- “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.

This year as families were sitting down to feast on a thoughtfully planned out and carefully cooked dinner, 307. 67 million Americans were standing in lines outside of major retailers. This year Black Friday, the day of shopping historically following Thanksgiving Day, took over Thanksgiving Day. Stores such as Wal-Mart opened as early as 8 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day. About 10% of the shoppers were out at stores by 8 p.m. on Thursday and an estimated 28% of shoppers were at the stores by midnight, compared to 24.4% last year. That means millions of Americans cut their Thanksgiving festivities short to shop. So it can be argued that sneaky and creative retailers have transformed what was created as a day of thanks into a day of greed.

As evidence note that the number of Black Friday sales this year hit the all time high. Total spending over the four-day weekend totaled $59.1 billion, up 12.8 percent from 2011. Thanksgiving online sales rose 32 percent from last year to $633 million. And online sales on Black Friday were up 26 percent from the same day last year to $1.042 billion. Chew on these facts. They don’t taste as good as that homemade stuffing or grandma’s apple pie did, do they? That’s because they’re not delicious, appetizing, or appealing. They are a reflection of the disgusting consumerism that has engulfed America. They are evidence that desire has overwhelmed gratitude. And that’s not a leftover I am anxious to dig into.

However, as terrible as this all may seem there is a flip side. We must think about the intentions of these anxious shoppers. Families with limited means may see Black Friday deals as the only opportunity to buy popular, new items for their loved ones. Going to the sales then becomes something that people do not out of an uncontrollable greed, but an admirable love. Black Friday deals, especially for those that are economically constrained, may be impossible to resist. What these frugal shoppers don’t know though is that Black Friday deals often fool us into paying more than we should. Black Friday is every retailer’s most important game of the year, and they enter the battlefield well prepared to make consumers help them leave the red and enter the black.

Black Friday deals, you may have noticed, don’t apply to every item or every corner of the store. Instead, retailers highlight a few hot ticket items at low prices to lure consumers into the stores where they inevitably end up spending on other items that are not at a reduced price. Between retailers convincing you that prices will go back up after Black Friday and placing high-margin items at eye-level, you are sure to make some uninformed purchases on this crazy day.

So I think it is safe to say that there is something ironic and ultimately sad about Americans forgetting the meaning of Thanksgiving to wait in the frigid cold all night to save $50 on the newest gaming console. Yet, we can find comfort in the thought that many of these consumers are out there not to fulfill their own selfish desires, but instead to check off items on the wish lists of loved ones. But, can we come to terms with the attractiveness of these deals when as a result of them, people each year are injured and killed by other desperate shoppers’ insane behavior?

Photo credits: George Artwood, Patrick Hoesly, & Erwin Bolwidt/Flickr

It’s undeniable: here in America, we take our shopping seriously. Even in the face of the most serious economic recession in decades, people still love shopping for anything they can, or even can’t, afford. In fact, “love” might not really begin to fully explain the obsessive-compulsive relationship many American consumers have with their favorite brands, product lines and gadgets. This kind of overzealous customer loyalty can lead to restless, pushy, and sometimes even violent crowds.

It is not surprising that as part of the kick-off to the holiday season, the oh-so-American passion for gluttony, self-indulgence and vigorous over-spending expands not just in the kitchen but in the wallet and out into the public sphere. The incident from this past Black Friday demonstrates just how willing some consumers are to do whatever it takes to purchase what they want. The key word here, of course, is “some.” To what extent are these somewhat isolated incidents whose frequency are nevertheless marginally increasing representative of shifting consumer behavior norms in America? What approach can be taken to handle these incidents in trying to identify the line between healthy consumer competition and dangerous shopping situations?

Sure, it might seem like an extreme example, and it is. But every year during major holiday sales, special releases and limited-time-only events you’ll find a throng of people waiting anxiously to be the first to see, try, or buy insert-cool-new-item-here. And when this cool-new-item has limited availability, some consumers seemingly will do whatever it takes to get their hands on it. You’ve heard about competitive marketing. Enter competitive consumerism.

An incident late last week in Orlando, Florida served as a prime example of customers anticipating the midnight release of a new, limited edition Nike shoe shortly before the commencement of the NBA All-Star weekend festivities. What was even more surprising than the actual customers themselves – who reportedly ran across a parking lot to be closer to the actual store after being contained across the street by police – was the immediate and somewhat overdone, though perhaps well-meaning, response of the entire police force of Orlando. When all was said and done, more than 100 police officers dressed in riot gear, on motorcycles and horses, as well as a helicopter, rushed to the scene to diffuse the situation.

On one hand, given some of the more violent shopping events that have occurred in the past calendar year, such as the Air Jordan release, it’s understandable that security forces in Orlando would be determined to prevent serious injuries or disturbances outside the Nike store on Friday. However, one must consider how necessary the deployment of such an intense number of police officers and resources was really necessary for a crowd (whose size is currently undisclosed) just eager to buy some cool kicks. As a major city, surely Orlando needs the services and protection of its police in much more serious situations in the wee hours of a Friday? Though consumer behavior trends are in some ways cause for more and more concern, what could half of those police officers been doing, or helping with, or maybe even saving or preventing, if they weren’t all dressed up in riot gear outside a shoe store? What dangers were left to permeate the streets of Orlando while a large police force dallied with a group of shoppers?

To be sure, the potential for serious violence in shopping situations exists and has been demonstrated many times, and a town or a city, or even a government, has a responsibility to its people to regulate such situations to be as safe as possible. But at what price? Couldn’t the time and resources allocated to this one instance of Nike fan anticipation have been better directed towards any of the other more serious problems Orlando faces, like crime, homelessness, and violence?

So, yes, the behavior of American consumers sometimes can seem out of hand, uncalled for, irresponsible, and even dangerous. But what’s just as important to consider is the quality of the response of officials in their ability to effectively regulate and control these situations. A thoughtful discussion can easily be had about American priorities and the appropriateness or rationality of certain shopping behaviors. What people aren’t really talking about, though, is what role security officials can play in alleviating these situations, what they’re not doing well, and what more they can do to respond to shopping conflicts in a way to maximize functionality and success while maintaining security to an appropriate scale. In the end, how can we define some healthy consumer competition that’s good for our economy, and behavior that warrants strict, even forceful responses from security and police personnel?

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?

For the record, Texas Tech’s football went 8-5 last year.

But who knows? Maybe the man’s family is starving with his measly $1.5 million salary from last year. Don’t worry though, both Coach Tuberville and the athletic director declined to comment when inquired by the press.

The university president Bailey says he is “sympathetic,” but they are keeping a promise they made last year (what a man of his word! but don’t they have contracts for professors to honor as well?).

To expand more on the topic, here’s an interesting video featuring Coach Calhoun, the head basketball coach of the University of Connecticut, if you haven’t seen it yet:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xokthY5zuPU]

He did bring up a good point though: the UConn basketball program does bring in lots of revenue and I’m sure, good images for the university. But should an academic institution really decide that an athletic program is worth more for the university? What message does that send to its students? Who gets to decide that? I’m not a big fan of picking quality of instructions on the field over quality of instructions in classrooms. Besides, who is it to say that a presentation made by a professor in an academia conference is less important than a win on a football field, and how do you measure that? Yes, athletic programs generate much more money for the university, but a university is not a for-profit, and I’m sure the majority of the profit generated doesn’t go to academic programs but stay in the athletic departments.

So should the university honor Tuberville’s contract? Is it unethical for Tuberville to accept the raise? Should we really take this kind of utilitarianism approach when it comes to deciding where funding goes in a university?

Here are two links that have some stats about average college professor and football coach salaries.

P.S. For those wondering what my “sports loyalty bias” is, I am a die-hard Duke and Auburn fan (my school and my hometown), who I am happy and proud to say are the reigning champions in men’s basketball and football. I know I have some questions to answer as well, and I am very well aware of the fact that Tommy Tuberville coached my beloved Auburn football team just three years ago.

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.

Photo credit: em_on_flickr via Flickr

Incentives for students are everywhere— awards for students with the best GPA, presents from parents for each A their kid earns, school districts paying children to take AP tests, and giving plastic surgery as a reward to those who do the best on exams. Wait, what? We have to wonder when these incentives begin to cross the line and maybe violate what we think is right or wrong. If thinkers such as Duke’s own Prof. Ruth Grant have raised issues with the first three examples, the last situation certainly seems to raise some ethical questions.

Hospitals in South Korea have tapped into the obsession of rewarding students for their achievements, and they are now offering a very unique gift: discounted eye and nose operations for students who score well on university entrance exams.

A recent Reuters MSNBC article details the phenomenon and includes anecdotes about a hospital that gives rewards to mothers of students as well by giving them free Botox injections if their child performs well and chooses to get the plastic surgeries.

So are the hospitals doing something that is inherently wrong? Maybe not. After all, the students already want the surgeries and they are not being encouraged to do anything bad. In fact, they are being told to work hard and shouldn’t there be some payoff for getting good grades, especially when the competition is as tough as it is in South Korea?

Yet, at the same time, the hospital is essentially condoning the surgeries and telling children that being able to get your eyelids lifted and nose tilted is a privilege and ultimate reward for those who dedicate themselves to their studies. Because an established institution like a hospital is providing these surgeries as a reward, some may argue that the incentive is being reinforced and thus so are adolescents’ desires to change their physical appearance. This raises questions about whether high school students should be free to make their own decisions about their body or if they are too young to know better. As Grant has noted, incentives are usually offered by people in authority—an inherently unbalanced situation.  I would argue that a teenager on his or her way to college should be able to make a choice about plastic surgery, but I am quite fearful of structures that could consciously, or unconsciously, lead people to think that the surgeries are something they should or must get. At some point, people stop thinking for themselves and the surgeries turn into a societal beauty norm (and the hospital presumably makes a lot of profit along the way).

I am alarmed by how obsessed Korean teenagers seem to be with altering their appearance—there is a long reservation list of students hoping to get the operations if their tests go well. Yet, this is not all that different from the image conscious world in which Duke students find themselves on campus. It is not uncommon for people to go to great lengths (skipping meals, taking Aderol, not sleeping) in order to succeed in a highly competitive environment and look the part while doing so. It seems that there is a growing emphasis on fitting into the beauty standards of your social environment, and there may be structural choices (incentives from the hospitals) that are further perpetuating this.

Ultimately the question is: do we really want children to be studying harder in order to change how they look when they should be striving to do well so they can benefit from the value of having an education?

Additional issues:

Also, if you are interested in reading about something closer to home, this 2005 article from Duke’s student newspaper discusses one student’s battle with an eating disorder as well as the larger issues that exist on campus with body image awareness: http://dukechronicle.com/article/groups-promote-body-image-awareness

As well as more recent thoughts on the toll that competitive culture takes on students here: http://dukechronicle.com/article/mentally-healthy-devils and in broader society: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/the-power-of-failure