5 ms·

Actually, I think in this case the only rational choice is to ask for the 6 points. One of two things will happen: 1) Less than 10% will follow suit, in which

Actually, I think in this case the only rational choice is to ask for the 6 points. One of two things will happen: 1) Less than 10% will follow suit, in which case you'll get a 6 point boost, and you'll have secured an advantage over 90% of your classmates. 2) More than 10% will follow suit, and noone will get anything, in which case you will have no advantage over your classmates, and neither will any classmate have an advantage over you. If you select 2 points, then either: 1) Less than 10% will opt for 6, in which case you'll have no advantage over at least 90% of the class, but some members of class may have a 4 point advantage over you, or 2) More than 10% will opt for 6, in which case the outcome is identical to choosing 6 in the first place. Because the "points" have no intrinsic value except in comparison to your classmates (unlike a true tragedy of the commons, where the scarce resource such as food, etc, has real value), there is no reason not to roll the dice. EDIT: Many people think the fact that the course is "not graded on a curve" makes a difference. It does not, at least considering the class in isolation. I took courses in college where an A was pretty much a dead certainty, and other courses where getting a B was actually quite an achievement. In all cases my performance within a course had to be judged based on my performance against the other students within that same class.

jccalhoun 11y ago
The points only matter in comparison to your classmates if there is a curve or something and the directions say there is no curve. If there is no curve then I don't see how the notion of having an advantage comes into play.
edwardy20 11y ago
> Because the "points" have no intrinsic value except in comparison to your classmates This is where your logic is wrong. The professor is not saying the class is graded on a relative scale (for example, top 10% of the class gets As). If everyone gets two points, and it bumps up everyone's GPAs, then of course it will benefit them all, especially in comparison to people who are not in the class.
- gorena 11y ago
  This is not necessarily true. If you're already a good student, this devalues your GPA, mostly due to the generally awful GPA system. Assuming your school considers everything above a 92 to be a "4.0", if you're already in that range, you definitely don't want to help anyone else into that range. Note that, of course, this would be fixed by just making GPAs decimal numbers out of 100, the average of all of your actual, numeric grades from each course (multiplied by credit hours?). You can divide it by 25 if you really want the weird 4.0 scale for some reason.
- fcbrooklyn 11y ago
  Yes, it's true that it sort of benefits everyone in the class vs people who did not take the class, but some classes are easy A's and some aren't, and everyone knows that. If the class becomes a slightly easier A because we all picked 2 points, then the effect will be relatively small. It would be a better experiment if he was handing out cash, even small amounts of cash.
univerio 11y ago
It depends on whether you consider the points valuable per se, or in relation to other people's grades. If you choose two points and < 10% of the class choose 6, you are still better off than you were before, if the points have intrinsic value. The article says that the class is not curved, meaning 2 points for you is a better grade, regardless of what others get.
porter 11y ago
This is the rational choice in isolation. But collectively there is a better solution. The problem is that there's always the (rational) incentive to defect from the coordinated outcome, because as you point out, it's better for you...if you're the only one who defects.
MagicWishMonkey 11y ago
Not every class is graded on a curve.
mturmon 11y ago
The first italicized paragraph of the OP says the scores are not curved, and the students are told this, so your analysis is incorrect.
makr17 11y ago
> "points" have no intrinsic value except in comparison to your classmates this would be true if the course was graded on a curve, but the article makes clear that > the course grades are not curved.
- fcbrooklyn 11y ago
  Doesn't matter if there's a curve. Your grades are still only meaningful compared to your classmates. (ok, assuming you're not in danger of actually failing the class)
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    No they're not. They have nothing to do with your classmates. It's not a competition.
  - swang 11y ago
    The only time you care about your classmate's grade is when it is being graded on a curve. I couldn't care less about other people's grades.
  - deelowe 11y ago
    The only time I cared about classmates' grades is when there was a curve. Adjusting a 92 to be the threshold for a 4.0 is a curve BTW. A lot of schools dont do this.
tnorthcutt 11y ago
All selections are anonymous, and the course grades are not curved.
bduerst 11y ago
From the article, the class isn't graded on a curve so your assumption that 2 points is worthless doesn't apply.
- gorena 11y ago
  This assumes you haven't already maxed out the GPA value for the course. If you already have a 92 (I went to a school that didn't have "A+", YMMV), there's no reason to increase your grades, and anyone else increasing their grade has the potential to devalue yours. Note that this is fixed by just averaging your actual grades out of 100 to form your GPA, instead of mapping from a 0-100 range to an enumeration to a 0-4 scale then averaging the results.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Since this is for extra credit on a term paper that hasn't been graded yet, isn't it a little early to know (for sure) that you maxed your grade?
    - gorena 11y ago
      Depends on the relative value to the rest of the course, I suppose. If you've been acing every test and homework you can be relatively confident you'll do well - at least, this was my experience in college. I didn't have many classes that had grades entirely based on one assignment though.
tolmasky 11y ago
A lot of people are commenting on how the article said there would be no curve, but I interpreted your statement to mean a deeper comparison to other students: the intrinsic value of doing better or worse than them, that translates to actual physical results: better chance at valedictorian than them, better chance to stand out to the teacher, higher overall GPA, etc.
- fcbrooklyn 11y ago
  Exactly. Curve or no curve it doesn't matter.
- fcbrooklyn 11y ago
  "better chance to stand out to the teacher" On reflection, this might make me stop and think about it. It's supposedly anonymous, but it can't be anonymous to the professor, can it, or how would the points be awarded? This professor believes he's simulating the tragedy of the commons, so to act rationally and take the 6 points might cast you in a negative light in his eyes, which might not be worth the 6 points after all.
lifeformed 11y ago
I think it also depends on the class size. If there are only 10 students, then it's very risky to pick 6 points, since you have to be the only one who picks it. But if there are 1,000 students, then it'd make perfect sense to pick 6 points. Basically, the less of an effect your own decision has on the group outcome, the more rational it is to pick the selfish decision. This is why I find voting hard to justify if you view it pragmatically (even though I do it). It's mathematically improbable that my vote will make any difference. Then why do it? Sure, if everyone thought that, it would be bad. But it doesn't matter what other people do: your vote still won't matter either way. It's such a huge pool of voters that it's literally impossible to put yourself in a position where your vote makes a difference. Basically, it's important that people vote. But it's not important that a particular person votes. Can anyone convince me why I in particular should vote in an election of a quarter billion people? Are there any reasons other than following idealistic principles? I mean, following principles is important, but I was wondering if there are more pragmatic arguments.
- mtVessel 11y ago
  If you live in the same country as I do, I definitely think you shouldn't vote. That way, my vote counts more. Huh? If everyone's vote carries the same weight, then in a large pool, everyone's vote is equally meaningless. So, logically, if my vote is almost certainly not going to cast the deciding ballot, then I should stay home. And so should everyone else. If everyone stays home, then all it takes for my candidate to win is for me to go to the polls. All of a sudden, my vote is the most meaningful vote in the entire election! "Everyone's vote counts equally" only applies to those who actually, y'know, vote. Or, try this argument: The premise of voting is not that it matters whose vote tips the scales. The premise of voting is that the candidate who gets the most people to vote for him or her wins. So you only need to vote if you actually care who wins. And if you do care who wins, you don't actually care about the relative contribution of any individual vote, including your own.
  - lifeformed 11y ago
    All of this is true; however, at the end of the day, it still seems bothersome that me voting and me not voting has the exact same outcome. It won't affect anything. Even if I care who wins. Some people say, "well, if everyone who thought like you voted instead, they could make a difference." Okay, fine, you're right, I'll vote instead then. I do, and it's still logically equivalent to not voting. I mean, obviously we should all vote, but it just always seemed weird to me that society relies on everyone performing an individually inconsequential action.

jccalhoun 11y ago

The points only matter in comparison to your classmates if there is a curve or something and the directions say there is no curve. If there is no curve then I don't see how the notion of having an advantage comes into play.

edwardy20 11y ago

> Because the "points" have no intrinsic value except in comparison to your classmates This is where your logic is wrong. The professor is not saying the class is graded on a relative scale (for example, top 10% of the class gets As). If everyone gets two points, and it bumps up everyone's GPAs, then of course it will benefit them all, especially in comparison to people who are not in the class.

gorena 11y ago
This is not necessarily true. If you're already a good student, this devalues your GPA, mostly due to the generally awful GPA system. Assuming your school considers everything above a 92 to be a "4.0", if you're already in that range, you definitely don't want to help anyone else into that range. Note that, of course, this would be fixed by just making GPAs decimal numbers out of 100, the average of all of your actual, numeric grades from each course (multiplied by credit hours?). You can divide it by 25 if you really want the weird 4.0 scale for some reason.
fcbrooklyn 11y ago
Yes, it's true that it sort of benefits everyone in the class vs people who did not take the class, but some classes are easy A's and some aren't, and everyone knows that. If the class becomes a slightly easier A because we all picked 2 points, then the effect will be relatively small. It would be a better experiment if he was handing out cash, even small amounts of cash.

univerio 11y ago

It depends on whether you consider the points valuable per se, or in relation to other people's grades. If you choose two points and < 10% of the class choose 6, you are still better off than you were before, if the points have intrinsic value. The article says that the class is not curved, meaning 2 points for you is a better grade, regardless of what others get.

porter 11y ago

This is the rational choice in isolation. But collectively there is a better solution. The problem is that there's always the (rational) incentive to defect from the coordinated outcome, because as you point out, it's better for you...if you're the only one who defects.

MagicWishMonkey 11y ago

Not every class is graded on a curve.

mturmon 11y ago

The first italicized paragraph of the OP says the scores are not curved, and the students are told this, so your analysis is incorrect.

makr17 11y ago

> "points" have no intrinsic value except in comparison to your classmates this would be true if the course was graded on a curve, but the article makes clear that > the course grades are not curved.

fcbrooklyn 11y ago
Doesn't matter if there's a curve. Your grades are still only meaningful compared to your classmates. (ok, assuming you're not in danger of actually failing the class)
- s73v3r 11y ago
  No they're not. They have nothing to do with your classmates. It's not a competition.
- swang 11y ago
  The only time you care about your classmate's grade is when it is being graded on a curve. I couldn't care less about other people's grades.
- deelowe 11y ago
  The only time I cared about classmates' grades is when there was a curve. Adjusting a 92 to be the threshold for a 4.0 is a curve BTW. A lot of schools dont do this.

tnorthcutt 11y ago

All selections are anonymous, and the course grades are not curved.

bduerst 11y ago

From the article, the class isn't graded on a curve so your assumption that 2 points is worthless doesn't apply.

gorena 11y ago
This assumes you haven't already maxed out the GPA value for the course. If you already have a 92 (I went to a school that didn't have "A+", YMMV), there's no reason to increase your grades, and anyone else increasing their grade has the potential to devalue yours. Note that this is fixed by just averaging your actual grades out of 100 to form your GPA, instead of mapping from a 0-100 range to an enumeration to a 0-4 scale then averaging the results.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Since this is for extra credit on a term paper that hasn't been graded yet, isn't it a little early to know (for sure) that you maxed your grade?
  - gorena 11y ago
    Depends on the relative value to the rest of the course, I suppose. If you've been acing every test and homework you can be relatively confident you'll do well - at least, this was my experience in college. I didn't have many classes that had grades entirely based on one assignment though.

tolmasky 11y ago

A lot of people are commenting on how the article said there would be no curve, but I interpreted your statement to mean a deeper comparison to other students: the intrinsic value of doing better or worse than them, that translates to actual physical results: better chance at valedictorian than them, better chance to stand out to the teacher, higher overall GPA, etc.

fcbrooklyn 11y ago
Exactly. Curve or no curve it doesn't matter.
fcbrooklyn 11y ago
"better chance to stand out to the teacher" On reflection, this might make me stop and think about it. It's supposedly anonymous, but it can't be anonymous to the professor, can it, or how would the points be awarded? This professor believes he's simulating the tragedy of the commons, so to act rationally and take the 6 points might cast you in a negative light in his eyes, which might not be worth the 6 points after all.

lifeformed 11y ago

I think it also depends on the class size. If there are only 10 students, then it's very risky to pick 6 points, since you have to be the only one who picks it. But if there are 1,000 students, then it'd make perfect sense to pick 6 points. Basically, the less of an effect your own decision has on the group outcome, the more rational it is to pick the selfish decision. This is why I find voting hard to justify if you view it pragmatically (even though I do it). It's mathematically improbable that my vote will make any difference. Then why do it? Sure, if everyone thought that, it would be bad. But it doesn't matter what other people do: your vote still won't matter either way. It's such a huge pool of voters that it's literally impossible to put yourself in a position where your vote makes a difference. Basically, it's important that people vote. But it's not important that a particular person votes. Can anyone convince me why I in particular should vote in an election of a quarter billion people? Are there any reasons other than following idealistic principles? I mean, following principles is important, but I was wondering if there are more pragmatic arguments.

mtVessel 11y ago
If you live in the same country as I do, I definitely think you shouldn't vote. That way, my vote counts more. Huh? If everyone's vote carries the same weight, then in a large pool, everyone's vote is equally meaningless. So, logically, if my vote is almost certainly not going to cast the deciding ballot, then I should stay home. And so should everyone else. If everyone stays home, then all it takes for my candidate to win is for me to go to the polls. All of a sudden, my vote is the most meaningful vote in the entire election! "Everyone's vote counts equally" only applies to those who actually, y'know, vote. Or, try this argument: The premise of voting is not that it matters whose vote tips the scales. The premise of voting is that the candidate who gets the most people to vote for him or her wins. So you only need to vote if you actually care who wins. And if you do care who wins, you don't actually care about the relative contribution of any individual vote, including your own.
- lifeformed 11y ago
  All of this is true; however, at the end of the day, it still seems bothersome that me voting and me not voting has the exact same outcome. It won't affect anything. Even if I care who wins. Some people say, "well, if everyone who thought like you voted instead, they could make a difference." Okay, fine, you're right, I'll vote instead then. I do, and it's still logically equivalent to not voting. I mean, obviously we should all vote, but it just always seemed weird to me that society relies on everyone performing an individually inconsequential action.