100% agree.

I usually found the problem sets were usually really hard. Much harder than the actual exams. Most study groups that I had seen simply consisted of one person that found the questions very easy, and a group of people that scrambled to write down the responses, even if they didn't understand them. I always found it hilarious (not really, in fact I always thought it was really unfair) that psets would be so hard, and I would do relatively poorly compared to the almost full score everyone got. On the other hand, when the exams came about, the averages were usually extremely low, with exams that should be a piece of cake for someone who can actually figure out the pset questions.

As a Teaching Assistant, I saw this situation even more clearly. As part of an assignment, students had to write an algorithm in pseudocode. We didn't publish a very well defined syntax for the language. However, interestingly, like half of the students came up with identical syntax, including instructions we had never discussed and that weren't even conventional. After finding several pset copies that were simply identical to each other, the professor decided that simply sending them an e-mail was enough of a punishment.

I find that insulting for those who actually try hard and expect their grades to be an accurate reflection of their standing in the class.

Culturally, the United States does not value education. It values the prestige of education, and what it can do for your career, but the idea of reducing ones ignorance isn't considered a terribly noble pursuit. Winning and obtaining valuable things is what counts - who cares how you get there - so long as nobody can take it away from you after the fact.

I think you've made an important observation about true education versus the prestige of education, and the valuing of the prestige and little else is certainly not confined to the United States. It is the dominant attitude towards education in East and South Asia, for example, even though those societies are perceived as having greater respect for education than the USA.

Most students are probably not attending school because they really want to be. You're in school because you have to be. Because your parents told you to, or because you think a degree or certificate will improve your job or salary prospects, or some other goal.

In this context, schools and classes and learning are the means, and not the goal.

Self-directed learning is far more interesting and productive (for me). That might involve local or college classes, iTunes U or any number of other resources including classes from Stanford or MIT, or hacking away with some hardware or software, or finding somebody to ask questions of.

I'm learning because I want to, and all the interesting stuff is always off in the weeds.

"Students cheat because we have academic systems that reward those who cheat without getting caught."

It goes far beyond 'our' academic systems. We have a WORLD that rewards those who 'cheat' without getting caught... It is called 'leverage'.

For highly motivated students there is a choice you can learn more or keep a higher GPA. This split often starts around 3.0 GPA and becomes most obvious when someone try's to keep a 4.0. In many ways this is why Harvard and MIT students are so prone to cheating, try keeping a 4.0GPA and do interesting things on the side without cutting some corners somewhere.

PS: Try running the numbers some time; there is a lot more openings in top collages than there are geniuses in this country. So most of people at “top” schools not all that more intelligent than the average person.

>> "Why aren't students motivated to learn? Why don't they feel short-changed when they cheat for the answers instead of learning the material?"

Great point. We're certainly talking about the symptoms here, and I agree with you that the core problem is why aren't students motivated to learn and how we can reform a very traditional education system. We're going to tackle this in upcoming blog posts -- in the meantime, can you send me an email? Contact info in my profile... thanks!

People cheat because they're immoral when no one's looking. I don't see that we need to try to justify it any further than that. Someone can get something valuable without working for it by lying/stealing, and they can probably get away with it, so they do it.

Sure, academic institutions reward cheating. What institution doesn't? Shoplifting has lots of rewards too. There are rewards to cheating at almost everything. The only things keeping people from doing it are conscience and integrity, and it's not news that many people (intelligent or not) have small supplies of both.

Cheating was rampant in my "honors" classes in high school and all through college as well, and more novel forms of cheating appear to be no less rampant in the business world. It bothers me, but I don't think we need to hunt for justifications for it. It seems easy to understand from where I'm sitting. Just be thankful we don't all have Rings of Gyges.

For many I think it comes down to one number: GPA. When companies screen applicants who don't meet minimum GPA requirements and most measures of performance are based solely on the grades put down on paper, there is little incentive to actually learn the material, and a lot of incentive to simply earn a better "high score".

Good question. I think a big issue is lack of relevancy.

I have an Industrial Engineering degree from a school that had extensive internships with local companies. You went on two 6-month internships as part of the curriculum. Going into it, I thought that the internships would motivate me to do better in my classes, but the opposite happened. I returned to school each Fall realizing that most of the coursework had no relation to what I would be doing on the job. I still enjoyed the engineering science classes (well, except Fluids) but the core curriculum stuff felt like a waste of time. I never cheated* but I honestly wouldn't have felt guilty if I had.

* I did take a guy's algebra final in exchange for a 12-pack, though. Eight years out of school he rose to VP of Accounting at a mid-size company, so I don't think he hurt his career.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I went to another institution of higher learning just down the street from MIT. I was physics major, and I was not aware of any cheating among my peers. Again, perhaps I was oblivious, but my impression was that high performing students were not cheating, whereas there was a lot of cheating among lower performing students. This pattern made sense to me at the time, because it seemed that the students that wanted to learn challenged themselves, took hard classes, and wanted to do their own problem sets and actually learn the material (we were all card carrying nerds and proud of it!), not just get a good grade for the sake of some future reward.