Cheating

Plagarism and cheating in general are surely big problems at universities these days. The fact that there is a cottage industry of essay-writing companies is also disconcerting.

Lawrence Hinmann, a philosopher, wrote a surprisingly good op-ed on the topic a few years ago.

I think he overemphasizes the importance of investing time in students and creating unique problems. In many fields it's hard to make up good problems because of complexity (math, engineering, etc.) and in others new topics are often just rehashed forms of old topics: philosophy students rarely have anything interesting to say, except when they rediscover an age-old argument.

By the same token he probably underemphasizes the good that technology can do, at least to fight plagiarism. If students were asked to a little bit more work, and had more and more of their writing digitized, perhaps starting in high school, then there would probably be enough data to identify each student's "writing signature." Essay-writing companies would try to adjust to that but I think it'd be difficult, and fear must cut down on their business in the short run.

The real solution is cultivating norms, as he notes in passing, though no one knows quite how. Fortunately, with so many colleges and departments, there is plenty of room for experimentation.

Appropriate Technology

“The technology is the least difficult part of the problem,” Mr. Prestero said. “Manufacturing, financing, distribution, regulatory approval: those are major barriers. There aren’t many examples of a successfully scaled product to serve the poor.”

from a very good overview of one appropriate technology project.

Recursion

Search for "recursion" on Google. (HT: Freakonomics)

Technology's Downsides

Change scares people and technology causes change. So it shouldn't be any shock that people have been warning computers will rip the fabric of society apart for some time.

At first I was a skeptic. Computers are helping to hallow out the middle class. The effects are real and "retraining" isn't the answer. I understand this all first hand. But in the long run technological progress always has been worth it. I felt the same was true for claims that computers are hampering our ability to think. Google isn't making us stupid. My sympathies lay with Tyler Cowen, who emphasize the cognitive benefits of searching and sorting a surfeit of information.

But the more I read about technology, the more I have to acknowledge some of it's downsides.

Update: Tyler Cowen comments on the story.

Gawker vs. Apple

I'm a little late to this story, but there are a couple important points that have been glossed over. This article makes the case for why Gawker is wrong.

I understand the moral calculus they used. We all feel intuitively that picking up something that someone else left behind is not as bad as seizing it by force, stealth or deception. But in the eyes of the law, it's still stealing. And buying stolen goods is a crime. In those rare cases where a journalist commits a crime and receives the benefit of prosecutorial discretion, it's usually because he can demonstrate there was a compelling public interest at stake. There is no such interest here. The only parties who benefited from Gizmodo's story are Gawker Media and Apple's competitors.

First, Bercovici commits the Cardinal Sin of Ethics: he equates legal with moral. As he says, he understands that they used a moral calculus with intuitive appeal, but "in the eyes of the law" what they did it wrong. QED.

Second, he's just wrong on the last point. Apple's main argument is that by publishing the story, sales of the remaining stock of iPhone 3GS will be depressed, costing them millions. That is probably true. But if people change their preferences when they get new information that means the consumers benefited, and--importantly--consumers gain more than Apple losses. Asymmetric information, like Apple knowing that the new phone is in development while consumers remain ignorant, causes markets the break down and become inefficient. Giving consumers more information shifts things closer to a perfect market and improves welfare. Pretending only Gawker benefited is silly, and the writer should know better--especially since he writes for a business news website.

Apple can argue that the story caused bad PR, but it would be a hard case to make. The story generated buzz about one of their products. The bad PR is a product of their aggression against Gawker, which is a choice they made.

I agree that Gawker "stole" the phone, in legalese. I agree they did it for personal gain--the stories were going to be a big hit and they did their due diligence writing good ones. They also hurt someone's career in the process of improving their own, not exactly, a heroic deed. But the world is probably better off for them having written the stories.