4 ms·

1. This obviously wasn't cheating since it was within the prescribed parameters for the exam. Some exams are open book, some are open note, some are even take h

1. This obviously wasn't cheating since it was within the prescribed parameters for the exam. Some exams are open book, some are open note, some are even take home with no limits. 2. The highest score and thus most insightful and highest quality work, according to the professor's own evaluation, came not from collaboration but from one of the 3 lone wolves.

pixelcort 14y ago
The average was higher than that of prior classes. Also, it is implied that the lone wolves may have had access to some of the work the mob was producing, enabling one of them to get ahead by simply correcting a few mistakes without giving them back to the mob.
- cschep 14y ago
  This immediately reminded me of open source software. Interesting.
- scott_s 14y ago
  She explicitly stated so: Although the Wolves listened and contributed to discussions, they preferred their individual variants over the Mob’s joint answer.
- probably_wrong 14y ago
  I don't think they necessarily "corrected a few mistakes without giving them back to the mob". There is also a chance that they indeed proposed their answers to the mob, but they didn't like them and rejected them. It wouldn't be the first time that a great idea is shot down because it's too far from everyone's comfort zone. But I'm just guessing.
steveklabnik 14y ago
1: From TFA: > Although by conventional test-taking rules, the students were cheating, they actually weren’t in this case. 2: The mob still contributed to the work of the lone wolves, it was absolutely still 'collaboration': > Although the Wolves listened and contributed to discussions, they preferred their individual variants over the Mob’s joint answer.
- vacri 14y ago
  Nevertheless, TFA spends three-quarters of the article framing 'an open, collaborative exam' as 'cheating' before getting there. Pointless sensationalism. Doubly so since 'game theory' as lived by animals isn't 'cheating', but 'the way to survive'. It was completely irrelevant to bring that term into the article. Then there seems to be the rather odd point of "the students scored 20% higher than previous midterms", but it is unclear if his previous midterms were the same style - a single open-ended question.
  - droithomme 14y ago
    Yes, thank you. We don't have the actual data but whatever the previous results were we can normalize them so the average score is 50%. We also don't know how many students there are, let's call it 100, so 97 pack students and 3 lone wolves. We have 20% better results for the pack which received a uniform score. Let's say that's the 70th percentile. (This is a simplification we'll have to make do with until the author publishes the actual score data.) One lone wolf scored at that 70th point, one below, one above. The 70th percentile represents the best work that the pack of 97 could agree on. Out of the lone wolves, 2/3 of them did as well as this or better. It is not hard to imagine that there was better potential work than 70th percentile among at least some of the 97 individuals in the pack than what was chosen through committee, work that will never be manifest because a committee is always a compromise. It is also not hard to imagine how it is that the average went up given that the half of student population who previously scored in the 0 to 50th percentile are suddenly cast into the 70th percentile simply by choosing to join the pack, even though their contribution, insight and understanding remains exactly the same as before. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where the failing students who have learned nothing and acquired no advancement in their understanding and yet who just scored 70% instead of 0-50% still have no insight. It is not hard to imagine that the really excellent possible work was suppressed by the groupthink of the crowd. Yet the "average" score is now 20% higher. We don't even have to consider that this single question essay exam was almost certainly graded in a completely subjective manner and thus the percentages don't mean anything objective at all.
    - 14y ago
tkahn6 14y ago
Is it cheating if you specifically take this class taught by this professor (as opposed to the same class taught by a different professor) because you know her final exam will be open notes and collaborative?
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  Of course not. Unless the goal of studying is to maximize arbitrary values on a piece of paper they give you at the end. One need to keep in mind, that "cheating" in school means nothing else than stepping outside arbitrary rule system that is, most of the time, totally opposed to what a honest, rational person would do in real life. Not that it's all bad; education is a training framework.

pixelcort 14y ago

The average was higher than that of prior classes. Also, it is implied that the lone wolves may have had access to some of the work the mob was producing, enabling one of them to get ahead by simply correcting a few mistakes without giving them back to the mob.

cschep 14y ago
This immediately reminded me of open source software. Interesting.
scott_s 14y ago
She explicitly stated so: Although the Wolves listened and contributed to discussions, they preferred their individual variants over the Mob’s joint answer.
probably_wrong 14y ago
I don't think they necessarily "corrected a few mistakes without giving them back to the mob". There is also a chance that they indeed proposed their answers to the mob, but they didn't like them and rejected them. It wouldn't be the first time that a great idea is shot down because it's too far from everyone's comfort zone. But I'm just guessing.

steveklabnik 14y ago

1: From TFA: > Although by conventional test-taking rules, the students were cheating, they actually weren’t in this case. 2: The mob still contributed to the work of the lone wolves, it was absolutely still 'collaboration': > Although the Wolves listened and contributed to discussions, they preferred their individual variants over the Mob’s joint answer.

vacri 14y ago
Nevertheless, TFA spends three-quarters of the article framing 'an open, collaborative exam' as 'cheating' before getting there. Pointless sensationalism. Doubly so since 'game theory' as lived by animals isn't 'cheating', but 'the way to survive'. It was completely irrelevant to bring that term into the article. Then there seems to be the rather odd point of "the students scored 20% higher than previous midterms", but it is unclear if his previous midterms were the same style - a single open-ended question.
- droithomme 14y ago
  Yes, thank you. We don't have the actual data but whatever the previous results were we can normalize them so the average score is 50%. We also don't know how many students there are, let's call it 100, so 97 pack students and 3 lone wolves. We have 20% better results for the pack which received a uniform score. Let's say that's the 70th percentile. (This is a simplification we'll have to make do with until the author publishes the actual score data.) One lone wolf scored at that 70th point, one below, one above. The 70th percentile represents the best work that the pack of 97 could agree on. Out of the lone wolves, 2/3 of them did as well as this or better. It is not hard to imagine that there was better potential work than 70th percentile among at least some of the 97 individuals in the pack than what was chosen through committee, work that will never be manifest because a committee is always a compromise. It is also not hard to imagine how it is that the average went up given that the half of student population who previously scored in the 0 to 50th percentile are suddenly cast into the 70th percentile simply by choosing to join the pack, even though their contribution, insight and understanding remains exactly the same as before. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where the failing students who have learned nothing and acquired no advancement in their understanding and yet who just scored 70% instead of 0-50% still have no insight. It is not hard to imagine that the really excellent possible work was suppressed by the groupthink of the crowd. Yet the "average" score is now 20% higher. We don't even have to consider that this single question essay exam was almost certainly graded in a completely subjective manner and thus the percentages don't mean anything objective at all.
  - 14y ago

tkahn6 14y ago

Is it cheating if you specifically take this class taught by this professor (as opposed to the same class taught by a different professor) because you know her final exam will be open notes and collaborative?

TeMPOraL 14y ago
Of course not. Unless the goal of studying is to maximize arbitrary values on a piece of paper they give you at the end. One need to keep in mind, that "cheating" in school means nothing else than stepping outside arbitrary rule system that is, most of the time, totally opposed to what a honest, rational person would do in real life. Not that it's all bad; education is a training framework.