- “Oh, I STINFed that class. Had to study for orgo.”
- “Can I see your p-set? I don’t have time to do it.”
- “First time I’ve written a paper without Adderall!”

Pressures are high, and so we cut corners.

But why would students cheat for classes that “don’t count?” The online course company, Coursera, reported dozens of instances of plagiarism in a sci-fi fantasy course attended by 39,000 students.

The class (and all classes offered through Coursera) is free, peer-graded, and carries no academic credit, except a certificate of achievement. Fun fact: Duke Professor Walter Sinnott-Armstrong teaches the largest Coursera course — over 180,000 are enrolled.

So, why did the students cheat?

An article by The Chronicle of Higher Education suggests that many instances of plagiarism could be attributed to the various cultural background of the students. In countries such as China and Uganda, where I have taught, this seems plausible. Watching students study English by copying passages of a textbook over and over, it seems logical to me that they may lift sentences off Wikipedia or another author for a for an essay.

Nevertheless, confusion about what constitutes plagiarism can’t be the sole causal factor. Perhaps its also the unrelenting strive to “succeed” and the fear of failure. Even though Coursera is ungraded and open to the public, some of the students who voluntarily enroll may be similarly motivated as Duke Students. Thus, cutting corners may be a means to “achieve” and “succeed” in front of their peers.

So, does it matter?

At Duke, cheating has consequences for both the person and his or her peers. Curves are ruined, grades skewed. Plagiarizing on Coursera on the other hand, carries little academic consequence.

Given that students enroll for free, papers are peer-graded, and there is no academic credit, besides a certificate of completion, does it make sense to punish cheaters? What really is at stake?

I believe the answer is yes. Cheating is a categorical wrong in an academic setting. Imagine enrolling in the sci-fi class to seek intellectual fulfillment (or accomplishment), only to find yourself reading paper after paper of the synopsis of Frankenstein from Wikipedia.

Although we think of higher education as an outputs-oriented institution (think research, degrees, etc), it’s also a process as well. Avoiding the process of learning kills the meaning of education, especially in a “purer” learning experience such as Coursera where academic accreditation is not likely the end objective.

Coursera’s mission is to first and foremost foster a vibrant intellectual community. So while cheating doesn’t “count” in terms of “As, Bs, and Cs,” it certainly matters to the students and the future of the program. Granted, it’s silly to expect a “class” of 180,000 engaged, intellectually curious students. Nevertheless, plagiarism is certainly preventable, and worth preventing.

I was a tad bit shocked when after acceptance letters had been sent out, I received an invite on Facebook to the Duke Girls Class of 2016 Roommate Group. Out of curiosity, I accepted. I began reading through the hundreds of surveys that girls in my class had filled out. Each girl had uploaded a document, answering over thirty questions that were posed by the site’s anonymous designer. Each girl was actively “searching” for a roommate. As I scanned through the posts I was mystified by how comfortable people were. Here hundreds of girls were posting everything about themselves onto a public page in which other girls would simply go through and do what I was doing—judge. Every question from “How many siblings do you have?” to “What is your clothing and shoe size?” was asked. It was like an online interrogation of sorts. I felt uncomfortable with what was going on. Yet, many others seemed to think this page was God’s answer to the hell that is picking your roommate.
Every moment more posts were uploaded, more comments were posted, and more pairs declared themselves roommates. Continuously girls were choosing each other based solely off the fact that they shared common answers to a few superficial questions. I watched as the artsy girls chose the other artsy girls, the New York girls banded together, and the Division 1 athletes immediately cliqued. As the posts were uploaded, people continued to comment with “Oh, I love that show too!” and “Ah, I am also from San Diego!” None of the comments acknowledged differences in answers. Girls were simply looking for mirror images of themselves.

I have a problem with this situation because colleges are continually attempting to enhance their diversity. The finest institutions in America draw on students from countries and cultures across the country and the globe in an attempt to enrich the academic and social experiences of their students. Yet, if students are, before even getting to college, already forming cliques of people exactly like them, how is diversity benefiting anyone? It seems like when we have a choice, we choose to stay in our comfort zones.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that there is no such thing as separate but equal and that “separate is inherently unequal.” Yet today almost 60 years later while students have the right to integrate, they chose to separate on the basis of identities such as race. Why does this self-segregation occur? According to Tommy Lee Woon Associate Dean at the Office of Pluralism and Leadership at Dartmouth College, “One reason is ‘positive’ —shared identity, support and safety. The other is ‘negative’¬—people who feel self-conscious about being different gravitate towards those they think they have something in common with them.” Dartmouth like many other colleges struggles to integrate students of different races, religions, and social-classes. In this modern and often isolating world, students of the same background tend to stick together to find a sense of belonging and create a collective environment. This self-segregation is widely believed to be a very negative reality of campus life. However on the flip side, I know many girls who see self-segregation and similarly self selection as a guarantee they will be comfortable where they are living during their first year of college. And is that wrong? The transition to university life is already a scary one; the comfort of knowing your roommate is a nice security. So while diversity may be ignored and superficiality exuded, can we really blame those who desire some sense of familiarity during this first year in a foreign place?

How to go about choosing your roommate is a personal decision and one that should not be made hastily. While I understand the security associated with a roommate who is similar I also think that learning to interact and cope with people dissimilar to you is crucial. So what did you decide? Did you pick out of a hat and hope for the best or did you play the matching game, sorting through your options until you found the “perfect” fit?

photo credit: http://www.magicalday.com/soccer-groom-wedding-figurine.html

Separate and equal.

At least that’s the idea behind the new emerging trend of dividing boys and girls in public school classrooms. The students would be taught the same curriculum, but in different styles. (another link here)

Obviously the range of this novel (or should I say, archaic?) type of education varies widely. On one extreme end, the boys and girls simply sit in different classrooms, and on one other extreme end, boys and girls are not even allowed to speak to each other on school grounds.

Somewhere in the middle, however, teachers are instructed to use more direct commands and louder voices for boys and a calmer tone for girls.

The trend is emerging because, well, it’s working on tests and discipline issues, or at least those are the claims by some researchers and the schools that employ this method. As of now, there is really no conclusive evidence that favors either method due to a lack of data, and there are also just too many variables that need to be considered. Some variation of the method, however, is being used in some public schools in 39 states plus District of Columbia.

Proponents go as far as saying that this new method bridges the achievement gap between races, class, and of course, gender. In contrast, the opponents treat it as a way to enforce gender stereotypes and believe that the method does not prepare the students well for the co-ed real world.

While I must agree that telling boys to brainstorm sports things and girls wedding cakes is a terrible idea (many schools actually did this). It’s hard to argue against the notion of inherent differences in a boy’s brain and a girl’s brain.

In the U.S. today, more girls like pink than boys and girls tend to do better in reading tests than their gender counterparts. These are facts that are not disputable because they are hard numbers. But are these due to genetic differences? Or are they results of socialization? If it’s more of the former, is it ethical to divide up the boys and girls then? If the same is true for whites and blacks, can we divide them up the same way as well? And what if it’s more of the latter? Is it ethical then to divide up the boys and girls to try to break the expectations?

This attempt at education reform also focuses on less quantifiable characteristics such as the perceived notion that most boys are more impulsive and most girls more compassionate. The teaching style then addresses these differences. The keyword is most. People recognize that this may only work with a proportion of people, and that’s why they allowed optional opt-outs (the Alabama middle school that made it mandatory dropped it immediately after the ACLU came knocking). And if the improved test score numbers are real and it is working for the majority, what do we do? We don’t really know how detrimental it is to the minority that doesn’t fit the model yet as there definitely will be some social pressure against opting out. So should these public schools keep continuing their models?

This reminds me of the post when I talked about whether it is okay to send inmates to churches instead of jails. It’s a different approach to solve the problem, and it’s something that certainly lies in the ethically ambiguous area, but if it works, it certainly warrants more attention. Sure, test scores are not everything, but if this approach really helps the boys catch up on reading, is that really a bad thing? And according to many interviews, this method seems to help girls gain confidence and encourages them to ask more questions in class (this, to me, is less genetics and more society, stupid boys) – and that’s not really a bad thing either is it?

We live in a society where the most politically correct thing is to not enforce stereotypes and gender roles, and this is why a lot of people (me included) find this idea repulsive. But these educators are trying to use inherent differences to help, and what if this approach encourages more boys to pursue poetry and more girls to pursue science? The schools that employ this method argue that will eventually be the results.

Perhaps there is a better solution – test individual kids and determine which child goes to the “reading focus” and which child goes to the “math focus,” but then that will divide up the students even more and inevitably lead to accelerated classes for more talented kids and “remedial classes” for the ones behind. And whether that is ethical or not is a whole other discussion.

Courtesy of COCOEN Daily Photos/Flickr

Oh, you’ve heard the old adage that less is more. We all know that it’s wrong. Why would you want quieter speakers, a slower computer, or less money? Everybody knows that more is indeed more. But more doesn’t mean better, as some students in a California school are learning.

Dozier-Libbey Medical High School in Antioch, California opened two years ago with a new premise-abolishing Ds from the grading system. And in many ways, it makes sense-nobody wants Ds, and they’re perched right between the permissible C and the dreaded F. But alas, in practice, this system didn’t work—high school students (and their parents) became frustrated with the failing grades some of them received, which lowered their GPAs. As a result, the district finally decided to add Ds back to the mix, and as a small gift, retroactively changed every single F into a D. Great, right? Nope. While it did raise the GPAs of students, it also prevented them from retaking subjects that they had previously failed. Obviously, many of these students actually wanted the F—by having a failing grade, they were allowed to retake classes, something that a barely-passing D didn’t allow them to do.

So in a situation like this, what is a school to do? Bring back the Fs? Change the policy and allow students with Ds to retake classes? This is not an easy question to answer, and there is a cost to each option as well. If the school allowed students with Ds to retake classes, wouldn’t this hurt students who had just barely gotten a C by not allowing them the opportunity to retake a course? And how well do grades truly demonstrate differences in knowledge? Does a 71% take significantly more effort or knowledge to earn than a 69%? From my perspective, it seems like the best way to solve this problem is to allow all students to retake courses, regardless of the grade they received. It isn’t fair to give a group of students a second chance simply because they did poorly the first time they took a class. If a second chance is given, it should be extended to all students.

The ramifications of this extend well beyond a student’s freshman transcript; in today’s increasingly competitive world, we often look to standardized measurements (like grades and test scores) as shortcuts to find optimal candidates for jobs and positions. At a place like Duke, it is easy to see how important these standards are. While these standards are often useful and efficient, we must also consider the shortcomings. For example, grades don’t demonstrate promise or dedication, and they don’t inherently take into account improvement over time.

We’ve all been in that instance where we are on the border of a better (or worse) grade. We know how much of a difference these small indicators make. And as a result, it is our responsibility to look (and live) beyond these standards. We should accept them, but we should also look at them as just a small part of who an individual is.

Crouse College at Syracuse University, credit rju92 via flickr

At Syracuse University, the line between a public and private institution has become blurry.

Earlier this month, The Chronicle of Higher Education analyzed the chancellorship of Nancy Cantor, who has pushed the university’s benefits past the campus’ walls and into the town of Syracuse. At the university’s expense, it has embarked on many city projects such as refurbishing public areas and offering tuition to local high school graduates under Cantor’s tenure. Although she has encouraged faculty members to focus their research on the town of Syracuse, some professors have blamed Cantor for SU’s sliding reputation and budgetary shortfalls.

“The administration will give you a list of things we’ve done to improve research and teaching, but what is the top priority?” Robert Van Gulick, a SU philosophy professor, asked the Chronicle. “Some people feel that off-campus things that have practical applications in the city and the world get most support. That’s good for the city, but is it good for the university?”

Cantor’s decision to focus on the town surrounding the university is a classically utilitarian choice: allocating resources in order to benefit the many (the town), at the expense of a few (the university).

On the one hand, a university’s mission is typically academic – though Cantor said she views SU more as a public good than an ivory tower – and professors have worked diligently to maintain the school’s academic goal, through teaching and research. It would seem only fair that the faculty would be able to reap the benefits of their labor, instead of watching their funds being funneled into the surrounding town. Additionally, I’m sure many would argue that the results of their research will inevitably benefit the public, and withholding funds from that research would only limit its capabilities.

But maybe partnering with the surrounding town would be more beneficial than not. In his book The Uses of the University, renowned educator Clark Kerr says issues of public concern have become major issues for American universities, spurring research about topics ranging from public health to national security and defense. This means that even private universities, such as SU, not only have a responsibility to the public but could benefit from this sort of partnership.

Kerr even notes that the ideal location for a university is in an industrial city verging on becoming a slum, much like Syracuse, because the school and town can work together to solve civic problems. Duke’s and the University of North Carolina’s growing relationship with the Raleigh-Durham area is a great example. Although there are many run-down and depressed areas of town, there is still a lot of potential for the area because of the work of students and faculty members and thriving industry in the Research Triangle. President Obama has even selected Durham to be the focal point of the new Jobs and Competitiveness Council, which can only mean good things for the surrounding universities.

When he spoke in Durham this summer, the Duke Chronicle reported President Obama saying, “Because you’ve got these great schools, you can hold your own talent draft—not just in basketball, but when it comes to highly skilled workers.”

A recent study conducted by researchers at Columbia University and Cornell University found that many people who hold utilitarian viewpoints, when applied in certain situations, also host psychopathic or Machiavellian tendencies. For example, permitting the torture of an innocent child so that an entire society may live in bliss, a utilitarian decision, might be considered cold by some.

Cantor, however, is exhibiting the good kind of utilitarianism – making a few professors a little bit angry in order to revitalize an entire town in desperate need of help.

This recent opinion piece from The New York Times explores the evaluation—or rather, an instance of miscalculation—of teachers based on a rather complex formula.

According to her principal and her students, Ms. Isaacson is a “wonderful” and “terrific” middle school teacher who makes the material “much easier to learn.” Yet, when the stats of her students’ performance are plugged into a formula meant to weed out “bad teachers,” Ms. Isaacson came out in the 7^th percentile. This result seems incredibly low for a universally popular teacher, and with her tenure at stake, we might ask whether a mistake has been made: Was there a math error in the formula, or were her peers and students somehow mistaken or biased?

Neither seems to be the case. We don’t have any particularly good reason to think that the arithmetic of the formula was incorrect, nor should we doubt the sincere reports of her principal and her students. It seems like a genuine case of disagreement between the more objective, numbers-based assessment, and the more subjective evaluations.

In this situation, it seems that we should trust the overwhelmingly positive feedback of the principal and the students. This is supported by the fact that her students score high raw scores on standardized tests, which leads me to think that the formula calculations somehow undervalues her contributions. I can’t claim to understand how the formula works, though I suspect that it measures “improvement” rather than the raw scores, which makes it difficult for Ms. Isaacson to score high because most of her students are already at a high level.

What about a hypothetical situation in which a teacher scores well on the formula test but receive unsatisfactory reviews from administrators and students? Would we say that the subjective reports are somehow mistaken? I don’t think that’s the case. Even though it is notoriously difficult to put a number score to the measurement of, say, “inspiration,” it is much harder to “fake” being inspired or to “pretend” that the teacher was duller than she really was (assuming, of course, that the respondents aren’t lying).

The further practical concern is: should the teacher in the second case become tenured? To answer this question, I think we will need to examine the deeper conflict between objective and subjective assessments. In cases of disagreement, should we rely on the hard numbers, or listen to the testimony of others?

Photo credit: www.womenonthefence.com

The other day I ran into a professor from Auburn University whom I personally know very well. By chance, we started talking about the recent live sex demonstration in Northwestern University and it was obvious to me that she was absolutely horrified by the thought. She told me she read it in the Chronicle of Higher Education and suggested to me some things from there. When I got home and started browsing through, I saw this.

To summarize (these all happened within four days of each other):

-A student in UMass made the claim in her column that drunk flirtatious women who dress scandalously in a party should take responsibility if she was raped.

-A Northwestern professor allowed a live sex-toy demonstration in class to show female orgasm is real.

-A basketball player in BYU was dismissed from the team for having pre-marital sex (violating the BYU honor code).

-A How to Better Masturbate Guide was distributed by Skidmore College’s Center for Sex and Gender Relations.

As you can imagine, there are many outcries and discussions going on related to all these topics. What I find intriguing is the involvement of the college institutions and their approaches.

On one end, we have masturbation guides floating around and on the other, a dismissal for pre-marital sex.

So how involved should the academic institutions have over their students’ sex lives? Their goal is to educate and inspire young minds, and how much involvement does that mean in terms of something like sex? I think it’s safe to say that most universities do not really want a prominent sex culture to exist among its student body, but the reality is that many do.* So what should the institutions do?

The Northwestern demonstration case is particularly interesting. Though it received mostly positive feedback from those in the classroom, it created protests from angry “moralists” who want to protect the integrity of a university. Is having a live sex demonstration “ethically bad?” And why so? What is it exactly that makes an optional demonstration sex bad when it is for education purposes?

I think this is a great time for the students and administrations in universities to talk about sex.

*This reminded me of a quote from a famous Cal president Clark Kerr: “The three purposes of the University? To provide sex for the students, sports for the alumni, and parking for the faculty.” (I believe he was joking)

Williams-Bolar was arrested and found guilty of tampering with records and falsifying enrollment papers for her two daughters so they could attend a prominently “rich, white” school for two years. The school has closed enrollment policies and it costs $800 per month to enroll students who do not live in the district.

Williams-Bolar was sentenced to 10 days in jail, two years probation, and 80 hours of community service. There is also a possibility that Williams-Bolar will no longer be able to obtain the teaching degree she was close to obtaining at the University of Akron in Ohio.

Most would agree that committing fraud, as a general principle, is unacceptable and must therefore be punished. As a single act, there may not be a hugely significant cost to Williams-Bolar sneaking her daughters into the school, but the entire system would unravel if every poor mother followed in her footsteps.

But it is important to look at Williams-Bolar’s intentions and the situation she lives in.
Is it possible that her only real chance to provide her daughters with a real life opportunity to succeed required her to break the law?

It seems as if through a number of underlying factors in this case point to systematic discrimination of women like Williams-Bolar who feel they have no better option than to break the law to help their kids succeed.

Her desperation makes a powerful statement about how our current public education system may be failing certain students (most likely those who are already the most disadvantaged).

It is important to look beyond just the individual players in this situation, and look back into the history of Akron and how African Americans have been disadvantaged and discriminated against for generations. The civil rights history of Akron reminds us that many African American families may be facing a life of poverty due to structural reasons from the past and maybe more needs to be done to “even the playing field.”

Although, we like to think that our society has moved away from segregation, this map of Cleveland (nearby to Akron) makes me think otherwise:

Photo credit: Eric Fischer via Flickr

Each red dot represents 25 white people, and each blue one represents 25 black people. Blacks and whites clearly continue to live separately, and race continues to correlate with socioeconomic status and income level.

Although we like to say that racial discrimination and segregation is in our past, the educational and wealth disparities that continue to perpetuate it say otherwise. In fact, education is the civil rights issue of our time. Public schools are mainly funded by property taxes, and thus richer neighborhoods have better resources, and thus more opportunity for kids. Poor students are essentially banned from these schools. Although there is formal opportunity available to all, it is unimaginable to think that any poor family would be able to pay $800 per month to educate one child. So the reality becomes that poor kids go to schools that typically have less qualified teachers, fewer academic materials, poor facilities, and so forth.

As a woman who was training to be a teacher (but might no longer be able to do so), Williams-Bolar certainly understands the value of an education. Maybe she realized that the risk of committing a minor legal offense was worth the added educational value her girls would be getting at this school. I think that most people could imagine making the same choice that she did.

On principle, we have to hold Williams-Bolar accountable for breaking the law, but I think we also need to hold ourselves accountable for the inequalities that continue to be apparent in our public education system. A strict enforcement of the current laws and the Williams-Bolar ruling will probably help deter parents from falsifying enrollment papers in the future, but what is being done to help these parents find a way to provide equal opportunities to their children?

Of course our legal system cannot allow people to tamper with records in order to access resources that they have not paid for. But we also should not accept a societal structure which continues to systematically discriminate and withhold opportunities from certain groups of people.

Why did Williams-Bolar have to sink to such desperate measures to get a better life for her children? I would argue that she should have never had to make such a choice in the first place.

First, I’ll set aside all jabs about Duke’s athletic superiority over that of the Jayhawks. Now, let us break down where two ethical questions may arise: one, should these athletes be tracked and two, why do the trackers have to be elderly people?

When I think of college, I think not of more rigorous academics, learning to live with another person, or consuming disgusting amounts of pizza: I think of freedom. Included in my freedom is the choice to attend – or not attend – class. By hiring trackers to check up on these athletes’ attendance, KU is eliminating a fundamental component of the college experience. Should they stigmatize these students on the basis that they are athletes? They forfeit many freedoms when becoming a student athlete, should the liberty to skip class and catch up on sleep every now and then be one of the opportunities forgone?

The plight of student-athletes and their ‘special treatment’ is not as fascinating as my next point: what’s interesting is that KU has set up a game of cat and mouse where the cat happens to have arthritis and the mouse happens to be one of our nation’s top athletes. The decision to hire seniors – as opposed to any other demographic – does logically make sense: the athletes do not easily manipulate them. Sixty-plus years have apparently calloused them from the temptation of free tickets, autographs, etc. Moreover, in theory young people will feel the need to be more morally upstanding when around elders (you steal from your mom’s cookie jar, not your grandmother’s).

Regardless, I maintain that it is awkward – athlete or not – to have a gray-haired man peeping in your class periodically. Also, to what degree does the age of the trackers transform the attendance game into a joke to the athletes? The article illustrates some of the tricks that the athletes pull in attempts to cut class either altogether or to take off shortly after being accounted for. Would they try to slip away if they weren’t dubious about the trackers’ sight and hearing capabilities, issues some of the trackers say make their task more difficult?

I find the program a little too absurd for comfort. Added to the list of reasons why I’m happy to be a Blue Devil: Kyrie Irving can get himself to our Psychology lecture without a senior citizen spying on our class.

My AdmissionSplash results

AdmissionSplash, the new facebook application, was launched last week. Just for fun, I tried it out. I filled in my test scores, checked yes that I volunteered in high school, no I don’t plan on being recruited for sports, and other similar things. At the end, AdmissionSplash told me that my chances for acceptance at Duke University were only fair, and the accompanying yellow emoticon seemed to say, “Be careful.” I believe I was rightfully accepted, and so, albeit a bit late, I have some reservations about the application.

On the one hand, things like College Confidential and AdmissionSplash give students an outlet for their stresses. They feel relief when someone tells them that they will probably get accepted at their dream schools. They feel consoled when they happen upon someone with a seemingly less qualifying résumé applying to the same dream schools. On the other hand, ragingly competitive high school seniors and computers aren’t very good at forecasting what admissions officers are going to do, particularly at highly selective universities that have to look at more than just test scores.

If Duke had evaluated me based on test scores alone, my chances at getting in were only fair, to be honest. From that perspective, AdmissionSplash was right. But the questionnaire didn’t allow me to say what my application essay was about, if I had good letters of recommendation, or even what kind of leadership positions I had in high school. These aspects of an application can make or break a student regardless of standardized test scores – whether they are perfect or less than average.

AdmissionSplash and the chat boards on College Confidential are unethical in their inaccuracy. Though they occasionally make a good prediction, they equip students with false expectations. Students who have perfect SAT scores but lack meaningful extracurricular activities are given false hope that their acceptance is inevitable. Students, whose scores aren’t the greatest, but their essays and letters of recommendation reveal intellectual passion and a thirst for knowledge, become anguished because they are told their chances are less than fair.

Though these programs help students push their anxieties under the rug until decisions are released, they do nothing to prepare students for the moment that matters, when they open the envelope and receive a decision they weren’t expecting.