Does this constitute cheating?

[loveoforganic]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

You could have figured that out yourself.

I think you did figure out for yourself that there's no evidence for what you claimed... Congratulations.

 

[randombetch]

But the law has nothing to do with bettering academic work. Drinking on campus isn't cheating. Being caught in the female dorms isn't cheating. Killing someone in class isn't cheating.

Your argument makes no sense. Breaking the rules is NOT cheating. You're getting confused.

There are rules AGAINST cheating. If you break THOSE rules, you are cheating. But there are no rules at any university that I am aware of that prohibits taking drugs that would help to increase your ability to study. If there was, then yes, you would technically be cheating. But since no such rule exists, you cannot break that rule.

Breaking the law designed to prevent people from getting high cannot constitute cheating.

I never said breaking the rules --> cheating.

Here is what I am saying (I have said this multiple times):
Cheating is the breaking of rules to gain an advantage (ie: to score higher than you would have scored without the advantage).

To convince me that adderall is not cheating, you'd have to prove that it does not meet both standards (breaking rules and gives advantage).

Which rules taking adderall breaks is irrelevant. It's wrong because other people follow the rules and score lower than they could with the drugs.

If drinking, being caught in the female dorms, or killing someone in class led to higher test scores (I don't know, Satan agrees to raise your scores if you do these deeds?), then they would be odd forms of cheating.

 

[chman]

I need a good facepalm picture...

Given the fact that the studies above are saying that the drugs affect people in the same way, exactly how would you propose a study that would show that methylphenidate affects test scores?

The amount of variables you have to account for is endless. Body weight, dosage, age, innate study habits, test material, quality of teacher, quality of textbook, etc etc. It would be impossible to get any sort of conclusive result one way or the other. Think.

The drug affects people physiologically the exact same way. That was the point. What that means it that because it only results in physiological changes, and doesn't actually increase intelligence, it would be almost impossible to test for how it actually affects performance in the classroom.

You could have figured that out yourself.

Sorry, but I need to chime in one more time. The difference is that the ADHD person would not be able to concentrate without the drug. The healthy individual would be able to concentrate without the drug. Therefor, you are helping me to prove that adderal gives the advantage to people who take it. Why are you helping me to prove that? Because you say that no matter who takes it it helps with concentration. Therefor, someone who takes it is able to concentrate better than someone who does not, hence the unfair advantage compared to those who choose not to engage in taking the adderal for whatever reason.

 

[loveoforganic]

I never said breaking the rules --> cheating.

Here is what I am saying (I have said this multiple times):
Cheating is the breaking of rules to gain an advantage (ie: to score higher than you would have scored without the advantage).

To convince me that adderall is not cheating, you'd have to prove that it does not meet both standards (breaking rules and gives advantage).

Which rules taking adderall breaks is irrelevant. It's wrong because other people follow the rules and score lower than they could with the drugs.

You have swayed me. I take back my agreement with great earlier.

 

[greatnt249]

But the law has nothing to do with bettering academic work. Drinking on campus isn't cheating. Being caught in the female dorms isn't cheating. Killing someone in class isn't cheating.

Your argument makes no sense. Breaking the rules is NOT cheating. You're getting confused.

There are rules AGAINST cheating. If you break THOSE rules, you are cheating. But there are no rules at any university that I am aware of that prohibits taking drugs that would help to increase your ability to study. If there was, then yes, you would technically be cheating. But since no such rule exists, you cannot break that rule.

Breaking the law designed to prevent people from getting high cannot constitute cheating.

THANK you.👍

 

[randombetch]

You have swayed me. I take back my agreement with great earlier.

YESS!! 😀 haha.

 

[Beren]

THANK you.👍

Read his post:

I never said breaking the rules --> cheating.

Here is what I am saying (I have said this multiple times):
Cheating is the breaking of rules to gain an advantage (ie: to score higher than you would have scored without the advantage).

To convince me that adderall is not cheating, you'd have to prove that it does not meet both standards (breaking rules and gives advantage).

Which rules taking adderall breaks is irrelevant. It's wrong because other people follow the rules and score lower than they could with the drugs.

If drinking, being caught in the female dorms, or killing someone in class led to higher test scores (I don't know, Satan agrees to raise your scores if you do these deeds?), then they would be odd forms of cheating.

It requires both breaking rules and unfairness to achieve necessity and sufficiency. Have you not taken enough upper level science classes to understand that concept?

 

[Tin Man]

I never said breaking the rules --> cheating.

Here is what I am saying (I have said this multiple times):
Cheating is the breaking of rules to gain an advantage (ie: to score higher than you would have scored without the advantage).

To convince me that adderall is not cheating, you'd have to prove that it does not meet both standards (breaking rules and gives advantage).

Which rules taking adderall breaks is irrelevant. It's wrong because other people follow the rules and score lower than they could with the drugs.

If drinking, being caught in the female dorms, or killing someone in class led to higher test scores (I don't know, Satan agrees to raise your scores if you do these deeds?), then they would be odd forms of cheating.

You are completely ignoring the reason that the rules exist. They are NOT THERE TO PREVENT CHEATING. It is beyond ridiculous to say that if a person breaks a rule for a reason other than the reason that the rule was there, the motive behind the violation was still equal with the original rule.

The rule is still broken, yes. But the motive in cheating is to have an unfair advantage on a test, and here's the important part, THAT DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT YOU LEARNED.

The rule being broken is to PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GETTING HIGH.

So when a person breaks a rule designed to keep them from getting high, it does not automatically mean that they are guilty of exploiting something in order to get a grade that does not represent what they actually know. The world isn't that black and white.

Cheating isn't just breaking ANY rules. It has to be breaking THE rule that says that if it is broken, you are cheating. There is no such rule against using Ritalin. There is just a rule that says that if you take Ritalin illegally, you are guilty of breaking the law designed to prevent you from getting high or selling it to other people who want to get high.

Just because you can get punished under one law does not mean you are guilty of breaking both. That is barracks-lawyering like I've never before witnessed.

 

[greatnt249]

Cheating is the breaking of rules to gain an advantage (ie: to score higher than you would have scored without the advantage).

To convince me that adderall is not cheating, you'd have to prove that it does not meet both standards (breaking rules and gives advantage).

You haven't provided a set of rules put in place to discourage the intended practice we are discussing (cheating).

 

[Tin Man]

Sorry, but I need to chime in one more time. The difference is that the ADHD person would not be able to concentrate without the drug. The healthy individual would be able to concentrate without the drug.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY[/YOUTUBE]

The difference is NOT that the ADD person wouldn't be able to concentrate. The difference is that the ADD person has DIFFICULTY concentrating. But the 100% complete lack of concentration does not an ADD diagnosis make. That makes a person catatonic.

So the difference between a healthy individual and the ADD individual is the SEVERITY of their lack of concentration. An ADD person has a lot of difficulty. A healthy person in a stressful state might have less difficulty, but still sufficient to cause problems. Ritalin will help bring both of them to the same level, which is hyper-concentration.

 

[loveoforganic]

And here we come again to your "same level" statement 🙄 I suppose narcotic pain medication should be available to all as well. It's not that the person with chronic pain CAN'T ignore their pain, it's that they have DIFFICULTY ignoring it. A person that gets a splinter in his thumb could also have a DIFFICULTY ignoring that pain, and warrant the same medication.

 

[Beren]

You are completely ignoring the reason that the rules exist. They are NOT THERE TO PREVENT CHEATING. It is beyond ridiculous to say that if a person breaks a rule for a reason other than the reason that the rule was there, the motive behind the violation was still equal with the original rule.

The rule is still broken, yes. But the motive in cheating is to have an unfair advantage on a test, and here's the important part, THAT DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT YOU LEARNED.

The rule being broken is to PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GETTING HIGH.

So when a person breaks a rule designed to keep them from getting high, it does not automatically mean that they are guilty of exploiting something in order to get a grade that does not represent what they actually know. The world isn't that black and white.

Cheating isn't just breaking ANY rules. It has to be breaking THE rule that says that if it is broken, you are cheating. There is no such rule against using Ritalin. There is just a rule that says that if you take Ritalin illegally, you are guilty of breaking the law designed to prevent you from getting high or selling it to other people who want to get high.

Just because you can get punished under one law does not mean you are guilty of breaking both. That is barracks-lawyering like I've never before witnessed.

That is sure tautologicial: the only way to cheat is to break a rule preventing cheating. There are other rules you can break and still cheat.

No, the rule is, society limits the use of adderall because of its potential negative effects from unregulated use. Bypassing this, even for a different motive, is breaking a good rule that others follow. That is why is unlawful and unfair to those who obey the rule (to prevent proliferation of unregulated use of adderall).

 

[chman]

[YOUTUBE]WrjwaqZfjIY[/YOUTUBE]


So the difference between a healthy individual and the ADD individual is the SEVERITY of their lack of concentration. An ADD person has a lot of difficulty. A healthy person in a stressful state might have less difficulty, but still sufficient to cause problems. Ritalin will help bring both of them to the same level, which is hyper-concentration.

Again, you can twist my words however you want. But once again you are helping me to prove my point. According to you, prescriptive amphetamines help anyone to concentrate better. Your words, not mine. Therefor, if one is to take them they will gain an advantage over others who have not taken them. We can debate whether or not that is fair, IMO it is not because those who choose not to take adderal for fear of breaking the law, getting kicked out of school, etc. are put at a disadvantage.

unfair advantage = cheating

But you obviously will pull anything out of thin air to be right, which is fine. I simply disagree.

 

[Tin Man]

That is sure tautologicial: the only way to cheat is to break a rule preventing cheating. There are other rules you can break and still cheat.

Uh... yeah. That's actually right.

Cheating doesn't have an effect on anything outside of the system for which the rules are defined. For instance, taking steroids isn't considered cheating until you put them within a sports system. Looking at organic chemistry answer keys isn't cheating until you put that act within the system of an organic chemistry class. Running third party programs for a video game boost isn't cheating until you actually run the video game.

In the real world, you can't cheat until you enter a system that has rules in place against cheating. Hence, you can't cheat until you break a rule against cheating in the system you are playing within.

Duh.

 

[Beren]

Uh... yeah. That's actually right.

Cheating doesn't have an effect on anything outside of the system for which the rules are defined. For instance, taking steroids isn't considered cheating until you put them within a sports system. Looking at organic chemistry answer keys isn't cheating until you put that act within the system of an organic chemistry class. Running third party programs for a video game boost isn't cheating until you actually run the video game.

In the real world, you can't cheat until you enter a system that has rules in place against cheating. Hence, you can't cheat until you break a rule against cheating in the system you are playing within.

Duh.

Goodness, if that's how you feel, take adderall and go to a party or fold your laundry. Don't use it to prepare for a test in a curved class where it affects your fellow students. Or in a general sense of med school apps: whoever uses adderall and gets into med school affects those who don't use it.

That's the system. Duh.

 

[chman]

Uh... yeah. That's actually right.

Cheating doesn't have an effect on anything outside of the system for which the rules are defined. For instance, taking steroids isn't considered cheating until you put them within a sports system. Looking at organic chemistry answer keys isn't cheating until you put that act within the system of an organic chemistry class. Running third party programs for a video game boost isn't cheating until you actually run the video game.

In the real world, you can't cheat until you enter a system that has rules in place against cheating. Hence, you can't cheat until you break a rule against cheating in the system you are playing within.

Duh.

However most institution simply state a rule not to cheat. In this rule they may list things such as copying answer keys etc., but it is doubtful they list every possibility that constitutes cheating according to them. However, they still expect students to rely on their ethics and decide for themselves what is cheating. They usually define cheating as unfair advantage or unethical advantage over others = cheating.

 

[greatnt249]

Let me pose this scenario to you:

Say I have a friend that takes REALLY good notes (very high yield). It's the night before the exam, and I really need to study. Reading purely from the textbook would take way too long to do, so I ask my friend if I can borrow his notes to study from...

Is that cheating?

 

[dingyibvs]

Wow, SDNers are so evenly split on this issue. Last I checked it was 12-11, now it's 51-49.

 

[Tin Man]

Again, you can twist my words however you want. But once again you are helping me to prove my point. According to you, prescriptive amphetamines help anyone to concentrate better. Your words, not mine. Therefor, if one is to take them they will gain an advantage over others who have not taken them. We can debate whether or not that is fair, IMO it is not because those who choose not to take adderal for fear of breaking the law, getting kicked out of school, etc. are put at a disadvantage.

unfair advantage = cheating

Okay, NOW you're mixing up points. Try to follow along.

Methylphenidate will help anyone concentrate. ADD people taking them will get the same concentration effect that a person without ADD will.

That means that ADD people have access to a prescription that will help them concentrate. This does NOT mean that they will do anything with that concentration. As illustrated, some people use that concentration to fold clothes. Some use it for video games. The desire to do work and to take time to study still has to be there, and the knowledge gained is still the same as someone who can concentrate without the Ritalin.

Why do some people get prescriptions and others do not? Life isn't fair. Sorry. It's not hard to get a prescription, since almost any college student who's been in college for more than six months can get one. But as I've said, the same effects can be found in an energy drink or coffee.

If someone chooses not to use Ritalin, that is their choice. However, it does not mean that the concentration focus another person has is "unfair", because the system is not set up to prevent a person from getting hold of the drugs on an academic basis. It's designed to prevent people from getting high. The school does not punish you for taking Ritalin because you threw the curve.

So, while a valid reason exists in not taking Ritalin due to it being illegal, it is NOT cheating. A choice not to break the law is still a choice, and if the law doesn't exist to prevent cheating, then breaking it is not cheating.

 

[Beren]

Let me pose this scenario to you:

Say I have a friend that takes REALLY good notes (very high yield). It's the night before the exam, and I really need to study. Reading purely from the textbook would take way too long to do, so I ask my friend if I can borrow his notes to study from...

Is that cheating?

It's not unlawful to borrow notes, so no. Again, two conditions (unlawful and unfair) together best qualify it as cheating.

 

[chman]

Let me pose this scenario to you:

Say I have a friend that takes REALLY good notes (very high yield). It's the night before the exam, and I really need to study. Reading from the textbook would take way too long to do, so I ask my friend if I can borrow his notes to study from...

Is that cheating?

No. Because anyone who was in class had access to the same material. It is not an unfair advantage as appose to adderal, which, not everyone has access to or who feel it is unethical to engage in an illegal activity.

 

[Tin Man]

Goodness, if that's how you feel, take adderall and go to a party or fold your laundry. Don't use it to prepare for a test in a curved class where it affects your fellow students. Or in a general sense of med school apps: whoever uses adderall and gets into med school affects those who don't use it.

That's the system. Duh.

Was that an argument?

However most institution simply state a rule not to cheat. In this rule they may list things such as copying answer keys etc., but it is doubtful they list every possibility that constitutes cheating according to them. However, they still expect students to rely on their ethics and decide for themselves what is cheating. They usually define cheating as unfair advantage or unethical advantage over others = cheating.

Actually, every institution I have visited very clearly states their cheating policy. Otherwise, every single instance of "cheating" would have to be reviewed and debated. Hell, it could even go to court.

Regardless, even if you were correct, you don't think that something as overshadowing as performance-enhancing drugs would be covered? They talk about plagiarizing. However, there is no such mention (anywhere that I know) about drugs that help concentration. No, I'm pretty sure it would have been covered, especially since so many students are on psychostimulants.

 

[Tin Man]

No. Because anyone who was in class had access to the same material. It is not an unfair advantage as appose to adderal, which, not everyone has access to or who feel it is unethical to engage in an illegal activity.

Drink a Red Bull. Does the same thing as a 10mg dose of Ritalin.

 

[Beren]

The school does not punish you for taking Ritalin because you threw the curve.

So, while a valid reason exists in not taking Ritalin due to it being illegal, it is NOT cheating. A choice not to break the law is still a choice, and if the law doesn't exist to prevent cheating, then breaking it is not cheating.

The school will punish you if that performance was due to a unfair advantage illegally obtained.

Again, illicitness alone doesn't make it cheating. But when you gain an unfair advantage over those who obey the law, then that is cheating.

 

[chman]

Was that an argument?



Actually, every institution I have visited very clearly states their cheating policy. Otherwise, every single instance of "cheating" would have to be reviewed and debated. Hell, it could even go to court.

Regardless, even if you were correct, you don't think that something as overshadowing as performance-enhancing drugs would be covered? They talk about plagiarizing. However, there is no such mention (anywhere that I know) about drugs that help concentration. No, I'm pretty sure it would have been covered, especially since so many students are on psychostimulants.

Usually every instance is brought before a dean and treated individually.

 

[Beren]

Was that an argument?

No. I was musing at your poor reasoning.

 

[chman]

Drink a Red Bull. Does the same thing as a 10mg dose of Ritalin.

If that were true doctors would prescribe red bull instead of amphetamines.

 

[greatnt249]

It's not unlawful to borrow notes, so no. Again, two conditions (unlawful and unfair) together best qualify it as cheating.

Scribbling notes on my hand to read off of in the middle of an exam isn't exactly unlawful, which is why I believe the "lawfulness" of said action is irrelevant.

My point was that studying from the high-yield notes isn't an advantage given to everyone in my class, yet you argue that it isn't cheating. However, taking Adderall supposedly is, despite the fact that all it lets me do is concentrate better while studying. Key fact is that I still have to actually study regardless if I'm on drugs or not.

Taking Adderall is cheating like card-counting is cheating...

 

[Beren]

Scribbling notes on my hand to read off of in the middle of an exam isn't exactly unlawful, which is why I believe the "lawfulness" of said action is irrelevant.

My point was that studying from the high-yield notes isn't an advantage given to everyone in my class, yet you argue that it isn't cheating. However, taking Adderall supposedly is, despite the fact that all it lets me do is concentrate better while studying. Key fact is that I still have to actually study regardless if I'm on drugs or not.

Taking Adderall is cheating like card-counting is cheating...

Reading your notes during a closed note test isn't unlawful?

 

[greatnt249]

No. Because anyone who was in class had access to the same material. It is not an unfair advantage as appose to adderal, which, not everyone has access to or who feel it is unethical to engage in an illegal activity.

Whether you feel something is unethical is irrelevant. I could "feel" that drinking caffeine and pulling all-nighters are unethical, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[greatnt249]

Reading your notes during a closed note test isn't unlawful?

Please show me a law/ordinance that states that I cannot cheat on a test in school along with its prescribed punishment.

 

[Beren]

Whether you feel something is unethical is irrelevant. I could "feel" that drinking caffeine and pulling all-nighters are unethical, but that doesn't make it so.

Woohoo! You know you've got them on the ropes when they start subscribing to relativistic nihilism.

 

[greatnt249]

Woohoo! You know you've got them on the ropes when they start subscribing to relativistic nihilism.

🙄

No, I know I've got them on the ropes when this is the kind of response I get.

 

[Beren]

Please show me a law/ordinance that states that I cannot cheat on a test in school along with its prescribed punishment.

Look at the definitions of law (dictionary.com):

1) the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

2) any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.

3) the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.

I am referring to (1) and (3). When the professor decides that it is a closed-book test, it is a "law". Looking at your notes during the test would then be unlawful.

 

[Tin Man]

The school will punish you if that performance was due to a unfair advantage illegally obtained.

Again, illicitness alone doesn't make it cheating. But when you gain an unfair advantage over those who obey the law, then that is cheating.

Uh, the advantage wasn't illegal per the school. The advantage wasn't even illegal per the law. The fact that you had a Class II controlled substance was what was illegal, and what the school would have a problem with. If you were punished at all, it would be for that, not for "cheating." Until the school or the US government says that taking Ritalin gives someone an unfair advantage over others, it isn't considered to be one. Why? Because you can only cheat if you're breaking rules designed to prevent you from doing so.

Usually every instance is brought before a dean and treated individually.

Aww, you. You're nitpicking again. The instance is brought before the dean and compared to existing rules. Since there is no rule against using a performance-enhancing drug in any school that I am aware of, there would be no case on the basis of cheating, only possession.

If that were true doctors would prescribe red bull instead of amphetamines.

...except for the fact that Red Bull has a lot of other crap in it that's horrible for you, and it takes a lot more of it to get the same effect. Yeah, I think this is you being nitpicky again. Can you actually make any argument with substance to it?

Whether you feel something is unethical is irrelevant. I could "feel" that drinking caffeine and pulling all-nighters are unethical, but that doesn't make it so.

👍

EXACTLY the point. Your feelings of unfairness are irrelevant to the situation as to whether or not something is cheating. Cheating is defined by rules. There are NO RULES against using Ritalin to help you study. The rules against Ritalin are COMPLETELY UNRELATED to study habits.

I really don't see how this is hard. I don't.

 

[greatnt249]

Look at the definitions of law (dictionary.com):

1) the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

2) any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.

3) the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.

I am referring to (1) and (3). When the professor decides that it is a closed-book test, it is a "law". Looking at your notes during the test would then be unlawful.

I see now that we're nitpicking the definition of what is "lawful," now.🙄

Quick question...is me toking up/shooting up/snorting/tweaking/smoking/dropping acid the night before a test considered cheating?

 

[chman]

.
...except for the fact that Red Bull has a lot of other crap in it that's horrible for you, and it takes a lot more of it to get the same effect. Yeah, I think this is you being nitpicky again. Can you actually make any argument with substance to it?

How am I being nitpicky? I am simply responding to your comparison that red bull is the same as ridalin. O.K, so it is about the chemicals in red bull? So I guess you are saying that caffeine is the same as redalin? So if that were true how about doctors prescribe caffeine pills instead of amphedamines? Surely if they are the same there would be no difference. It would probably save pople some money to just get some no-doze at the store insead of a costly prescription. But I guess I am just being "nitpicky."

 

[Beren]

Because you can only cheat if you're breaking rules designed to prevent you from doing so.

Again, there are other ways to cheat as long as you break rules others follow in order to gain an advantage

EXACTLY the point. Your feelings of unfairness are irrelevant to the situation as to whether or not something is cheating. Cheating is defined by rules. There are NO RULES against using Ritalin to help you study. The rules against Ritalin are COMPLETELY UNRELATED to study habits.

I really don't see how this is hard. I don't.

The rule is in place for general societal well-being because the drugs can be addicting and dangerous, especially when not regulated.

 

[Beren]

I see now that we're nitpicking the definition of what is "lawful," now.🙄

Quick question...is me toking up/shooting up/snorting/tweaking/smoking/dropping acid the night before a test considered cheating?

That's hypocritical. You were the one who asked, "show me a law or ordinance." I showed you I was using the word "law" in a legitimate sense not referring to some government statute.

Yes, if you are in a society that prohibits shooting up, and if shooting up gives you a leg up over ppl who don't engage in illegal activities.

 

[greatnt249]

That's hypocritical. You were the one who asked, "show me a law or ordinance." I showed you I was using the word "law" in a legitimate sense not referring to some government statute.

Yes, if you are in a society that prohibits shooting up, and if shooting up gives you a leg up over ppl who don't engage in illegal activities.

Uh huh...and what exactly is this "leg up"?

 

[greatnt249]

That's hypocritical. You were the one who asked, "show me a law or ordinance." I showed you I was using the word "law" in a legitimate sense not referring to some government statute.

Yes, if you are in a society that prohibits shooting up, and if shooting up gives you a leg up over ppl who don't engage in illegal activities.

Your arguments constitute using the term "lawful" in two completely different senses of the word; hence, my derision of your post as nitpicky.

 

[HanginInThere]

I'm impressed that this has gone on for 4 pages already. So here's a question for the folks who are arguing there's nothing wrong with it: Would you say the same thing in a med school interview? If an adcom asked you what you thought about students taking prescription drugs illicitly to help them study, how would you respond?

 

[greatnt249]

I'm impressed that this has gone on for 4 pages already. So here's a question for the folks who are arguing there's nothing wrong with it: Would you say the same thing in a med school interview? If an adcom asked you what you thought about students taking prescription drugs illicitly to help them study, how would you respond?

I never said there was nothing wrong with it; I said it wasn't cheating.

 

[Beren]

Your arguments constitute using the term "lawful" in two completely different senses of the word; hence, my derision of your post as nitpicky.

Only different from your poor grasp of the nuances of the English language. Each reader can decide perfectly well if the usage was legitimate.

Uh huh...and what exactly is this "leg up"?

^not nitpicky. That is hypocrisy.

 

[Tin Man]

Again, there are other ways to cheat as long as you break rules others follow in order to gain an advantage

No. There are two different rule systems in place. One is law, and the other is school. It is true that law applies everywhere, but for logical purposes, it is still a seperate system.

Cheating would require you to break a school rule. This does not happen with Ritalin outside of possession.

So if people decide to disobey a rule that applies to a different system (law), it does not mean that they are also guilty of breaking a school-dictated rule, because there was no school rule that they broke.

Think of it this way. I visited a country where gambling was illegal. I was old enough to gamble in the US. Had I gambled in that country, I would have been subject to their punishment, and despite the fact that I could have done it in the US. Why? Because I was under a different system with different rules. Had I been in the US and done the same thing, nobody would have lifted an eyebrow.

Nobody cares that you use Ritalin to concentrate. They care because you are guilty of possession. That's it. There is no rule in place to prevent Ritalin use to help concentration ANYWHERE. So if you choose to obey a rule that does not apply to the system we are looking at, that is your choice.

 

[Tin Man]

I'm impressed that this has gone on for 4 pages already. So here's a question for the folks who are arguing there's nothing wrong with it: Would you say the same thing in a med school interview? If an adcom asked you what you thought about students taking prescription drugs illicitly to help them study, how would you respond?

Everyone knows that's a silly situation, because it's obvious how polarized the issue is. There's a fifty-fifty chance that the doctor could fall on the side that would like to see you in jail for using those drugs, not to mention ignore you for the rest of the interview. Nobody would risk that when there is a universally safe option.

🙂

 

[Beren]

No. There are two different rule systems in place. One is law, and the other is school. It is true that law applies everywhere, but for logical purposes, it is still a seperate system.

Distinct, but students have to follow both systems. So the people who do it fairly will not break any rules to gain that unfair advantage

Think of it this way. I visited a country where gambling was illegal. I was old enough to gamble in the US. Had I gambled in that country, I would have been subject to their punishment, and despite the fact that I could have done it in the US. Why? Because I was under a different system with different rules. Had I been in the US and done the same thing, nobody would have lifted an eyebrow.

When you are there, you are not governed by American laws. When you are a student in America, you have to follow the school's rules and the American government's.

 

[greatnt249]

Only different from your poor grasp of the nuances of the English language. Each reader can decide perfectly well if the usage was legitimate.

Uh huh...now who's descending into the realm of relativism you so disdain? The fact that you had to pull out a full dictionary definition shows that using the term "lawful" in the context you wished to use it in is not its most common definition. This also ignores the fact that the context in which you were using the term lawful changed between hand-scribbling and taking a prescription drug without a prescription.

not nitpicky. That is hypocrisy.

No, I want you to define what exactly the advantage is to be gained from taking Adderall, since you claim doing so is a form of cheating.

 

[Tin Man]

Distinct, but students have to follow both systems. So the people who do it fairly will not break any rules to gain that unfair advantage

When you are there, you are not governed by American laws. When you are a student in America, you have to follow the school's rules and the American government's.

I think you've ALMOST got it.

Breaking the rules in ONE system does not mean that they are automatically guilty of breaking any rules in the OTHER system. The definition of cheating is not about "breaking rules." It's about breaking specific rules.

So yes, while it is true that people have to obey both sets of rules, the fact that they break the rules of the government does NOT mean that they have broken the rules of the school, and the ONLY WAY that someone can cheat within the system of the school is to break the rules that affect that school.

 

[bannie22]

To me it comes down to this:

There are two college students of equal intelligence. They both have a physics test tomorrow. They both get off work at five-o'clock and start studying by six. One of the students is able to get some adderal, while the other student is not able, or does not want to obtain any. If the student that got the adderal in this situation has the advantage because he/she will be able to concentrate and retain information better, then that is cheating IMO. Pretty much everyone has agreed that adderal gives an advantage to the student who takes it as far as studying goes. Student one ends up taking no breaks and gets an A on the test. Student 2 has to take a break every two hours because he can no longer concentrate because he is tired and gets a B.

and student C takes a cup of coffee and gets a B+... ooops cheating?

student D decided to start studying the day before and gets an A+

oops cheating?


student E parties all night, but has a naturally bigger brain, more grey matter and thicker neurons...
he gets a 100

cheating????

🙄