Comment by lmkg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmkg | Hacker News Reader

This is how my college worked, and I think it's a fabulous idea that promotes personal responsibility rather than CYA bullshit. During orientation, all the incoming freshmen (~200) were herded into a lecture hall, and a panel of five upperclassmen pontificated on the significance and nuances of the phrase "don't be a jackass." And that was basically it. We could drink as much alcohol as we wanted, we were just expected not to get into fights, break other people's stuff, get sent to the hospital, or otherwise do things that we or someone else would regret. We could burn quite a wide variety of things, in bulk, so long as no one got hurt. We were given unrestricted 24-hour access to computer labs, chemistry equipment, etc. Most of my exams were take-home, and we were expected to adhere to the rules (time limit, closed-book) because that was the cost of the privilege. We could pull all sorts of pranks against others students and even faculty, so long as we left contact information and any effects were reversible within 24 hours. We were expected to be responsible adults, and were treated like responsible adults, so we acted like responsible adults (well, we acted responsibly anyways). We actually had less alcohol-related incidents (assaults, property damage, alcohol poisoning) than any nearby college, despite (read: because of) their having significantly more restrictive policies.

Like Nordstrom's, we did have to make a few concessions to the outside world, though they were few and far between. For example, we were not allowed to have bonfires that were taller than the dorms, because then women's college across the street thinks the school is on fire. The administration is totally fine with 50 mildly inebriated college students milling around an open flame in the middle of a dorm courtyard with no "adult" supervision, but they still don't like explaining it to the local fire department.

What college do you go to? I'm transferring this year and... inquiring minds want to know.

Sounds an awful lot like Harvey Mudd. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Mudd_College#The_HMC_hon...

To the grandparent: having grown up in Claremont, I can tell you that the reason Harvey Mudd has less problems with alcohol than the other Claremont colleges is almost completely a result of which students it accepts rather than its honor code.

(Though I think the HMC honor code is fantastic, and I’m sure that it is part of the cause of student self-selection: a certain type of person is likely to apply to a school with such a culture.)

Correct, I went to Harvey Mudd.

What you say certainly has some truth to it, and I am skeptical this policy would work for the population at large. However, the other colleges (especially Pomona) are also pretty selective in their admissions, and there is a significant overlap in student life between the various colleges. While Mudd's honor code may not work as well with other student populations, I also think that other regulatory systems would not work as well with that student population. For one thing, it's essentially a college of hackers (in the HN sense), so having a stricter or more explicit set of rules would probably result in "creative" ways of following the letter of the law, with less regards to the spirit.

Can you expand on what you mean? I can't imagine that either test scores or economic status is correlated with jack-assery, although I guess it's possible. If I were forming an experiment, in fact, my hypothesis would be that the latter is positively correlated (but I doubt it would pan out).

If you don't believe that economic status is correlated with jack-assery, go live in a low economic status neighborhood.

I do. And my neighbors are hard-working, decent people, despite not having large salaries and getting dirty at work.

I did however, grow up in an affluent neighborhood, and I seem to recall that some people there neither angels nor saints. Maybe about as many as in my current locale.

I was going to guess Caltech which has a very similar policy and culture as described. The only thing that didn't fit was the "women's college across the street".

Yep. Also I am compelled by ancient tradition to point out that Caltech's style and traditions are going down the tubes due to the shift from administration by faculty to administration by professional administrators. (Note that this has been the received wisdom for long enough that it can't possibly be quite as true as it's made out to be.)

Good post, thanks :)

I have a similar point to this relating to young children (under the age of 15 and over 5 I guess), allowing a child to have what they want, go where they like and do what they want (within reason), this gift of freedom seems to make the child mature faster or think/act differently.

For example a child given the opportunity to go out late at night before being old enough for nightclubs, who isn't worried about rules that say 'be home by X' or 'no alcohol!' is more likely to find what they enjoy naturally instead of breaking rules just to spite their parents.

Another example, given the option to drink fizzy drinks all day or water, a child doesn't take long to realize water is a better option most of the time.

Most of this is from first hand experience, I think these ideas rely on a reasonably smart child/parent and an open & trusting relationship. The parent must still provide direction on what is right/wrong and communicate ideas.

</OT>

Which college did you go to? Going to college in Texas, I think even suggesting some of these ideas would have given my university's administrators a heart attack.

It sounds a good bit like Rice a decade ago actually. They're a bit more strict on the pranks ("jacks") these days, and some of the other things are becoming a little more restricted as the university gets larger, but it still mostly applies.

We actually had less alcohol-related incidents than any nearby college, despite their having significantly more restrictive policies

I'm not sure how that is a benefit and I think a lot of people are mistaking the absence of rules with the absence of authority. The easiest way to get compliant people is to threaten them with punishment but not tell them what the rules are. They had 5 other students explain the nuances, rather than someone with authority because that way, they could still punish you for what those students told you was OK.

It's essentially an open door for exertion of arbitrary power, but dressed up so the people welcome it as freedom. Imagine if traffic laws were "use your own judgment" - no speeding signs, but the cops could still pull you over on a whim and ticket you for speeding. And you couldn't go to court to contest it because there are no rules, and we'd all be driving a whole lot slower. But at least we're being treated like responsible adults, right?

A lot of driving laws are "use your best judgement". For example, in Texas the speed limit is an advisory. You can go faster if you can make the case that it was safest for you to do so (like say you're in Dallas where everyone routinely drives at least 10 mph over the speed limit and driving slower would be a hazard).

> Imagine if traffic laws were "use your own judgment" - no speeding signs

Haven't repeated experiments shown that this does, in fact, create safer roadways for cars, cyclists and pedestrians?

No, they haven't. There was one recently linked on HN, but it was a fairly recent experiment, and it's far more likely to be attributable to the strangeness of it; people used to signs go into hyper-defensive-driver mode when they get to an area with no signs. You take away signs entirely the novelty wears off and people go back to driving like assholes.

> You take away signs entirely the novelty wears off and people go back to driving like assholes.

[citation needed]

Have you ever had the chance to drive in a third-world country?

I have - so what you're trying to get across is that the only difference between culture (driving or otherwise) in first and third world countries is in lack of necessary regulations in third world (traffic signs included)?

I call bullshit on this.

What does make a difference IMHO is having as few rules as necessary - BUT making sure that those few are sensible and respected.

Thus - "Don't be a jackass" is a worthy and sufficient rule - if enforced thoroughly.

Moscow is as full of signs as it was 10 years ago, but nowadays people drive better because the fines have skyrocketed and the overall culture kind of increased.

Your rebuttal appears to be unsubstantiated. I did some brief googling to see if I could find evidence one way or the other and came up with the article mentioned but little else in terms of studies or stats. Interesting theory though.

Looking at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3... it looks like the increased safety effect was documented over a period of 25 years in over 100 different locations.

That's strong enough data for me to strongly doubt your theory.

I still don't see any evidence that it will scale - especially in the US. Most areas still have signs, so the areas without signs remain exceptions that put people on the defense.

I agree, people are even more obedient in the absence of clear rules.

Here's an example about the "Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox" - http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety...

These experiment do not prove much. For instance, it matters a great deal where these experiments were done. In all Indian cities (Bangalore, Delhi, etc), this "experiment" is being done all the time and the results are quite plain to see. There are more deaths and road accidents on these city roads than places with road signs and rules.

Imagine if traffic laws were "use your own judgment" - no speeding signs, but the cops could still pull you over on a whim and ticket you for speeding.

Already possible. If you are going 65 on a road marked as 65 but there is 100 foot visibility and black ice on the road, you are going to be pulled over. The speed limit is a limit, not "if you go this speed, you can't get a ticket".

While you are correct that Orwellian dictatorships are also well-served by not havinv explicit rules, having lived in this particular environment, I think your analysis is wrong. What happened was not that people were kept in line by fear of punishment. What happened was that people had regard for the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. If you ever caught yourself wondering if you were running afoul of the honor code, the internal monologue was not framed in terms of "will I get punished," but rather "am I harming others."

Also, to counter another point: the administrators did not actually have the authority to punish students. The disciplinary board was student-run, and while I was not a part of that process, I am under the impression that the administration was pretty hands-off. While I don't remember for sure, it is very likely that the students giving the presentation were actually the ones with the authority.

I think you're missing that the very fact that you had to wonder if you were running afoul of the honor code is what makes people compliant. The Harvey Mudd honor code specifies "integrity" - but what does this mean? When there aren't clear definitions, people start to imitate others, especially those who are assumed to know what the rules really are. The punishment for violations doesn't even need to be explicit, the threat of being ostracized or losing face is a strong enough disincentive for many people. The fact that you internalized the values of the community means you perceived them as just, so for you, the self-policed rules were legitimate. And maybe they were legitimate. But here's a big problem: the administration is not operating transparently, they are counting on social behavior to control students according to a hidden set of rules that aren't up for discussion or debate, unlike an explicit rule book that could be questioned and contested.

The problem with the disciplinary board follows the same logic: just as vague, open-ended rules create more compliant behavior, you should expect that a student-run disciplinary board will also penalize deviant behavior much more enthusiastic precisely because the administration is hands-off.

The important question is whether the (explicit or implicit) rules are good rules, not whether you're permitted to self-police them. Self-policing may be more efficient, but the cost is less transparency and more conservative behavior.

Your perception of a lack of transparency is not accurate. Under the honor code at Mudd, every case that comes before either of the two student boards must be made public. Student names are withheld, as are other identifying characteristics (building names, professor names, etc.). Both boards are required to follow these precedents, and anyone can look at them. If a precedent is abandoned, then the boards have to give a very good reason why. Also, students who feels that the board has ruled unfairly have a right to challenge the ruling (and before you ask, they often win these challenges).

As for the honor code not being up for debate or discussion, that is patently untrue. Not only are there regularly scheduled community discussions of the honor code and any changes that ought to be made to the code or how it is enforced, but there are also rules in place that require any major changes to the code to be approved by a student vote.

As to the student board "penaliz[ing] deviant behavior much more enthusiastic(sic.) precisely because the administration is hands-off," that is not supported by the evidence at Mudd. The most common penalty by far is a short, anonymous letter of apology to the community. More extreme punishments are rare, and can be easily challenged. I don't know of many administrations with explicit rules who would be that lenient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com