Live data from Hacker News

Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

bbc.co.uk

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#51
The idea of completely stopping cheating in systems like these harms meritocracy. I know this sounds outrageous.

The problem is systemic - in European post-socialist countries, education is based mostly on rote learning which becomes more and more pointless in a modern world. Example on the bottom.

Students cope with that by cheating, which allows them to concentrate their time on actually useful aspects. Most teachers, except the dullest ones, tolerate that. In other words, the whole system sort-of works only because of cheating! As it's so accepted rote learning is irritating, but mostly harmless.

There's a fine boundary where cheating stops being beneficial - crib notes are great, making someone else solve problems for you, or having pre-made answers is not. That actually should be punished.

Punishing all forms of cheating is going to be incredibly damaging, because it means the best scoring students are going to be those best at memorization.

Wouldn't it be better to remove rote learning instead? Obviously, but I'm afraid that's not realistic. Harshly punishing cheating now is going to achieve the opposite: today's top rote learners become tomorrow's professors and teachers. Not only did they get great scores, but they presumably feel good in a rote-learning system.

---

What do I mean by rote learning? Memorize these numbers [0] to the third decimal place. Not a joke - it's a real example, albeit exceptional in its absurdity.

[0] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lsq2xglw1e4/maxresdefault.jpg

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#52
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is social status and wealth really heritable? There are studies of lottery winners that show their children and grandchildren aren't any better off.

Lottery winners are overwhelmingly white trash. Who would reasonably expect such people, with no experience of money, to invest their windfall reasonably?

The result isn't necessarily surprising, but it does show a point. Not all lottery winners blow the money immediately and foolishly. You would expect there to be at least some statistical effect. But it doesn't seem to matter. And it's probably the best randomized experiment we can do to compare the effects of wealth and not wealth, all other variables equal. Wealth doesn't' seem to matter as much as people think it does.

It goes back in time too. Winners of 1832 Georgia land lottery were given free land of significant value by the government to settle and farm. After a few decades, they weren't any better off than the nonwinners.

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#53
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment makes no sense. Wealthy families clearly pass down money and social status to their children.

But it doesn't last long. After 3 generations, maybe less, there's little statistical difference between those descended from wealth and those not (all else equal!) The super wealthy may leave billion dollar empires to their children, sure. But if we are talking about the upper middle class, a moderate inheritance from your parents isn't going to make or break your life's outcome.

A moderate inheritance plus support during your education may well make or break your life's outcome vs someone born to a poor family.

'Inheritance' doesn't have to mean just what was passed down at death - it must also include all the additional resources available during development to have any meaning.

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for sharing that. It seems that the 'test score' was more important than actually educating the student. My assumption was that if the education was effective then the student would have no difficultly passing the test. So I wonder a bit at what makes education ineffective. I coached at risk latino high school students briefly while attending college and for them it was pretty clear that they needed to work…

well, it's not about passing the test. considering these exams are sorting mechanisms, you don't just have to pass; you have to do better than those that are trying to do the same university course you are *edit: and yeah, when it comes to the exam, you're no longer educating. literally the only important thing for both student and teacher at this point is the score

It was the really weird part about "AP" classes here in California. They teach you how to score well on the test for subject X but it is unclear that they impart any real understanding of subject X. And if you score well on the test for subject X you can skip taking it in college which sort of closes the loop on you ever learning the topic. Some teachers however take a better approach but certainly they aren't the common case.

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#55
post #22
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New York City experienced a similar reality. They aimed to help poor and disenfranchised groups get into their specialized public schools, by forcing a meritocracy, as disproportionately wealthy and white families were accepted because admittance was previously too discretionary and lots of excuses were made about why (hm sounds familiar). After the meritocracy was established it became disproportionately asian by a…

Have you looked up the incomes of students at Stuy? There are plenty of poor Asians in NYC.

Just like in Romania, the meritocracy exacerbated realities behind academic advantages and revealed cultural quirks that weren't even considered.

There is a lot of literature behind what those exact quirks in New York City, if you'd like to read about it.

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#56

What I find most interesting about the article is the complete lack of concern if the anti-corruption efforts have had an effect on absolute performance. It is though what is important is the pass rate on the exams, not the learning the material tested.

Test performance still tells you how well the person understands the material only if the test score approximates the understanding reasonably well.

Sure, but this is not the question here. Does making it harder to pass via cheating encourage students to learn the material being tested or not?

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#57
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The aim was to show that in the absence of academic cheating, a meritocracy would emerge. What the researcher realized was that the deck was stacked against poorer students and in favor of richer students...in essence, the cheating/rigging was happening before the kids walked into school...and the academic cheating was a response to level the playing field.

Investing time and money in your kids' education is cheating? A curious opinion.

That's the problem with this stuff. People go down these crazy roads of thinking.

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#58
post #3

> one of the consequences is precisely the reverse of its aims So... was the aim to reduce cheating, or was it just to disadvantage the richer kids? Because if the aim was really to reduce cheating, then I can't see how any of the consequences were precisely the reverse of the aims.

Respectfully, you're dancing around the issue. These results are only surprising if you have a strong a priori expectation that rich people cheat and poor people don't. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine what such an expectation might betray.

Respectfully, you're dancing around the issue.

What it would betray is the reality that not all wealth is earned equally. Yes, there are plenty of people that earn through effort and merit. But to look at one's environment (wether in a first, second, or third world country) and not see how much wealth is created through cheating is ludicrous. When someone walks into a bank with a gun and empties the registers, it's easy for us to see how that's criminal. But someone who empties a bank via Wall Street, etc. is just doing their job I suppose.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#59
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it doesn't last long. After 3 generations, maybe less, there's little statistical difference between those descended from wealth and those not (all else equal!) The super wealthy may leave billion dollar empires to their children, sure. But if we are talking about the upper middle class, a moderate inheritance from your parents isn't going to make or break your life's outcome.

A moderate inheritance plus support during your education may well make or break your life's outcome vs someone born to a poor family. 'Inheritance' doesn't have to mean just what was passed down at death - it must also include all the additional resources available during development to have any meaning.

But it doesn't! That's the point. Otherwise the lottery winners kids would be better off since they could go to better schools and afford college. In general there's little evidence that education makes any difference at all.

Re: Who lost the most marks when cheating was stopped?

#60
post #3

> one of the consequences is precisely the reverse of its aims So... was the aim to reduce cheating, or was it just to disadvantage the richer kids? Because if the aim was really to reduce cheating, then I can't see how any of the consequences were precisely the reverse of the aims.

The article stops short of an explanation, because the explanation for the gap may actually be very simple. However, it is more fashionable to talk about inequality gaps without actually looking at the causes.

Poorer students are more likely to be lazy and not want to study, due to their upbringing and because their parents are also less educated and have more distrust in the skills that are taught in schools. Richer students' parents are more likely to be well-educated and thus to impose on their children that they need to study harder and take education more seriously.

This is not news or any revelation. Of course, some of the richest kids may also be lazier, but the big difference would be between the poor and the middle-class kids.

Post reply on HN