2008 Woodie Awards
notes from the desk: I did not plagiarize these notes
Livingston Burgess
Issue date: 4/24/08 Section: Opinions
Before I get too invested here, I just want to let readers know - and remind myself - that I really have no real stake in whether or not the faculty decision to proctor exams sticks. I have never actively cheated in my time here at Middlebury, I would never consider it my business to turn in a cheater and I'm not deranged enough to worry about the effects that cheaters' curve-breaking might have on my GPA.
Still, I can't imagine a much more compelling lens in which to examine the collective psyche of the Middlebury "community," or a much more telling example of the ways in which the academy as a whole categorically fails to get the point. The issue lies at the confluence of material interests intrinsic and extrinsic fulfillment, power and pleasure. Since I find the distressingly persistent connection between financial success and academia distasteful, I want to speak to the ways in which our fulfillment and pleasure - different things - play out in the context of cheating.
By equating the proctoring of exams with a reduction in cheating, the faculty neglects the fundamental draw of cheating. I broke rules in high school, in a few rare instances - sold answers, goats on roofs (don't ask) - not because I wanted to bolster my grades, but because it is a pleasurable activity, and it is only pleasurable if it is illicit. In Orgo this spring, a problem has been posted from each test on which students could collaborate. Though nice - and appreciated, Professor Byers - it makes collaboration just another facet of studying.
With the threat of being caught, though, the student takes on power over the instructor. He is gaming the system, making for himself intrinsic meaning masked with the extrinsic motivation of a grade, of money, of whatever. The material gain is not the object, which is what the faculty fail to appreciate.
Interestingly, the same is true of the hazing "incident" that recently took place. I was not pleased, but a little satisfied to see punishment doled out. It reassured me that the oppositional contract between administrator and violator remained in place. I don't mean to condone true, harmful hazing, but victimless crimes like SIM's are empowered by the threat of repercussion, and I like that power.
Still, I can't imagine a much more compelling lens in which to examine the collective psyche of the Middlebury "community," or a much more telling example of the ways in which the academy as a whole categorically fails to get the point. The issue lies at the confluence of material interests intrinsic and extrinsic fulfillment, power and pleasure. Since I find the distressingly persistent connection between financial success and academia distasteful, I want to speak to the ways in which our fulfillment and pleasure - different things - play out in the context of cheating.
By equating the proctoring of exams with a reduction in cheating, the faculty neglects the fundamental draw of cheating. I broke rules in high school, in a few rare instances - sold answers, goats on roofs (don't ask) - not because I wanted to bolster my grades, but because it is a pleasurable activity, and it is only pleasurable if it is illicit. In Orgo this spring, a problem has been posted from each test on which students could collaborate. Though nice - and appreciated, Professor Byers - it makes collaboration just another facet of studying.
With the threat of being caught, though, the student takes on power over the instructor. He is gaming the system, making for himself intrinsic meaning masked with the extrinsic motivation of a grade, of money, of whatever. The material gain is not the object, which is what the faculty fail to appreciate.
Interestingly, the same is true of the hazing "incident" that recently took place. I was not pleased, but a little satisfied to see punishment doled out. It reassured me that the oppositional contract between administrator and violator remained in place. I don't mean to condone true, harmful hazing, but victimless crimes like SIM's are empowered by the threat of repercussion, and I like that power.
Be the first to comment on this story