The Ethics professor at one of my schools is giving his students the option of donating money to UNICEF in lieu of taking the final exam. If students donate $100, their grade stays the same. $200 means an entire letter grade increase. My question is this: is it ethical to base a grade on the ability to donate a significant amount of money? Certainly, students can still take the exam, but doesn’t this give a huge advantage to students who have extra money just sitting around? Any thoughts?
May 1, 2008 at 12:42 pm |
I would say that it is entirely unethical for a professor to do something like that. First off, it is unfair to students with little money. Second it is unethical to allow a student to “buy” a grade.
May 2, 2008 at 11:46 am |
Yes it is unethical, and it should be reported to the administration.
May 2, 2008 at 1:39 pm |
Mom:
The problem is that the President supported it. I’m pretty sure he ended up not going through with it, because parents called and complained.
May 2, 2008 at 8:50 pm |
I actually wish the whole thing was based on money…I take a loan, buy off the professor and never have to waste my time in a class! That is brilliant!
May 2, 2008 at 9:39 pm |
In a way, a lot of school is based on money. Think of all the school projects that depend on the parents buying supplies. And then, of course, there is the gross inequalities in school funding. If buying your grade is unethical, so is the inequality in education today.
May 3, 2008 at 8:24 pm |
“My question is this: is it ethical to base a grade on the ability to donate a significant amount of money?”
From what I’ve heard from people in the class, Tim included, it wasn’t about “buying your grade.” The reason he gave the three options was to further drive in the point of “is it ethical”. Not, “is it ethical to buy your grade,” but “is it ethical to not help those in need when you have the ability to do so and the opportunity is placed in front of you.”
It was definitely one of those things where you would have had to be in the class to understand what was going on. It is interesting that the students who had the money to donate were all for it, and the ones who didn’t immediately said, “it’s unethical” (i.e., it’s not fair that we still have to take the exam). I think the point was to find the “most” ethical option, which, before they canceled the whole thing, most of the students had decided to take option #2, donate the $100, AND still take the exam, so they weren’t essentially “buying” their grade.
Regardless, I think the students will remember that part of their class more than the rest of the semester. It just makes you think.
May 3, 2008 at 8:26 pm |
Also, it wasn’t just to UNICEF, students could donate to a Christian International organization as well.
May 3, 2008 at 9:48 pm |
mhogue:
The details I gave were only the ones that I heard from the students. I may not have had the whole story, but that was the reason I didn’t name the professor or even the school. While I understand his mindset, I still don’t agree with it. I’m glad that it was canceled, because it is, in a way, buying your grade. Also, the reason people without the money thought it was unethical versus the people with money might be because the people with money were the ones that benefited.
May 4, 2008 at 1:20 am |
i could sit through an entire sermon from a popular local pastor and might be very convinced that he is right, doesnt mean he is. Those who are good teachers tend to teach their own motives.
My 2 cents.
May 4, 2008 at 1:21 am |
*sometimes tend to teach their own motives.
May 5, 2008 at 7:46 am |
becky:
I’m glad it was canceled because I am still $100 richer! LOL
And what is wrong with other people benefiting from something? I didn’t know college courses were a competition.
anon:
As I said earlier, I don’t think the professor was trying to prove he was right about anything, he was trying to make the students decide for themselves what was ethical. That was the object lesson and a lot of people missed out on it because they were too busy complaining that someone else was going to get a better grade than they were.
May 5, 2008 at 7:50 am |
becky:
I hope you aren’t frustrated with me. I am only commenting in the spirit of the debate. I’m not trying to squelch anyone’s opinions. =)
May 5, 2008 at 9:45 am |
Becky: What if the point of the whole thing was to teach something…what if his whole point was about ethics as Mhogue is saying? Does that not change anything? I am almost of the mind that it is more unethical to be more concerned over a grade than it is to be over suffering. It is true that I could never afford to give, should I be unhappy that some can and they make a difference?
Stated another way: Some very rich people give millions to very important causes, they also receive tax breaks…should we be opposed to this as well…because we can not afford the same tax breaks?
I guess what I am saying most importantly is this: It is a weird thing to be more worried about a grade than about suffering. An even stranger thing to be angry because some benefited from the ability to give and those who could not give did not. This is not educational inequity, those who are truly on the other end of the inequitable stick would not be at this college…I know you may say that there are lots of people without money and I am going to point you to the rest of the world. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908762.html)
New question: When Jesus gave a full days wage to the worker who came at the end of the day was he being unethical?
May 5, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
Dave:
I’m sure the whole point was to teach something, but I feel like it could have been designed a little more intentionally. Springing something like this on students is not the best way to get the most money to help people. I think a group project to raise money would have been better, especially if he announced it earlier in the semester.
Also, you said “it is a weird thing to be more worried about a grade than about suffering.” That’s 100% true. The problem comes when students think about the grade as the reason to give money. What is the real motivation for giving? It should be to help others, not to get a grade. Some students even talked to me about giving the money, getting their receipt, and then cancelling the donation. This isn’t necessarily the professor’s fault, but the situation is hard to carry out with the right intentions.
Finally, the intention of my previous statement about educational inequity might have been misunderstood. Let me reword it. If people get upset about the “unfairness” of this situation, they better be up in arms about the unfairness of educational inequity. While I may not agree with the logic of this ethical question in an Ethics class, it’s not a worldwide injustice that is causing a spiral of poverty that is very difficult to escape. By the way, I would never compare a college student’s relative lack of resources with the extreme poverty around the world. I may have been home schooled, but I hope you don’t think I’m that ignorant. I know I make more money than about 90% of the world. Hope this clarifies things a bit.
May 5, 2008 at 9:03 pm |
No I understood what you were saying…I just have issues with how self-important post-secondary education has become…
I am just trying to get at the issue behind why people find this so offensive. I am not even sure I hold an opinion on the whole thing.
However I still believe that the offense here for most people is one of fairness. Are ethics and fairness the same thing? Is everything fair? Does it have to be? I think most people who oppose it are responding with a emotional response to a perceived slight…none the less:
I renew my question: When Jesus gave a full days wage to the worker who came at the end of the day was he being unethical? Was he being unfair?
May 5, 2008 at 9:37 pm |
No, He was not being unfair because the workers who started first agreed to the wage and the ones who started later agreed to what “He” thought was fair. He was not being unethical because it was his to do with what he wanted.
May 6, 2008 at 1:43 pm |
No, ethics and fairness are definitely not the same thing. I also do not know where I stand on this issue, because I agree with Becky that the grade should not be the motivation to donate, and before the issue even got brought up, I’m sure no one was planning on donating to a charitable organization.
But I also know of at least one student so far that is going to donate money anyway, even though their grade will not be affected. So I can see how the whole exercise may have helped students understand that they can use their money to help those who are suffering even though they themselves will not directly benefit from it.
The exercise definitely drove the point home in the minds of some, while others merely stumbled over the issue of “fairness” and completely missed the issue of “ethics”.
May 7, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
Ok, you’re right, ethics and fairness are definitely not the same thing In Jesus’s example he was “fair” but because ethics are based on culture he may not of been “ethical.” But he was right! I think there may be times when being fair or ethical is still not right.
In the case of the ethics prof he was not “fair” in offering a change of grade for money no matter where the money was going. He also was not ethical “because it is, in a way, buying your grade. Also, the reason people without the money thought it was unethical versus the people with money might be because the people with money were the ones that benefited.”
As for giving to the poor, the students I know, who compaired to most of their peers ARE poor, are some of most giving people I know, both with their small amount of earthly goods but also with their time.
May 15, 2008 at 11:54 am |
this is a fascinating discussion. I have been thinking about a similiar issue since a friend whom I very much admire, told me how her parents disciplined her and simultaneously taught her to care for the poor (she has given up opportunities with much more privilege in order to use her talents for a poor urban school).
WHen she was in trouble as a kid, her parents would “fine” her out of her allowance. The fine would go into a jar for the charity of her choice. Her mom’s reasoning was that she “committed a crime” and needed to pay. at first i thought this was weird, but she counts it with developing a sense of justice and charity in her life.