I am not surprised in the least!

Hackers have historically had very strong ideas of morality that extend way beyond illegal vs. legal. This is why some hackers advocate doing certain things they consider moral but illegal, and abhor other things that they consider immoral but legal.

> But anyway, as long as it's not illegal, I don't see what the problem is.

It's thinking like that that makes most people not like Wall Street and businessmen in general. Legal and illegal and right and wrong and not the same thing. Being ethical doesn't just mean following the law, it means following the spirit of the law and not doing things other would perceive as wrong, regardless of the law. It's wrong to cut in line, but it's not illegal, that doesn't mean you should do it. It's wrong to be rude and insulting for no reason to a stranger, but it's not illegal, that doesn't mean you should do it or that it's OK to do it.

That's true, and I totally agree with you. I guess my comment came out wrong. What I meant to say was that I don't see what the problem is for the purposes of the assignment.

Obviously the rules for doing business on Wall Street, where decisions can impact millions of people, and the rules for this business class assignment are going to be different.

The problem for the purpose of the assignment, is you shouldn't be teaching such bad behavior. If you reward people for behaving badly, they'll do it again. A great teacher would give assignments that paralleled the real world and encouraged behavior that would be both ethical and beneficial in the real world, because to a student, it is not obvious that the rules would be different in the real world.

It's a funny stunt once, but it's not an admirable business, because over time it would create less value than it destroys. Stanford classroom hours are limited and vastly expensive for the students.