H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 22°, L 6°
Last week an opinion columnist came out in favor of cheating to get good grades. As long as cheating only affects the cheater and doesn’t have any negative consequences, he argued, why not cheat? If cheating helps students “set themselves up for the brightest possible future,” then what’s wrong with cheating?
Online responders were quick to point out that cheating does affect other people. Cheating destroys the value of getting good grades, thus depriving students who earn them of their earnings. Employers, thinking they are hiring honest, competent employees are defrauded. And a university’s reputation for turning out honest, knowledgeable students is lost.
Cheating is a form of dishonesty. It is an attempt to gain a value by faking reality — by pretending one has earned something when one has not.
An honest student who believes his grades fail to adequately reflect his abilities will try to convince an employer or graduate school committee of his merits despite his low grades. The cheater, by contrast, attempts to gain values from others by misrepresentation. He tries to dupe the employer into hiring him or the professor into passing him under false pretenses.
But pretending does not change reality. Regardless of how many employers the cheater dupes into hiring him or how many professors he fools into passing him, his actual performance is unaffected. His unearned transcript no longer represents an education but becomes a worthless piece of paper.
For those students who understand the harmful affects of cheating, I have a bit of bad news. Once you graduate, cheating not only becomes acceptable, it allegedly becomes a path to prosperity.
Here’s how it works as applied to education:
First, professors give higher grades to those students who need them. Anyone who wants a grade boost or college diploma will get one as long as they are willing to use it right away. This will stimulate education because these students now have the grades they need to become teachers and doctors and lawyers. These future educators will in turn inflate the grades of their students, spurring a vicious cycle of education.
If this sounds ludicrous to you, go to the head of the class. The problem, of course, is the value of education is not the grade itself, but what it represents — actual knowledge — and this must be earned. Pretending students possess knowledge by inflating their grades doesn’t change reality. It doesn’t educate more students but destroys their payment for achievement while rewarding non-achievement.
Yet this is precisely our culture’s attitude toward wealth. To “stimulate” the economy, we’re told the government should inflate everyone’s grades. Anyone who wants a loan will get one as long as they are willing to use it immediately. Like a student who receives a gratuitous grade, recipients of so-called “stimulus” money are encouraged to pretend they are wealthier than they really are. They have money in their pockets — the symbol of earned wealth — but no actual wealth is created.
Just as unearned grades are only the illusion of an education, unearned dollars are only the illusion of wealth. Yet, this fantasy game of pretending money is the source of economic prosperity is running rampant in our culture.
If a bank does not have the capital to lend, the government allows it to pretend to have the capital by flooding it with cash and promising to bail it out.
If a car company fails to earn customers and attract investors, the government allows it to pretend to have earned these values by forcing taxpayers to finance its operation.
If a homeowner cannot afford a home, the government allows him to pretend to afford it by manipulating the lending market, dissolving contracts and pushing the risks and losses onto other parties.
But an orgy of pretending cannot lead to prosperity any more than cheating on an exam can lead to an education. Money and grades are only as valuable as the achievements they represent.
If an education cannot be commanded into existence by changing the grade distribution, why do so many think prosperity can be commanded into existence by changing the money distribution?
To those students who are proud of the grades they earn and are appalled by the idea of cheating, consider applying this standard outside the classroom. Ask whether money too needs to be earned or whether government can simply endow us with trillions of dollars in better grades.
Maybe give President Barack Obama a call and tell him to keep his phony “stimulus.” Tell him you have too much pride in your own achievements and respect for the earnings of others to accept his gratuitous handouts.
Jim Allard ([email protected]) is a graduate student majoring in biological sciences.
IP hash: b43eab93
Jim, what the hell? Why did you have to include that last paragraph?
Yeah, Jim, I will “call” Obama to tell him our collapsing bridges are fine, our sick unemployed are fine, our hungry are fine, our rising unemployment is fine, our 1950’s electric grid is fine, and so on. Just as long as me, myself and I are fat and happy, nothing else matters. The rest of America can get bent, right Jim? aMErica
IP hash: becacb2d
Why do they still let this guy write articles? They’re half-brained and often meaningless.
IP hash: 835b4c01
Mr Allard, Something needs to be said in regard to your frequent use of analogies in regard to the economy.
Well written, as always. I always am certain to read your columns. However, you have made a number of spurious and inappropriate comparisons in regards to the economy and the government’s fiscal role.
The government is not, as you compared it to weeks ago, a child in a family, or a family. The Federal government is not constrained by the budgetary requirements of families or states. Or of students who cheat in regards to their grades. A student who cheats does not have the sort of responsibilities that the last remaining global economic superpower has to its citizens and the world. Further, there is no entity other than the government you decry that has the American tax payer and economy to back any commitment it makes in regards to loans and credit.
Further, and most importantly, deficit spending is not “cheating.”
These analogies you make with the economy are interesting ones. However, the same rules do not apply.
Further, the logic of “Is debt the best way to solve a problem caused by debt?” is a non starter as well.
There was a 14 year old “wunderkind” at CPAC last weekend that amazed and wowed its attendants. I think that’s the problem with this sort of libertarian/conservative ideology. A 14 year old child can eloquently extol and expound upon conservative ideals. However, the world — and in particular the economic one — is far more complicated than your ideology gives it credit for.
Your Fellow Columnist, Gerald Cox
IP hash: b228f276
Jim, where were you when the Bush administration was handing out corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks that didn’t stimulate the economy in any real way, lax regulation that allowed them to cook the books and steal their employees’ retirement plans, and skyrocketing prices at a time when Americans’ real wages were in decline?
You’re a hypocrite and a hack. I hope for your sake you’re much better at biological analysis than you are at economic analysis. Otherwise you’ll just be another welfare queen.
IP hash: f151ec33
7:24 - Translating your statement into an educational context:
“Yeah, Jim, I will “call” the university to tell them that our students’ low grades are fine, our graduates’ ineptitude is fine, our falling math performance is fine and so on. Just as long as me, myself and I have earned my grades and are happy, nothing else matters. The rest of the students can get bent, right?”
The implication is that these values (grades, aptitude, etc.) can simply be created out of thin air. They can’t. These values have to be earned. The same applies to roads, bridges, food, and employment. These values must be created.
If your grades are bad should you ask your professor to water down the grades of the smarter students so that your standing looks better? No, you should work hard to earn better grades.
If “our” bridge is collapsing, then “we” better work hard to get it fixed. Asking Obama to dilute and redistribute the earnings of other people doesn’t actually create more bridges any more than diluting and redistributing grades produces smarter students.
IP hash: ab123ee8
Cheaters cheat and liars lie.
Cheaters are a problem, couldn’t agree more, Jim. They lie about their degrees, grades, and job experiences to pad unremarkable resumes. They obstruct efforts by prospective employers to gather accurate data on their prior endeavors and, with rare exception, they are seldom caught. They diminish the hard work and real achievements of those of us that strive for excellence on a daily basis.
Mr. Obama is the poster child of resume obstruction. He refuses to release his educational transcripts from Harvard, Columbia U, and Occidental college. He refuses to release his personal health records. He has not provided a notarized copy of his original birth certificate for open review. The publicly released birth record is a computer print out. As Mr. Obama was born in 1961, this is most assuredly not an original record or legally acceptable notarized copy. He is paying teams of lawyers many $100,000’s to prevent release of these original records. Why? What is soooo important that it must remain undisclosed? Why the determined secrecy?
Why, indeed! This is the candidate that declared “my admistration will be open, honest, and responsible.” Really? And when will that start, Mr Obama? When will you disclose the basic information that every president and presidential candidate back to Roosevelt has openly provided?
When?
Invictus Maneo
IP hash: f151ec33
Gerald,
Thanks for the complement, I appreciate it.
Re analogies: I’m not saying that a government IS a family or that a government IS a student or that money IS grades. There are clearly many, many differences. An analogy focuses on some essential aspect common to both.
My analogy between students earning grades and citizens earning money is that that both grades and money, if they are to have any meaning, need to be earned. Giving a student a better grade because he needs it does not make him smarter. Giving money to someone who needs it does not make him wealthier.
The analogy focuses on the fact that both an education (represented by grades) and material wealth (represented by money) are products of human effort, and that both grades and money FOLLOW from the earning of these values - they are not the CAUSE of them.
This is important because the entire “stimulus” concept is based on the idea that money leads to prosperity rather than the other way around. Obama is throwing trillions of dollars at anything that moves in the name of increasing economic prosperity. But the effect of this is to destroy the value of money, just like - here’s the analogy - throwing grades around just destroys the value of grades.
IP hash: d686aec5
The logical leap required to get from the first half of your column to the second half is rather like Evel Knievel trying to jump the Snake River Canyon, and you’re just as successful as he was.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
“…are encouraged to pretend they are wealthier than they really are.”
Like equity in homes or stock market investments? For a while, we considered these things to be “real” wealth, but, in fact, we were just pretending to be wealthy. So, Jim, America, it’s time to get real and live like the North Mexico we really are. I will fashion a corrugated tin roofed shack to escape the subtropical sun and a comfy hammock to take an afternoon siesta. Gracias.
IP hash: 49cccb11
Why is a grad student in Biological Sciences writing an article on education and the economy, two areas which he clearly knows very little about?
IP hash: def90235
Jim,
You are quickly becoming one of my favorite columnists of the Herald and thank you for the translation of 7:24’s comment.
Anyone who endorses cheating and the devaluing of work is merely cheating themselves as well as society. Society is built on thinkers and responsible individuals not cheaters. Much like I wrote in my article last week: http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/22302
Thanks, Sean McMaster Daily Cardinal Columnist
IP hash: 3f73d0c9
Jim,
Interesting article and good points, but I feel the analogy between cheating in school and the Keynesian economic principles of the Obama administration is rather weak.
Gerald Cox,
Like Jim’s, your statements are well written, but your logic is misguided.
“The Federal government is not constrained by the budgetary requirements of families or states.”
Perhaps the Federal government believes itself to be immune from budgetary constraint; however, it is, in fact, limited by how much it can tax its citizens before tipping the economy into a slow painful death or even civil unrest.
Regarding Jonathan Krohn and your assertion that libertarian/conservative ideology is so simplistic that a child �can eloquently extol and expound upon conservative ideals� and thus does not apply to our complex world is irrational. That is the equivalent of saying, �The immoral principle of theft does not apply to multinational corporate accounting fraud.� There are certain fundamental principles of right and wrong, of individual liberty which transcend history.
If anything, Jonathan�s brief speech supports the notion that generalities spoken articulately with confidence are more powerful than detailed rhetoric delivered with similar skill and poise. Indeed, the goal of a political speech is to persuade and motivate listeners, not bore them with details. Furthermore, people�s fascination with Jonathan is in his unusual abilities that shatter what one would expect of a 14 year old.
IP hash: 57d758ec
Gerald Cox,
You do realize that you didn’t actually say anything at all about Mr. Allard’s position? You simply said it was wrong and left it at that. I would be curious to hear you explain the basic (basic!) workings of the government, and where the government get’s its money from. If it is OK for a government to get it’s money out of the proverbial inkwells then why exactly?
Also, I do not find Allard’s analogy to be all that terrible, sure it doesn’t work exactly like that, but that’s why it’s an analogy. Money is (should be) the product of hard work for a job/service and to get it otherwise is generally not OK.
This may be old fashioned, but I’ve always thought that people should (only) be paid for what they earned (through an agreed upon prearrangement).
What is so wrong with that thinking? In general of course, i’m sure we can find small counterexamples, but that is generally about right.
IP hash: a5296de8
Jim, Point taken. Much of my critique stands. A more appropriate analogy would be this: The current deficit spending of the American government is as a college student taking out a line(s) of credit to fund college/grad school with the understanding that future earnings will pay off debt incurred, and lead to better level of incomes had he or she not attended college/grad school. Or, a house with a rotting foundation that has been set on fire. In the latter analogy, a fire must be put out before the rotting foundation can be addressed. In the former, future earnings more than justify current debt.
Further, in reference to the Anonymous poster at 5:30: the money for infrastructure spending in the stimulus bill cannot be classified as transfers. The federal government is paying for a product—in many cases, roads, bridges, hybrid buses, Mormon beetle research. The bailout founds you refer to in regards to banks are not fair. But again, I offer an analogy: If a neighbor sets his home ablaze in what can only be a product of sheer stupidity, a public service (fire department) is needed to put out the fire to protect the homes of others who have not been so foolish as to set their own homes ablaze. Such is the logic of the bailouts.
IP hash: b43eab93
Sean McMaster, the translation made absolutely no sense. Why? 7:24 was stating there’s a problem to be fixed, but Jim Allard wants no intervention (free markets or some bullshit with save us). Jim Allard “translated” it to mean, there’s a problem that needs to be fixed. You and Jim need to dial in your sarcasm sensors or search around in the dark for the light of comprehension.
Cheaters might achieve adequate grades, but they will be found to be through and through frauds as soon as they begin their careers.
IP hash: 74d73ade
the author should probably take a few more classes beyond econ 102 to understand how things really work. Things aren’t black and white in the real world, buddy. You’re talking about real people, real jobs, with real lives, not some grad student’s armchair president scenario. Perhaps you should reconsider your value of humanities and history.
IP hash: f151ec33
Gerald (6:37),
You suggest the following analogy:
“The current deficit spending of the American government is as a college student taking out a line(s) of credit to fund college/grad school with the understanding that future earnings will pay off debt incurred, and lead to better level of incomes had he or she not attended college/grad school.”
But a college student who takes out a loan must earn the loan by demonstrating an ability to pay it back. Someone who has already created wealth will agree to lend the money to the student if he thinks it’s a good investment. I.e., if he thinks the student will pay him back, plus interest.
Deficit spending, on the other hand, takes money from future wealth earners and gives it to current spenders. When government funds a road though deficit spending, it is the road builders who get the money but some future taxpayer is stuck having to produce the wealth to pay for it.
An accurate analogy would be a student who gets a bunch of money that his neighbor’s grandkids have to pay back.
You made another analogy:
“If a neighbor sets his home ablaze in what can only be a product of sheer stupidity, a public service (fire department) is needed to put out the fire to protect the homes of others who have not been so foolish as to set their own homes ablaze. Such is the logic of the bailouts.”
This is just the opposite of what the bailouts are doing. Instead of protecting innocent homeowners from the choices of irresponsible ones, these bailouts are forcing responsible people to pay for the irresponsible. The way to protect people from failing banks and homeowners is allow them to fail and go through bankruptcy so capital will flow to successful companies and individuals.
An accurate analogy to the bailouts would be: your neighbor sets his house on fire and the government taxes you to buy him a new one.
IP hash: 18577976
Jim, The government already taxes us to protect the homes of other people. That’s what public goods are, and the fire department in my analogy is just that.
IP hash: 761a16ab
For what it’s worth, Jim Allard’s columns are always good for a chuckle in the economics graduate student lounge. The combination of smug self-certainty and complete lack of nuanced economic understanding never fails to bring a smile to our faces and laughter to our hearts.