Showing posts with label academia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academia. Show all posts

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Pro at Con: How the Case of Adam Wheeler Educates Us


Perfect SAT scores; all A's at one of the nation's best prep schools; several books authored; research; volunteering. Who could believe that an 18-year-old has accomplished all that? You'd better believe it, because that is common for Harvard undergraduates, so common that many students with such a record are turned away. And Harvard admissions officers believed it, except that in the case of Adam Wheeler, they shouldn't have, because Mr. Wheeler only claimed to have this record.

The young man who turned up on Monday in the nation's consciousness was a spectacular con man, who forged letters of recommendation from professors he had never met, somehow managed to send faked SAT scores with his transfer application, fabricated a transcript from a school he never attended, won literary prizes based on plagiarized (stolen) papers, nearly was nominated as one of Harvard's recommended Rhodes and Fulbright nominees, and once kicked out of Harvard kept doing it—at Harvard's own mental health hospital and then as he attempted to transfer into Yale and Brown.

Unbelievable.

Except that there is much to believe here. Some will claim--and they may very well be right--that Mr. Wheeler is a disturbed sociopath, one for whom social values hold no meaning. Some would wonder about how Harvard's admissions department could possibly have done so very little checking. On blogs I have read people congratulating him for "sticking it to Harvard"—Harvard’s tribulations are gloated over by many who resent its domination—or for learning Wall Street lessons so well that he is sure to find his way to a lucrative field where such cons are rewarded.

But I also think this case raises the opportunity to look broadly and critically at an educational system that has such a focus on credentials and resumes that someone with a disorder like this might be plausible. Many students have inflated high school records, often massaged and managed with the complicity of parents, teachers, administrators, and college admission counselors. Many of our highest-achieving students, such as those chronicled by Alexandra Robbins’ shocking book The Overachievers, claim membership in clubs they never attend, spend years on activities that are meaningless to them, calculate which courses to take that will yield grade-point-averages above perfect. Students learn how to butter up their teachers, how to master test-taking, how to create an image of success that shows that they have mastered, in David Labaree's terms, How to Succeed in School without Really Learning.

Success is what Mr. Wheeler portrayed, and success breeds success. Harvard and other highly (insanely) competitive schools are all about success. A credential from Harvard can set a person on a lifelong upward trajectory. If a person is to aim high, why not the highest? It is risky, but the risks are worth it, if what one seeks is the appearance of success. Such high-stakes competitions, from China’s millennial-long civil service examination to today’s SAT and pre-med courses, invite clever schemas to be one of the winners.

But it seems to me—okay, call me "idealistic"—that education is supposed to be about more than mere credentials and the appearance of success. To be sure, many students indeed learn, change, grow, mature at every level of schooling, but learning, content, growth, meaning are never part of our public discussion of education. When all around us we hear about graduation rates, the level of educational attainment, opportunities for combining high school and college credit (double credit!), grades, and other extrinsic measures, we have an environment that can easily grow a fraud. How can we tell the difference between a fraud and someone who similarly masters the image of success to impress? Impression management, performance, acting like a winner—these are some of the lessons our best schools inculcate, and students learn these lessons well.

But isn't there something else we want our students to learn? How can we set up an educational system that values the CONTENT of our learning, rather than a rush to get through the lessons? What do we want from all the schooling that costs us so much? The case of Adam Wheeler, con man extraordinaire, gives us a chance to learn something valuable. And that’s educational.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Should China Copy the West on Academic Integrity?

Plagiarism. Doesn’t the very word send chills down your spine? It resembles plague, after all (even though it has no genetic connection to it), and a plague must sicken us all. So the cases of plagiarism and academic misconduct, fraud, copying, and misrepresentation that are the latest ills to beset China make for great journalistic stories. China should, by some accounts, take its lead from the “West,” and especially from the United States.

In case you haven’t noticed, the United States too is consumed by worries about plagiarism and violations of academic integrity. But we have the sense that things are worse in China.

The whole topic of plagiarism depends on related ideas of originality. By a certain logic, developed in Western Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, an author should write original works (Woodmansee 1984, Rose 1993), and should be paid—in both money and “credit”—for that contribution, especially because the best authors were seen as geniuses, inspired by their Muse or by God. The unique work of each of these geniuses should be acknowledged. And paid.

Thus was born the notion of copyright, which is connected with but not identical to the admonition to give credit to our sources.

Academic writing, which is not always—to say the least—touched by genius, borrows from this sense that the author has made a unique contribution and should be gestured to. But it also has a professional scaffolding, the guild rules, if you will, that uses a person’s prior learning to demonstrate proper deference and training. We do that, as Anthony Grafton showed in his book The Footnote, in our footnotes. They give credit. They allow readers to pursue our line of thinking. And they show that we are following the rules.

These are the rules we teach our students and these are the rules we follow, at least when we do follow them.

In the United States college students fail to follow these rules sometimes; in surveys about 66% of our students admit to using uncited material. They do so for a variety of reasons: The rules are extremely subtle and difficult to master properly. The students are busy with a variety of other compelling activities and don’t want to take the time on a particular assignment. The assignment is meaningless to the student. The student has waited until the last minute and just needs to fill up pages, with anything. Some of these reasons may have to do with integrity and some with failed education.

But you can imagine a different notion of writing, a different path in history that does not regard writing as an individual possession. (Many of our students do, in this age of collaboration and Wikis.)

You could imagine a notion of writing where sharing was more important than hording.

You could imagine an academic system where people were hired and rewarded on the basis of contacts, seniority, and cooperation rather than publication and competition.

You could imagine a notion of education where quoting authority showed the proper deference of youth.

You could even imagine a place where a culture hero claimed “I transmit, I do not invent (or create).” (This saying is attributed to Kongzi, known as Confucius, in The Analects.)

Such a place would have a different set of rules about what is supposed to be found in footnotes and in papers, and writing in this place would not be seen as violating universal morality, but rather as following its own logic.

Until very recently, these have been some of the rules governing academic writing in China.

Now, of course, China has left behind its twentieth-century academic isolation and would like to make intellectual contributions to the global academic world. China is now producing more people with higher education degrees than the U.S. and India combined, according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7098561.stm). China is investing heavily in tertiary education (http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1066). China’s faculty are no longer rewarded simply for loyalty.

So new rules are evolving.

And like all social change, it is clear that it happens unevenly. Now that several Chinese universities are ranked in the top 100 in the world, and collaborations between Chinese and foreign scholars are common, Chinese universities have agreed to follow “international” notions of academic integrity, meaning that all work must declare its origins. (Never mind that there is great variation among nations in how this is regarded.) Deference has given way to the confident claims of invention.

As in any high-stakes system—the SAT, Wall Street, publication in prestigious fora—one finds some individuals willing to take enormous risks. Some are sociopaths, such as journalist Stephen Glass who fabricated an entire story in The New Republic (http://www.forbes.com/1998/05/11/otw.html). Some claim sloppiness, such as Doris Kearns Goodwin (http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/27/0227goodwin.html). Scientists wishing glory may also write fraudulent papers, such as three recent professors at Zhejiang University (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0323/p01s01-woap.html). He Haibo copied and fabricated results published or submitted to eight journals; two colleagues were implicated with him. China Daily called it the “biggest-ever academic scandal” (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/regional/2009-02/04/content_7444513.htm).

Here we have a case with several possible explanations:

• Chinese people cheat.

• Some Chinese people cheat.

• Some people cheat.

• China follows imperfectly international guild rules about academic practices.

• China’s acceptance of the rules of academic citation are in flux and so far have been mastered imperfectly.

Which answer is preferable may depend on whether you want China to be similar to or different from people elsewhere, and whether you believe in an enduring Chinese essence.

I believe that in some sense the rules of academic conduct are arbitrary, but like any game, the players must follow the rules. Violations occur occasionally, both in the West and in Asia, and are rarely caught or punished. The American Historical Association recognized its powerlessness in enforcing rules against plagiarism in 2003 (http://www.historians.org/press/PR_Adjudication.htm), though it encouraged historians to follow and teach students about proper rules of conduct.

There are some traditional practices that may endure in China, such as having novices quote from authorities as part of their education, and there is a tendency to regard communication as effective based on the results it produces.

But there are also new forces at play in China, having to do with the way academics are compensated for speed of publication and uniqueness of contribution.

In this sense China is copying the economic structure of the Western academy. And in this sense the temptations for cutting corners in order to “scoop” everyone else or at least to pile on publications are just like ours.

In this sense, imitation may be the best form of flattery, but both the source and the copier would profit from a different model.



Sources Cited

Grafton, Anthony. 1997. The Footnote: A Curious History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Rose, Mark. 1993. Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Woodmansee, Martha. 1984. “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author’.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 17: 425-48.



This has also appeared on

The China Beat: Blogging How the East is Read
http://thechinabeat.blogspot.com/2009/05/should-china-copy-west-on-academic.html
May 21, 2009

History News Network
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/86407.html
May 21, 2009