A hypothetical question related to education.

[OinkBoink]

Let's say you run an institute that offers a certain course. The evaluation within the course is rigorous and only those who clear the evaluation pass out.

Now, there are 5 applicants for your course but your infrastructure allows for only 4 applicants. Let's say these applicants are A, B, C, D and E

Now, since your infrastructure allows for only 4 applicants, you decide that you will pre-select them on the basis of their high school GPA. So, the GPAs of all the applicants go like this (4 being the max. GPA):

A: 4.0, B: 3.9, C: 3.8, D : 3.7, E: 3.6

So obviously A, B, C and D get selected.

Now, along comes Mr. F who has a 2.8 GPA. He says, "If you let me in your course, I'll pay enough money to you to build infrastructure enough to educate both E and me".

Would you decide to let him in?

As another case, F comes along and says, "If you decide to let me in I will pay you enough money to create infrastructure for me".

Would you decide to let him in, in this case? E gets left out in this case.

Keep in mind that all of them have to go through the same rigorous evaluation standards to pass. If they can't make it through the evaluation, they'd have to drop out.

 

[Meghan54]

Money talks, everything else walks, to paraphrase a popular saying.

 

[disappoint]

Let's say you run an institute that offers a certain course. The evaluation within the course is rigorous and only those who clear the evaluation pass out.

 

[torpid]

Is this a public institution or a private one?

 

[OinkBoink]

Is this a public institution or a private one?

Well, talk about it in either case.

 

[Ruptga]

Why don't you do your own ethics homework?

 

[OinkBoink]

Why don't you do your own ethics homework?

Right.

 

[dank69]

Take F's money, close the institute, and retire in the Phillippines

 

[D1gger]

If the added infrastructure will be utilized for this and all future classes, and you believe you will have candidates to fill the future six slots it makes perfect sense to take the money to add capacity.

It would not be ethical to take F's money to admit him only though. Once you have decided the criteria for admittance will be the best GPA's to fill the existing spaces, you can't ethically jump over E to take F's money and give F the spot.

 

[torpid]

Well, talk about it in either case.

Public institution == hell no
Private institution == no. the program is designed for 4 people and trying to retrofit in 6 people just because you have more money is going to reduce the quality of the program for everyone and require a lot more change than simply allowing more people in.

 

[steppinthrax]

Sports Scholarships Students with 2.8 GPAs .

 

[DrPizza]

I gave this a little deeper thought. I think the answer is, "YES! ABSOLUTELY!"

Let's rephrase the question: You have a certain capacity for teaching students. But, on the condition that you accept a student who many not necessarily deserve to be in your course, you are able to increase your capacity by FIFTY PERCENT! That means that for the next several years, you'll be able to serve 50% more students, solely on the condition that you accept one student into the program who will still need to meet the same level of achievement within the course to pass.

In reality, the ethical question is deeper. Is it ethical to deny 50% more students per year, continuing well into the future, just out of principle to deny 1 student at present time?

 

[DrPizza]

If the added infrastructure will be utilized for this and all future classes, and you believe you will have candidates to fill the future six slots it makes perfect sense to take the money to add capacity.

It would not be ethical to take F's money to admit him only though. Once you have decided the criteria for admittance will be the best GPA's to fill the existing spaces, you can't ethically jump over E to take F's money and give F the spot.

How many college football players, how many college basketball players don't meet the same rigorous criteria that other students face; yet get into various institutions? It's pretty evident that some players are at such a low level that occasionally, some slip below the very minimum level of criteria for athletes as determined by the NCAA & end up spending a year at some junior college, just to meet the NCAA's minimum requirements. [I'm wrong if the NCAA's bare minimum requirements is above many of those university's bare minimum requirements, though I doubt it.]

It's not because of their ability to pay cash, but because of their ability to benefit the university in some other tangible way through their athletic ability.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I would take the money from both studends and even let student G with a 1.6 GPA in. Then, I would curve things in such a way that student G was able to pass all his classes with a higher grade vs students A-F.

 

[CountZero]

I don't see it as totally cut and dry. To a certain extent it makes sense to admit F with cash to pay for E. But you have to assume that aside from infrastructure there is zero hit to the quality of the education given. 4->6 maybe ok. 40->100 maybe not ok even with enough TAs, equipment, space, etc.

Second consideration is even if you don't change the rules for passing by allowing more in you have lowered some perceived value of your institution.

Third consideration is that you may be doing a disservice to F and even E. If it is a difficult program and not just cash strapped but relatively easy then maybe they shouldn't be in it if they are likely to just fail anyways. You are taking their money with no tangible benefit for them since they won't pass (unless admittance carries some benefit alone). This is even worse if E is likely to pass but F will almost certainly fail.

 

[OinkBoink]

I gave this a little deeper thought. I think the answer is, "YES! ABSOLUTELY!"

Let's rephrase the question: You have a certain capacity for teaching students. But, on the condition that you accept a student who many not necessarily deserve to be in your course, you are able to increase your capacity by FIFTY PERCENT! That means that for the next several years, you'll be able to serve 50% more students, solely on the condition that you accept one student into the program who will still need to meet the same level of achievement within the course to pass.

In reality, the ethical question is deeper. Is it ethical to deny 50% more students per year, continuing well into the future, just out of principle to deny 1 student at present time?

But that just seems...wrong in a sense. Kinda like killing one person in exchange for the lives of several others. Or maybe it's right? I'm confused.

 

[slayer202]

short answer, yes.

long answer, yessss.

 

[Texashiker]

Personally, I would drop the person who had the 4.0.

 

[OinkBoink]

In reality, the ethical question is deeper. Is it ethical to deny 50% more students per year, continuing well into the future, just out of principle to deny 1 student at present time?

This extends to a lot of things. So corruption (in the form of paying people for your own needs) will always exist because it (i.e. the money you pay) may bring tangible benefits (to other people) in some form or the other in the future?

 

[Ruptga]

This extends to a lot of things. So corruption (in the form of paying people for your own needs) will always exist because it (i.e. the money you pay) may bring tangible benefits in some form or the other in the future?

Corruption will always exist so long as there are individuals. People are always after their own best interest. Our best interest often coincides with "the rules," but everyone has a point at which they would consider putting themselves first rather than strictly following the rules. For some that's using hollywood accounting to dodge "extra" taxes. For some that's "rounding up" their reported working hours. For some that's rolling through a red light when it is apparent that nobody else is around. For some that's swiping extra candy off another's desk.

Some of my examples are actually important, others aren't. I think it mostly depends on the specific circumstances. But my main point is that "corruption" is as hard to pin down as the people that practice it, because we all practice it to some degree.