
  - shermantanktop 11mo ago
    "culture i grew up in" could easily mean "what my parents/older relatives told me they did, when they told me to be like them." Once you grow up, you realize your parents were human, made self-interested decisions, and then told themselves stories that made their actions sound principled. Some more than others, of course.
    - IAmBroom 11mo ago
      I'll skip the "my parents" part, because I'm an old, but ... NO ONE had independent housing their Freshman year in college at my hometown uni, unless they had prior residency in the area (were commuting from home). So, yeah: that morality did exist, and not just in fables.
      - BeetleB 11mo ago
        I went to a mediocre undergrad, and a top 5 school for grad. The difference in morals was quite notable, and cheating was much more prevalent in the latter (not just in classes, but for things like this as well).
      - shermantanktop 11mo ago
        Sounds entirely consistent with the original story…everyone claims a mental health need because so many others are doing it. Maybe the difference isn’t morality but accepted norms? Or maybe it’s that single room accommodation is possible now and it wasn’t then?
  - deaux 11mo ago
    No, just one of the 99% of universities in this world where people aren't en masse claiming to have disabilities for selfish gain. Neither long ago - this is as of 2025 - nor particularly far away.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
Cpoll 11mo ago
This is tragedy of the commons exactly. Whether it's moral depends entirely on the ethical theory you subscribe to. > a problem with Stanford's definitions Only if students aren't lying on their application.
iwontberude 11mo ago
[flagged]
- donbox 11mo ago
  please... enough with the lazy stereotypes
  - Supermancho 11mo ago
    Google: China Cheating. Stereotype or not, it's a well documented characteristic of some social systems. This isn't to imply a moralist view. This cultural phenomena is a recognized pattern of behavior across industries, as well as the education system. It's viciously pragmatic. A key part of their rapid industrialization and digital transition. It's not surprising, given the success, nor is it necessary to pretend otherwise.
    - deaux 11mo ago
      It's just irrelevant and ignorant to bring up in the context of this article. These things aren't correlated. I can name countries where academic fraud (fake papers, fake data) is much more rampant than the US, yet faking a disability to get a single dorm room is unthinkable. You're oversimplifying things and making connections that aren't there.
      - Supermancho 11mo ago
        As per the following discussions, I would say pointing this out is relevant. China has been a leader in this respect. The cultural trends have shifted, regardless of the specific mechanisms. I suspect the cause to be multidimensional. The erosion in confidence of both institutions and process, across the US and world, have contributed to an ends-justify-the-means philosophy. There's almost palpable economic strata that are increasingly difficult to ascend, causing a great deal of stress and pressure. Granted, foreign influence is probably far down the list. I was pointing out how the "stereotype" fits, not that it has somehow corrupted higher education by exposure. I think there's a good comparison here, which is why it was initially mentioned.
swatcoder 11mo ago
> There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. That sounds loaded with a lot of value judgment. I don't think it's inappropriate for you to suggest it, but I think you'll find that a lot of people who value equitability, collaboration, communalism, modesty, earnestness, or conservation of resources might not share that perspective with you. It turns out that people just disagree about values and are going to weigh judgment on others based on what they believe. You don't have to share their values, but you do kind of just need to be able to accept that judgment as theirs when you do things they malign.
- guelo 11mo ago
  What is the honorable value that leads to "I'll get mine screw everybody else"?
- socalgal2 11mo ago
  I live in liberal cities. Nearly every car drive and bicycle rider has the attitude "F everyone else, I'm going to break every law if I find it inconvenient to myself. Who cares if it affects others" This is not in alignment with "equitability, collaboration, communalism, modesty, earnestness, or conservation of resources" People claim those values but rarely actually follow them.
  - decremental 11mo ago
    [dead]
- margalabargala 11mo ago
  I worded it in a way flexible to meet everyone's morals. Absent someone trying to performatively live a truly philosophically deontological life every person has some line where they will avail themselves of some available lever to remove some awful situation even if someone else might call it "cheating". Some recent examples where large segments of the population did this are 1) with medical marijuana cards, which make weed legal to anyone willing to claim to have anxiety or difficulty sleeping, or 2) emotional support animals on airlines, where similarly one can claim anything to get a prescription that, if travelling with a pet, opts them out of the sometimes-fatal always-unpleasant cargo hold travel. Plenty of people would call either of these cheating, but kind of like how "language is usage", so are morals in a society. If everyone is doing something that is available but "cheating", that society deems the result for people sufficiently valuable.
lostmsu 11mo ago
> The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did. I'm glad you had no problem with "dumpster fuck".
- margalabargala 11mo ago
  Well, there's meaning and then there's personal style. I didn't want to cramp yours :-)
groundzeros2015 11mo ago
The direct result of this thinking is that people who need the accommodation face difficulty in getting it. You don’t have to return your shopping cart. You don’t have to donate to the collection plate. You don’t have to give a coworker recognition. But when everyone has an adversarial “get mine” attitude the systems have to be changed. Instead of assuming good intent they have to enforce it. Enforcement is very expensive and very unpleasant. (For example, maybe you need to rent the shopping cart.) Unfortunately enforcement is a self fulfilling cycle. When people see others cheating they feel they need to cheat just to not be left behind. You may be from a culture where this is the norm. Reflect on its impact and how we would really like to avoid this.
- shadowgovt 11mo ago
  > You don’t have to donate to the collection plate Hey, if they stop using the money I donate to advertise that my neighbors are abominations in the eyes of God they can have my money again.
  - mikkupikku 11mo ago
    The "collection plate" could just as well mean a panhandler's hat. The point is charitable giving, not christian specifically.
- zeroCalories 11mo ago
  The problem is that people simply have no investment in a community anymore. This is a direct consequence of globalization and capitalism. Travel to a foreign land, exploit the locals, and return home. Westerners are just now realizing that they're on the receiving end of it now.
- margalabargala 11mo ago
  I think you're reading more into what I said than what I intended. I'm not endorsing the specific behavior, but I am pointing out that if there's a "cheating" lever anyone can pull to improve their own situation, it will get pulled if people think it's justified. There's plenty that do get pulled and plenty that don't. In the US, SNAP fraud is sufficiently close to nonexistant that you can't tell the difference in benefits provided. But fraud surrounding lying about medical conditions to get a medical marijuana card is universal and accepted. The people we're talking about here are teenagers that are told "if you have an ADHD diagnosis you can ask for and get your own room". The sort of systems thinking you are describing is not generally done by your average fresh high school graduate. This is therefore a Stanford problem.
jay_kyburz 11mo ago
If you lie (or exaggerate) about a disability and claim a benefit, you could be denying somebody with more serious disabilities getting the help they need.
- margalabargala 11mo ago
  I agree. That's not what's happening here. My understanding is that the requirement for the benefit being discussed here is "has had a diagnosis of ADHD, anxiety, etc". The problem lies in the combination of overdiagnosis and lax Stanford disability requirements. The teenagers honestly mentioning they have an ADHD diagnosis to get the benefit are not the problem, they are a symptom.
iepathos 11mo ago
I agree with you that cheating is a loaded word, but the question at the end here that the rules or standards enable users to work around it therefore it's not cheating is a bad semantic argument. We can use the exact same argument to excuse every kind of rule breaking that people do. If a hacker drains a billion dollars out of a smart contract, then they literally were only able to do so because the coded rules of the smart contract itself enabled it through whatever flaw the hacker identified. That doesn't make it less illegal or not cheating for the hacker. It feels like victim blaming to point the finger at the institution being exploited or people who get hacked and say its their problem not the individuals intentionally exploiting them.
JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation That point is probably behind someone at Stanford.
inglor_cz 11mo ago
This attitude was one of the things that collapsed the former Eastern Bloc. "He who does not steal is stealing from his own family."
- nradov 11mo ago
  Stealing from work was so normalized in the former USSR that it wasn't even considered stealing, just "carrying out". Jobs in meatpacking facilities were highly desired because even though nominal wages were low, workers could make so much more by selling on the black market. The entire system was rotten from top to bottom.
- int_19h 11mo ago
  And when everybody else does it (and all assume that everybody does), it really ends up being true. That's why it's so hard to get out of this hole - telling people to "start with yourself" won't cut it, they need to see that others are doing the same as well rather than trying to benefit from the opportunity.
arolihas 11mo ago
The problem is the promotion of values and behaviors that plague a low-trust society. I think making excuses for it is truly inappropriate and immoral.
BeetleB 11mo ago
While on the one hand I get where you're coming from, on the other hand I simply say "One does not have to go to Stanford."

ahmeneeroe-v2 11mo ago

In the culture I grew up in, this was considered cheating.

delichon 11mo ago
A culture that honored truth telling and integrity. Was that long ago or far away?
- shermantanktop 11mo ago
  "culture i grew up in" could easily mean "what my parents/older relatives told me they did, when they told me to be like them." Once you grow up, you realize your parents were human, made self-interested decisions, and then told themselves stories that made their actions sound principled. Some more than others, of course.
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    I'll skip the "my parents" part, because I'm an old, but ... NO ONE had independent housing their Freshman year in college at my hometown uni, unless they had prior residency in the area (were commuting from home). So, yeah: that morality did exist, and not just in fables.
    - BeetleB 11mo ago
      I went to a mediocre undergrad, and a top 5 school for grad. The difference in morals was quite notable, and cheating was much more prevalent in the latter (not just in classes, but for things like this as well).
    - shermantanktop 11mo ago
      Sounds entirely consistent with the original story…everyone claims a mental health need because so many others are doing it. Maybe the difference isn’t morality but accepted norms? Or maybe it’s that single room accommodation is possible now and it wasn’t then?
- deaux 11mo ago
  No, just one of the 99% of universities in this world where people aren't en masse claiming to have disabilities for selfish gain. Neither long ago - this is as of 2025 - nor particularly far away.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

Cpoll 11mo ago

This is tragedy of the commons exactly. Whether it's moral depends entirely on the ethical theory you subscribe to. > a problem with Stanford's definitions Only if students aren't lying on their application.

iwontberude 11mo ago

[flagged]

donbox 11mo ago
please... enough with the lazy stereotypes
- Supermancho 11mo ago
  Google: China Cheating. Stereotype or not, it's a well documented characteristic of some social systems. This isn't to imply a moralist view. This cultural phenomena is a recognized pattern of behavior across industries, as well as the education system. It's viciously pragmatic. A key part of their rapid industrialization and digital transition. It's not surprising, given the success, nor is it necessary to pretend otherwise.
  - deaux 11mo ago
    It's just irrelevant and ignorant to bring up in the context of this article. These things aren't correlated. I can name countries where academic fraud (fake papers, fake data) is much more rampant than the US, yet faking a disability to get a single dorm room is unthinkable. You're oversimplifying things and making connections that aren't there.
    - Supermancho 11mo ago
      As per the following discussions, I would say pointing this out is relevant. China has been a leader in this respect. The cultural trends have shifted, regardless of the specific mechanisms. I suspect the cause to be multidimensional. The erosion in confidence of both institutions and process, across the US and world, have contributed to an ends-justify-the-means philosophy. There's almost palpable economic strata that are increasingly difficult to ascend, causing a great deal of stress and pressure. Granted, foreign influence is probably far down the list. I was pointing out how the "stereotype" fits, not that it has somehow corrupted higher education by exposure. I think there's a good comparison here, which is why it was initially mentioned.

swatcoder 11mo ago

> There's a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation. That sounds loaded with a lot of value judgment. I don't think it's inappropriate for you to suggest it, but I think you'll find that a lot of people who value equitability, collaboration, communalism, modesty, earnestness, or conservation of resources might not share that perspective with you. It turns out that people just disagree about values and are going to weigh judgment on others based on what they believe. You don't have to share their values, but you do kind of just need to be able to accept that judgment as theirs when you do things they malign.

guelo 11mo ago
What is the honorable value that leads to "I'll get mine screw everybody else"?
socalgal2 11mo ago
I live in liberal cities. Nearly every car drive and bicycle rider has the attitude "F everyone else, I'm going to break every law if I find it inconvenient to myself. Who cares if it affects others" This is not in alignment with "equitability, collaboration, communalism, modesty, earnestness, or conservation of resources" People claim those values but rarely actually follow them.
- decremental 11mo ago
  [dead]
margalabargala 11mo ago
I worded it in a way flexible to meet everyone's morals. Absent someone trying to performatively live a truly philosophically deontological life every person has some line where they will avail themselves of some available lever to remove some awful situation even if someone else might call it "cheating". Some recent examples where large segments of the population did this are 1) with medical marijuana cards, which make weed legal to anyone willing to claim to have anxiety or difficulty sleeping, or 2) emotional support animals on airlines, where similarly one can claim anything to get a prescription that, if travelling with a pet, opts them out of the sometimes-fatal always-unpleasant cargo hold travel. Plenty of people would call either of these cheating, but kind of like how "language is usage", so are morals in a society. If everyone is doing something that is available but "cheating", that society deems the result for people sufficiently valuable.

lostmsu 11mo ago

> The word "cheating" is loaded with a lot of values and judgement that I think makes it inappropriate to use the way you did. I'm glad you had no problem with "dumpster fuck".

margalabargala 11mo ago
Well, there's meaning and then there's personal style. I didn't want to cramp yours :-)

groundzeros2015 11mo ago

The direct result of this thinking is that people who need the accommodation face difficulty in getting it. You don’t have to return your shopping cart. You don’t have to donate to the collection plate. You don’t have to give a coworker recognition. But when everyone has an adversarial “get mine” attitude the systems have to be changed. Instead of assuming good intent they have to enforce it. Enforcement is very expensive and very unpleasant. (For example, maybe you need to rent the shopping cart.) Unfortunately enforcement is a self fulfilling cycle. When people see others cheating they feel they need to cheat just to not be left behind. You may be from a culture where this is the norm. Reflect on its impact and how we would really like to avoid this.

shadowgovt 11mo ago
> You don’t have to donate to the collection plate Hey, if they stop using the money I donate to advertise that my neighbors are abominations in the eyes of God they can have my money again.
- mikkupikku 11mo ago
  The "collection plate" could just as well mean a panhandler's hat. The point is charitable giving, not christian specifically.
zeroCalories 11mo ago
The problem is that people simply have no investment in a community anymore. This is a direct consequence of globalization and capitalism. Travel to a foreign land, exploit the locals, and return home. Westerners are just now realizing that they're on the receiving end of it now.
margalabargala 11mo ago
I think you're reading more into what I said than what I intended. I'm not endorsing the specific behavior, but I am pointing out that if there's a "cheating" lever anyone can pull to improve their own situation, it will get pulled if people think it's justified. There's plenty that do get pulled and plenty that don't. In the US, SNAP fraud is sufficiently close to nonexistant that you can't tell the difference in benefits provided. But fraud surrounding lying about medical conditions to get a medical marijuana card is universal and accepted. The people we're talking about here are teenagers that are told "if you have an ADHD diagnosis you can ask for and get your own room". The sort of systems thinking you are describing is not generally done by your average fresh high school graduate. This is therefore a Stanford problem.

jay_kyburz 11mo ago

If you lie (or exaggerate) about a disability and claim a benefit, you could be denying somebody with more serious disabilities getting the help they need.

margalabargala 11mo ago
I agree. That's not what's happening here. My understanding is that the requirement for the benefit being discussed here is "has had a diagnosis of ADHD, anxiety, etc". The problem lies in the combination of overdiagnosis and lax Stanford disability requirements. The teenagers honestly mentioning they have an ADHD diagnosis to get the benefit are not the problem, they are a symptom.

iepathos 11mo ago

I agree with you that cheating is a loaded word, but the question at the end here that the rules or standards enable users to work around it therefore it's not cheating is a bad semantic argument. We can use the exact same argument to excuse every kind of rule breaking that people do. If a hacker drains a billion dollars out of a smart contract, then they literally were only able to do so because the coded rules of the smart contract itself enabled it through whatever flaw the hacker identified. That doesn't make it less illegal or not cheating for the hacker. It feels like victim blaming to point the finger at the institution being exploited or people who get hacked and say its their problem not the individuals intentionally exploiting them.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

> a point where it's not immoral to leverage systems available to you to land yourself in a better situation That point is probably behind someone at Stanford.

inglor_cz 11mo ago

This attitude was one of the things that collapsed the former Eastern Bloc. "He who does not steal is stealing from his own family."

nradov 11mo ago
Stealing from work was so normalized in the former USSR that it wasn't even considered stealing, just "carrying out". Jobs in meatpacking facilities were highly desired because even though nominal wages were low, workers could make so much more by selling on the black market. The entire system was rotten from top to bottom.
int_19h 11mo ago
And when everybody else does it (and all assume that everybody does), it really ends up being true. That's why it's so hard to get out of this hole - telling people to "start with yourself" won't cut it, they need to see that others are doing the same as well rather than trying to benefit from the opportunity.

arolihas 11mo ago

The problem is the promotion of values and behaviors that plague a low-trust society. I think making excuses for it is truly inappropriate and immoral.

BeetleB 11mo ago

While on the one hand I get where you're coming from, on the other hand I simply say "One does not have to go to Stanford."