Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The Guy In Charge Has Too Much Power

For those of you who read my previous article, I was going over how it was evident that my school (The Art Institute of Vancouver or AI for short), being a private institution, had its big grubby hand in your pocket the whole way through. I talked mostly about the first quarter and all the fees involved.

I cover more of that here, but this article mostly pertains to the overall running by the program heads and how a bad egg at the top makes it rotten for everybody.

For the first three quarters, the experience was pretty decent. Most of the teachers were fantastic and really knew what they were talking about. About the time the fourth quarter rolled around stuff started to change, and not for the better.

For some reason I can’t fathom, the really great teachers that everyone liked started getting fewer and fewer classes to teach, and were being replaced by other new teachers, a couple of them decent but more than a few that had the credentials but were obviously just there for a pay check. One prime example was our Motion-Capture class. Our teacher was a guy with a ton of experience; he even worked on the mo-cap for Gollum in Lord of the Rings! I had high hopes for learning a ton from this guy.

Unfortunately his head just wasn’t in it. He showed up late most days, and we spent the quarter doing tutorials right out of the program help files. The part that really got to me was when I finished an assignment and ask him to come check it for me to see if there’s anything I could improve on before submitting it for marking, he gives it a cursory glance and tells me it’s great. THEN when I get the assignment back, I have a whopping 64%. And not to brag or anything, but my mark happened to be one of the higher ones for that particular project. And we didn’t get assignments back for weeks after submission. That teacher didn’t return after that quarter but many students failed and had to cough up almost another grand to retake the course anyway even though it was admittedly the fault of the teacher, but the administration wasn’t about to give up the opportunity for more cash.

Most problems were in that there was no real blanket standard for achievement. In the first level animation course we got a guy who pretty much graded A’s all around. And then the guy who did the second level failed almost everyone because they weren’t good enough. Now I understand that in any given class a few people are going to fail for various reasons, but 3 quarters of the class failed from this guy and had to take it again. Oh, and he was the only animation teacher of that level so the students had no choice but to have him again. And it’s not like he was just a tough marker, the guy was just a jerk. He humiliated and insulted his students on a weekly basis. Almost every student had a real problem with him.

Did they let this guy go? Of course not. I always wondered why a school would keep a guy around that was getting such bad reviews all around until I found out later that he was a close personal friend of the animation department’s academic director (I’m going to call him the AD from now on). Furthermore they were working together to overhaul the entire animation program, which it admittedly needed some work, but why was it not just done right the first time? After all the superiority of the Art Institutes Program was show you sucked us in to this education in the first place.

After butting heads with the administration on more than one occasion (I’m one of those people to go to bat for others if I perceive an injustice, not just my own issues) I graduated AI and got hired right out of my portfolio show with one of the highest paying jobs ever achieved by a student from that campus. Almost double the junior wage for someone in my field. Not to brag but to point out that I went against many of the things that the guys on top told us to do to maximize our chance to get a job. For example our AD told us to specialize in one thing. He literally came in to one of our classes one day and told us pretty much exactly what to do for a demo. I, being the stubborn ass that I am, instead made a Demo Reel showcasing a number of skills. I got a great job after grad. Just saying.

After grad I checked up with a few of the teachers I thought I learned the most from at AI and it turned out none of them were teaching there anymore save one. Most had just had it with the AD and left and another wanted to stay for the students but was just given fewer and few classes until he was fazed out altogether. Imagine my surprise when I also found out that all their replacements were more personal friends of the AD and the guys who were no longer working were ones who disagreed with him. The one amazing teacher who was still there was one of those teachers who pretty much holds a program together, by teaching multiple classes and really caring about the students and going above and beyond the usual instructor call of duty. He openly disagreed with the AD on several things and it was rumoured that he was going to leave, whether from him quitting or the AD dismissing him, but the general consensus from almost all the students was that if he left, so would they.

I had a lot of problems with the money grabbing, student victimizing, and inflexible nature of the administration at AI, and while I learned what I needed to know, by taking advantage of the genuinely good instructors and trying to go above and beyond the course material, my overall experience is not my fondest of memories.

I chose to attend AI because of the work that was shown from an amazing group of students under a different academic director. By the time I got there that AD had moved on and been replaced by the one we were stuck with, who hired his friends and changed the program around us, uncaring of the fact that he was ruining our education.

The worst part is that I chose to go to the Art Institute because it had such a great reputation in the States, and I figured it would be the same at a Canadian campus, but it seems that it was an entirely different entity and the administration played by their own rules to line their pockets, to the detriment of the students, and the schools overall reputation. It just goes to show that who’s in charge makes all the difference in the world, and schools should really be careful who they put in power positions.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

You need to be independently wealthy to become a starving artist

As a guy who attended a privately funded art school, I probably had a much different post secondary experience than most. I’ve been asked to contribute to this blog my own unique perspective and will try my level best to do so!

I went to the Art Institute of Vancouver ( http://www.wherecreativitygoestoschool.com )because the Art Institutes have a reputation for deriving their content and instructors directly from the industry. The veneer is of professionals that want to pass on their skills to keep their industries flourishing and on the cutting edge. Now I may be using the term veneer somewhat unfairly as that suggests, they are merely faking it and not delivering at all. I’m sure that there are many people associated with AI (Art Institute) that wish it to be just that and do their best to make it so.


I quickly found that it was mostly about the money, at least as far as the administration was concerned. As a non-government funded Institution, it’s a lot more expensive for a lot less time. (Almost 5 grand per quarter for 6 quarters, a quarter is 5 classes a week for three months.) Now I understand that specialty education is going to be a little more money and that they must be worth that extra money, after all, they were still getting full class sizes even though BCIT (British Columbia Institute of Technology) had a similar program for less money. And that would have gone towards a degree!

The difference (allegedly) was in the quality of instructors and programs that were meticulously engineered to give you exactly what you needed to do well. In addition, one of their selling points to high school students was a huge portfolio show at the end and an amazing job placement program. All right, if what you say is true I suppose that justifies a few more bucks. I would have been content with that, had I not started to see more red flags.

First of all, for all the art related programs at AI you have to submit an art portfolio to get approved to attend, which is a good idea. I think that students should start at a certain standard so everyone’s time isn’t wasted. At AI (Art Institute) the purpose of the portfolio was twofold: to get you in, and to see if you are eligible to skip the first quarter, which is merely foundation art skills, which if you demonstrate you are a good enough artist it’s a moot point to take.

Here’s the problem.

First of all they let everyone in who applied anyway. There were people in my classes who couldn’t competently draw stick figures so it became fairly obvious that they were just letting in anyone in who could toss them enough pictures of the Queen. The second maddening factor was that apparently the ”If you are good enough you can skip first quarter” schpiel was on par with unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster and other myths because there was also a dude in my foundation classes who was the most amazing artist I’ve ever seen. When I asked him why he didn’t skip the foundation quarter he replied to me and I quote “Duno man, they said I had more that I need to learn”. I’m sorry, I’m not being fair to Nessie, there have actually been reports of people seeing her. Not so with this elusive ticket to the second quarter. Fine. The school has high standards of achievement and I suppose not matter how good you are you can always improve. A bit hypocritical considering they let in any schmoe with enough dollar signs to back them up but I suppose I can live with that, after all, it’s a business.

The hypocrisy really kicked me in the face about halfway through the quarter when he was approached by the academic director with an offer to put his art on their advertising. For free of course. But hey that’s a great opportunity! Good for him! Even for free, he could put that on his resume and the whole city will see it and...

Wait a minute...

His art is good enough to be posted on billboards with the school logo...but NOT good enough to skip the foundations quarter? I like to think I’m a fairly intelligent human being, the fact that I’m an art student notwithstanding, and I started seeing big red flags with “MONEY GRAB” written all over them.

Once this concept was presented to me I started to look more closely. I started to really think about our student fees which were a couple hundred per quarter. What exactly was that paying for? Was the exorbitant amount for the classes not enough? Apparently that is for parking (which there was not enough of anyway) and art supplies. One redeeming factor was that AI supplied all its students with a big bag of all the art supplies you would likely need for that first quarter. That was nice of them, but not really because the supplies were of inferior quality and you had to pay more to replace them when you ran out. And that kit was mandatory, if you had everything you needed already and went to ask them to waive the extra cost and just not give you a kit, they said no, so you’re stuck. I think it also appropriate to mention that the exact same sketchbook was 10 dollar less when you went to the local art store as opposed to the AI student store.

Altogether not huge things by themselves, but little fee’s all over the place add up and the red flags didn’t stop rearing their ugly little heads even after that.

More to come with my next article where I’ll cover who’s in charge of your education pretty much dictates what your experience at school will be like.

Friday, September 25, 2009

The Gap is Everywhere!

Of late, I have been writing about problems that differential grading causes, both in terms of employers and graduate schools picking the “wrong” students, and in terms of dissuading students from studying certain subjects.

I must admit that my arguments and analysis of different grading schemes in different disciplines was based on one crucial assumption:

The intellectual quality of science students is no worse than that of
students in the humanities, arts, or social sciences.

I readily admit that, if science students tend to be less intelligent than humanities students, then they deserve poorer outcomes. However, there seems to be little evidence to this effect so I shall not belabor this point.

More importantly, I have recently run across several studies, which support the idea of grade normalization across subjects

In a landmark study done by Durham University in the UK, which tracked over a million students taking A-levels and GSCE exams, researchers found that students of equal ability received approximately a full letter grade lower in the sciences than in subjects like drama and English. The study was commissioned by the Royal Society (the world’s oldest professional body for the sciences, whose membership includes the likes of Newton and Hawking) in order to provide evidence that differential grading schemes may be contributing to a decrease in the number of students pursuing science degrees in the UK.

While my analysis in my last post was solely regarding grades at Dartmouth, it appears that the same differential grading practices take place all across the US as well. An online magazine article describes studies done at Cornell, comments by a Stanford Business School professor, and several other pieces of evidence which all point to the idea that lower grades in sciences can dissuade students from pursuing science degrees.

It is also evident that these grading differences between the sciences and humanities have been there for many decades. The question thus arises, why did they arise and why has no one corrected them, despite the easily available evidence as to their existence?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

How Wide is the Grading Gap?


While most people concede there is a grading gap between the sciences and the humanities, few are aware of big it is. In order to determine precisely how wide the gap in grading is between various areas of study, I analyzed the grades at my alma mater. Dartmouth is one of the few colleges that publically makes grading information available on the web. And there are fewer still colleges that publish course level data, such as Dartmouth and Cornell do.

In particular, in an attempt to combat grade inflation, Dartmouth started placing median grades next to the student’s grade on his or her transcript for each course with an enrollment of 10 students or above. Additionally, Dartmouth College publishes a list of all courses that fit this enrollment criterion along with their median grades on its registrar’s website.


In order to analyze the grading gap between different broad disciplines, I obtained the median grades of all available courses on the website, totaling to 3166 courses taken across the last two years. I then placed each course into one of four categories:
1. Arts
2. Humanities
3. Soft or Social Sciences
4. Hard Sciences.

After classification of each course, I calculated the mean of all the median grades in each discipline. You can view the results here.

In looking at the data, there are some useful things to know. At Dartmouth, an “A” is a 4.0, A- is 3.66, B+ is 3.33 and so on. Furthermore, the median student at the time of graduation has approximately a 3.3 GPA. The cut-off cumulative GPAs to be in the top 5%, 10% and 15% of students at the time of graduation are 3.89, 3.77, and 3.59, respectively.


In light of these reference points, the results are quite shocking. A science student who achieved the median grade in each of his or her courses would have a GPA in the middle of his or her graduating class, whereas a humanities student achieving the same feat in his or her courses will receive honors for being in the top 10% or 15% of all graduating students.

There is a 0.43 GPA gap between arts and hard sciences students and a 0.23 GPA gap between humanities and hard sciences students, which is needless to say, significant. A difference in 0.23 grade points, ceteris paribus, makes the difference between getting into a top professional school or not, between getting a prized job or not, between being awarded honors at graduation, or not.

Differential Grading – Altering Intellectual Paths

During my analysis of the disincentives to study science in the US, I described how lower average grades may dissuade students from studying the sciences for a variety of reasons. Differential grading across majors and subject areas poses a much broader threat to our education system and its aims than simply lowering the interest in studying sciences.

One of the fundamental goals of education, at any level and at any age, is to enable an individual to pursue his or her intellectual interests. Admittedly, this is rarely possible in the purest sense of the word freedom, because of economic constraints, parental pressures, and a variety of other factors. However, it is still desirable to grant students as much freedom as possible to pursue what they are passionate about.

Unfortunately, different grading schemes across subjects and across courses within the same subject tend to further incentivize students not to take certain courses or disciplines. College students are desirous of maintaining a high GPA, to impress their parents, their friends and for admissions into graduate schools and for employment purposes. Consequently, in deciding their majors, college students often consider what the grades are like in that major. Often, the average grades are a significant deciding factor when students pick college majors (I know this from my own experience in advising underclassmen in picking a major).

Even within a particular discipline, students often pick easier classes. “Easier” in this context means that the course has a good grade-difficult payoff. In other words, students are often unwilling to put in the extra effort for a challenging upper level course if it does not have a relatively higher average grade as compared to lower level courses.

(For the purpose of simplifying my examples, I have restricted them to those that would occur at the college level. However, many of the same arguments apply to high school students. For example, a high school student would want to maintain a high GPA for college admissions as opposed to for employment.)

Our education system aims to both prepare students for the world and allow for the student’s personal intellectual growth. A prerequisite for the latter is the ability of the student to pursue his or her academic passions. However, if the student is penalized heavily for doing so, in the form of a poorer grade, her or she may decide simply to ignore those passions and study something “easier” (here easy again means a higher grade-difficult payoff).

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The Economics of Science

Over the last half-century, the techniques of science have rapidly permeated into the field of economics. Tools such as game theory, stochastic calculus, and differential equations have been invaluable in analyzing different problems in economics, and in some cases (i.e. the famous Black-Scholes formula) solving them.

Now might be the time that the tools of economics should be applied to the study of science, or the lack thereof, in America. Economics, at a very fundamental level, is the study of incentives. In other words, economists study what drives people to behave the way they do. Economics is not simply a study of money; money just happens to be a convenient way to measure the value of different motivating factors.

In this article, I apply an economic incentive analysis to determine why Americans are not pursuing the sciences as early as high school and as late as graduate studies. There are several key structural problems within our educational and employment systems that I have been able to identify as providing strong disincentives to take science courses.

The first, and most easily identifiable of these problems, is within the differential grading practices in the sciences, humanities and arts. Namely, the sciences have significantly lower grading schemes at both high school and college and much higher failure rates. This creates a strong three-part incentive for students to not study the sciences. Firstly, the lower grades may be damaging to self esteem. Secondly, most colleges award class wide-honors such as valedictorian without normalizing grades across different disciplines, resulting in a median student in the sciences not receiving the same accolades as a median student in the humanities and arts. Thirdly, employers are also known for not normalizing across disciplines, either due to a lack of available information from the college or because they simply do not have time to conduct a detailed subject normalization. This holds true for many college admissions processes as well.

A second problem, although one much more difficult to correct than non-normalized grading schemes, is that of relatively modest salaries in the sciences. While it is true that engineers and scientists, on the average, make good money compared to those in other disciplines, it is also true that they rarely make great money. Engineers never make five million dollars a year, while there are tens of thousands of entertainers, businessmen, and athletes that do. The exception to this, is of course, starting your own company (as in the case of Google), but this does not provide a reason to study science, but rather, simply demonstrates that starting your own company can be highly profitable. The monetary payoff to studying science is lower than that of studying finance and becoming a banker. Consequently, why study sciences?

A third problem, also very difficult to correct, is the public perception of science and scientists, which generally tends to be quite negative. Scientists are often portrayed as geeky, socially awkward and poorly dressed. TV shows such as Bill Nye, Dexter’s Lab, and “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids,” are but several examples of the negative stereotyping as portrayed in children’s programming. This portrayal continues in more adult-oriented programming such as “The Big Bang Theory,” in which turns the characters’ awkwardness and geeky nature is related strongly to their scientific backgrounds and interests.

The incentive structure in America is set up to dissuade students from pursuing studies in the sciences. Contrast this to places like India, where degrees in engineering, physical sciences and medicine are considered the most prestigious degrees and necessary for getting the best-paying and most prestigious jobs (i.e. with foreign MNCs). It is no wonder then, that getting into engineering institutes and faculties in India is so difficult, whereas in America, science classes are depopulated by a plague of disincentives.

It is true that some of these disincentives are difficult to correct (i.e. changing pay structures and media portrayal), as any active attempt to modify them would violate rights such as freedom of speech and free market principles that are part of America’s core values. However, other problematic disincentives such as unequal grading are very easy to correct.

In America today, politicians constantly complain about the dearth of Americans pursuing studies in the sciences and about the consequences that this will have on America’s position in the world. But then again, why should Americans study sciences when the rewards are so unappealing: ridicule as a geek; poor job opportunities and terrible grades?

Monday, September 14, 2009

The Death of Science

The children born on December 31, 1999 were very fortunate. They can say are unique as they were the last children of the millennium. While I can not say that I was born on that fateful New Year’s eve, I too can say that I am of a rare breed and amongst the last of my kind for I am a student of science.

I am proud to have studied science and learned how the world works. But I am incredibly saddened by continuing decrease of students pursuing science degrees in America. America boasts many of the finest science universities in the world, but it boasts fewer and fewer home-grown scientists. Many of America’s top scientists are in fact foreign born or first generation immigrants. In the last three years, out of the 20 Nobel Prizes awarded in physics, chemistry and medicine, only 8 of the recipients were born and raised in America, and of the 8, one was a first generation immigrant.

More and more, we are finding our science programs, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, filled with students from India, China, and Europe or from first generation immigrants. For example, at Dartmouth College, there were approximately twelve physics majors the year I graduated. Approximately 30-40% of students were either not from the US or were from first-generation immigration families in a college where approximately 6-8% of students are not American or Canadian.

If it was just that American students are not choosing to study sciences at college, I wouldn’t be too concerned as students should pursue what they are passionate about. The lack of American students pursuing studies in the sciences is but a symptom of a much more serious issue – a declining interest in science.

Despite the fact that science and technology dramatically define the world, many American students are never taught basic things about science (even non-controversial things such as Newton’s Laws), nor is a passion for science ever encouraged. Even more frightening than the fact that not all students are taught these basic things, is the fact that the scientific method itself is rarely taught anymore (or at least not ingrained into students). The procedure of hypothesis, controlled test, and conclusion, which has dramatically altered the way we live our lives and the way we understand the smallest microbe to the largest galaxy, is unknown to many Americans.

In a country that boasts the world’s best universities and best scientists, why is it that so many can not describe what the scientific process is?

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Inflation Part 2 - Inflation at the Top

In my last post, I only described grade inflation at Dartmouth, but the problem is just as bad amongst the other Ivies. Nearly half of all Harvard students receive A’s in their courses, and approximately 80% have honors conferred upon them at graduation (see: Ivy League Grade Inflation). At UPenn 51% of grades are in the A range; at Columbia 22.3% are A’s (not including A-'s); at Cornell A range grades make up 41% of awarded grades. At Princeton, which has instituted grade deflation programs, by limiting the number of A range grades that could be awarded, 42.9% of grades are still in the A range. More statistics can be found at Gradeinflation.com.

These statistics reveal an unfortunate trend at some of America's top institutions. The very institutions who have world-class brands and don't need to inflate grades still do. A range grades constitute nearly half of all grades awarded, even at Princeton which has attempted to institute a deflationary policy (unfortunately, with little success).

Many Princeton students who are against grade deflation cite that their quota system results in extreme competition between students, as there are a limited number of As to go around and that this competition may be to the detriment of learning. I feel there are three strong responses to this point. Firstly, those who truly care about learning will still learn. Secondly, a B does not destroy their career opportunities because it is widely known that Princeton is attempting to institute this policy. Thirdly, while learning is certainly important for education, I do believe that competition is a necessary part of college and in fact life. Indeed, it is very rare when one is judged on absolute scales; more common is the judging of one relative to ones peers. Quota systems such the one at Princeton, if done effectively, normalize grading. An “A” means you are much better than your peers and a B or B+ says you are average.

While I commend Princeton on taking the first step amongst the Ivies, I do wish it had taken a much stronger stance. For example, officially only 35% of students are supposed to get in the A range, but, in fact, about 43% do, thereby showing that the policy is not strictly enforced. And 35% of students being classified as "excellent" or "outstanding" still seems a little high.

In finance, printing money causes inflation. In academics, printing A’s causes inflation. Let our academic institutions not go the way of Zimbabwe.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Inflation Part 1 - A Rant

Inflation's become a buzz word recently, especially in the context of economics. With interest rates hovering around zero, inflation is rearing its ugly head. Central banks, the IMF, and investors around the world are scared at what many see to be an inevitable period of hyperinflation, when prices will skyrocket for both consumer and industrial goods.

There are many reasons that inflation troubles anyone who has to deal with money (which includes you if you’ve ever bought, sold, lent or borrowed anything in your life). Inflation, in its simplest form, is defined as an increase in prices (or put another way, a decrease in the value of currency). Two of the key problems with inflation are that it causes devaluation of money and that it creates financial instability in markets, because it becomes difficult to value things, as one has to account for an often unobserved level of inflation.

Inflation is hardly a problem isolated to finance. It is just as pressing, and nearly as concerning, a problem for our education systems, where grades are being inflated constantly. Just as with money, when grades are inflated it devalues them.

How bad is it?
To see how bad the problem really is, I performed an analysis of how bad the problem really is at Dartmouth, my alma mater, which places the median grades for all courses online (see: Median Grades at Dartmouth). Out of 450 classes analyzed the unweighted average was 3.33 and the average weighted by class size was 3.18. This problem is seen in further light when you note that out of 450 classes, 268 of them (i.e. over half) had A- medians or higher, with 48 (10.6% of the total) having A medians.

Because grade inflation is so common, employers, who often lack the time to do an in-depth analysis of grades, may simply ignore the grade that a student has worked hard to earn, even if the student’s school does not grade inflate. This is especially hurtful to students graduating from non top-tier institutions, as employers assume that the institution is inflating grades, so an A from that institution will mean nothing. Hence, a student graduating from a good state school with excellent grades may be passed over in favor of a Stanford graduate, as the employer is unable to compare grades and must resort to using educational pedigrees in discriminating who to hire.

While graduate schools are often more savvy in terms of separating good students from bad, they too find it difficult to separate between a “good A” and an “excellent A.”

A Final Word
It is interesting that we are so concerned about inflation in economics as it hurts our investments, and yet, we are so unconcerned and unwilling to act on protecting our grades from devaluation. Those same grades, which we have spent hundreds of hours of studying for, tens of thousands of dollars investing in, and nearly two decades of in school, to obtain. A significant investment, indeed, but not one protected from the devaluating effects of education.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Cheating Part 4 - Viable Solutions to the Epidemic

Are there solutions to be had to the epidemic of cheating? If they did exist, why haven't they been implemented you might ask?

In fact, there are a variety of powerful anti-cheating solutions that can be implemented and in some cases have, but for the most part there is strong institutional resistance to taking the steps that must be done, as many of them are politically difficult to implement.

I would like to identify two general classes of solutions to cheating, "intrinsic" and "extrinsic." The former type of solutions focus on altering student behavior by changing students fundamental attitudes towards education. The latter deal with creating incentive schemes in the school that discourage students from cheating.

Intrinsic Solutions: Changing the Modern Student
There are many methods and methodologies that one can implement which may have an effect on fundamentally altering students' behaviour and attitudes towards cheating. One method that is advocated is the incorporation of Ethics into the curriculum, either in other courses, or as a dedicated course (see: Ethics Education in Business School). Another method, which was used at Dartmouth College is an academic honor code, in which the moral responsibility of cheating is transferred to the students. While in my own experience, this latter method was a failure, I do feel that it can be effective when combined with extrinsic solutions. A third possible solution to change students' intrinsic beliefs about cheating is remove the focus on grades and focus on learning. This can be done either through teaching the importance of learning, which is unfortunately not stressed nearly enough in current education systems.

Extrinsic Solutions: Changing the Modern School
Extrinsic solutions are those that change the incentive structures for students, to disincentive cheating. The simplest extrinsic solution (and probably least politically favorable) is to make the consequences for cheating severe. At present, many institutions (colleges and high schools alike) have laughable penalties for cheating. In the Hanover High cheating scandal (See: Cheating part 2), the penalties were miniscule compared to the scale of the crime, which involved breaking and entering and pre-meditated theft of exams. The criminal charges on many of them were dropped, and they were not expelled. Harsh penalties such as permanent expulsion (from either the university or the high school) would make it clear that cheating is not acceptable. A second solution, less cost effective, is to reduce the ability of students to cheat. Stop giving take-home exams or open book tests, place students large distances apart when taking exam, etc. Such direct deterrents will greatly limit the ability of students to cheat. Finally, we note that students greatest incentives to cheat are when they either only care about the grade or they are being forced to take the course. To reduce the former, remove grades and instead use a short letter of recommendation from the professor. To reduce the latter, remove mandatory courses. For example, remove distributive requirements at liberal arts schools. Why force someone passionate about English to take a math course, which he or she is likely to cheat through anyway?

While there are no doubt hundreds of other solutions, I believe I’ve fleshed out the two major classes of solutions that can be applied. One group of remedies focuses on altering the way students fundamentally think, and the other focuses on modifying student behavior by altering incentivizing certain actions and disincentivizing others. I leave it you to decide which class is better, or if both should be used together.