Does using study drugs enhance performance?
On NPR last week, I came across the issue of the use of study drugs. Wesleyan University has taken an important step this semester by deeming the use of pharmaceutical study aids, such as Ritalin and Adderall, without a prescription as a violation of their honor code. The use of these drugs is considered to potentially enhance performance on tests, etc. and thus their (illegal) use constitutes a form of cheating.
On the surface, this decision and the firm stance being adopted by Wesleyan seems to be the right one. No student should have an unfair advantage when it comes to academic performance. (Note that Wesleyan is not the only university with such a policy. Others also forbid the use of such drugs, but Wesleyan is rarer for the fact that they are calling this an ethical violation.)
Certainly, an unfair advantage is exactly what it says it is: unfair. And cheating, in any form, must not be tolerated. But as the NPR show noted, there are bigger questions underlying this issue, such as the rhetoric that is surrounding this discussion: competition, performance enhancement, etc. The NPR show noted that this is dangerously close to sport rhetoric, and that the whole notion of education as competition is the one that must be under scrutiny, rather than the use of illicit drugs. I tend to agree with that position. The question needs to be: it is acknowledged that cheating is unfair, but why are so many students resorting to it (in whatever form)? Somehow, the emphasis in education has shifted to performance, rather than the exploration and accumulation of knowledge, and dare I add, wisdom. (In fact, we are seeing a crisis brewing across high school systems, where test scores are being used to gauge performance, and this is leading to some serious implications for teachers.)
Why is the question of fairness not arising in the minds of those who are resorting to these methods? The notion of a code of ethics is fine, but why is that notion not being embraced by students? To ask a related question, or perhaps state the question another way: why is it that serious deterrents are the only things that are seen as guarantees against cheating, why is it that in that opening class we are given the slide about academic honesty without a discussion of what that honesty actually means, and why it is important?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. I have some thoughts, but would like to give the IIT student body a chance to respond before I expand on them.
