There is a world of difference between the importance of a GPA and the importance of a Benz.
Low GPA means no good job straight out of college (because apparently you need a 3.5+ from an ivy league school to model in excel) means in a lot of cases lesser income for the rest of your life.
Why do you think you are automatically entitled to a good job straight out of college?
Your reply vis-a-vis a Mercedes vs lifetime earnings seems to imply that you are willing to sell your integrity for some value x: $(Benz - Toyota) < x <= ~$2,000,000 (spread out over a lifetime). I'm a bit incredulous that your reply was basically that the only reason you would act ethically in my hypothetical situation was because you required a higher bribe.
I don't think one is entitled to a good job straight out of college. I do, however, think that in a marketplace saturated by unfairness (berkowitz's dad is a partner let's hire him) and bullshit (jump through these hoops to make us like you), one is entitled to employ any and all effort necessary to further one's interests.
"one is entitled to employ any and all effort necessary to further one's interests"
This is a classic mentality of victimization. By focusing on the theoretical harm that been done to the extent of all other considerations, you can justify anything. It's a dangerous mentality that has resulted in many evils throughout history. Hell, this is the same justification ISIS originally used when recruiting Sunnis who were tired of corruption and discrimination at the hands of the Shia Iraqi government, only with the economic context replaced by a political one.
A more mature ethical position would recognize that in some environments, while evil has been done which harms or disadvantages you, the strategy of employing "any and all effort necessary to further one's interests" is likely what gave the advantage to those who have allegedly disadvantaged you. If you successfully follow through with this attitude you'll likely perpetuate a cycle.
If you are going to cheat, break rules, or whatever you should do so because those rules or prohibitions have little or no moral and social value in the context in which they exist. If GPA is just a meaningless filter enabling incompetent HR departments at BigCo to trim down their resume pile, then sure, game the system to your advantage. But don't draw the conclusion that you are morally entitled to do whatever it takes to promote your own interests. That path leads to psychopathy.
because apparently you need a 3.5+ from an ivy league school to model in excel
It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence.
> It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel.
Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence.
I'm going to argue the opposing part for a bit here: So OP's response should be (something along these lines):
HA, there you admit it's putting up with bullshit! But if it's bullshit what's wrong with cheating on it as long as I get to where I want (within the system)!
Rather I would suggest the premise that there is an ethical guideline to behaviour should rest, on our ability to validate the consequences of this behaviour. So in the embezzlement behaviour clearly there is a deceived party and someone suffers. In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice?
My take on it is that least in the US there is an overtly-strong caveat for this kind of thing (i.e. even copying assignments), while we are generally accepting of various other forms of deceit (i.e. sociopathy).
That said in my personal experience standardized tests are a good deal better than attendance grades, participation grades, national honor society, club activities or whatever other bs people have to put up with in highschool.
You can't cheat once you're in the workplace (at least, not in the same "directly copy other people's work" or "look up the answers during the test" way). So if you cheat your way through school, you haven't really proven that you have what it takes to do the things your degree indicates.
To use the biology 101 example - if you can't spend 10 hours/week studying/learning material that you don't really care about and that is irrelevant to your life, how are you going to spend 60-80 hours a week doing that in your excel-modeling job?
In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice?
The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve.
The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve.
I'm not promoting cheating on tests - but.., I do think the value of a class is primarily in the education and not the grade; therefore in my opinion students aren't being cheated, because they all learn as much as they want to learn. Where as if the grade were the value - people should not have been forced into such a course in the first place!
Although, obviously the system (or mostly employers) need some objective metrics for assessment and they have made them (perhaps poorly in some aspects but what systems aren't?)
It isn't? Surely you can work long and hours and deal with bullshit at a community college, or even McDonalds... somehow employers don't value that, though. ;-)
Comments
There is a world of difference between the importance of a GPA and the importance of a Benz.
Low GPA means no good job straight out of college (because apparently you need a 3.5+ from an ivy league school to model in excel) means in a lot of cases lesser income for the rest of your life.
No Benz means you can drive a Toyota. Big whoop.
Why do you think you are automatically entitled to a good job straight out of college?
Your reply vis-a-vis a Mercedes vs lifetime earnings seems to imply that you are willing to sell your integrity for some value x: $(Benz - Toyota) < x <= ~$2,000,000 (spread out over a lifetime). I'm a bit incredulous that your reply was basically that the only reason you would act ethically in my hypothetical situation was because you required a higher bribe.
I don't think one is entitled to a good job straight out of college. I do, however, think that in a marketplace saturated by unfairness (berkowitz's dad is a partner let's hire him) and bullshit (jump through these hoops to make us like you), one is entitled to employ any and all effort necessary to further one's interests.
This is a classic mentality of victimization. By focusing on the theoretical harm that been done to the extent of all other considerations, you can justify anything. It's a dangerous mentality that has resulted in many evils throughout history. Hell, this is the same justification ISIS originally used when recruiting Sunnis who were tired of corruption and discrimination at the hands of the Shia Iraqi government, only with the economic context replaced by a political one.
A more mature ethical position would recognize that in some environments, while evil has been done which harms or disadvantages you, the strategy of employing "any and all effort necessary to further one's interests" is likely what gave the advantage to those who have allegedly disadvantaged you. If you successfully follow through with this attitude you'll likely perpetuate a cycle.
If you are going to cheat, break rules, or whatever you should do so because those rules or prohibitions have little or no moral and social value in the context in which they exist. If GPA is just a meaningless filter enabling incompetent HR departments at BigCo to trim down their resume pile, then sure, game the system to your advantage. But don't draw the conclusion that you are morally entitled to do whatever it takes to promote your own interests. That path leads to psychopathy.
Would you also say that lying on your resume, and in interviews, is a natural consequence of society?
It's not that you need those credentials to model in Excel. Rather, you're signaling that you have a proven capability to work long hours, deal with bullshit, work "within the system", etc. It's not about intelligence.
I'm going to argue the opposing part for a bit here: So OP's response should be (something along these lines):
HA, there you admit it's putting up with bullshit! But if it's bullshit what's wrong with cheating on it as long as I get to where I want (within the system)!
Rather I would suggest the premise that there is an ethical guideline to behaviour should rest, on our ability to validate the consequences of this behaviour. So in the embezzlement behaviour clearly there is a deceived party and someone suffers. In the student cheating behaviour perhaps there is a deceived party (the future employer) - but it's not clear whether someone suffers or not, are biology 101 grades a good indicator of anything (i.e. future performance), should students caught copying biology 101 exams be exorcised from their academic institution with prejudice?
My take on it is that least in the US there is an overtly-strong caveat for this kind of thing (i.e. even copying assignments), while we are generally accepting of various other forms of deceit (i.e. sociopathy).
That said in my personal experience standardized tests are a good deal better than attendance grades, participation grades, national honor society, club activities or whatever other bs people have to put up with in highschool.
You can't cheat once you're in the workplace (at least, not in the same "directly copy other people's work" or "look up the answers during the test" way). So if you cheat your way through school, you haven't really proven that you have what it takes to do the things your degree indicates.
To use the biology 101 example - if you can't spend 10 hours/week studying/learning material that you don't really care about and that is irrelevant to your life, how are you going to spend 60-80 hours a week doing that in your excel-modeling job?
The future employer might be deceived, but the other students who did not cheat are the real injured parties. They will have a lower GPA either in relative to the cheaters (no curve); or possibly absolutely if the class is graded on a curve.
I'm not promoting cheating on tests - but.., I do think the value of a class is primarily in the education and not the grade; therefore in my opinion students aren't being cheated, because they all learn as much as they want to learn. Where as if the grade were the value - people should not have been forced into such a course in the first place! Although, obviously the system (or mostly employers) need some objective metrics for assessment and they have made them (perhaps poorly in some aspects but what systems aren't?)
It isn't? Surely you can work long and hours and deal with bullshit at a community college, or even McDonalds... somehow employers don't value that, though. ;-)
It can be much easier to get a job, and achieve other things, if you have the proper toys to signal your social status with.