What if students organize to pursue the goal of being average?

[The idea]

I am not considering the goal of getting a final mark in a course that is as close as possible to the class average. I am considering a more demanding discipline. The goal is to answer each question as a theoretical average student would answer it.

If a student is pursuing the goal of not deviating from the average then it would seem that the student will have no reason to be concerned about either the officially correct answer or the actually correct answer. Thus, the student will have no reason to be concerned about a discrepancy between what is officially correct and what is actually correct. Only the answer of a theoretical average student will be of interest.

Organizing is a natural first step. It would be difficult for a single student to determine how the average student tends to perform. It would be much easier for students to work together to gather the information and make it available to all students who are committed to the goal of approximating the average.

[Jyera]

It is not often that people discussion about being average.
More often than not the practical society encourages meritocracy and emphasis competition to be the best.

Therefore I'm curious.
I am interested to know what prompted you to start this thread.

What pracitical situation initiated this ?

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jyera
I am interested to know what prompted you to start this thread.

What practical situation initiated this ?

Conflicts arise in educational settings. Perhaps some of these conflicts arise because of conflicts between the goals of students and the goals of educational authorities. It is likely that students can change their own goals, but that they cannot change the goals of educational authorities.

It occurred to me that a student's high marks might sometimes be a source of conflict. I can't recall why I considered that possibility. Nevertheless, if it did happen, then a student might attempt to resolve the conflict by deliberately not getting high marks.

Normally it is assumed that students are attempting to get high marks at least in the sense of trying, during a test, to maximize their marks. What happens if we question that assumption? What would happen if students organized to pursue a goal that conflicts with that goal?

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea
What happens if we question that assumption?

What happens if we ask foolish-looking questions is that we look foolish. I'm still waiting for a reason why we should take this scenario at all seriously.

[Alkatran]

I thought this thread would be about a smart bunch of university students getting together and conspiring to do badly on a test so the bell curve raises them up.

Of course, they'd have to solve the whole 'What if he backstabs us' issue...

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by Alkatran
I thought this thread would be about a smart bunch of university students getting together and conspiring to do badly on a test so the bell curve raises them up.

Of course, they'd have to solve the whole 'What if he backstabs us' issue...

They'd also have to deal with the issue that, unless they managed to get everyone in the class in on the deal, they'd be doing themselves more harm than good, since the students who actually studied and tried to excel would receive a double benefit.

[bruto]

If you're dealing with situations in which the term "correct answer" is even relevant, then you have a problem. You'd still have to figure out either the technically or officially correct answers, and attempt to simulate the "average" mix of correct and incorrect answers, wouldn't you?

It sounds like a futile exercise, not only for the reasons DrKitten suggests, but because in order to carry it off with any precision you'd all have to be very good at it (assuming you don't cheat). Like Jack Benny's violin playing, you have to be good to play that badly on purpose.

[The idea]

Originally Posted by bruto

If you're dealing with situations in which the term "correct answer" is even relevant, then you have a problem. You'd still have to figure out either the technically or officially correct answers, and attempt to simulate the "average" mix of correct and incorrect answers, wouldn't you?

What would prevent them from using the methods that are used by average students?

[Roboramma]

What would prevent them is that there is absolutely nothing in it for them.

By the way, once all those students who were performing well on tests lowered their grades to the average, do you expect that the students doing poorly would be able to increase their performance? If not, the average falls. Which means the first students now have to do even worse in order to become average. Only now the average falls again.
This goes on until everyone has become equal with the student with the lowest marks.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[The idea]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

By the way, once all those students who were performing well on tests lowered their grades to the average, do you expect that the students doing poorly would be able to increase their performance? If not, the average falls. Which means the first students now have to do even worse in order to become average. Only now the average falls again.
This goes on [...]

Initially, one can look at the collection of all students and pick out the average students. Then one can simply study the thought processes of that particular group of students. There is not necessarily any need to recalibrate.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

What would prevent them is that there is absolutely nothing in it for them.

There might be something in it for them in a situation that involves authoritarian ideological indoctrination rather than academic study.

A student who is far below average might fail to see that a certain line of thought comes too close to obvious heresy.

A student who is far above average might see a variety of ways that a certain line of thought could stray into heresy. If a student who is far above average formulates things to avoid heresies not seen by the average, then some explanation may be demanded. Why formulate things in that manner? It might be dangerous to answer such a question if it is forbidden to draw any attention to the fact that the situation involves dogma and authoritarianism. The official story might be that the students are completely free to explore ideas and describe the truth to the best of their ability.

The safest student might be the average student.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by The idea

Initially, one can look at the collection of all students and pick out the average students. Then one can simply study the thought processes of that particular group of students. There is not necessarily any need to recalibrate.


There might be something in it for them in a situation that involves authoritarian ideological indoctrination rather than academic study.

A student who is far below average might fail to see that a certain line of thought comes too close to obvious heresy.

A student who is far above average might see a variety of ways that a certain line of thought could stray into heresy. If a student who is far above average formulates things to avoid heresies not seen by the average, then some explanation may be demanded. Why formulate things in that manner? It might be dangerous to answer such a question if it is forbidden to draw any attention to the fact that the situation involves dogma and authoritarianism. The official story might be that the students are completely free to explore ideas and describe the truth to the best of their ability.

The safest student might be the average student.

I think you might find it harder than you think to study and emulate the thought processes of "average" students. Not all students are average for the same reasons, I suspect. In your hypothetical situation, it looks as if the smartest students are screwed, if the teacher penalizes you for heresy but suspects you of slacking if you don't produce it! The only way to succeed is to come into it without having revealed one's intelligence. Your strategy would almost certainly be too late otherwise. The only way to succeed would seem to be to make your avoidance of heresy seem effortless. The whole exercise seems too abstract, and rather silly, though. In my long-ago experience as a student, I found that teachers who are dogmatic or doctrinaire are usually not so sensitive to the nuances of things. Dogmatic teachers are convinced their dogmatic ideas are the intelligent ones. They do not like to think of their ideas as the property of the mediocre, so they are perfectly happy if the smartest students regurgitate their baloney as long as they do it well. If you're intelligent and facile your biggest problem will not be with them, but with the teachers whose egos are insulted by the appearance of low effort, and grade on the show of exertion rather than on the quality of work.

[The idea]

Originally Posted by bruto

[...] In your hypothetical situation, it looks as if the smartest students are screwed, if the teacher penalizes you for heresy but suspects you of slacking if you don't produce it!

Perhaps I failed to make my point sufficiently clear. A student who goes along a path that stays far away from heresy can be attacked by authorities. For one thing, authorities might think that the student is giving himself or herself an unnecessarily wide margin of safety. The wideness of the safety margin could be interpreted as a protest, whether or not it is in fact a protest.

Also, anything that one student does to avoid heresy, if it is not done by very many students, can draw attention to the student and an explanation may be demanded. If the rules against heresy are enforced but are officially nonexistent, then the student could have trouble providing the required explanation.

Originally Posted by bruto

[...] The only way to succeed is to come into it without having revealed one's intelligence. [...]

I don't know why you are discussing intelligence.

Would you say that people from Iran or China who get high marks in science programs in western universities and then return to Iran or China are concealing their intelligence? Would you say that the governments of Iran and China do not impose authoritarian dogmas on their citizens?

Perhaps we can discuss the issue of thorough scrutiny and investigation rather than the issue of intelligence. Does it matter whether someone is selling snake oil or dogmatic ideology? Either way, isn't it possible that the salespeople might consider it unacceptable for a beam of light to shine on certain aspects of what is being sold?

Now, consider someone who is taking a course. High intelligence doesn't guarantee a high mark. However, someone who wants to get a high mark might be motivated to thoroughly study and scrutinize the course material. Do you think that there might possibly be some problems that could arise as a result of an effort to get a high mark?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by The idea

Perhaps I failed to make my point sufficiently clear. A student who goes along a path that stays far away from heresy can be attacked by authorities. For one thing, authorities might think that the student is giving himself or herself an unnecessarily wide margin of safety. The wideness of the safety margin could be interpreted as a protest, whether or not it is in fact a protest.

Also, anything that one student does to avoid heresy, if it is not done by very many students, can draw attention to the student and an explanation may be demanded. If the rules against heresy are enforced but are officially nonexistent, then the student could have trouble providing the required explanation.


I don't know why you are discussing intelligence.

Would you say that people from Iran or China who get high marks in science programs in western universities and then return to Iran or China are concealing their intelligence? Would you say that the governments of Iran and China do not impose authoritarian dogmas on their citizens?

Perhaps we can discuss the issue of thorough scrutiny and investigation rather than the issue of intelligence. Does it matter whether someone is selling snake oil or dogmatic ideology? Either way, isn't it possible that the salespeople might consider it unacceptable for a beam of light to shine on certain aspects of what is being sold?

Now, consider someone who is taking a course. High intelligence doesn't guarantee a high mark. However, someone who wants to get a high mark might be motivated to thoroughly study and scrutinize the course material. Do you think that there might possibly be some problems that could arise as a result of an effort to get a high mark?

It's all so abstract that it's hard to figure out what might happen, but a couple of points. First, as far as avoidance of heresy being suspicious, I don't see why that would be, unless a student is determined both to succeed and to be honest. One could, after all, simply echo the accepted dogma. If done well, this should succeed without arousing suspicion. It is not honest, but then neither, it seems to me, is a concerted, group effort to simulate the average.

Of course, if one diligently studies a subject, and the prevailing viewpoint is wrong, then one runs the risk of getting it right (heresy), but the whole hypothetical situation here seems dependent on the student or group of students being quite well aware of what the prevailing viewpoint is.

Perhaps "intelligence" was the wrong word to use, but I would consider thorough study and understanding to be intelligent behavior or practice, whether or not it indicates some native capacity. In that sense, I would say that people who return to china or Iran after study abroad, and attempt to fit in with beliefs they do not share probably are concealing some aspect of their intelligence.

I think I am getting the idea where you're going with this, and my general opinion remains that in a situation where one is expected to follow a dogmatic party line, a thoughtful person who does not share it is probably screwed if he insists on honesty. What you seem to be suggesting is the possibility of an organized, more systematic way of fooling the system than individuals usually use in such situations, but I'm not sure why it would make much difference.

[The idea]

Originally Posted by bruto

First, as far as avoidance of heresy being suspicious, I don't see why that would be [...]

Think of a playing field with small forbidden regions that are not clearly marked. I wasn't trying to suggest that staying out of what is generally considered to be a forbidden region is suspicious. I was suggesting that staying far away from all forbidden regions could motivate authorities to begin an investigation or attack.

Originally Posted by bruto

One could, after all, simply echo the accepted dogma. If done well, this should succeed without arousing suspicion. It is not honest, but then neither, it seems to me, is a concerted, group effort to simulate the average.

Why does it seem to you that a concerted, group effort to simulate the average is not honest? Suppose that, at the beginning of classes, there were an announcement that every individual must make an effort to get as high a mark as possible and that those who choose to stay are agreeing to do that. Even in that case, it's not clear that it would be dishonest to simulate the average. What is the general principle that is involved?

Suppose that public schools in the United States announced that there will be a moment for silent prayer at the beginning of each class and that anyone who is unwilling to pray during that moment must leave the room. Would someone who stays, but does not silently pray, be guilty of dishonesty?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by The idea

Think of a playing field with small forbidden regions that are not clearly marked. I wasn't trying to suggest that staying out of what is generally considered to be a forbidden region is suspicious. I was suggesting that staying far away from all forbidden regions could motivate authorities to begin an investigation or attack.


Why does it seem to you that a concerted, group effort to simulate the average is not honest? Suppose that, at the beginning of classes, there were an announcement that every individual must make an effort to get as high a mark as possible and that those who choose to stay are agreeing to do that. Even in that case, it's not clear that it would be dishonest to simulate the average. What is the general principle that is involved?

Suppose that public schools in the United States announced that there will be a moment for silent prayer at the beginning of each class and that anyone who is unwilling to pray during that moment must leave the room. Would someone who stays, but does not silently pray, be guilty of dishonesty?

If the forbidden regions are not clearly marked, then if the penalties are severe, I would expect even the average players to avoid them widely even if they are not sure of the boundaries (we're assuming the average players are not the stupid ones), and there would be little study needed to follow their example, even if one is "above average" in awareness of the boundaries. In fact, you might find that in order to avoid suspicion you would have to make sure you don't go closer to the boundaries than the average, rather than the other way around. If the penalties are not severe enough to offset the advantage of coming closer, the average players will play closer and occasionally take the penalties, and players who avoid all penalties will become suspect, but once again, it shouldn't be hard to figure this out.

I can understand trying to simulate the average, but I don't see why it should require much study, or a group effort.

I'm not going to be a Kantian prig and say that dishonesty is never justified, but I can't see how you can argue that a group of students colluding to deceive the teacher as to their ability and viewpoint, in order to avoid conflict, is anything but dishonest. It might well be justified as a survival strategy when confronted with tyranny, oppression, etc., since honesty can often equal martyrdom, but "honest dissimulation" is not really possible, is it?

You have a habit of bringing up supposed parallels that don't seem to me to be relevant, but in the case of the school prayer scenario, it would also be dishonesty if a student pretends to pray when he does not. It might be very justifiable, since to do otherwise would be inviting abuse, and the more so since an order like that would be clearly illegal and unconstitutional; I certainly would not demand that a school child put himself in harm's way to prove a point or fight an injustice, which is the parents' job. Nonetheless, to pretend you are doing something you are not doing, so as to deceive the authorities, is not honesty however justifiable, even praiseworthy, it might be on balance.

[The idea]

Originally Posted by bruto

One could, after all, simply echo the accepted dogma. If done well, this should succeed without arousing suspicion. It is not honest, but then neither, it seems to me, is a concerted, group effort to simulate the average.

When I was reading that for the first time, I assumed that "not honest" had some significance.

Originally Posted by bruto

Nonetheless, to pretend you are doing something you are not doing, so as to deceive the authorities, is not honesty however justifiable, even praiseworthy, it might be on balance.

Reading this, it's not clear what your point was when you said that it is not honest to simulate the average. You raised the issue of honesty. Now you indicate that an action that is dishonest might nevertheless be praiseworthy. So why did you raise the issue of honesty in the first place?

Also, if students try to simulate the average, I don't see why you would say that they are pretending to do something that they are not doing. Perhaps authorities assume that each student is trying to maximize his or her grades, but I don't see why the students are to blame if authorities assume something that is false. Do you make no distinction between nondisclosure and misrepresentation?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by The idea

When I was reading that for the first time, I assumed that "not honest" had some significance.


Reading this, it's not clear what your point was when you said that it is not honest to simulate the average. You raised the issue of honesty. Now you indicate that an action that is dishonest might nevertheless be praiseworthy. So why did you raise the issue of honesty in the first place?

Also, if students try to simulate the average, I don't see why you would say that they are pretending to do something that they are not doing. Perhaps authorities assume that each student is trying to maximize his or her grades, but I don't see why the students are to blame if authorities assume something that is false. Do you make no distinction between nondisclosure and misrepresentation?

In one of your previous examples, you suggested that the teacher was establishing (albeit one-sidedly and in a questionable way) a contract, that students who agreed to continue with the course would be agreeing to pursue the highest grades. If a student accepts this contract, then it is at least a little dishonest to try instead, to simulate the average.

I raised the issue of honesty in the first place simply because it seemed to be there, and I wondered why, in the situation you seem to be thinking of, you would prefer the rather complicated scheme of colluding to produce an average result, rather than simply dissembling. It occurred to me that you might be trying to avoid outright lying without considering that collusion to deceive the teacher could be considered dishonest too. Whether or not either form of dishonesty can be justified is a separate matter.

[hodgy]

Idea, some people are lazier and / or stupider than others but even for these its not in human nature to purposefully perform poorly. We are all naturally competitive.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by hodgy

Idea, some people are lazier and / or stupider than others but even for these its not in human nature to purposefully perform poorly. We are all naturally competitive.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I think there might well be situations in which one's motivation to perform well, at least in the conventional sense of "get good grades," might be overshadowed by some other motivation. "The Idea" has posed one such situation, in which a person might wish to avoid the conspicuousness that might arise from doing too well or digging too deeply into a subject, and while I doubt that it is a common or a likely one, it is at least conceivable. The problem I find with his scenario is that I do not think that to do this would require as much collusion or as much study as he thinks it would, and that he might also be oversimplifying the diverse approaches and actions that might add up to "average" performance in a group. I think ultimately if you want to simulate the average, it will be much easier to look at actions and results, and simulate the visible manifestations (e.g. parrot the doctrine, do things a certain way, and avoid certain subjects) than it would be to analyze the mindsets and attitudes of a group which may have arrived at those results by various means. Furthermore, even if a whole group of students determined that they would do this, either as a political gesture or a survival strategy, I don't see why this would require a degree of collusion of collective planning greater than their coming together and saying "let's play it safe and not get into trouble."