Princeton mandates proctoring for in-person exams, upending 133 year precedent
dailyprincetonian.com
dailyprincetonian.com
I was a TA for a few classes and, given the honor code, we did not proctor the exams for undergrads. We just handed them out (left the room) and returned to collect them at the end.
- One of the exams in a course that I TAed had 5 free-response questions.
- There were also 5 TAs in that class, so we un-stapled the exams and each TA graded one question (for consistency).
- We re-assembled the exams and returned them to the students.
- A few days after the exam, one of "my" students (she attended my recitation) came to me with her exam and explained that I had incorrectly graded question 2.
- I told her that I didn't grade question 2, so she had to go take it up with "TA # 2"
- A few hours later, "TA #2" pays me a visit and she (TA#2) is annoyed. She tells me, "Your student is trying to pull a fast one. She answered Q2 incorrectly. She erased her answer and put in the correct answer and she wants it re-graded"
- I briefly defended the student and said something like, "Why would she do that... and how could you even know?"
- "TA#2" responded with "... because I photocopied all of the student responses after I graded them."
- Then I felt like a piece of shit for doubting my fellow TA. And felt even worse being naive enough to not be suspicious.
- "TA#2" and I brought all of this info up with the prof. who was running the course.
- We were told that the situation would be handled by an Honor Committee or something like that. We forwarded the information to the committee, but no one spoke to us and we were not allowed to participate in the deliberations.
- After about a week, all we were told was that the student was able to explain the "discrepancy" between her exam and the photocopy.
To this day, I have no idea what that student could have possibly said to explain her actions.
After that, I started photocopying every damned scrap of paper that I graded.
edits for clarity. The student did not get a zero on the exam, nor was she booted from the course. I don't remember if she was given credit for Question 2, but the TA and I were both expecting her to be tossed, which obviously didn't happen.
She certainly wasn't penalized, but I don't remember if she was given credit for her answer to Q2.
iirc, the student stopped attending my recitation after that.
Can you say more now, like what subject was he/she was teaching.
~150 students in the class, so they were all a blur.
This was also a few years before the web took hold, so I could not have "Google-stalked" her even if I had been so inclined.
I do remember my fellow TA's name! But that's probably not surprising.
I have a friend who in college had another student take his test from the "complete" pile, erase my friend's name, and put on his own instead. It was only through blind luck that my friend figured it out. He, the TA, and the professor reported it – with smoking gun proof – but nothing happened.
The same laxness applies to academic research integrity. Universities rarely punish academics who are discovered to falsify data.
That is a massive burden to put on an educator.
Getting expelled from your university is a very serious, mandated fork in the road for anyone it happens to. So what do they do? If they relate to/empathize with the person, they try to handle it without reporting it. If they don’t, they reported and “let the system handle it.”
As any reasonable person would expect, white people were not reported and marginalized groups were. Privileged groups also got exceptions (the football team had a massive cheating scandal that should have expelled about 15 players, and the professor reported it! But mumble mumble uhh they learned their lesson).
After over a century they finally ended the system recently and honestly? Good. I appreciated what they were attempting to do, but it didn’t work.
The point though is these “honor codes” can become incredibly discriminatory and often, when scrutinized, prove not be effective at stopping cheating.
Expulsion is far too harsh if cheating is widespread but there should be some penalty.
Your work will be ‘graded’ by other humans who don’t know what they are talking about, or an LLM which will assume the median answer is correct?
Need to type? Computer labs (“test taking labs” idk) are back baby. Simple machines, no Internet.
Pretty sure that solves 90% of the testing problem. If somebody is overly reliant on LLM’s and refuses to learn, they’ll pay with their grades on the big assignments. Bummer for teachers who don’t love blue books, but I’m sure it’s a hell of a lot better than trying to sniff out LLMs and constantly mistrusting your students.
A random anecdote is that most of the people I know who went very far in theoretical math are relatively poor at basic mental arithmetic, because they always think in the abstract and offload addition and multiplication to the calculator. It doesn't mean they can't do it, they just aren't as practiced or as fast at it.
Also, they are leaning on a calculator, a specific tool with a proven use that literally everyone knows how to use. LLM’s are glorified beta tests where the VC-backed companies are begging the rest of us to figure out the billion dollar application for them. It doesn’t even remotely compare from a utility standpoint. I don’t need to promise you what a calculator will eventually do when it gets better or convince you of their usefulness. It is self evident and consistent
Going back to the old(er) way of teaching may be a very good idea.
The outcome is predictable: unless there is a scandal of massive proportions, the issues just..."go away" on their own. With some discretion for the professor to either just look the other way, or ding the student enough to feel vindicated, but not so much as to actually hurt the university's interests.
Not only that, but if you accuse a student of cheating and they are expelled, you have fundamentally altered their life forever. Talk about a burden.
That's not a burden, it's justice.
If you’re asking me if there are situations where a student should be expelled because of cheating, the answer is yes. But I would say there are a lot of factors that have to be considered. It certainly can’t be one size fits all, which a number of institutions do. Otherwise it is not “justice” in the slightest. It’s taking a “tough on crime” approach to young adults in school enforced by their educators and peers, which is…well, let’s say “not effective.” At the end of the day these are institutions for learning. Plenty of people make huge mistakes, including massive breaches of trust, then learn their lesson and become better people for it. Giving a 0 on an assignment is often sufficient if we’re being honest. In a lot of cases that dig such a deep hole that your grade will never recover. If you want punitive measures, and one that hits where it hurts in a way that is relevant to the act of cheating, it doesn’t get much more appropriate than that. Not to mention the educator is going to watch them like a hawk for the rest of the semester.
I’m not even going to bother elaborating on how absurd it is to compare murder and cheating on a homework assignment or whatever.
The case of Katie Meyer at Stanford (not an academic integrity issue but a carelessly punitive disciplinary process nonetheless) shows that universities need to temper discipline with humanity and understanding, and to work for positive outcomes for all students.
> honor system has relied on individual accountability, with students pledging both to refrain from academic dishonesty and to report those they witness in violation
The last part is the weakness. As you note, nobody wants to potentially cause great harm to another student, even one who is guilty of cheating.
That being said, a cheating student should certainly not receive credit for the exam, as it is unearned, creates an unfair environment, undermines the assessment accuracy of course grades, and can disadvantage other students in courses with curved or grouped grade distributions. Widespread or prevalent cheating is particularly destructive because it creates bad incentives.
No one disagrees with this. No one wants to encourage cheating. The question is what works and/or are there any harmful effects of current systems
As a TA, I once stumbled upon a bunch of students who had been copying each other's labs, because one student was brazen enough to turn in a printout with a the gmail header information across the top, indicating it had been received from another student. So I looked at that student's page, and noticed that they had somehow completely screwed up their rounding, and used way too many significant figures, which I recognized from another student's assignment. Digging through the pile, I found others that had rearranged stuff enough that I probably would have missed them if not for their exceptionally dull friend.
All told, 9 students had turned in the same exact assignment. 8 took up the offer to drop the course and switch majors, 1 faced the music, took their zero in the course, but did stick with the program.
this is funny except that it also isn't
They know full well that what they are doing is awful.
Brilliant, charismatic people without any sense of ethics tend to do very well in school, in politics, and in most organizations.
Yes, because the working model is that the students are there because they want to learn. And they are paying for the professors to teach them. If they cheat in classes, they are really just cheating themselves, and this should be no concern to the staff.
If the only tangible, marketable value of graduating from a prestigious school was the raw knowledge and skill, I would agree with you. But it’s not.
Having worked with people who clearly got preferential treatment in hiring based on their school’s prestige, over more capable applicants from lower-tier schools, I absolutely lose respect for staff at universities who turn a blind eye to cheating.
This is quite plainly not the case. If curve grading is used, cheating directly harms other students who aren't cheating. If curve grading isn't used, the university may end up handing out high grades like candy, and that's a problem for the university.
Higher grades can translate to better career outcomes even if undeserved. If it were clear that this wasn't the case, nobody would cheat in the first place.
At my private high school, and at my university (although they later gutted it), we had a “single sanction” honor code.
That is, if you were caught lying, cheating, or stealing - in any way, and in or out of school, though usually it was in - you were immediately expelled. No mitigating circumstances. No negotiation.
To many of my peers this sounded very harsh, especially since these were very good schools you worked hard to get to and succeed in. But part of why they were good schools was because of this.
We do zero tolerance for so many things but integrity is the one thing that misses it for some reason.
Look at the type of people in positions of power these days? If we enforced any kind of integrity they would be screwed, but since they're in charge they can undermine policies that would hold them accountable as much as they like
In those cases, the academic integrity committee is much more likely to demand a very high standard of proof of cheating, and it can ironically result in more people getting away with it again and again, where, in a system with (say) a "three strikes" policy, they might be more likely to be expelled, because the committee would not hesitate to give them their first and second strikes—and after that, they're clearly a repeat offender.
You either did it or you didn’t. There is no small crime, they are all the same. That is honor- you have it or you don’t.
There is no “you were accused, but it’s minor so we’ll have to be more sure than usual.”
That would be as ridiculous as saying “you were accused, and it’s major, so if there’s any suspicion at all, you’re gone.”
I know that happens in practice sometimes (like to the lacrosse players at Duke, or to Phi Psi at Virginia), but it’s not just. And it’s not representative of a functional honor system.
First of all, there's a difference between cheating on the big final exam that determines 40% of your course grade, and cheating on a quiz in week 3. A zero-tolerance policy has to make a decision: does the latter count as cheating? Is that really worth expelling a student over? A more nuanced policy can give that student a more nuanced punishment that may deter them from escalating their cheating—essentially, "scare them straight".
Second of all, there are absolutely degrees of cheating. For one, there's simple volume: did you cheat on one question, or all of them? For another, there's gray areas like "it was an open-book test, but I had also scribbled down some extra notes in the book" or "yes, I had my phone out in the test, but genuinely I was just responding to my parent/significant other/best friend who was having a meltdown". Or even "I had my phone in my bag, which I wasn't supposed to, but I never looked at it during the test; I just forgot to hand it in when I entered".
Your brand of "justice" would see many people who could absolutely be persuaded or shamed into good behavior, as well as actual innocents, lose the chance to ever get a decent education, and thus a decent job. (Particularly given the way the economics of it are going today—if you get expelled, those student loans don't go away, so how are you ever going to afford another university?)
What do you mean by this. What is the cost of one university expelling a liar? There is only benefit.
I am talking about a school like Princeton here. Not a for-profit degree mill.
The school with only honorable students is the most valuable school, all else being equal. All your students will be practically guaranteed jobs.
How much cheating is acceptable, from your wife? Do you have a sliding scale of punishment? I’d be curious to learn from you. Penalty for kissing another man. Penalty for touching another man. Etc.
What is the cost to the student?
And you seem to have immediately glossed over the part where not all of these students are, in fact, lying, or cheating.
> The school with only honorable students is the most valuable school, all else being equal. All your students will be practically guaranteed jobs.
Where on earth do you get that idea?
No one in the corporate world really cares if you cheated on your exams. Plenty of them would brag about doing the same. They care about the piece of paper, and not much else, from the schooling itself. (They do care about what experience you have. In fact, they'd love it if, as 22-year-old college graduate, you have 15 years of experience!)
> How much cheating is acceptable, from your wife?
I don't feel like going too much into my personal life with someone like you, but oh boy, buddy, did you pick the wrong person to try that "gotcha" on X-D
Just about everything. That is honor and dishonor. It’s a fall from polite society. It’s not a reprimand.
Basically it was a history worksheet requiring written paragraph answers and I swapped around answers under the wrong questions so the teacher thought I cheated. It was a careless mistake I made because I had lost the original worksheet and was working off a loose leaf copy in the cafeteria at the last minute but it made it look like I copied someone else’s work.
I don’t known if the committee bought my story or was feeling lenient but I am very thankful for lax prosecution of these cases and think a lot of the value is in scaring people straight.
Someone wrote a book about how organizations like state bars protect their members from clients, not the clients from their members as is the stated goal: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674295421
Every licensing organization does this to the extent it can get away with because it needs to provide value to its members otherwise it's members wouldn't constantly beg the state to do the licensing organization's bidding.
I should read that book. Sounds good.
I don't think you need to feel like a piece of shit for your brief defense of the student. Erasing and replacing the answer is unusual. As is photocopying all the tests.
Asking someone for an explanation of an unusual circumstance is perfectly natural. Perhaps TA#2 should feel like a piece of shit for her lousy explanation!
Also, you could have an issue where the exam somehow becomes relevant again after you’ve handed them back, and some students may not have kept their copies (like if one student successfully challenges their grade and you realize other papers were also misgraded).
But, I think it gets to a deeper issue with education.
Like, the cynic in me will say that the student learned a new tactic, one that got rewarded, and they are likely to repeat it over and over.
But the teacher, the hopeful part of me, the one that wants growth and striving, that part of me says that the student learned a lesson and is unlikely to repeat that hack. That they got dragged about, told a lot of very tough stories, saw the consequences, and then saw the light, and they will never do it again. And that experience taught them more than the class ever could about life - a much more valuable lesson in the end.
I hope that is what occurred. I think that's probably what the many admins told themself what would happen. I have worked with Princeton grads though, and it is much more likely that nothing of the sort occurred.
Most 'elite' grads think they pulled it over on the school, like they always have, that they were cleverer, somehow. That they 'won', when they really lost and learned worse than nothing, they learned the wrong thing. And then they get out into the real world and they get a successful bigjob and a nice little manageable coke habit and a not as manageable addiction or two. Then a spouse when that time comes and that other line says something no-one really wants, but not with a person they respect or that respects them. And by the time the second kid is done teething, the divorce is done and they think they are 'free' again. So they dive off a cliff in some azure water as the grandkids aren't well taken care of by expensive as hell help.
The ayahuasca vomit dries on the corner of their mouth as they check their actually-personal account for the half dozen 39th birthday wishes, they wonder where it all went wrong. They decide that it was others, not themselves, surely, that can't be true, because Dad was an asshole and Mom really wasn't ever 'there'-there when you think about it.
Because they are still trying to pull one over, to be cleverer, to be the 'good' one at whatever life is in their mind: A long fucking ladder covered in degrees and accolades and tears and jackasses. They live in the derivative.
So, look, don't be butthurt about a jackass undergrad that is too blind and treadmilled to ruin their own life.
But do be butthurt that the system is too fucking tired and old to really deeply care anymore about the young and not just hurting their 'future' - as if that could ever be measured by only a GPA.
OP here. I think you're attributing relatively sophisticated motivations to cheating. I've seen it at elite institutions and those that were far less prestigious.
I don't think the motivations for cheating are different in the Ivy League compared to any other institution.
If I can speculate on most motivations (no particular order), they would be:
- Failing would be an embarrassment (to me, my family, etc.) and I probably won't get caught.
- The work for this course is completely irrelevant to my career path. They're just making me jump through hoops. I'll work honestly after I cheat my way through this course.
- I'm pressed for time or other there are other external issues fucking up my life, so I don't have time to study. I could definitely understand the course material if <horrible issue in my life> weren't happening right now, so cheating isn't that big of a deal.
I think most of this is excuse-making, but the human mind is capable of magnificent self-deceptions.
A couple more points (not really addressed to you).
I agree with many other commenters who say that the school admins do not want you to drop problems like this at their doorstep. The prof. usually has to navigate these waters on his/her own.
I've told this story many times over the years and the most common response (also given here) is something like "I'm sure she's put her talents to great use on Wall Street". Gives you a sense of public perception of Wall Street--which I believe is largely accurate.
I had no idea until 3 weeks later when exam scores were finally uploaded and mine was missing. The quarter was over and what the hell could I possibly do at that point? I had no possible evidence to give to show that I not only took the test but definitely passed because I've already taken the class
Then after the semester was over, after a while I realized I'd only gotten a grades transcript, not a degree. Apparently I was lacking those 5 points from the elective course for that - the 40 points from my pre-college college course were mysteriously gone. Oh, and the mail I had gotten where they confirmed it counted? On the mail server, which we were mandated to use, and which they wiped the day we were done with our last semester.
* all exams were proctored
* the proctoring were done by external people hired to do this.
* you could not leave exam for the toilet without asking first and then being followed out by a watcher, which then would follow you back and check the toilet afterwards for notes.
* you were never handed back the papers you handed in.
* responses were judged both by your own teacher and by an independent teacher from another institution.
* you must use ballpoint pen (permanent) and not pencil. Pencil responses were ignored.
Today the studens are even handed Faraday-bags that their phones and smart watches must be kept in during the exam. Full instructions for exam watchers for a business school: https://www.nielsbrock.dk/da/om-niels-brock/til-eksamensvagt...
exact same processes with external monitor etc. but with the backup exam papers that was different to the ones everyone else already did.
which is kind of in contrast to university (organised by the institution) where someone stole the exam paper for a difficult module in our final year. so they assigned one of the past year’s papers instead, as if everyone hadn’t memorised it already.
one of the benefits of scale with central organising bodies where you have to get things right (organising GCSEs nationally) is being forced to prepare for edge cases because they become a lot more common.
That's not how you do it. The notes are in your pocket. You go to the toilet, read the notes, put the notes back into your pocket and go back to do the exam.
In many exams we were allowed to bring our own notes. Those are unusable if you haven't learnt the material, as you then don't know what to look for.
But a small note with a math solution could help another student a lot.
Getting to “high trust for the majority” is the 0 to 1 of civilizational development. Most societies never get there—they’re low trust for everyone.
https://www.inc.com/bruce-crumley/shoplifting-gangs-have-pla...
When Lee Kuan Yew visited London for the first time after World War II, he was impressed by the fact that it had unattended newspaper stands where people were trusted to take a newspaper and leave money: https://youtu.be/b_6H26fpZp8. As someone from a low trust society, I fully concur with his assessment that this was the mark of a truly “civilized society.”
That said, the UK is becoming lower trust.
Not complaining. It’s a neat concept. And if you have a bunch of crap you want to get rid, it’s a lot of fun to build a big birdhouse looking thing, prop it up on the side walk, and keep it stocked with all the crap you don’t want anymore. This is why I created the Little Free Lumberyard to discard my woodworking offcuts. Seriously considering expanding into e-waste because it works so damn well.
This is the mark of a low-trust society masking its issues with technological band-aids. In high-trust countries, you still pay exclusively with cash at these unattended roadside stands.
We're talking about Princeton, here. Trust among elites remains persistently high. In fact, it's likely higher than ever due to assortative mating & geographic sorting. Elites, even students in the Ivies, still have trust of government and elite institutions, which the elite stratum itself runs. Trust between elites and lower strata has declined, where elites and middle- and lower-classes have significant mistrust between each other, and the latter have lower trust within their own strata than in the past.
What's more likely IMO is that 1) the cost of cheating (i.e. the cost of assembling a ripped off assignment multiplied by the risk of being caught) has declined precipitously due to LLMs and 2) elite institutions remain the most ruthlessly competitive in the country and even the world.
Which, in the era of social media, video surveillance, smartphones and dashcams, is crazy. Once you leave your home, you have to assume everything you do is recorded and might end up online or in court.
I don't think any human alive believes this. The "elite" are just known as being scammers who lie and BS about everything very openly and they'd sell their own child if it got them a dollar. The past 10 years have been nothing but "elites" churning scams and paying bribes and bragging about it. They most certainly aren't trusting each other. Just look at how the president holds people up as his greatest ally one day, then discards and villainizes them the next day once he realizes he can get more benefit from elsewhere.
The elite in-group trust hypothesis would however explain Musk sustaining an unreasonable Tesla share price in the face of falling sales, delayed launches to the extent competitors pre-empt him on his own announcements, and political toxicity to the extent his showrooms got smashed up and burned.
'Grades Did Not Matter' 100 years ago so much.
It was where 'the only educated people sent their kids to be educated'.
Or maybe the nouveau riche bourgois did.
Now it's a 'Giant International Competition'.
You can see this where students are competitive with grades elsewhere in the world.
They're competing for jobs at OpenAI among a million others.
I'm shamed to admit I can't remember the quote from someone who lamented the fact that traditionally people 'knew their place' and there was on some level a quietude in that, a zen - but when 'anyone can be anything' it creates hyper competition, anxiety, sense of failure for most people who can never live up to being the 'most exceptional at whatever', and the constant stress of 'keeping up with the Jones's'.
See: Instagram - it's not pictures of family and friends - it's almost entirely 'social competition through lifestyle narration' ... which that includes University's as 'brand'.
Hence the competition.
Everyone is in competition now. Everyone has to prove their worth, all the time. It's more egalitarian but it also creates a lot of stress.
There is still a lot of bias and in -group preferences present in hiring. Not to mention that most places will weight candidates who are recommended by employees higher than unconnected external applicants. That might be a reasonable filter but it unquestionably is not egalitarian
Admissions for elite schools is just crazy - they can't go purely by 'scores', they have gender/national/racial issues which are actual quite real, even if it becomes unfair - there is just no way to do it in the ultra egalitarian way in which some would want.
It's a very scarce resource and that's it.
If it were a 'common' thing - like local state college, then it takes a different form. But the acute nature of the situation really brings out some ugly dynamics.
Let me explain healthcare right now.
To get into a radiation tech program, there are 260 applicants, almost all with all As, for 20 slots at my local community college.
Maybe in the very first instant you’d think it’s merit based. But, EVERYONE is playing the game. Getting homework and tests from friends who already took the class, taking classes at several different schools to get the easier teachers, paying multiple times the tuition cost on tutors and other study aides (eg $2k+ for all the anatomy models), every demographic is using paid ChatGPT. We all know which teachers to take. We spend much of class strategizing like this.
Every single student. It’s just another game to play or you lose.
Also, how do they decide which students to pick? And I would love to know the gender ratio.
Another reason is these people know how to grind, but can’t afford a 4 year program.
> but can’t afford a 4 year program
There’s one state school for my program within 100 miles of me (physical therapy assistant)
And a four year program is still 2 extra years of tuition even at the subsidized amount, and most would work fewer hours if at all because they need high GPAs.
At that point, it has almost nothing to do with regular education and institutions.
It's cray cray land
That much pay for a 2 year program is very hard to beat.
When it was a little club, you had to think of your family's reputation in the club, and like you say there was a particular framework of their morality.
When the elite franchise was expanded, one problem was that everyone in the elite then had different ideas of morality. When they got into business, the only thing that really united everyone was that they all liked money.
One thing that used to help that we've lost is a moral code in the universities that elites have to attend to get into the club now.
Another thing, after it became illegal to teach the bible in public schools, was "secular bible stories." You had secular saints, like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ben Franklin. They each had a characteristic story, like George Washington and the cherry tree, Abraham Lincoln walking 10 miles to return 2 cents, and Ben Franklin flying a kite and discovering that lightning was electricity. Later on, MLK was added to the canon for a whole bunch of stories of courage in defense of justice. All of the stories had a moral lesson about what it meant to be a Good American.
Lately we've cancelled most of our secular saints, and my guess is that the few that are left are on borrowed time. That's not to say that these guys never did anything wrong by any means, but the point of teaching the story wasn't even necessarily even that the story actually happened exactly as it was told, the point was the moral lesson. We've basically just given up on moral education, and all we have left are things like Social Emotional Learning, but it is thin gruel.
Not sure if you intended this but this is basically exactly Byung-Chul Han's point in The Burnout Society.
There's a rather technical but not too dry book about how elite overproduction tends to cycle, with comparisons of past cycles: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691232607/we...
Really? Reading the comments here on HN I was left with the impression that everyone would prefer to compete for the gold in butt naked giant porcupine rodeo than to work for any company helmed by Altman, Musk, Zuckeberg or Thiel.
The example I always point to is golf. I'm a huge golf nerd, and if there's one thing I hate it's professional golf. They sit there and pretend it's a "gentleman's game" and then let people like Patrick Reed openly and obviously cheat... repeatedly. They even got rid of the ability for fans to call in rules violations. Why? Because it's no fun, boo. Players used to want to not win when they broke the rules.
Gambling in college and pro sports? We went from the Black Sox shame and a Pete Rose being banned, to now players getting slaps on the wrist. Our society does not reward honor, so most people will not be honorable, plain and simple. Yes, there are plenty of us who will care more about integrity, but the vast majority of us won't care.
Last: I never heard of Patrick Reed before your post. I Googled him. Check it out: "Reed's collegiate career was cut short following his dismissal from the University of Georgia golf team. Allegations from teammates included cheating in qualifying rounds and stealing merchandise and money from the team locker room..." What a stand up guy!
Francis Fukuyama wrote in a recent blog post: "The United States is no longer a high-trust country. We must regain what’s been lost."
I object to these "wide brush" social commentaries. Normally, they are written by powerful/famous men and frequently negative. I call it "Packaged Doomerism". The US is so huge that is hard to generalise about its culture. There are at least six distinctive cultural regions. Take California as an example: There is a surprisingly large cultural gap between the north (Bay Area) and south (LA/Orange/San Diego). That is just one state. In the same way that the US is huge, so is Europe -- about 50 countries. I cringe when I see the phrase, "In Europe, ..."
Here is just an example of one: Moving from Brooklyn to a small surbuban town:
- very few lock their bikes at the local schools, or "town center". Bikes aren't stolen and kids don't worry about it.
- "town center" has umbrellas out for public use, people use them and put them back.
- People generally don't lock front doors, or don't worry if they aren't.
- If there are problems, people call police, they show up quick [non emergency] and they sort out the problem.
- People happy to pay taxes and they know where it goes
I can go on... these are just examples I've seen.
Imo it's both on the students (plenty of students are optimizing just to get a class out of the way to do more interesting stuff) and the programs (some classes just aren't up-to-date or are rightfully viewed as busywork).
Personally, I found courses that were output heavy and regurgitation light tended to be the most successful from an honor code perspective - you can't cheat your way out of "learning by doing" when you are held accountable for the output (eg. A research grade paper or implementing a fully functional Linux kernel).
Sadly, even at Ivies most lower div classes are just rote memorization because class sizes would be massive for plenty of core classes (100-500 students for some classes).
There is a unique pride in being part of a community built around honor. You see this on the Swiss metro and in small-town vegetable stalls. Unproctored exams force every student to weigh the value of their honor against a better grade. That's a personal moral reckoning that might be worth the entire degree.
Some individuals have heady thoughts and morals like you mentioned. Others are using it as a checkbox.
I specifically called out two non-Ivy examples. Humans are humans. And one of those capacities is for behaving with honor. The enemy of honor, it turns out, isn't dishonor, but cynicism. (It isn't surprising that the dominant emotion on a Silicon Valley board towards an honor system is scorn.)
In my country if you can't hack it you just transfer to something else. Much less pressure. And let's face it if you can't even pass the exams maybe it is not your career? Don't live in a lie and go do something you'll enjoy.
Most target career paths in the US (eg. Investment Banking, VC, Tech, Consulting, Entrepreneurship) now require a STEM or Engineering background, so a large subset of students do have an incentive to study a major they have no interest in.
As you are Dutch, think about it the same way certain numerus fixus programs at TU Delft, UvA, or UL open career paths unavailable to most other Dutch graduates (eg. Optiver, MBB, DeepMind, EU think tanks).
This is basically Princeton's equivalent of setting up a numerus fixus because of the deluge of students enrolling in target degree programs without the interest or background.
In all honesty cheating is common in all universities - the incentive structures for students are the same as a large portion of students do want to end up in a high prestige career.
The American higher ed system is similar to the French, British, and Italian system with regards to prestige and target programs.
> As I understand it Americans pay tens of thousands of dollars for university
Not at Ivies and Ivy-tier programs. Plenty of us got really competitive scholarships and I attended back when Obama was still in office.
It has been 100(s) of years since community like this existed, now this is utopia
I'm not sure. Most HNers appear to be in their late 30s to early 40s, which is a massive generation gap.
Classes and incentive structures have changed for people who graduated in the early 2010s compared to the late 1990s or early 2000s and neither would understand students who graduate in the mid-late 2020s.
Disc golf courses, fire wood piles, that day’s chicken eggs in a wooden box on the side of the road.
just as a small recent-ish example, I live in a white-collar affluent area and this Halloween we took our daughter to her friend's neighborhood but left a dish full of candy outside with a sign to take a couple. we have a camera outside and the very first "group" of 3 kids (with two adults) that came took all of the candy that was there...
We specifically don’t tell you where because we’d like to keep it that way.
I had a similar experience going to an all-you-can-eat restaurant for the first time. the universal reaction from anyone I talked to about this experience (same as mine) was “there is no way in hell place like this in my home country would be in business more than a month.” people be eating not until full but until their body would physically reject additional food :)
Many people get into these positions of affluence by participating in competitions that repeatedly normalize that exact variety of deviance.
Honor-anything works when you create and maintain systems that normalize honorable behaviors and shame deviant behaviors (for any definition of honorable and deviant), and you can only measure peoples’ honor by the circumstances they’re given to prove themselves.
In bourgeois corners of the US, we’ve implicitly normalized deviance by removing the expectation for honor in competitive environments. “Win at any cost” (you don’t think the other team isn’t doing everything they can to get ahead, do you? How naïve!) has quietly replaced “be prepared” and “give it your best”.
Either it is a principle or it is a strategy, can't be both.
This is insane, but I guess it fits the Swiss (and Geneva more specifically) quite well. And before anyone starts babbling here about the Swiss's rectitude, Geneva itself is host to this giant international money-laundering abomination:
> Geneva Freeport (French: Ports Francs et Entrepôts de Genève SA) is a warehouse complex in Geneva, Switzerland, for the storage of art and other valuables and collectibles. It is the world's oldest and largest freeport facility, and the one with the most artworks, with 40% of its collection being art with an estimated value of US$100 billion
But yeah, not pay the tram ticket once or twice and suddenly you're not worthy of renting in that shithole called Geneva, meanwhile the city itself launders hundreds of billions of dollars.
Adding to that, the airports and the freeports are sometimes privately run. It's not like the municipal government could do something even if they wanted to in some cases.
But sure, be angry at things you don't fully understand. That's surely healthy.
What's a realistic outcome for someone who gets caught, they have to pay more for housing or they become homeless?
If you are caught, you get a big fine, 150$-ish and if you pay it nothing will change.
However, if you get caught again or don’t pay the fine, it’s not a misdemeanor, it’s a felony. You will be caught at the Schengen border and flagged as a fugitive and get a Schengen ban. Or if you are a CH or EU resident you will be summoned by the court for a court case and you could go to jail. Most likely you’ll get a 1000$+ fine.
The housing comes in when you try to rent a new place and the landlord asks „are you a felon?“ and you can’t say no anymore.
Not sure it's about being a high trust society or not, there's frequent inspections where they block the doors, and you get a hefty fine if you're caught without a valid ticket. I certainly wouldn't call Prague or Rome or Dublin high trust societies on par with a Swiss city.
Spot checking kept people honest but it only really works when most people are honest.
The City of Vienna has concluded that the cost of building such checkpoints combined with the reduced quality of service and the destruction of the city image could never be worth it. I wonder how other cities justify this without implicitly calling their denizens morally inferior to ours.
> the destruction of the city image could never be worth it
An honor code is an admission that your curriculum is so sadistic, not even cheating will help. Princeton just isn’t prestigious enough to keep up that charade.
* At Caltech the line between collaboration and cheating was whether you listed your collaborators or not. Unless the professor explicitly indicated that it was a solo exam, group work was implied. Proctoring explicitly forbidden so every exam was take home except a few where we needed lab access (professors and TAs were forbidden from attending).
We all suspected of people that didn’t adhere to the honor code and it was frowned upon, and they could have faced repercussions if anyone had reported them.
The postgrad continuum mechanics class (I think taught by the geophysics department?) was the biggest exception so I’m betting there’s quite a bit of variance among fields.
I don’t doubt there’s academic fraud (living in the dorm my first year wiped away any illusion) but within my major it didn’t end well.
Did people report them?
I looked at materials hidden in my desk for one question during a quiz in fifth grade and it still gnaws at me. Cheaters suck.
People did plenty of collaboration on homework sets. Some of the harder ones were almost impossible unless you did, like those 20 page Phys98 homework sets...
I'm speaking generally, not just about colleges. If you've never been in a high-trust commuity, I strongly recommend travelling to find one. It's about as mind blowing as transiting from one such community to a low-trust, high-cynicism one.
I spent two seasons working with the SPCC Icefall Doctors who put up the infrastructure to cross the Khumbu Icefall each year for Everest climbers so I feel like I have a pretty good idea of what a high trust community looks like (the Nepalese guiding community on Everest). Perhaps it’s because I’ve seen what happens when the situation quickly turns dire, but I’m skeptical that there’s anything special about high trust communities other than a higher baseline of morale
Strictly speaking I'd agree with you -- but I would consider a higher baseline of morale to be itself quite special! Especially when it is shared amongst the entire community.
Here is just an example of one: Moving from Brooklyn to a small surbuban town:
- very few lock their bikes at the local schools, or "town center". Bikes aren't stolen and kids don't worry about it.
- "town center" has umbrellas out for public use, people use them and put them back.
- People generally don't lock front doors, or don't worry if they aren't.
- If there are problems, people call police, they show up quick [non emergency] and they sort out the problem.
- People happy to pay taxes and they know where it goes
I can go on... these are just examples I've seen.
We did group projects together. We were graded on a common curve. We spent 90% of our time out of class hanging out and learning to adult together. I know every single one of those people today, I’ve been to their weddings and am godparent to their some of their kids. And I think we knew, decades prior, we’d still know each other now.
As such no, I don’t think I was oblivious because outside that group I can concede it was rampant. But within the group, if you blew off a course you blew off the test. It just wasn’t right or smart or lightly considered to cheat and screw over your friends. You also weren’t taking elective courses for the fun of it to cheat through them.
(I now live in a small town where I don’t lock my house, my bike or my car. Most farms nearby have a box you can buy stuff from in exchange for cash you’re expected to leave. It’s pretty great and yes, privileged, but it’s not a privilege money alone can buy.)
When I was at MIT, most exams were in-class, but open book, open notes, open whatever you wanted to bring with you. And of course that just meant the exams were much harder, because they could assume you had all the necessary reference materials at hand and didn't have to conjure things up from memory. "Cheating" was pointless, because everyone else in the room was struggling just as hard as you were.
https://web.mit.edu/6.7800/www/info24.pdf
Or at least this year's version? If so, it looks like Course 6 hasn't gotten any easier over the years. Good luck!
That reminds me of what an instructor (one of the best ones I've had) said a long time ago in response to one of my classmates asking if the exam could be open-book: "I could make it so, but it's not going to get any easier." The same instructor also responded to another question with "it doesn't mean I won't change the length of the exam."
The thought being that the Engineering exams were so difficult that even with the text book, you had little chance of getting it right unless you knew the material.
Often, final exams were just one question, but you were graded on the multiple pages of work you had to show.
My time at MIT was well before AI. And before smartphones. Even PCs were new then--I didn't have one until my senior year, and that PC had less computing power than is in things like microwaves nowadays.
Frankly, this comment feels almost entirely foreign to my experience—I suppose things could've changed over the years (although my impression is that things have gotten much worse recently, not better), or it could be major-specific, or I just got lucky with the specific people I happened to hang out with?
Is it propaganda? In some sense, yes, the only way to maintain such a culture is to repeatedly insist on its importance to prospective and current students. But if so, then it is self-fulfilling propaganda, and in my opinion the honor code made my experience richer.
It also made the experience richer for people who cheated witih impunity.
I will never forget being in high school and seeing so many classmates cheat on homework and take-home exams, yet raised their hands with ease to give the honor code pledge. It was a farce. Please don't read my personal anecdote as doubt that honor codes can work.
I'm not even sure I could have answered you at the time. In my memory, it was mostly students promoting the honor code. But I have to imagine that the university was quietly doing things to keep this going.
No, that's completely wrong and far too cynical.
It's not even an 'honour code' - it's an expectation that people are not cheaters - and that is not only reasonable, it's a very lower bar.
Tech schools is not representative of most places of higher learning - precisely because they tend to have 'sadistic course loads' which distorts things a bit.
As an Engineer, I was always 'overloaded' - and shocked at how relatively little the Arts Majors had to do in comparison and how vague it was.
'University' - is traditionally centred around those Liberal Arts people, or at least not Engineering.
It was never supposed to be 'sadistically' intense - that's just what some of the very technical majors turned it into - and usually not on purpose.
Mostly due to the fact that certain people think that everyone 'must' have a background in such-and-such to be considered 'well rounded'.
And it's not fair to suggest that people 'have to cheat' to get through, maybe more reasonably, the course load is so crazy, that people have to share / work together to fight hard to make it through the course load.
Purely technical schools often don't represent what institutions of higher learning are in the traditional sense, and do get caught up 'in the course knowledge' as opposed to the higher order premise.
I think this 'too much intensity' is a side effect of culture and a few other things, that just makes more civil things difficult to process.
There's no reason to 'cheat' 100 years ago if you're from a wealthy family just getting your education, whereas the competition is fierce now.
(And how much that "imposter syndrome", from either source, then drives later hard-work/success and how much doesn't.)
It smells like a backdoor.
> Swiss metro
To quote: "In 2024, more than 1 million cases of fare evasion were recorded in Switzerland, reported RTS. The number has more than doubled since 2019."
High trust, eh? Here is a better explanation: Someone smart did the math and discovered that for many Swiss mass transit systems (there are many), they could get better overall revenue by (1) removing the expense of buying and maintaining fare gates, and (2) adding fare dodging penalties and enforcement staff. FYI: Berlin is similar.
The fact that most people don't know that the honor system is about money not honor is part of what makes the money part of the honor system work.
1. Install a culture of honour/virtue/accountability. Rely on duty and moral justice to keep the majority in-line.
2. An arms race to prevent ever more sophisticated methods of cheating, and the reduction in human dignity this implies. (E.g. the proctor must follow you into the toilet).
We all want the systems to be fair and just; but we also all want to be treated with dignity. No easy answers.
The Faculty Senate voted to allow proctoring of in-person exams following a pilot overseen by the Academic Integrity Working Group.
The Faculty Senate unanimously voted to permit proctoring of in-person assessments following a presentation from the Academic Integrity Working Group (AIWG) on Thursday.
Formed in 2024 after updates to the Honor Code and Fundamental Standard, the AIWG was charged with studying the scope of academic dishonesty at Stanford and overseeing a multi-year proctoring pilot study, which launched the same year. Historically, proctoring was not permitted at Stanford; students were expected to report peers for academic misconduct.
“What we’re finding is that a lot of the expectations we might be putting on our students is creating an unsustainable moral burden on them,” in which students must choose to cheat to keep up or report their peers, said Jennifer Schwartz Poehlmann, AIWG co-chair and senior lecturer in chemistry.
During the pilot, instructors reported that it helped them better assess students’ learning goals, clarified academic integrity standards, and reduced student frustration, said AIWG Student co-Chair Xavier Millan, ’26, an undergraduate in computer science.
The proctoring policy was previously passed by the AIWG, the Board on Conduct Affairs, the Undergraduate Senate, and the Graduate Student Council.
Poehlmann and Millan highlighted some of the student feedback that showed support for proctoring, including one who said proctoring feels like “more of a fair level playing field.”
side note is that it’s kind of funny because sometimes the seating would be auditorium style so you could easily see papers in front of you if you were higher up… probably difficult to avoid accidentally glancing at someone else’s paper while taking a break, lol.
That's your future cardiologist.
Cheating is all around disheartening and is now incredibly easy with all the free multi-modal models around. Real active proctoring is needed and devices need to be confiscated during exams. This is common practice in many other countries.
Is this normal in the US?
Students either leave phones at home, or the school provides pouches/mini lockers for each student.
They probably don't ask for phones upfront, but I don't see how that'd do anything. The only way to make this stricter would be to search students like they do for big standardized tests.
There is no peer pressure not to cheat?
Students aren't considered sketchy or jerky for cheating?
Being seen cheating has no adverse affect on their ability to date, to join group projects, to join student startups, etc.?
I've always felt that it was these kind of folks that caused the 2008 financial crisis
They both do have very concrete point systems with a parallel set of less-measured but very real externalities, don't they?
This brings me to a bit of a related story.
A family member of mine who attended Princeton and was an undergraduate Residential Advisor (RA) in the dorms responsible for care of freshmen recalled hearing a presentation in the early 2000s to parents of students from an academic dean or faculty member. The dean boasted to the parents how great their kids were, describing how each year in the last decade they kept adding more work to the students and the students kept rising to the challenge. My family member RA, very aware of the resulting stress the students were under was horrified. This family member thrived at Princeton and loved it, but is quite wary of trying to put their own children on a track to get there or go there.
This event correlates with the increasing fraction of students at Princeton going into finance which began in the early 1990s and which peaked in 2006 with 46% of students at Princeton going into Finance. I had not considered a correlation between student psychological stress and psychology of "gaming"/cheating and the psychological going into finance until your comment.
At that time, there was some sense that perhaps many Princetonians went into Finance because they had to pay of the huge loans from the price tag. After a couple decades on working on financial aid improvements, now that Princeton (tuition) is free for people with family incomes under $250k/year and has been for a while, and still large numbers (admittedly not quite as large) are still going into finance, I'm not sure some of the psychological factors around taboo topics like gaming/cheating and/or more prosaic related factors like reducing cheating while properly sizing the expected workload for the non-cheating population have been explored.
If you are an all around liar and cheater you can even be president!!
There is relatively little stigma against cheating. Maybe in smaller seminars and classes with higher collaboration there is some, but much less so in large STEM lectures. Many of the incentives in classes where exams were online led to arms races and widespread cheating (without exaggeration, over 80% of the class). For instance, a certain math class I knew of had all grades based on remote and often asynchronous tests. Many people would cheat/collaborate and ace them, leading to the professor increasing difficulty (as scores were very high). This led to more cheating and so on. It got to the point where the problem sets had such difficult problems in this intro class that only a handful of people (who had taken advanced course work in high school) in the entire 100+ person seminar were distributing proofs for everyone else. Really not great dynamics all around and it's worth noting that my school does not have a reputation for being ones with an especially competitive and cutthroat culture.
What is even more frustrating is that the teacher knows this and does nothing about it. Maybe one could argue that, in the end, these students fail to learn and will get their just rewards. But it seems to me that the lack of immediate corrective action (eg, an F on an assignment) is a failing of the system.
When teachers are evaluated based on how students perceive them, and are in turn evaluated by others based on the grades their students receive, there's a perverse incentive/conflict of interest for them to allow cheating.
(And then mute r/teachers because it's depressing as all hell.)
Since I was in the engineering school and most professors actually cared, it didn't affect us as much.
I had the Naruto Chunnin Exam episodes where they write the written test on dvd as a kid and watched it all the time so it might have altered my philosophy but I’ve always viewed proctored tests as a mini game. The ability to gather information under stress, maintain composure, and evaluate the likelihood the person you were borrowing answers from knew what they were doing was always fun to me. Even on tests where I was going to get 90% guaranteed I liked seeing how much information I could parse from other people. I remember one exam I could make out another girls scantron and knew she was going to fail. She was the first person to hand in her answers and the proctor joked “wow that was quick, we’ll have to make the next one harder”.
When I was a proctor I loved trying to catch people cheating. Lots of wandering eyes but never a phone. I’d have thrown someone out so quick if the pulled out a phone and that’s before ChatGPT. I can’t imagine not having proctors. Honour systems sound great and all but not in an evaluation. Tribe mentality prevents most people from ratting on others (except for those with limited social status to lose from the jump), especially when you are 19.
I saw someone mention that having proctors “punished” students who followed the honour code which is insane. If you know what you are doing in an exam you’ll forget all about the proctors being there. The only people who will notice them are those trying to cheat…
"29.9 percent of respondents reported that they had cheated on an assignment or exam during their time at Princeton. 44.6 percent of senior respondents reported knowledge of Honor Code violations that they chose not to report."
crazier is the people protesting by saying: “students should behave honorably, and that faculty and students should trust each other given the 1893 Honor Code compact.”. obviously that isnt happening if 1/3rd of the student body has admitted to cheating (meaning that the real percent of cheating is even higher).
And, the way you guide youth to act in a certain way is by treating them that way. If you want them to be trustworthy, you trust them. This is not a totally fringe idea.
sure, but it seems exceptionally silly to continue to blindly trust them when a sizeable portion of them admit to not being trustworthy
agreed!
however, having a proctor that stands in the classroom for your exam does not hinder the growth process, in my experience. (i teach, if thats worth anything to my statement)
I'm angry at the people who control the current incarnation of neoliberalism, the elites, they have led to the complete moral decay of the world. Luckily they fucked up so bad that American imperialism will go back to its rightful place of fucking around in the Americas while murdering civilians for capitalists. Just as the founders intended.
Clearly the actions were helpful for maintaining that illusion,
while also maintaining the illusion of academic excellence,
despite rigorous courses.
I'm completely flabbergasted to learn that an Ivy League holds students to a far different and much lower standard than I what I was held to at a regular university in Canada.
From now on I don't see how I can't be skeptical of the credentials of someone from Princeton knowing that their exams weren't proctored.
They know not to bite the hand that feeds them.
What is it at other universities? I went to a big public school, and remember cheating being halfway rampant. The penalty, moreover, was never expulsion.
One time, several people cheated on physics homework (apparently in a very obvious way), and the professor took fifteen minutes out of the next lecture to basically say "you know who you are, you got a zero, and if I see it again, I'm going straight to the Provost."
Princeton is very much optional and is a school for future elites. They're supposed to produce CEOs, politicians, and Nobel prize winners. So the standards should be different.
Of course, expectations are a part of the problem. Many kids go to Princeton or Stanford or MIT because they had wealthy parents who really wanted their kids to go there. And many of these kids are mostly interested in computer games, weed, and the opposite sex. A combination of unmotivated students and high academic standards lead to predictable outcomes.
They also produce more "elites" than "elite" schools do if you go by executives at F500 companies and politicians.
Are we going to pretend that Berkley, Michigan, UNC-CH, UVA etc. do not produce world class educations from world class people?
It was eye opening to find cheat sheets and other cheating materials obviously left behind by students. The majority of the stuff we'd find we either inaccurate and completely wrong. Like a half awake student copied something they thought was the right equation or solution, when in fact, it was for something completely different that wasn't on the test.
So I agree with your notion, but its one thing to try and cheat. Its a completely different one to do so successfully.
But institutions take awhile to adjust to new realities, and it while looks like Princeton may have been a bit behind the curve on this one, I can understand why they were reluctant to abandon this practice. Living in an honest community cuts a lot of extra effort out - crap that you don't even have to think about. Princeton will be a less productive place to learn going forward.
Salvadorans.
That's how you get a culture against cheating. You ensure that cheating doesn't pay, and eventually people learn that cheating doesn't pay. The enforcement is part of the culture.
Obviously, whether this was true or not is a whole discussion, but the attitude did lead to a lot more cheating (due to desperation) than I'd imagine past generations had.
A midterm being worth 25-33% of a grade, plus some classes only being offered in fall or spring semesters meant a bad test could roughly cost you tens of thousands of dollars, since the next time you could retake the class would be in a year, and it often was a prerequisite for another class. It just leads to an environment that encourages desperate "survival" behavior.
It really is a cultural thing, and that sort of culture is primarily passed down from upperclassmen to underclassmen. I went to a different college with an honor code (Harvey Mudd) and when I graduated in 2019 it was still doing relatively well, but from what I've heard COVID really killed students caring about / adhering to the honor code.
Obviously the first. How is this even a question?
The more usual perspective would be that they're both bad.
>The Duke of She said to Confucius, “Among my people there is one we call ‘Upright Gong.’ When his father stole a sheep, he reported him to the authorities.”
>Confucius replied, “Among my people, those who we consider ‘upright’ are different from this: fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. ‘Uprightness’ is to be found in this.”
-from the Confucian Analects
Loyalty is a fundamental moral principle. Loyalty to a friend carries a lot of moral weight. Humans are a social animal, and loyalty to a friend can easily outweigh loyalty to some abstract institution. Like, my friend will still have my back five years from now. The university I went to won't do shit for me.
Like, if you're talking about loyalty to a friend who wants you to cover up an unjustified murder they committed, then I think most people will say the value of telling the cops about the murder outweighs the loyalty to your friend.
But for cheating on some test where probably 30% of the other students are cheating anyways? I think the vast majority of people will say that loyalty to your friend is the more important moral principle here. We all make mistakes in life, and the whole idea of loyalty and love to a friend is that we support them even though they make mistakes. As long as the mistakes are common mistakes like cheating on a test or cheating on a boyfriend, as opposed to things like felony crimes.
I could buy the argument if the friend had a moment of weakness, regretted it, won't do it again, and please don't report it. They've learned their lesson, that's enough.
But if they do it and they're fine with it and they're going to do it again and what's the big deal? Refusing to report that isn't loyalty anymore, it's not sticking with someone who made a mistake, it's protecting deliberate bad behavior.
The question is simply how you balance loyalty to the institution vs loyalty to a friend.
A lot of people will think that cheating in a context where a lot of other people cheat too, is just not a big deal. That it's certainly not worth losing a friendship over. Like, are you going to end a friendship because someone jaywalks? Because they habitually speed 5 mph over the legal limit? Because they sometimes take illegal drugs? Because they deducted things on their tax return that you know weren't actually business expenses?
The size or importance of a moral violation matters, when weighing up conflicting moral obligations.
I think cheating is pretty serious. It qualifies as self-harm, and it harms your classmates by devaluing their eventual degree.
Jaywalking and minor speeding are not even immoral at all, in my view. I don't mean they're insignificant, I mean they're outright not morally wrong to me, so that comparison suggests that we have a pretty strong difference in what we consider to be morally good here.
It's very easy to argue speeding is immoral: it's immoral to disobey any law or regulation passed by a democratically elected government if these is no other conflicting moral principle. So you can speed to rush to a hospital, for example, but everyday speeding is immoral both because it breaks the morally legitimate democratic law and increases the chance of physical harm.
For many people, cheating on a test is little different from speeding. Calling it "self-harm" is a stretch, and there's zero direct harm to your classmates if it's not graded on a curve (which I haven't seen in a long time). And you could easily argue that the marginal difference it makes to the value of everyone's degree from that institution overall is basically as negligible as the marginal difference it makes to public safety as speeding by 5 mph does.
Also, different exams are different. Fewer people will be bothered by cheating on a freshman year calculus exam, whereas cheating on a final qualification to become any type of emergency responder is far, far more serious because somebody could directly die as a result of your lack of knowledge.
I have to say, this is not the sort of attitude I expected to find on this site. Especially from someone defending cheating on exams. Anyway, I'm sure I won't convince you to change your mind on this, and you certainly won't convince me.
And I find it somewhat bizarre that you seem to think there is no moral value in following the law? Especially when I added the caveat "if there is no other conflicting moral principle", which means you believe there is nothing bad about the law?
Or is it the caveat you disagree with, and you think the law must be followed no matter what?
No, I don't see any moral value in following the law. Following the law can be and often is morally good by coincidence because the law encodes some piece of morality, e.g. the laws against theft or murder. But if the law says I'm only allowed to cross the street at designated locations, and I can safely cross at a different location, there is no moral issue with doing so, in my view. If speeding is immoral it is only because of the safety concerns, not because it's illegal. If I refrain from speeding on a road where I believe it's safe to go significantly faster than the limit, it's only because I want to avoid the potential consequences of breaking the law, not because I think it's somehow wrong.
Just so you know, that's not a position most moral philosophers take, as long as the law is decided by sufficiently democratic procedures.
The fact that you belong to a group of people, and the people decide on rules, means that violating those rules is a moral violation against that community of people.
To say that has no moral weight at all is a pretty extreme position. Now obviously if there's a conflict with another principle, there are times that other moral principle should win. But to say that there is no moral value whatsoever in following the law is not something I think many people will agree with. And thank goodness.
Not that it's going to change my view, but I'm curious if that's really the position they take.
And "sufficiently democratic" basically means freedom of political speech, adult citizens can vote, representatives are chosen by majority rule, elections are fairly conducted and not rigged, and laws are passed by majority rule.
Obviously you can always quibble over details such as unicameral vs bicameral legislatures, single-member district vs. multi-member district representation, gerrymandering, judicial review, and so forth.
But if people are allowed to freely debate and the franchise is universal and elections are free and fair and elections and decisions are based on majority rule, then those are the basic conditions. So the US and France and the UK are sufficiently democratic; Russia and Iran and China are not (despite holding elections).
Edit: actually I do have one other thing to say. It's quite a coincidence that the conditions you laid out happen to be those that were met in the US right about the time that book came out. Feels like it might have been working backwards from the conclusion.
I'm not even defending it. I'm just describing the mainstream ethical foundation used today.
But what you are doing here is justifying behavior. That’s separate from a discussion about what’s right or wrong. You have to not only consider one’s friendship, but the negative effects across society that their actions cause. In other words, reporting the friend negatively affects (in general) only two individuals, while cheating affects many more people and cultural values and norms. I’m not a Utilitarian, but intent and effect matter.
Teachers/Professors are already used to accommodating dumb planning/mistakes from students. An honest "I spent too much time partying and fell behind, can I get an extension" email will often get you very far.
Also baffled to hear cheating on a boyfriend included there, cheating of that sort would be friendship ending.
Im not convinced that's the case, if it's a person who can normalise cheating.
They've already made the decision that benefit to themselves outweighs everything else.
I'd asked them what they expected would happen when they tried to get jobs or landed one. Like how do you fake work? They just said all jobs are group-based like their study group. (Keep in mind they were soliciting my code as their group was struggling to find solutions to assignments.)
The answer is a one of them works at a grocery store as a cashier, another one I saw now manages a bagel store (didn't know all of them). A waste of time, money, and effort to get a CS degree then just not be able to use it.
...yeah, yeah, greener grass, i know.
To the school's credit, they responded as best they could. They considered each case, interviewed the students, and punished them on a sliding scale based on how much cheating, ranging from a zero on that one assignment up to suspension.
Then, for the next semester, they simply changed the rules. You were now officially allowed to cheat all you wanted on homework, but it now only counted for 5% of your grade. That was REALLY bad for people who weren't doing the homework, but it also sucked for people who were just lousy test takers.
I went to a school with an honor code and cheating was rampant among the premeds and future Obamas.
Exames were previously proctored, and it led to a "us vs them" mentality that meant students banded together to
The Honor Code system, and removing proctors was a way to route around that—it made all of the students responsible for catching cheaters and turned the "Students vs Faculty" mentality into a "Honor vs Cheaters" mentality among the students.
Unfortunately, it seems like the "Students vs Faculty" mentality has seen too much of a resurgence due to outside factors, and the Honor Code is no longer a match for the current climate. That's what the article is about
Students are at school for a lot of poorly-thought-out reasons: inertia, not knowing what else to do, because their parents made them go, etc. If they're not there to learn, you can't make them learn. No, not even by proctoring exams. The only purpose that achieves is to gatekeep.
And, gatekeeping for doctors and pilots is a good thing. We don't want to let just anyone become a doctor or pilot. But frankly, I don't give any shits about whether an AI programmer has made it through a gatekept degree. That stuff can be gatekept at other points--if they show up to work pretending and don't know anything, that will become obvious, and degrees maybe aren't the only or even best way to obtain that knowledge anyway.
All that's to say: if you view higher education as gatekeeping for further life options (i.e. a career) then proctored exams make sense. But if higher education is just for learning, it's stupid to put all this gatekeeping around it--that simply closes doors to interested learners, while allowing people who can "college" well to thrive without really learning. Let the cheaters cheat--they're only hurting their own learning--and I think it's often because you're forcing them to take some gen-ed thing that isn't useful knowledge to them (I'm looking at you, calculus--why was I forced to take 4 semesters of calc, when I always knew that the prob and stat classes I took as electives were more useful?).
From the institution's perspective--or at least an "elite" institution like Princeton--that is what it is. When they confer a degree, they're conferring something valuable, even if its main value is as a status marker and ticket to future options. They can't afford to take the attitude of "let the cheaters cheat, they'll only hurt themselves", no matter how true it is, because it would destroy their brand.
Yes, any university understands that many (most?) of their students are simply there for a diploma that opens up opportunities, and the parts of an institution that view it as a business are going to want to maintain the value of that product.
But the faculty of a university isn't typically in it for the money--in most fields you can make more money in industry than in education. A lot of teachers just want their students to learn, whether their students want to learn or not. Faculty senates aren't powerless in steering an institution, and sometimes knowingly make unprofitable decisions--something a lot of HN can't imagine or understand. ;P
And a lot of students are there for that--in fact some of the most profitable students are. Do you think a Saudi prince need a diploma to open up opportunities? No--they're there because they, or someone in their family, values something else about the institution, be it knowledge, networking, etc.
But when push comes to shove, that's still the ideology that drives the universities as institutions. That's not a new phenomenon. I was in college 40 years ago, and I saw faculty members who were outstanding teachers get second-rate treatment compared to those whose classes were horrible, but who had the right connections to bring in the grants and promote the brand.
Why would a Saudi prince be a more profitable student? The only difference between him and most of the other students as far as money is concerned is that his family can afford to pay the grossly inflated tuition out of pocket instead of having to get financial aid. But the money is the same in either case as far as the university is concerned.
I wouldn't reduce student motivations to career vs. learning.
College can also be about aspiring to a better society, with the university as microcosm.
For example, a society in which people are honest, and have integrity.
I'm not, that's why I said "Students are at school for a lot of [...] reasons".
> College can also be about aspiring to a better society, with the university as microcosm.
> For example, a society in which people are honest, and have integrity.
Sure, but that's irrelevant:
1. A cheater is capable of not cheating when they're taking a proctored exam, but it doesn't make them honest--they'll just cheat later in life when given the opportunity.
2. People don't suddenly become cheaters when they're given the opportunity to cheat--the people who would cheat when an exam isn't proctored were going to cheat in other areas anyway.
Integrity and honesty are values, and it's pretty difficult to change people's values. I don't think either policy changes anyone's values. That's particularly true of integrity and honesty as those are how people behave when nobody's watching--if you watch and people know you're watching, everyone behaves honestly.
If you want to change people's values, I'd argue universities are pretty poorly-situated to do that. Philosophers are better at finding ethical ideologies that justify unethical behaviors than they are at getting anyone to give a shit about what behaviors they find ethical or unethical. Changing people's values is best achieved by a society that rewards values we uphold and gives us leaders that embody those values. What we have for leadership is pedophiles and grifters, and a lot of those came from our most prestigious educational institutions.
My impression is that there was a sharp shift around COVID. Doing classes over Zoom with a talking head broke the connection they had with their professors and other students. College felt closer to a video game operated through your screen than a community.
When I was in college not all that long ago, cheating was a scandalous thing. I knew a friend of a friend who cheated on an exam with some tricks and it resulted in suspension for a semester. There were rumors of someone hiring a service to write their papers for them and it was a wild story.
Now students have ChatGPT to write their papers and they've been practicing how to use cell phones without the teacher noticing for 10 years before getting to college. Combine that with social media grumblings about how college is "just a piece of paper" and doomerism about how they're never going to get a job or buy a house and cheating starts to look the only rational option to some.
The pattern is not contained to college. Every time the topic of cheating comes up on Hacker News there are more comments defending cheating than I would expect from this crowd. The usual justification is that the system is broken in a hand-wavey way and therefore nobody can be blamed for cheating.
Even recently when I last spoke to them, the profs described how students were refusing to think for themselves even when given open ended projects. They were just having ChatGPT come up with the project idea for them instead of taking advantage of the freedom to do something they enjoyed.
I think the issue is largely that in the age of AI, learning a skill requires one to be deliberate and dedicated, but the entire reason grades and exams are so prominent is because most students need the threat of near term failure to learn.
Open ended projects were always my favorite ones because I was able to utilize some of my personal projects on them. Profs also enjoy seeing students' passion for their topic. That kind of student is probably still doing well.
Those kinds of projects are a big trap for certain kinds of people. If I had used ChatGPT in college, maybe I wouldn't have come up with overly-ambitious projects that seemed doable at the time but instead took several full weeks of work and basically made my semester miserable.
Ensures that students have a plan, that the goals are achievable, and can help to spread out the project's points.
Also helps when profs make it clear that they're more concerned about seeing what you know/learned and how you approached the problem, not whether or not you achieved exactly what you promised.
LLM over-reliance has an analogous problem: People start using LLMs to start projects that get in over their heads, then when the LLM has gone through all of the easy and medium problems they're left with only the hardest problems to solve on top of a project where they didn't learn much doing the easy and medium parts first.
Colleges will need to remodel the rooms where these tests are given to become large SCIF type rooms so that wireless communication is not possible. Let the students go back to writing on their arms, wearing eye patches, or shoving notes up their casts. Yeah, I've probably seen Spies Like Us a couple of times:
I think this is part of a larger phenomenon than simply Zoom classes. COVID severely damaged the already decaying social contract of the US and we have mostly been trying to ignore that ever since. The most prevalent viewpoint of American life is now that the only thing that matters is the individual and therefore anything an individual can do to better their station in life is inherently justified. We can see this on so many levels from politics to rampant academic cheating to quiet quitting to prediction markets full of insiders. When we don't owe each other anything and the consequences are minimal, rarely applied, or completely non-existent, the only reason to not give into cheating, scamming, and corruption is your own personal morals.
It is possible that when the metric becomes the target(AKA Goodhart's law) cheating can be beneficial but this is failure of the institution because it means you are no longer there to learn.
mature students (25+, at my school) are indeed there to learn. the 18 year olds are mostly there because its what is expected of them, no more.
It’s good for the brand in general. It’s pretty easy to find a 3.8 GPA kid from Harvard. There’s no C students to dirty up the alumni network.
You’re mostly buying into a tribe. Other tribes do well too.
Looks like they started doing this senior survey in 2022, so unfortunately there's no pre-COVID info.
2022 20.9% cheating, 31.5% non-reporting
2023 25.4% cheating, 33.6% non-reporting
2024 28.8% cheating, 42.0% non-reporting
2025 29.9% cheating, 44.6% non-reporting
So from this it seems like cheating has been increasing significantly over just the last few years
If 44.6% of students saw an honor code violation and didn't report it, and 0.4% of students saw an honor code violation and did report it, that means that 99.2% of Princeton students that pledge to report honor code violations break that pledge. And that's only counting the voluntary reporters, meaning that the actual rate is presumably even worse!
But also, how would reporting a suspected honor code violation even work? There's intentionally no staff witnessing the exam, and you aren't likely to know the names and faces of your whole class, so what would the professor even do with that information? "Professor, I saw someone take his phone out, I think maybe he was cheating, I don't know his name." Okay, thanks Captain Non-Actionable. We'll file that in the circular academic integrity investigation bin.
However, the 44.6% was the category of "respondents reported knowledge of Honor Code violations that they chose not to report," and the 0.4% was the category of "had reported a peer for an Honor Code violation."
Everybody who saw a violation was in one of those two categories (did report or didn't report), so we can compare them to see what percent of people who saw honor code violations did, and the answer is that >99% of them failed to uphold their pledge.
The 44.6% appears to refer to the proportion of respondents who saw a violation and did not report it.
- 0.4% saw and reported
- 44.6% saw and did not report
- 55% did not see (but may have erroneously reported, though that seems unlikely)
If this is correct, 44.6% of respondents are in breach of the honor code. If we assume that the non-witnesses behave similarly to the witnesses, 99.111% of the students do not ‘honor’ the code.
The Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline “adjudicates all potential violations of academic integrity regulations by undergraduate students other than those violations involving in-class exams (which fall under the jurisdiction of the Honor Committee)” [0]
0: https://odus.princeton.edu/student-support-and-community-sta...
It is assumed that students will attempt to cheat, so exams are designed so that cheating is not a viable strategy to obtain high grades. So-called invigilators also patrol the exam room and will report any violations.
That's interesting. How do they do that?
It's been some years for me so things might have changed, but no tech was allowed into the exam rooms, except for calculators in some subjects. Everything was done by pen and paper.
Whereas the rest of us were always assumed to be cheaters until absolutely cleared otherwise.
Just look at how people are treated by the dalits who run Proctorio. We were teated as less than human.
https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/40-percent-st...
Also: admissions at all these schools are heavily biased toward wealthy legacy hires, regardless of talent, and the "most determined" are the most likely to cheat.
What's next, claiming the wealthy don't steal?
Like voter ID. It's not some partisan issue. None of the political parties are fighting Elections Canada over it and its been around my whole life. Its just not a thing(tm). You go to vote, show your ID and and voilà, done. And yet somehow, this is a "big deal" down south?
There are around 2-3 million adult citizens here without any government issued photo ID, and around 30 more million have government issued photo ID that is expired or does not have their correct name or address.
As more things have started to require current government issued photo ID the requirements to get such ID have been tightened. You typically need a certified copy of your birth certificate, but getting a certified copy of a birth certificate typically requires having a current government issued photo ID.
There are alternate ways to prove identity that rely on other documents and/or getting people with ID to swear that they know you and know you were born here and are who you say you are which can be used to get the certified birth certificate.
Those other documents are often hard to track down, for example some states accept school records as supporting evidence but often those records are not centralized, so you have to go the school district for them. All in all it can take significant time and money to gather all the documents needed, which is a serious problem for many of those without ID.
In the specific case of voting there are around 20 million voting-age citizens without current government issued photo ID and who would have trouble getting such ID.
If we decide we need to switch to checking government issued photo ID at the polls, as opposed to the current system where checks are done when you first register and accept secondary means of proof, the right way to do it is to first make it so those millions of citizens who would have serious trouble getting such an ID are able to actually get ID without hardship.
Only after that is done, so the switch will not disenfranchise tens of millions, start requiring such ID at the polls. Voter fraud under the current system in the US is negligible, so there is no need to rush this.
The current push by one party to try to rush it is because a majority of the people who would be disenfranchised are people who tend to favor the other party. That's why it is controversial.
Frankly it’s easy to dunk on the U.S. for a lot of things and it’s very short term gratifying to do so but don’t let yourself fall in to the trap of assuming your ‘little procedural important thing’ is universally accepted and it’s just those silly Americans who don’t get it.
For exams in most subjects, the cellular phone is held in the lap. The student needs only briefly expose the exam page to the camera of the phone: immediate photograph of the page, ingestion of the page by an artificial intelligence, and then: the student flips the page to view the side exposed to the camera, and glances down to see the answer on the telephone.
It is a combination of FOMO (everyone else is doing it, I must also to not fall behind) similar to that which drives hype adoption, combined with a perception that moral behavior grows optional in proportion with wealth or power. The latter is empirically evident in how American society has addressed moral failures of wealthy/powerful leaders (i.e. crimes without punishment)
Teachers increasingly must assume that students will not learn on their own outside of the time spent in class. This is difficult because we only see students for a handful of contact hours every week, and there is not enough time to both lecture AND ensure that a student has attained thorough understanding of the material. Teachers have adapted to this in various ways, but another stressor is that students are coming into college much less prepared. When I teach precalc I essentially have to assume that I will need to teach students how fractions work. The current system is not built to support this kind of learning. In order to make sure students are really learning, I now have to cut out major portions of the curriculum to make sure I have time to do active learning during class. It's obvious through students' performance that their understanding of things we work on in class is much more internalized and sophisticated than things I lecture about but assume they will learn on homework problems.
A novel I really love is Anathem by Neal Stephenson. While Anathem is an admittedly goofy work of fiction, I do think Stephenson's vision of the future is compelling: the purity of mathematics education and research must be protected from the hyper-technological outside world. In reality I'm not anti-technology of course, I feel like access to a non-internet-connected computer is fine. But, I wonder if such a model would work for an educational institution?
What has perhaps changed is that now it is easier to detect cheating because AI assisted cheating is much higher quality. As such it stands out as obvious. The mere fact that a student writes a coherent sentence and a well structured argument normally puts one on alert.
That Princeton has never proctored exams strikes me as farcical. Those honor codes don't work except to support the myth that we are above all that.
Here in Spain, we don't have an equivalent expression because there is no such thing as an unproctored exam. The idea of being proctored is already included in the word "exam".
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2025/12/princeton-...
Not convinced of this. I would imagine the majority of people are more likely to cheat if they see the a lot of people getting away with it, not merely if they think they themselves can get away with it.
Despite HN trendiness, SV and business world advocacy of 'animal instincts', and current cultural trends, humans are generally honest and honorable - obviously people in many places have thought that. It's good news, though many will resist it because, I think, it violates the anarcho-libertarian norms that are fundamental to these cultural trends (i.e., arguing that corruption is inevitable, human nature, etc.).
As a non-cheater, I didn't want draconian measures to catch cheating, just wanted there to be real consequences when someone was caught. I didn't need 4.00, but what if I did?
I agree that humans are generally honorable for things with low stakes. Consider our cultural view of politicians for a non-SV example of where we fully expect high stakes to lead to selfish and dishonorable actions.
I personally believe this (that people are generally honest and good). BUT, the numbers don't lie: 30% of Princeton students admit to having cheated on an exam. This is a "your house is on fire" moment. An honor code has has to be enforced, and that is apparently not happening at Princeton. Frankly, as someone working at a school that also has an honor code (most do, in my experience), that is where the problem lies: if you turn a blind eye to violators, it sends the message to everyone that the honor code is just words, it doesn't mean anything.
As a result, we still have 1/3 of the future leaders of American business/politics cheating and not facing any consequences. Princeton appears to be an unprincipled institution and is shown to lack any useful standard to evaluate the quality of its graduates. When you see a Princeton graduate with high marks you should always consider that they may have cheated to finish their degree.
Princeton is changing its policy because of the changed result.
Wow
eliminate exams all together - have in person discussions.
if you gonna write something - to answer questions - let it be done in person then marked on the spot by your peers.
better yet to test understanding - answer questions with better questions i.e critical thinking.
since easily machines can do calculations, fact finding faster than us. but machines can't ask better questions
Sounds more like an 1893 cost reduction to me... have the students supervise themselves for free.
is this so the rich kids that have parents who pay for parts of the school can still get a pass?
It's Princeton. They're given due process, not administrative fiat. Also, on what planet does having "parents who pay for parts of the school" swing a student (versus administrator) run process?
That's just the culture at Princeton. (And in a lot of high-trust settings.) Nobody is ceding real power, they're devolving unrewarding work.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/04/hasan-piker-jia-to...
Does it? Did it? We elected the "brazenly corrupt pedophiles."
This question seems complex and important enough to not be resolved with a truism.
The lack of competition from the Soviets is probably one of the bigger systemic causes. The cold war in no small part a war for hearts and minds in the democratic world. It was existentially important that the west believed in America, both the US itself and its allies. As long as the Soviets were around as existence proof for an alternate world order, the US needed at least visibly have its shit in order.
If today's clown fiesta had unfolded 50 years ago, well comrade, сегодня мы все говорили бы по-русски.
If we flip the snake so it goes along the political spectrum, with the biting ends being extremists, I suppose the fish does rot from the heads. Top-down versus bottom-up is a more-complicated situation, and I suspect it's closer to turbulence than anything monotonic.
Mencius went to see King Hui of Liang. The king said, “Venerable sir, since you have not counted it far to come here, may I presume that you are provided with counsels to profit my kingdom?”
Mencius replied, “Why must Your Majesty use that word ‘profit’? What I am provided with are counsels to benevolence and righteousness, and these are my only topics.
If Your Majesty say, ‘What is to be done to profit my kingdom?’ the great officers will say, ‘What is to be done to profit our families?’ and the inferior officers and common people will say, ‘What is to be done to profit our persons?’ Superiors and inferiors will try to snatch this profit one from another, and the kingdom will be endangered.”
All of that corrupt leadership is celebrated by american americans who see themselves as true americans.
The old adage that the people elect the governance they deserve; comes to mind. The concepts of Virtue, Honour, Duty, and Justice have been declining in the West over a very long period (this is not a US specific thing). The rotting head reflects the rotting society.
> It's a sucker's game to aspire to selflessly serve the greater good when the most powerful people in the land are brazenly corrupt
You don’t act honourably because that will “get you ahead”. You act honourably because it is right.
As much as I would like to believe that’s true I don’t think it is.
You act honourably because society incentivises you to. To act dishonourably is to be disadvantaged, to be shamed, to be cast out. That is the part that’s missing today.
I think acting honorably has to come from within. It’s something that people need to do regardless of rewards or incentives. Now, how we create a culture that actually does so… that has to come from society. But, imo, if people only act honorably because they’re rewarded for it, and they don’t when no one is looking… that’s not acting honorably at all.
Later, I had adapted to the culture around me. Such instincts rarely arise as it had become extrinsic.
Well, and because it's not typically fatal in very short order.
The problem comes in when honor makes you a target to erase by people more powerful than you. Being dead right gets you nowhere.
It is worse than self interest. It is brazen ignorance.
this idea has always bothered me. i think people (even ones i disagree with) deserve better.
It's the K-shaped economy. Those not participating in the upsides are electing to either not participate in the system at all or to destroy it. Most people think Luigi Mangione is a hero.
We had a good post-WWII run. We had factories, then globalization. Massive growth for all economic backgrounds for several generations. But the world caught up. Now the average worker has to compete against their increasingly competent and economically enabled peers around the globe. Costs for everything are rising.
We used to have a super sized Big Mac economy propped up by the fact that America was (relatively) peerless. The worker saw so much upside. Now they don't even get free refills, so to speak.
I'm hoping the AI boom helps bring down the cost of goods without putting people out of work. If it goes the other way, I think we might be heading for 1790's France.
Which side of the K-shaped economy do you think Princeton alumni are predominantly on?
Given that UHC started approving lots of procedures and drugs after the assassination shows that their medical insurance mass fraud did happen and paid off... And they quit it.
And then they were sued by shareholders for approving said procedures. Boo fucking hoo the shareholders lost a buck.
Note that insurance fraud ALWAYS targets the individual policyholder, and NEVER the insurance company.
If Luigi did it, then he should be significantly credited for a massive harm reduction by using violence to ensure less fraud perpetrated by UHC.
The US government wouldnt do their fucking job (investigation amd criminal charges of insurance fraud). So a citizen had to.
Do we both value a life, regardless their status? If so, Im siding with the masses.
If that businessman stands in the way of 10000 dying, Im pulling that train lever and running his ass over.
If you opt to habitually rationalize human behavior in a manner that is detached from concern with nuance or driving forces then some amount of reality denial is probably inevitable
[1] See e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06137-x
Interesting that this is posed as the American left disregarding the social contract. I think you could make a pretty good case that the American right disregarded the social contract first in electing an extremely destructive pedophile who starts wars for reasons that can't even be articulated, pardons war criminals, engages in blatant nepotism enriching his family to the tune of billions at taxpayer's expense, large-scale fraud including being convicted of felony, adjudicated rapist, and a list of social contract violations going on for about 300 more pages that I'd be here all day typing out. And once the social contract is gone, it would be pretty weird to expect the other side to continue abiding by the terms. I don't personally make a habit of binding myself to one-sided contracts that impose no obligations on the other party.
What will change once you no longer feel bound to this contract?
Everything changes when people no longer feel bound to it, so it's an outcome you should rather desire to avoid. Some examples are the shoplifting mentioned in the article, Luigi Mangione, or the guy who threw molotovs at Altman's mansion. The justice system is a mutual agreement to forsake violence owing to the belief that conflicts and grievances can be mediated in a peaceful manner. If that belief dies, if people believe the justice system and government can not be trusted to deliver justice to violators of the social contract and compensation to the wronged, then people will take matters into their own hands by any means necessary. It is not a pretty state of affairs, but perhaps the people who initially disregarded the contract might've considered that before disposing of it.
The US justice system has always existed to benefit the rich and or majority of the time. I mean, really American history is filled with example where those in power ignored the less powerful below them and social unrest broke out. Every once in a while a rich person got blasted for the absolute unethical behavior they were engaged in.
Again, that is nothing new.
What is new is media and how people are subjected to this. There is no such thing as a local problem any longer. Anything at anytime can get shown to the entire world even if it's not real. So suddenly what would be an issue has thousands to millions of people talking about it. Unlike old media where they had some semblance of decorum, you get groups saying the most outrageous shit in an attempt to whip up crowds, it's even better when we find out later they've been paid off by foreign nationals and are acting like agents.
Yeah no kidding, where's the commentary on the "right-wing corners" that are rolling coal, "owning the libs", storming the Capitol, denying vaccine science and refusing to wear masks during a pandemic etc., and the consideration of whether this posture is a frustrated response to that.
It's like the idea that those that voted for Trump have never committed misdemeanors cannot even be discussed, when the actual crime statistics show that yea, they are just as apt to load up the steaks and walk out of the store.
But I will say they've done a damned good job controlling the conversation so it's not brought up in the first place.
Given that we're at a point in American history where inequality is quite extreme, I don't think it's fair to compare shoplifting to the corruption of the ruling class that is largely responsible for the current levels of inequality in the first place.
To be quite frank, under current conditions, it is a moral failure to see fault with impoverished people for stealing what they need to survive, not the other way around.
But a manager who edits timecards of 10 people for $100 ($1000 damage) is just a civil matter.
Crime, and who punishes it, has always been a political matter. The crimes have never been equal for those with power other others.
As Princeton's demo skewed hard into a more international student body, the underlying cultural assumptions have shifted.
The Christian extension of the Ninth Commandment from not bearing false witness to a blanket ban on lying is unique. Islam has explicit exceptions through Taqiyya, Hinduism gets nuanced with dharma and adharma, Buddhism sees it as one of the ten unwholesome actions, ...
WASPs built and defined Princeton, but that is long over.
It is all moralities. There is no absolute one.
It's not unreasonable to look for fire when you smell smoke.
"A 2016 study of more than 100 UK universities by The Times found that non-EU students were four times more likely to be caught cheating than UK and EU students. In the US, they were found to be five times as likely to be caught cheating than their local peers, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from 14 leading US colleges." https://studyinternational.com/news/the-complex-problem-of-a...
"Public universities in the U.S. recorded 5.1 reports of alleged cheating for every 100 international students, versus one report per 100 domestic students, in a Wall Street Journal analysis" https://www.wsj.com/articles/foreign-students-seen-cheating-...
In 2015, 4,540 international students were enrolled at Iowa. Of those, 2,797 were from China. That’s 9 percent of the school’s student body. Most or all of the students accused of cheating are Chinese nationals. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/college-...
And obviously we see it with SDE interivews with 1point3acres and the other "interview study" sites and AI tools.
I suppose one conclusion is academically inclined East Asians cheat less in aggregate... because broadly you can't cheat national examinations (yes there are very elaborate cheating rings, but this should only reinforce it's not easy / trivial). The ones who buys academic performance, i.e. dummies who can't hack PRC tertiary and has to go western tertiary (including Ivys) cheat more than baseline. But broadly west cheats more... but institutions minimize misconduct stats because incentivized to cover/underreport/juke stats to protect brand.
Are unsupervised examinations common in the US? Or is this, in fact, simply one institution coming in to line with common US national and international practice?
“But what about the argument that if everyone just starts stealing wantonly,” Spiegelman replies, “Whole Foods will eventually raise the prices?”
“Yeah, chaos,” Piker says. “Full chaos. Let’s go.”
“I kind of am inclined toward this,” Tolentino adds. “Everyone, try it. See what happens.”
Source: gas station snack acquisition after 10pm in some USA urban areas, plus stories from abroad
That kind of service should be available for those who want it, assuming demand exists. Those who want self checkout or whatever else should not worry about their access being restricted due to wealthy authors shoplifting lemons.
(obviously no one here is going to bed crying tonight about the gall of hungry people to steal bread, I’m not even anti UBI or anything, just attempting to analyze a trajectory)
Turning into what from where is the interesting part.
Edit: not that I'm pro-shoplifting, it's that the article talks about them breaking the "social contract" (though the article is more of a reality show-esque piece as it's a opinions writer beefing with Twitch streamers and doesn't talk to any people actually shoplifting).
If companies can engage in terrible illegal behavior and then only pay 10% of profit as a fine, so can I.
If that means I cancel all streaming services, help friends also cancel streaming services, set up a Jellyfin/Navidrome box and grab everything, I do not give one fuck. Hell, the AI companies grabbed Annas Archive and Libgen. Why not me?
So, yeah. I wouldnt steal from fellow humans. I value humans. But companies and corporate "property"? <SPIT>
I’m still mad about a company I worked at over 12 years ago who stole from me and never paid my Super.
Hasan Piker (one of the people in that link) is a streamer who got popular for extremist takes and controversy. He's just doing what he does to stay famous in that interview. The other person is a writer for The New Yorker who apparently enjoys controversy too.
This interview isn't representative of anything other than two people trying to be edgy because they want their interview to go viral.
These days college kids are just as jaded. Of course they cheat the instant they think they can get away with it.
The college is there to serve the college, not them and these days the kids know it. Even if everyone cheating degrades the value of the degree there's no guarantee the college won't do that itself if everyone is honest so might as well get away with what you can while you can. Nobody likes this, it's just a rational adaptation to the perceived state of affairs.