Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Antagonism isn't really helping your case.
Does this constitute cheating?
Started by phience
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Antagonism isn't really helping your case.
I don't really see how you can "experiment" with an SSRI, as they take weeks of dosing just to have an effect.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
-hardly a sample representative of the entire population (especially seeing we pre-meds are among the most likely to use it)
-very small difference, which has fluctuated throughout the day
-wording of the question matters. Try "Does using performance enhancing drugs without a prescription constitute cheating?"
Actually, I was more just mentioning that it was clearly not such a "cut and dry" issue.
I think you may have proven my point. When you said "experiment," I thought you meant pop a pill here and there; not follow the prescription as given (minus the copious alcohol consumption that the reader indicated went along with this "experiment").
This is where you've been wrong the entire time (and I've been telling you you've been wrong). Really, I'm not sure how you're continually failing to understand this.
Population mean = 100
Premedication
Subject 1 = 120 (s = +1)
Subject 2 = 100 (Mean)
Subject 3 = 80 (ADHD, s = -1)
Postmedication
Subject 1 = 150 (s = +2)
Subject 2 = 125 (s = +1)
Subject 3 = 100 (Mean)
y = mx + b. Parallel progress, as per your citation.
ADHD patient is returned to somewhere around population mean depending on severity of disorder. Those without ADHD become advanced or increasingly advanced.
Last edited:
brb, let me go consult the offical rulebook of debating so i can craft a proper answer for you
Hrm.
Here's the problem. I KNOW you're reading too much into it. The problem is that I really don't want to go through and try to explain the whole pharmacological process that is behind Ritalin, so that you can see that the conclusion you're drawing is incorrect. It's obvious to anyone who knows how this drug works. But in order to have any idea of what you're talking about, that's what I'd have to do.
What a predicament. I really don't have time to do that right now. If you'd be kind enough to look it up yourself, great. But I have things to do...
IMO, this is the funniest response in the thread so far. loveoforganic has offered a rational model based on the conclusions of the paper. For you to claim "only ones who know about the drug" will understand doesn't carry much weight. Your conclusion implies that anyone (no matter the severity of ADD/ADHD, or he has it at all) will have the same level of supernormal functions, as measured (no matter the dosage). And this would mean that the drug's effects decays much more rapidly in ppl with ADD to return to baseline after stopping the drug. It's possible, but hard to explain at this time
Last edited:
Got a reply back from the provost of academic affairs. The response boiled down to "it's a matter of nonacademic misconduct and is handled through the Office of Judicial Affairs."
Also - modified some of my posts for using baseline incorrectly.
Also - modified some of my posts for using baseline incorrectly.
No. It's not like filling a bucket. There is no vector movement.
We've hit a brick wall. You won't get it until you understand the mechanism of methylphnidate, and I don't have the time or patience to write it out for you. So either you can think you've "won", or you can go look it up yourself. At the end of the day, though, I care so little about whether you believe me or not, it's epic.
But I'm not going to waste time arguing with people who don't even have a basic background with the mechanism of this drug if the conversation turns to said mechanism.
Cheers.
We've hit a brick wall. You won't get it until you understand the mechanism of methylphnidate, and I don't have the time or patience to write it out for you. So either you can think you've "won", or you can go look it up yourself. At the end of the day, though, I care so little about whether you believe me or not, it's epic.
But I'm not going to waste time arguing with people who don't even have a basic background with the mechanism of this drug if the conversation turns to said mechanism.
Cheers.
I posed the question to the psychiatry forum to get rid of this unqualified argument you've been putting forward. Unless you claim to have more knowledge of psychopharmacology than a psychiatry attending/resident/fellow/whatever, I think their reply would offer a pretty definitive conclusion. If you're unhappy with how I phrased your stance, let me know and it will be edited.
If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I have no problem learning new things through being wrong. 🙂
If a moderate, non-harmful dose of medication actually improves cognitive performance across the board, then I want all of my physicians to take their pills before treating me, and would have no issue with students doing so. If it doesn't, then it's not cheating.
(I myself don't take performance enhancing drugs, but if they were safe, effective and legal, I probably would.)
(I myself don't take performance enhancing drugs, but if they were safe, effective and legal, I probably would.)
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
What does that even mean? I knew the response was going to be something vague of the sort; my guess is that it's more of a matter of having drugs illegally on one's person than it is about cheating (but not necessarily that it isn't cheating).
Since cheating would generally be considered and is treated as academic misconduct, I think that response shows that popping adderol isn't currently considered as such.
This more or less leaves the debate as whether or not it SHOULD be considered cheating. The current big point being debated is whether it gives a different biological advantage for those with or without ADD/ADHD. The results there depend on the psychiatry people. Thanks, loveoforganic, for being the one to go out of your way to get the professional opinions so far.
From there it's all about moral perception; whether or not you think increased focus genuinely represents an unfair advantage. This factor of the argument will never be resolved since it's all about personal POV.
Last edited:
Maybe they should have an Amphetamine School of Medicine that accepts only speed abusers and have the rest of the universities accept only speed-free applicants. Make it legal, let people take it with ease, but do not let them pressure others into taking it so that they'd be able to compete with speed addicts. They wouldn't pressure others because they'd be a separate applicant pool. And we could implement rigorous testing to keep it completely separated.
How do you think they came up with the term? The term "speed" goes as far back as Hitler's army taking pills to go faster. In the 50's the term gained further importance as amphetamines were prescribed for just about everything under the sun. Long story short, the term "speed" refers to any form of amphetamines, but started because of amphetamine pills. So if someone it relying on these pills they are, in fact, speed addicts.
To me cheating is (or at least should be) defined as an action whereby you find a way to make an exam easier relative to your ability to do whatever it is you're being tested on. If you're tested in school on how well you can retain and regurgitate knowledge, and you find some way to improve your test scores for a given quality of retention/regurgitation, for example by looking on someone else's paper, that's cheating. If you do something that improves your ability to retain or regurgitate the information, like Adderol, that's not cheating.
And no I've never done any drug illegally.
Last edited:
Alright, put away the Trivial Pursuit.
Speed as far as anyone cares about is a street name for cocaine. And yes, while methylphenidate is pretty much the same thing, there is a big difference between having a physical dependence on the high provided by high-potency cocaine as compared to a 10mg tablet of Ritalin used to help someone stay awake and concentrate for a test the next morning. It's just a cheap shot.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Speed = amphetamines. Ask anyone who went to college in the 70's like my dad.
EDIT: Here ya go buddy: http://www.drugs.com/speed.html
People refer to speed in either the pill or meth form.
You're right. I got my street names confused. 🙂
Regardless, I still think you're WAY off in terms of deciding that someone can be considered an "addict" because they pop a pill to pull an all-nighter.
I never said that nor do I think that. You are getting me confused with the person who has the mushroom avatar. However, if someone is relying on adderal, as in cannot go a day without it and will do just about anything to get it, then they are a "speed addict." I jut wanted to point out that adderal is, in fact, speed.
it's not cheating
the answers aren't in the pill
you still have to study
it's like an illegal form of caffeine
some people use caffeine to study longer. this is along the same premises.
it's substance abuse, but not cheating.
and please don't give me the baseball analogy that steroids are cheating.
steroids help make you big, but you still need to put in the work. it's also illegal and very dangerous. again, substance abuse.
substance abuse needs to be regulated because the well-being of people is more important than what they can achieve with the pills/drugs/whatever.
if adderall had no side effects and could be used by anyone safely, it would probably be legal and acceptable to use as a study aid and won't be considered cheating.
essentially, the argument you're providing is X person studied better than me therefore he is cheating.
really? lol.
having an illegal substance != cheating
having an illegal substance = having an illegal substance
Last edited:
We won't use the steroid analogy if you don't compare amphetamine to caffeine. Agreed?
sure
but really, where's the logic in "studying = cheating"?
cheating is stealing answers during a test
cheating is stealing a test
cheating is copying someone else's paper or having them write one for you
but studying more? come on.
but really, where's the logic in "studying = cheating"?
cheating is stealing answers during a test
cheating is stealing a test
cheating is copying someone else's paper or having them write one for you
but studying more? come on.
Honestly, if you want my opinion you are gonna need to read through this thread. I have stated it many times. It comes down to this. Two people of equal intelligence are studying for a test. One takes adderal illegaly and is able to pull in all nighter. The other does not want to break the law and is a able to study most the night but not as much as the other person who did take it. The adderal taker ends up scoring higher.
IMO, it is cheating because the first student was able to obtain an unfair advantage through breaking the rules. That is cheating IMO.
so it's cheating if you're cramming?
what if the student saturates his knowledge in both situations? (eg. w/o adderall he studied for a week and got all the info, and w/ adderall he probably studied quicker, but still took a week to study)
theoretically they would get the same score on the test.
is it cheating if the student doesn't cram and uses adderall as if he were prescribed the medication but isn't?
what if the student saturates his knowledge in both situations? (eg. w/o adderall he studied for a week and got all the info, and w/ adderall he probably studied quicker, but still took a week to study)
theoretically they would get the same score on the test.
is it cheating if the student doesn't cram and uses adderall as if he were prescribed the medication but isn't?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Eh... I'm a little off my game today... I have three tests tomorrow. Forgive me this time? 😉
I feel ya. I should not even be logged on right now. But I need my SDN fix.
A new point I really haven't brought up...
Say we have your situation, except that one person has three hours to study, and one has ten. Let's pretend that the hours that are available are not due to laziness or some other controllable concept. For instance, the student with less hours has to work, and the student with more hours has his rent and food paid for by daddy.
Now, since we have two people with equal intelligence, but one is unfortunately deprived of the same study time due to uncontrollable variables, we can still consider that fair?
In this case, wouldn't it be more fair if the student without as much study time took a Ritalin and therefore was able to get an equal amount of studying done as the other student who gets off easy due to having a rich family? I mean, technically, having a rich family is pretty similar to popping a Ritalin. Not everyone has access to it. But in this case, it isn't a discussion of morality, but a REAL case of true disadvantage.
That's why this, "It's not fair!" argument is so silly. Life isn't fair. It's never going to be fair. So if you have a student who wants to pop a Ritalin, it's not that this student has an "unfair advantage" over the world. That student may have an advantage over the students who work, party, AND don't take Ritalin, but the pill itself isn't going to give the student an advantage over some guy who can sit at home all day, does 12 hours of college a semester, and have daddy take care of all the finances in the background.
Illegal or not, cheating has to be measured against a standard. And if the standard is the average college student, well, I can say that the methylphenidate isn't particularly high on the list of things we should be looking for ways to balance out...
There are many factors that are unfair and affect a test score. Those that involve breaking rules constitute cheating.
You're saying because life's not fair, fairness has nothing to do with cheating? How is that logical? Life's not fair, cheating's not fair, but that doesn't mean we're saying everything not fair is cheating.
Why is it so difficult to understand that both conditions must be met? What makes the concept so hard to grasp?
You guys take only one of the conditions and then explain why that condition alone cannot constitute cheating. Either you argue "not everything that's an unfair advantage is cheating" or "not everything that breaks rules is cheating." Yes you're right, unfairness alone can't constitute cheating, but that's not what we're saying.
Because it's wrong. 😉
If you take a very, very basic logic class, then you should see easily why it's wrong. The fact that it SHOULDN'T be wrong is irrelevant.
Uh... yes it is. At the end of the day, you're saying it's unfair because you aren't willing to break the law in order to get an advantage that in itself is not cheating.
Not to say that one should break the law, but if they are, they aren't doing so in a way that can be constituted as cheating. The fact that you aren't breaking a law to even the score doesn't mean a thing so long as it's not THE law.
The problem is that this issue is a little more complex and regulation-bound than you're willing to go. But if someone who used Adderall was accused of cheating and dismissed from the college for academic honest, I would be very, very surprised if they lost when they sued the college.
The college can punish them for possession, but not cheating. Regardless of whether or not it SHOULD be considered cheating, at this time, nobody in academia seems to think it is.
Okay, this post is pretty much an opinion argument. You can respond to it and disagree with it, but it can't really be proved or disproved (for the most part).
I think most people are capable of sustaining perfectly solid study focus for around 1-2 hours at a time without a problem, and that is really the most a person should spend on a single subject in a single day. Half hour to hour breaks between these 1-2 hours periods allow the brain to relax and begin another 1-2 hours period of fully focused studying. The studying should then also be spread over several days. This allows the natural focus to be maintained and it allows information to be obtained and processed in increments. This layered process is ALWAYS a more efficient learning process than taking in and processing all of the information in one sitting i.e. cramming.
Taking adderol for one of these 1-2 hour study session shouldn't create any major benefit since someone without ADD or ADHD will already be at peak concentration and focus for those periods. In a cramming situation, however, one who uses it will be much more focused throughout the night than someone who takes nothing, and probably a little more focused than someone using caffeine.
Where I feel the cheating factor is lost (purely from a moral standpoint; laws, rules, and biology are separate arguments that have been or are in the process of being addressed) is in the fact that one who puts himself in a position where he needs to cram has put himself at a disadvantage already. Once you've put yourself at a disadvantage you've forfeited your ability to do as well on a test. With the exception of unfair deadlines, a person is ALWAYS capable of taking care of business early on so that if a great emergency does occur before the test you will still have your coursework and studying accounted for. The moment you put it off, you lose room for negotiation. So basically in the cramming mode a person who takes adderol is now put back on the normal level (in a way, exactly how someone with ADD/ADHD is brought to a normal level with everyday functioning) while the one who doesn't is stuck in their self-inflicted disadvantage.
So here perhaps it is a little unfair that the adderol crammer can do better than the normal crammer. However, the adderol crammer isn't doing better than anyone else but said normal crammer. An adderol smart studyer won't do any better than a normal smart studyer either. So the only people its "unfair" to is those who place themselves on a lower playing field to begin with. I guess it's a little callous of me, but I can't really sympathize with or pity people who cram since they are only at a disadvantage due to their own lack of action.
I mean look at it this way. For whatever reason you haven't gotten your studying done for a test and end up needing to cram the night before. You do a mediocre job. You notice someone else you know who was in the same situation but took adderal and got a pretty good grade. You go to the professor and complain "*explains the circumstances*, So me and Soandso were in exactly the same situation, except he took adderol! It's not fair that he did better than me!". Now let's temporarily ignore the legal thing (which we probably wouldn't have to since it probably couldn't be proven he used it anyway). What would the prof say? I personally would say "Well, you would have done better if you had managed your studying time better in the first place. I'll talk with Soandso about the adderol."
Now take out the kid who took the adderol from the equation completely. You still get the mediocre grade. Are you any better off? Even if your class grade is on a curve (which will only occur in a class of decent size) the lack of one pretty good grade shouldn't greatly alter your final results and won't alter your literal grade on the test at all. College may be competitive in a sense, but it is not a competition in general. You lose nothing when someone else takes adderol.
Sorry if this was longwinded and convoluted, hopefully you got my point. Now flame away if you must lol.
I think most people are capable of sustaining perfectly solid study focus for around 1-2 hours at a time without a problem, and that is really the most a person should spend on a single subject in a single day. Half hour to hour breaks between these 1-2 hours periods allow the brain to relax and begin another 1-2 hours period of fully focused studying. The studying should then also be spread over several days. This allows the natural focus to be maintained and it allows information to be obtained and processed in increments. This layered process is ALWAYS a more efficient learning process than taking in and processing all of the information in one sitting i.e. cramming.
Taking adderol for one of these 1-2 hour study session shouldn't create any major benefit since someone without ADD or ADHD will already be at peak concentration and focus for those periods. In a cramming situation, however, one who uses it will be much more focused throughout the night than someone who takes nothing, and probably a little more focused than someone using caffeine.
Where I feel the cheating factor is lost (purely from a moral standpoint; laws, rules, and biology are separate arguments that have been or are in the process of being addressed) is in the fact that one who puts himself in a position where he needs to cram has put himself at a disadvantage already. Once you've put yourself at a disadvantage you've forfeited your ability to do as well on a test. With the exception of unfair deadlines, a person is ALWAYS capable of taking care of business early on so that if a great emergency does occur before the test you will still have your coursework and studying accounted for. The moment you put it off, you lose room for negotiation. So basically in the cramming mode a person who takes adderol is now put back on the normal level (in a way, exactly how someone with ADD/ADHD is brought to a normal level with everyday functioning) while the one who doesn't is stuck in their self-inflicted disadvantage.
So here perhaps it is a little unfair that the adderol crammer can do better than the normal crammer. However, the adderol crammer isn't doing better than anyone else but said normal crammer. An adderol smart studyer won't do any better than a normal smart studyer either. So the only people its "unfair" to is those who place themselves on a lower playing field to begin with. I guess it's a little callous of me, but I can't really sympathize with or pity people who cram since they are only at a disadvantage due to their own lack of action.
I mean look at it this way. For whatever reason you haven't gotten your studying done for a test and end up needing to cram the night before. You do a mediocre job. You notice someone else you know who was in the same situation but took adderal and got a pretty good grade. You go to the professor and complain "*explains the circumstances*, So me and Soandso were in exactly the same situation, except he took adderol! It's not fair that he did better than me!". Now let's temporarily ignore the legal thing (which we probably wouldn't have to since it probably couldn't be proven he used it anyway). What would the prof say? I personally would say "Well, you would have done better if you had managed your studying time better in the first place. I'll talk with Soandso about the adderol."
Now take out the kid who took the adderol from the equation completely. You still get the mediocre grade. Are you any better off? Even if your class grade is on a curve (which will only occur in a class of decent size) the lack of one pretty good grade shouldn't greatly alter your final results and won't alter your literal grade on the test at all. College may be competitive in a sense, but it is not a competition in general. You lose nothing when someone else takes adderol.
Sorry if this was longwinded and convoluted, hopefully you got my point. Now flame away if you must lol.
I actually have taken logic classes.
P = rule is broken
Q = unfairly advantageous
C = cheating
I'm saying when I define cheating as a property meeting two conditions, (P^Q => C), then (~P^Q) U (P^~Q) are insufficient to prove C is true. My definition of C is just that: MY definition. If your definition is different, then your argument is irrelevant to my particular definition, and the real debate would be whose definition is more sound.
Please point out the fallacy.
At the end of the day, I'm still saying P^Q => C. Not Q => C (which you attack in your argument). Go ahead and attack Q => C because that is irrelevant to my argument that (P^Q) => C.
I'm unwilling to explore complexities because I feel that the matter at hand is simple if you look at it logically enough, and complexities will add nothing to our debate.
Last edited:
Just to be clear, we are arguing whether or not it SHOULD be considered cheating, correct? There would've been no point in waxing philosophical otherwise - we would have all just cited academic policies.
Here's the link for anyone interested in following the thread posted in the psychiatry forum by the way
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=670314
The answer to this changes everything; I've spent the past 7 pages arguing whether (as it stands) taking Adderall constitutes cheating, not whether it should constitute cheating. Not only that, this has been a very black/white debate when, in actuality, cheating should be defined along a spectrum. If it should be considered cheating, then I would have to place such activity on the low end of the spectrum, given that there are much more egregious ways to go about gaining an advantage on a test than staying awake longer and concentrating better.
I thought we were doing the, "should, or do you consider it cheating." I do, and that is all I can really say at this point.
Perhaps you should consider why is using steroids considered cheating. It is because they give you an unfair advantage. Everyone has to go to the gym (read your text book) and practice (study), but when on steroids (adderall), you get more out for the same work in, and in turn are able to reach levels you wouldn't have been able to reach otherwise. Would McGwire (pre-med schmuck) have been able to hit 70 home runs (get a 42 on the MCAT) if he hadn't been using? No, because the drugs put you at an unfair advantage when compared to everyone else.
No, the answers aren't in the pill, but the home runs aren't in the steroids either. Steroids let your muscles perform better, allowing you to hit more home runs. Stimulants make your brain function better, allowing you to study longer/harder/more efficiently, and thus perform better on tests.
IMO, there is no debate that adderall and similar illegal drugs give you an unfair advantage. Giving yourself an unfair advantage is cheating. Therefore, using illegal stimulants is cheating.
However, let's not fall down the slippery slope into the belief that caffeine is cheating too. Going back to everyone's favorite analogy: Taking protein to build muscle faster (drinking red bull to stay up longer) is legal, and anyone can do it. The opportunity is offered to everyone, so it is not unfair.
If the MCAT were the sole determining factor for entrance to medical school:
Billy gets a 30 (without adderall), Bobby gets a 32. Bobby gets in.
vs.
Billy gets a 33 (with illegal adderall), Bobby gets a 32. Billy gets in.
How is this not cheating?
Way too black and white.
Fundamentally, cheating means you do not abide by agreed upon rules for conduct. So in that sense I can see where people who do feel bound by the law see law-breaking as cheating because they are denied that advantage. The problem is that we individually did not actually agree to abide by lawful or "honor code" conduct, except in a coercive sense such as, "Sign the honor code or you can't be here," or by accident of birth you are subject to norms of your society. There is no rational reason to feel morally bound by the law for its own sake, particularly when it is arbitrary. Amphetamines have no more reason to be illegal than high doses of caffeine.
For those of you who see speed use as cheating, you can transfer yourself to the opposition's position if you use caffeine to study by imagining yourself at BYU. Caffeine use is disallowed there, so your use of caffeine would be regarded as cheating there. Your caffeine use would give you an advantage over Mormons, because they see caffeine use as unacceptable. If caffeine or amphetamine use has long-term health consequences, then that's just the price people pay for being overly competitive. Being overly competitive will always carry health risks because it throws your life out of balance.
For those of you who see speed use as cheating, you can transfer yourself to the opposition's position if you use caffeine to study by imagining yourself at BYU. Caffeine use is disallowed there, so your use of caffeine would be regarded as cheating there. Your caffeine use would give you an advantage over Mormons, because they see caffeine use as unacceptable. If caffeine or amphetamine use has long-term health consequences, then that's just the price people pay for being overly competitive. Being overly competitive will always carry health risks because it throws your life out of balance.
there's only a limited amount of information you need to memorize for a test. adderall takers aren't becoming geniuses. they're just saturating their brains with a given set of information more efficiently. it's not giving them superhuman brain ability to hold more information than they would not be able to normally.
That's actually a pretty good way of putting it.👍
I agree with this statement in that just because a law is in place doesn't mean it is an inherent moral guideline; however, you'd be hard pressed to find many people breaking drug laws for the sake of "making a statement." However, you strike at the heart at why I wanted to do away with the legal argument earlier in the debate.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So according to the psychopharm forum posts, it seems that those with ADHD will have a great increase in focus whereas those without will have a comparatively smaller increase (and with increasing dosage may experience deterioration). So I could see how this sort of supports Tin Man's claim since it suggests there wouldn't be a huge discrepancy between the focus levels of someone with ADHD and someone without. However, placing it in clear cut numbers and saying they both reach the EXACT same level is impossible with the info available. It could be something like:
ADHD: 80 + stim = 120
Norm: 100 + stim = 120
but it could also be more like:
ADHD: 80 + stim = 100
Norm: 100 + stim = 110
or even:
ADHD: 80 + stim = 90
Norm: 100 + stim = 105
Any of those would mesh with the information the pharm guys posted. Pretty inconclusive as far as comparative results. It's simply ADHD + stimulant = big boost; normal + stimulant = small boost. We can't read more into it than that without taking liberties.
The magnitude of effect is different, but the end result of the effect is debatable. They probably can't do a quantified comparison (such as administering the same study materials and test to a patient and a control) since the results would be affected by the variables of the subject's other mental abilities (memory and understanding).
So no point awarded to either side here.
ADHD: 80 + stim = 120
Norm: 100 + stim = 120
but it could also be more like:
ADHD: 80 + stim = 100
Norm: 100 + stim = 110
or even:
ADHD: 80 + stim = 90
Norm: 100 + stim = 105
Any of those would mesh with the information the pharm guys posted. Pretty inconclusive as far as comparative results. It's simply ADHD + stimulant = big boost; normal + stimulant = small boost. We can't read more into it than that without taking liberties.
The magnitude of effect is different, but the end result of the effect is debatable. They probably can't do a quantified comparison (such as administering the same study materials and test to a patient and a control) since the results would be affected by the variables of the subject's other mental abilities (memory and understanding).
So no point awarded to either side here.
The legal aspect is essential to defining cheating. We agreed that unfair advantage alone is not sufficient. In an extreme example, holding a gun to the grader's head and asking for an A, doesn't break any written university policy, and conveniently dispenses with social morality --> not cheating right?
Exactly, so the argument that ADD patients taking adderal is cheating, is not a good argument. The fact that two normal people with equal capabilities, one of whom takes adderrall, can still be questioned as cheating.
I'm on an iPod and it's a pain to go back and forth between threads. However, I will say that the answers given by the psych guys would be different depending on whether we were judging from a non-existent baseline for the drug. For instancE, I could have been wrong in the way that an ADHD patient would have a MASSIVE boost in concentration when compared to a normal person, which would mean that the normal people would be "cheating" on a far lesser scale than prescribed users of methylphenidate. 😀
Uh, kinda. We're talking about how Adderall doesn't cause your grades to inaccurately reflect your knowledge. A coerced grade would. So, I think your example is a little beyond the scope of the conversation.
Kugel's quote: "This does not necessarily mean they reach "normal" level of concentration, though some do."
This reads to me "while some with ADHD do reach a normal level of concentration post-medication, there are others who do not even reach the normal level of concentration."
