Should students get paid to make good grades?

I am curious to know the objectivist point of view on this issue: Students earning money by making good grades

Currently there is a special program with selected Chicago Public High Schools, where students are being paid to make good grades. I cannot remember the exact dollar amount but, I know students get paid for each individual letter grade. Some students have been able to earn as much as $1,000 (or even more). Some say that this program encourages cheating among other students and some feel that it is a good incentive for students. What's the Objectivist point of view?

Note: This program is funded by a privately funded group.
(Edited by Jacob Schulz on 1/30, 7:05am)

Post 1

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 12:07am

I like the idea that private parties care enough to reach into their pockets and try to make a difference.
I like anything that stimulates a desire to do better.
I like the idea of kids getting better grades.
I don't like that schools and the culture have so many problems that this is needed.
I don't like it that the focus shifts from learning and knowledge to grades.
If we had really good schools and a culture that truly valued knowledge and intelligence and achievement this wouldn't be needed.
Cheating is an ethical, psychological and cultural problem that isn't caused by getting paid for better grades.
The problem is that some kids would cheat, whatever the reason.
The system should be sharp enough to catch cheaters, and it should have tough penalties to discourage cheating.
The truth that should be common knowledge but isn't, is that those who learn to excel at what they do will have a shot at a much better life.
The truth is that those who learn to cheat will end up depriving themselves of a special kind of pride and honor that is worth far more than money.
The real enemy are those who support mediocrity, or cheating, or just making excuses for not excelling.

Overall, I'd say that any voluntary activities of private parties that results in a net-net improvement is a good thing as long as we don't stop focusing on what is needed at a deeper level - which would be getting government out of the school business, rewarding honesty, punishing cheats, honoring achievement, respecting intelligence and productive work, and valuing knowledge.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/30, 12:13am)

Post 2

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 12:15am

In some cases cheating in school is good so you don't have to waste your time learning useless information. I can't think of anything bad about the paying for good grades, when the money comes from private individuals (not taxes etc). My parents had set up financial rewards for me getting good grades, which was something I looked forward to even though they didn't pay me a whole lot.

Getting an "A" in a class doesn't have much short term value. Getting paid for your grades gives students a direct short term reason to get good grades, and shows that some people value good grades enough to pay for them!

Post 3

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 12:27am

I'm going to disagree with something Dean said, and do so very strongly. When you do something that has to be hidden and is dishonest, like cheating, you cheat yourself the most. There is an inner strength that can never grow in some one that cultivates cheating, lying, stealing, or presenting a phony facade to the world. We live in a partially crazy world. There is a lot of hypocrisy that anyone with half a brain can see. We have to deal with lots of stupid systems and dumb rules. And often we are in situations where taking a shortcut would be the more intelligent approach, EXCEPT that it robs a person of inner strength - no one will tell you that. You will be told that it is immoral for altruistic or Christian reason to cheat or steal or because it violates social mores. Screw all of that. Honor the best, and the strongest you can be, don't let anyone talk you into being small. The biggest job we all will ever have is to grow our character - to become the person we will become. Those that are careless in this regard pay a severe price.

Post 4

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 12:43am

As usual, Steve covers all the bases and I agree with his assessment. But I am particularly opposed to the idea of paying students for applying themselves. I understand Dean's argument of providing an immediate reward for good habits, but I am much more concerned with the message this sends that one's rewards in life always come from the outside. I cannot conceive of a program that would do more damage in short-circuiting a child's learning that they must determine their own dreams and aspirations in life and establishing the sense of responsibility one must take for the pursuit of those goals. Paying for grades is just another program that cements the entitlement mindset even earlier in life, forestalling the development of independence. At least, this is what an education should instill. The fact that the current public educational system is already a mind-numbing gulag for most children is no excuse for making it even worse. Steve is correct that we need a cultural shift to get onto a path that demonstrates and nurtures the Objectivist virtues.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Note: Steve's and my posts crossed in the either!

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 1/30, 12:44am)

Post 5

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 3:34am

I agree with Steve.

I don't think this kind of project "endorses" cheating. Endorsing cheating would be the same as sanctioning it, and I don't think that is the objective at all.

Post 6

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 5:03am

Dean contended:

In some cases cheating in school is good so you don't have to waste your time learning useless information.

Steve rejoined:

I'm going to disagree with something Dean said, and do so very strongly. When you do something that has to be hidden and is dishonest, like cheating, you cheat yourself the most. There is an inner strength that can never grow in some one that cultivates cheating, lying, stealing, or presenting a phony facade to the world. We live in a partially crazy world. There is a lot of hypocrisy that anyone with half a brain can see. We have to deal with lots of stupid systems and dumb rules. And often we are in situations where taking a shortcut would be the more intelligent approach, EXCEPT that it robs a person of inner strength - no one will tell you that.

Bullshit! Of course there are times when it makes perfect sense to cheat a dishonest system. All sorts of time robbers want to deprive you of your life, liberty, and property with all sorts of rubbish. Fight back! Gain "inner strength" with your own self-assertiveness and the judicious use of ethics to your own ultimate benefit.

According to page 178 of K. P. Springfield's The Five Habits of Highly Successful Slackers:

Although Slackism may provide successful slackers with a plethora of leisure time and stress-free work in the short term, some people have already shared feedback that Slackism is not a good long-term strategy for an employee, and that undermining the interests of a corporation will only hurt the successful slacker. Their comments are akin to what you heard in grade school when cheating on an algebra exam: "The only person you are cheating is yourself."

Despite the partial truth of that ubiquitous comment, successful slackers realize when cheating is beneficial and when it is a detriment. I gladly cheated on high-school algebra exams because I wasn't good at math and knew that it was a skill I would never need in the real world. To this day, that conclusion has held true.

I basically agree with this statement. I recall the infamous "memorize the fifty states and their capitals" test in sixth grade. Why did we have to take it? So we would not be "ignorant," declared the teacher. Hmmmmm. My attitude about memorizing that information echoed that of Albert Einstein, who chose not to memorize his own telephone number because he knew he could find it in an instant in a telephone directory. So I did my darnedest to cheat, though the teacher caught me and tore up the test. So for round two of the test, I didn't bother to submit the worksheet but tossed it into the trash instead. The teacher gave me a note to take home to my mother that said, "Luke didn't even bother to submit his test." That note found its way to the trash, too, as did so many others both ways during those early years.

The bottom line is that I will exercise my own judgment about what warrants or does not warrant slacking, cheating, etc.

The most offensive piece of useless information forced upon me came in seventh grade social studies class. While loading our brains with nonsense about obscure tribes in remote regions of Africa, this textbook phrase stuck in my mind:

Fresh cow's urine washes hands and cleans utensils.

Yes, indeed, I really needed to know that -- NOT!

So pardon me while I show warranted disrespect to the notion of achieving "excellence" and "honesty" in just any endeavor an "authority" dumps into my lap.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/30, 5:10am)

Post 7

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 8:07am

It might help to give a specific example of "cheating" and one's response to it rather than asserting that cheating is good or bad.

Post 8

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 8:35am

I agree with Dean and Luke.

Example of "cheating": giving the "expected" answer on a test in order to get a good grade rather than the answer you know to be true. This is intellectual dishonesty but necessary. For instance, if you are taking an economics class from a socialist professor.

Post 9

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 9:00am

Nobody objects to paying people to do their jobs or to paying them more if they do their jobs better. This sometimes leads to cheating, but nobody uses this as as an argument against paying one's employees. I don't see any difference with schooling.

Post 10

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 9:30am

Christ, Objectivism is never going anywhere. We can't even agree among ourselves that cheating is not a good practice! It's no wonder we can't mount an effective cultural offense against liberalism or conservatism. We have nothing of consistency to offer in their place.

Mike says:

"Example of 'cheating': giving the 'expected' answer on a test in order to get a good grade rather than the answer you know to be true. This is intellectual dishonesty but necessary. For instance, if you are taking an economics class from a socialist professor."

I couldn't disagree more. You are suggesting that it is a reasonable exchange to forfeit one's honesty and integrity, not to save one's life in an emergency situation as is argued elsewhere, but just to get a better grade from a system and a professor that is judged to be inferior. Just how low are we allowed to sink in life? First you learn to give the "answer" that is expected on a test, then years later you end up voting for "BO" in a presidential election because it is the overwhelming expectation of your friends and neighbors because you long ago learned that to "get along", you must play by the other guy's rules.

Instead, I suggest getting out of the class and possibly changing schools. Short of that, I recommend that every individual uphold the truth as they see it and to not cower in the face of those who would attempt to brainwash or silence us. And if it's a multiple choice question, it may be necessary to scratch out all of the wrong answers and write in something correct in their place. My experience during my education was that I was able to maintain my integrity and still do just fine in the face of this sort of opposition. But even if I had gotten worse grades, that would have had little impact on my life, while selling my soul would have been devastating. Of course, had I done that earlier in life, I might have more little atlases right now, and I guess that's would have been worth it, because then you would like me! You'd really like me!

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 11

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 9:50am

Um, no, you have to specify what you mean by cheating. Objectivist ethics is not rationalistic, but contextual. Not rule-based, but value-oriented. At this point, an assertion that we have to come down on one side or the other of "cheating" is a demand that we make an arbitrary rule based on a floating example.

I had the option of attending Rutgers on a full merit scholarship, or paying $100,000 to attend a private school. By choosing Rutgers, I obligated myself to take certain "distribution requirements" which amount to makework classes in politically correct indoctrination. Who here would argue that "cheating" in certain ways in such "classes" is unjustifiable? For example, students are supposed to find long lists of material in the library and to do this on their own. technically, if four students get together, and each looks up five of the twenty books on the list, then swaps info, this is "cheating." Who here objects to that?

Christ, if people think ethics is a set of arbitrary rules based on floating abstractions, what is the point of being an Objectivist? We could all become Jews.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/30, 9:52am)

Post 12

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 9:51am

Peter writes:

"Nobody objects to paying people to do their jobs or to paying them more if they do their jobs better. This sometimes leads to cheating, but nobody uses this as as an argument against paying one's employees. I don't see any difference with schooling."

Peter:

I understand this argument. My objection to it is that there is a fundamental difference between a job in the workplace and an educational setting. When taking a job, one is exchanging value for value and should be paid accordingly. But schooling is a place to impart wisdom in the aspects of transforming from a dependent child into a self-sufficient adult while also receiving training that will make one prepared to provide value in the jobs one will later hold. My objection to paying for good grades is that it acts more like a bribe and shifts awareness onto the the transient money-reward rather than getting the child in school to see that knowledge and acquired skills are values in themselves that will benefit them throughout their life. A child who learns this lesson is one who has discovered the joy and benefit of opening one's mind to new thoughts and ideas. A child who is taught the one-to-one relationship between work and a buck will be unlikely to ever apply themselves without a suitable reward. This is the mindset that ties people to factory jobs an precludes them from learning new skills as the world changes around them, leaving to the government the responsibility for "retraining" everyone who finds themselves in a faltering industry. I see the pay-for-grades idea as another obstacle in the path towards responsibility and independence and that is why I oppose it.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 13

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 9:54am

Ted writes:

"Who here objects to that?"

I do.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 14

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 10:54am

Same here... how quickly one here sees the who is who and what...

Post 15

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 11:21am

CJS wrote in Post 12:

But schooling is a place to impart wisdom in the aspects of transforming from a dependent child into a self-sufficient adult while also receiving training that will make one prepared to provide value in the jobs one will later hold.

Correction: School is a place that is supposed to do that. As others have amply demonstrated, that frequently does not happen. In response to that, you would probably repeat your earlier statement from Post 10:

I suggest getting out of the class and possibly changing schools.

To repeat my phrase from my recent article "Six Words to Shut Their Traps," show me your cash flow statement. Flippant suggestions to change schools ignore exit costs, credits that cannot transfer, and a host of other barriers. I tend not to take seriously the words of people who do not pay my bills.

Ted asked in Post 11:

By choosing Rutgers, I obligated myself to take certain "distribution requirements" which amount to makework classes in politically correct indoctrination. Who here would argue that "cheating" in certain ways in such "classes" is unjustifiable? For example, students are supposed to find long lists of material in the library and to do this on their own. Technically, if four students get together, and each looks up five of the twenty books on the list, then swaps info, this is "cheating." Who here objects to that?

I do not but understand that some think you intentionally defrauded the system whereas I counter that you simply retaliated against fraud with fraud.

Just understand that if you get caught, there could be hell to pay, hence you must fire your "silver bullets" judiciously.

Robert wrote in Post 14:

How quickly one here sees the who is who and what.

Catch us if you can. Good luck. We're all counting on you.

Post 16

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 11:23am

Ted writes:

"Christ, if people think ethics is a set of arbitrary rules based on floating abstractions, what is the point of being an Objectivist? We could all become Jews."

I'm really sick of this old chestnut. It is trotted out over and over in various discussions. I'm not arguing with the concept of grounding one's ethics in reality, but I do find that the principles of Objectivism, properly understood, work just fine as a guide for most conceivable situations in life. In other words, there is a tight correspondence between the theoretical principles and the practical requirements of life.

In many threads, instead of directly addressing my arguments, Ted has simply dismissed me as a proponent of "floating abstractions" disconnected from reality as I adhere to my principles in situations where he declares them to be inapplicable. This assertion has been made in reference to life-threatening emergency situations, voting for a presidential candidate, and now, in deciding to violate the rules established by a professor in a classroom. The message seems to be that, when the going gets tough, the good Objectivist knows when to fold-em and abandon principle in true service to one's values. My argument in all of these situations is that one is simply abandoning one value (or set of values) for another value (or value set). We might have an interesting discussion of the cost-benefit trade-off between the different choices made in these circumstances. But I am tired of the overt allegation that my position is dismissed with the wave of a hand, as a "rule-based floating abstraction".

So I ask you Ted, in the example you give about pooling resources with classmates to complete a task that was assigned to be done individually, do you think that there is any ethical "price" being paid when the work is later submitted to the professor and is represented as having been completed individually, or is this strictly a case of "working smart" with only an upside of receiving a better grade for the effort expended than would have otherwise been achieved?

And just to forestall another old chestnut of being accused as acting holier-than-thou and looking down on others from a morally superior position, I will freely admit that I have also engaged in these sorts of actions earlier in my own life. The question is not determining the seriousness of the breach here, but to decide whether it is a moral breach at all or is just another example where objective moral standards simply do not apply. If ethics is to be taught to the young, what is the proper message to convey to them, using this example?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 17

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 11:42am

Luke writes:

"Correction: School is a place that is supposed to do that."

Luke:

I believe I addressed that in post #4 where I said:

"The fact that the current public educational system is already a mind-numbing gulag for most children is no excuse for making it even worse."

You wrote:

"Flippant suggestions to change schools ignore exit costs, credits that cannot transfer, and a host of other barriers. I tend not to take seriously the words of people who do not pay my bills."

I'm sympathetic to this issue. Of course, the "exit costs" of transferring to another school have absolutely nothing to do with the decision of whether to cheat or not while in school. So I do not see a conflict here. You can judge the overall value of the education you are receiving against the monetary costs paid - and I agree that you should. However, when ethics comes into the equation, I'm really curious how different people in this discussion value their ethical integrity in monetary terms? What is the dollar savings one must achieve in order to justify one instance of cheating? I hope that question seems relevant to the discussion and is not too "flippant".

"Just understand that if you get caught, there could be hell to pay, hence you must fire your "silver bullets" judiciously."

Cheating is like an arsenal of silver bullets, to be fired at the vampires of poor education, when opportune??? Just don't get caught! I feel as though I've fallen down the rabbit hole! What is the purpose of ethics?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 18

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 11:44am

CJS asked:

What is the purpose of ethics?

To support one's own ultimate value, one's own life, which is a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action.

All else must remain subservient to that ultimate value and retain that context.

WWFD?

What Would Francisco Do?

WWRD?

What Would Ragnar Do?

Each would have a response unique to his own identity, different from the other yet morally acceptable, thus showing that there is more than one ethical way to handle the scenario posed!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/30, 12:02pm)

Post 19

Friday, January 30, 2009 - 12:18pm