Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The problem with this line of thought is that the trend has been towards a breakdown of all of these organizations. You think parents taught their kids to respect organizational authority less in the 1940's and 1950's? Of course not! Indeed, it was a far better bet half a century ago to go to the best med schools and law firms and grad schools. That was an age of monopolies and guilds and white upper class privilege. It was back when blue-blood white kids didn't have to compete against striving asian immigrants to get a seat at Harvard, back when getting into that top med school or top law firm or top investment bank was a ticket for life instead of just an opportunity to strive some more.[1]

I read a compelling article recently (I can't for the life of me remember where) that makes precisely the opposite argument, which is that misconduct arises from a breakdown of stratification and the subjection of everything to competitive market pressures. In a world where what mattered is who your parents were and where you went to school and where you summered, there was substantially less incentive to fake outputs than one in which your outputs are carefully measured and compared against the outputs of your counter parts.

Not that I think a meritocratic world isn't better than the one we left behind. But I find that misconduct arising from the pressures of meritocracy better fits the available data than the theory you present.

[1] In 1965, a lawyer at a large firm might bill 1200-1600 hours per year, versus 1800-2200 today. This increase has been the result of the breakdown of long-term client relationships and the consequent increase in the competition for business and for rainmaker partners with business. What do you think that this increase does to the incentive structure vis-a-vis misconduct? Can you see how the same basic story has played out in many different fields, including academia?

On a similar note, it's interesting how many great historical scientists were wealthy enough that they were able to pursue something like research as a leisure activity. Even non-rich guys, like Mendel, otherwise had quite a bit of time for contemplation. Scientific research is fickle, it's no surprise that people push things when their livelihood relies on consistent successes in an endeavor that is 90% failures.

Put another way in a huge compeditive landscape the people at the top generally cheat in one way or another. Yes people at Harvard are smart but at some point the only way to pull 30 hour days in high school is to fake something. Because there are a lot of smart hardworking people that don't get in.

You can say that again. It was definitely disheartening for peers of mine I knew to be frequent cheaters get accepted into a college I was rejected from.

This is made worse by how absolutely rampant it is—to the point the reporting it seemed futile. I actually had high ranking peers inform me that they didn't believe I had never cheated in high school. They actually could not understad the concept. The social risk for reporting any time of cheating is quickly amplified when you realize:

* It's more common in high school to cheat than not to cheat

* Administration has no time to pursue cheaters except in the most widespread and obvious circumstances

* It's very hard to prove cheating outside of an anecdotal "This is what I saw" story, and there is no court system for high school students

Honestly, it sucked.

P.S. Based on an American public high school experience. And, for what's it's worth, ~300 in the College Board Top 1000 Challenge Index schools.

I don't think that's the case at all. "Smart" and "hard working" are relative terms. Most "smart" kids aren't taking quantum mechanics in high school and most "hard working" kids aren't putting in 14-15 hour days in high school. You don't have to cheat to get to the top--you just have to have your shit together when other kids are focusing all their efforts on getting laid.

That said, the incentive to cheat is certainly much higher these days, between the 15 hour days and rigorous course loads, than it was 50 years ago before SAT tutors and numbers-based admissions; back when just being able to pay the $$$ for a top preparatory school basically guaranteed admission into Harvard and Yale: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06brooks.html... ("That year [1950] 278 students from elite prep schools applied to Harvard and 245 were accepted. The acceptance rate from Exeter and Andover was 94 percent.").

I would say there are cheaters at every level. It's just more galling when the people at the top cheat, because they ought to be able to get by honestly.

>because they ought to be able to get by honestly.

You must be joking. I would have a hard time believing anyone at the top got there honestly. I'm sure it happens but it must be vanishingly rare. Take Lance Armstrong: I doubt he set out to be a cheater, but when everyone else is doping the only way to compete is to dope yourself.

Notice I said "get by" rather than "stay on top."

> I read a compelling article recently (I can't for the life of me remember where) that makes precisely the opposite argument, which is that misconduct arises from a breakdown of stratification and the subjection of everything to competitive market pressures.

Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University has done research on stress in baboons, and notes that during times of turmoil it's the top-tier males which have the highest levels of stress (normally it's the lower-ranking males). Because when order is in question, the ones at the top have to fight it out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com