Shots in the Dark

Photo from MSNBC.com

This is a new species of monkey discovered in the Democratic Republic of Congo by researcher John Hart. Amazing, isn’t it?

I’ve been meaning to post this for some time—some of the most informed and thoughtful commentary on the cheating scandal can be found over at Harry Lewis’ blog, Bits and Pieces. Highly recommended.

Here’s a potential bombshell: the idea, beginning to emerge in rumor and press accounts, that many of the Harvard students involved in the cheating scandal are athletes.

According to Boston.com,

“Coaches are taking certain steps to prepare us for the worst,” one player told The Crimson.

One sign that suggests to me this is a real possiblity: an introductory course on Congress (I mean…really?) with a take-home exam. This has “gut” written all over it.

Sports Illustrated reports that basketball co-captain Kyle Casey is withdrawing from the university after being implicated in the scandal. The other co-captain, Brandyn Curry, may follow suit.

Harvard has dramatically elevated the profile of its basketball team and, some say, lowered its academic recruiting standards in the process. Is the university now paying a price for success on the court? And why did it care so much about that success anyway?

And here’s another possibility: Is Harvard’s recent string of victories over Yale in football analogous to the Red Sox World Series wins in 2004/2007—victories tainted by cheating in one form or another?

(Thanks to the poster below who pointed this out.)

The Times has an interesting piece on the sometimes arbitrary-seeming rules of golf—and the fact that golfers obey them religiously, even self-reporting violations that could cost them millions of dollars.

Unlike athletes in other sports — some events at the London Games come to mind — golfers accept that there’s no difference between the letter and the spirit of the rules.

He added, “Guys call stuff on themselves, and it says a lot about what this game is all about.”

McDowell had turned himself in for brushing a leaf with his club while lining up to take a shot—a two-stroke penalty that no one would have noticed beside himself.

As Harvard investigates its alleged culture of cheating—or at least a major and embarrassing incident of apparently mass cheating on a take-home exam—it might be worth looking at why golfers with so much at stake act so honorably.

Ryan Moore, who called a penalty on himself this year in Charlotte, N.C., when his ball moved on the green after he had addressed it, said the sport had to be self-policing because the field of play was so spread out.

“There’s nobody watching over you…”

Kind of like a take-home exam, right?

The Times doesn’t do a good job of explaining golf’s culture of integrity, but a few theories might include that it’s a small community with deeply held traditions and a culture that values honoring those traditions. While individual golfers are certainly playing for themselves, they also recognize that they are part of a larger community and a long tradition in which strict adherence to rules is valued. Also, there’s a proactive element of self-reporting involved: You not only adhere to the rules, but you report yourself if you break them, even unintentionally—something which is highly respected by your peers.

How many of the students involved in Harvard’s cheating scandal are living up to those standards? (Not a rhetorical question; for all I know, some are.) And if not, why not?

Polls FInd Hints of Convention Bounce for Obama.

—The NYT, 9/8/12

Conventions Draw Crowds But Sway Few Voters.

—Same paper, same day.

In the Times, RIchard Perez-Pena argues that cheating at college is commonplace, even among “high achievers.”

Studies of student behavior and attitudes show that a majority of students violate standards of academic integrity to some degree, and that high achievers are just as likely to do it as others. Moreover, there is evidence that the problem has worsened over the last few decades.

The problem, according to RPP, stems from a) the fact that it’s gotten much easier to cheat, and b) students don’t get the same moral education that they used to.

Reluctantly, given who’s making the argument and its unfortunate findings, I’m inclined to agree with this. I think of all those young people who steal music and see absolutely nothing wrong with that; why wouldn’t the same apply to cheating on a test. It’s simply a different kind of appropriation of intellectual property.

RPP doesn’t get into this, but I wonder about the effects of two things: the bad economy and the increased competition from foreign students due to globalization. And do these foreign students cheat less or more than American ones? Do American students feel like they have to cheat to compete—or because students from other cultures cheat, so they have to cheat to keep up?

Harvard’s Howard Gardiner attributes the rise in cheating to a decline in moral values and, well, greed.

He said the attitude he has found among students at elite colleges is: “We want to be famous and successful, we think our colleagues are cutting corners, we’ll be damned if we’ll lose out to them, and some day, when we’ve made it, we’ll be role models. But until then, give us a pass.”

One other question I would pose: When students see Harvard professors who don’t teach, who plagiarize, who use ghostwriters, who make up data, who are paid to write factually challenged articles for national magazines, and are more generally rewarded for such behaviors than they are punished, how can you blame them for cheating? Why should the students be more moral than the professors who are supposed to guide them?

…after falling into a pool at the Democratic Convention. (Insert liquidity joke here.)

Here’s “Labrador,” a new Aimee Mann song—always a good thing. The album, Charmer, is out September 18.

Anyone else watch Bill Clinton speak last night? Hell of a speech. I hadn’t really liked the way the night was going—Sandra Fluke and Elizabeth Warren felt a little too dark for me, a little too pessimistic. Fluke’s speech about what America would be like under Romney wasn’t factually wrong, but it felt ominous and kind of scary—not the kind of impression you want to leave centrist/independent voters with.

But Clinton? Well, he looked great, for one thing—fit and youthful and vigorous, but with that distinguished white hair. His voice is full of warmth and charm, and he’s smart enough to deliver tough language with a smile. He is a charming rogue even now, and you just can’t help but like the guy.

Yes, he went on about seven minutes too long. But as I listened to Clinton, I just kept thinking, Thank God someone is finally calling out the Republicans on their bullshit. Clinton’s speech held one’s attention because it felt true. Clinton eviscerated the anti-Obama arguments of Romney and Ryan with common sense: Of course we haven’t solved all our problems yet; no president could have done that in four years. And part of the reason we haven’t solved everything is because the Republicans don’t want to. And however that plays as politics, it is bad for the country.

Perhaps most of all, I appreciated the vision of America Clinton laid out. “We believe that ‘we’re all in this together’ is a far better philosophy than ‘you’re on your own.'” Exactly—straightforward and simple.

And I loved it when Clinton pointed out that though he disagreed with Republicans frequently, “I never learned to hate them the way that the far right that controls their party seems to hate our president.” It feels true; it is true. Both parts of that sentence.

And how could you argue with this evisceration of the Romney reason for running:

In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was actually pretty simple—pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.

It feels true because it is true.

It was wonderful to see Clinton back on that stage, reminding the Democrats what they stand for and the country what it can be. For all his failings, we are lucky to have him.