A student’s dilemma- To cheat or Not
If you are a student, you would agree that this pandemic has changed a lot in the manner we studied, more so, we gave exams. The online mode of exams is the new normal for most of us, and even if the classes may resume after few more months, our university has successfully devised a way to take our exams, which they will keep using occasionally in future too. The traditional excuses of not giving exams may not work post the pandemic. But is the mode of online exams actually efficient? Should we keep the changed mode of exams without changing the way questions are formed. And, which section of students get the most benefit of this new system? Let’s dive into some game theory to find out.
Consider there is a class of two students, Arun and Bhavik (A and B). Say there are upcoming exams in their college which is of online nature. As there are many departments and students, with fewer professors and basic technology available, it is not feasible for the college to monitor each student during the exam. These two students are also very efficient and would not get caught if they decided to cheat in the exam. Therefore, each student (here A and B) has two actions available, to cheat or not cheat. We create a simple matrix to show their payoffs.
A quick look at the numbers. The first number in each pair represents the payoff Arun receives. Think of it as the benefit or happiness he receives, the more the better. The second number is for Bhavik. Note that these numbers take their relative values largely based on how much can the person score. A payoff of 3 means the score (and the happiness) was higher than the payoff of 2, and this 2 is better than 1. We notice that the payoff associated with a person even if he cheats lowers to 2 from 3 if the other does not cheat. This is due to the guilt and the lowered sense of achievement when one cheated in the exam but the other person who got lower marks was honest.
A trained mind in economics would have by now figured the two Nash Equilibriums, when both cheats and when both don’t. For all others, there is simple math involved here, allow me to take you through.
When A decides to cheat, we are operating on the 1st row. The payoffs A can get is 3 or 2. B now has two choices in the first row, i.e., the second numbers in both pairs. A payoff of 3 would be better than 1, so B will also cheat. Now, if A choose to not cheat, we are in the second row, B again has to choose between cheating or not cheating. But this time, both payoffs equal 2 and so he is indifferent. Since in one situation B decides to cheat and in the other he is indifferent between the two, we say B has a weakly dominant strategy to cheat, i.e., he would try to cheat. A similar analysis for two situations (column wise) given to A when B decides to cheat and not cheat would tell us that A also has a weakly dominant strategy to cheat. Therefore, for both to cheat is the best possible strategy for both, we call it Nash equilibrium. (The strategy of both non cheating is also by definition Nash equilibrium as both does not have the absolute incentive to unilaterally deviate from their positions, but a 3,3 would rank higher that 2,2. Also, with repeated exams, both would realize that getting 3,3 is better for both that 2,2 and thus they would coordinate to cheat).
This game shows a larger perspective than just finding Nash equilibrium. See how conveniently the strategy of one student cheating and the other isn’t, gets eliminated. This is because when one student decides to cheat, the other student will understand that its best for him to follow the first so as to avoid getting lower marks. It’s possible that a non-Nash result can be obtained in some initial exams but over time, for both to cheat would be best for them.
It appears good (and sometimes soothing) to say marks don’t matter, but in reality, they do, at various stages. From getting into a college, or a minimum threshold for placements, getting scholarships, your image in your circle. It’s unreasonable for us to expect students to not try possible ways to increase marks. They have understood the competition there is outside as well as how much of their coursework actually help them in future, say in a job. Its sad, yet true, that a growing number of students don’t see college education as major value addition, but as a requirement to apply at various places and be called graduates.
To do away with exams is not the solution, but finding alternatives is. One could be the open book exams, introduced in CBSE few years back. A similar model needs to be adopted by our universities. Furthermore, our question papers need to change. Professors can no longer ask a definition readily available in textbooks or net, focus should be on application. Applying what we have studied to real world. This requires hard work and time, ample creativity too. Another alternate should be higher focus on assignments and projects, rather than one exam of 50 percent weightage in a semester. It will also keep students on their toes and enhance learnings in regular intervals. Professors really need to step up their game and adapt to changing environments. The pandemic has given us an opportunity to change our examination structure for the good, let’s not leave this opportunity. Let’s embrace the new normal and make relevant changes to make all of us better.
Shivansh Gupta