Cheating to Learn: How a UCLA professor gamed a game theory midterm
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: Cheating to Learn: How a UCLA professor gamed a game theory midterm
#2I wish he had discussed the "Lone Wolves" more. There were only three of them, and 2/3 of them were the same score or better. What does that say over the "Mob" answer? How common are outliers like this?
Re: Cheating to Learn: How a UCLA professor gamed a game theory midterm
#3I wish he had discussed the "Lone Wolves" more. There were only three of them, and 2/3 of them were the same score or better. What does that say over the "Mob" answer? How common are outliers like this?
> 2/3 of them were the same score or better
Or, if you like, 2/3 of them were the same score or worse.
Re: Cheating to Learn: How a UCLA professor gamed a game theory midterm
#4I wish he had discussed the "Lone Wolves" more. There were only three of them, and 2/3 of them were the same score or better. What does that say over the "Mob" answer? How common are outliers like this?
> 2/3 of them were the same score or better Or, if you like, 2/3 of them were the same score or worse.
Haha, true. But I still think the result was telling, especially that a "loner" beat the group score.
Re: Cheating to Learn: How a UCLA professor gamed a game theory midterm
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2/3 of them were the same score or better Or, if you like, 2/3 of them were the same score or worse.
Haha, true. But I still think the result was telling, especially that a "loner" beat the group score.
What was his game though? To make the overall class grade better. To prove that a "lone wolf" is worse than the "mob"? The outcome from an educational view seems to be that everyone won. The loner could be a statistical outlier.