There's something about Yuwei

A Hack on Education

Education is regarded as the most essential system in modern society to civilise human beings. And exams are the most common parameter, and are considered as the most effective one, in the current education system, for encouraging learning, motivating studying and perhaps also selecting "elite class". Many of us share the memory of how depressed it was to take an exam of the subject that we hated a lot, of how desperate we were trying all sorts of means to get passed exams. And these means include getting help from our peers.

One day, a free software developer, Zufus, told me his heroic story in the high school. His Latin teacher asked students to translate Latin into Italian in an exam. He and most of his friends hated this exam and found a way to hack it. They used the most common method to help each other get over it -- writing answers on a note and passing it around during the exam. He and the other friend, Paolo, decided to translated question 1 and question 2 respectively and exchanged the notes. However, his friend changed his mind at the last minute and did not exchange his note with Zufus. Their friendship thus came to the end because of Paolo's betray.

This way of helping each other get through exams (or, for some people it means "cheating") is not unfamiliar to most of us. Most of us hate exams. But we are all good at some modules and bad at some others (of course there are always some genius who are good at everything). Although there was a risk of being caught when cheating (by the teacher or the watcher), it seemed to make sense, in children's little minds, for those good at mathematics to help those good at literature, and vice versa, to make everyone pass exams. Taking this risk was considered as brave among peers. One had to have courage, valued friendship more than anything, and not afraid of being punished. Hence, the person who helped peers the most was admired as a hero. When reading this article, you know well whether you benefited from this mutual-help model or not when taking exam.

For the past years, particularly after the invention of the peer-to-peer and file-sharing technologies and networks, there is a similar practice of file-sharing emerging. Uploading and downloading files, particularly copyrighted MP3, DVD etc., have become a common practice in today's ICT world. While this act sometimes involves swapping illegal files, and thus the risk of being caught (by FBI, for instance) emerges, it is still celebrated in an Internet era. This sharing practice even drives the computer manufacturer Apple to invent iPods. Even though RIAA & MPAA still try to interrupt P2P technologies (through lobbying to make bills such as Induct Act and taking legal actions such as suing consumers), the practice of file-sharing seems to be irresistible, and there are more and more voices related to freedom of information appearing in the society, go endorse and justify this behaviour of sharing information goods.

This sharing is actually a mutual-help act. It is similar to the traditional file-sharing (ie. cheating by passing notes around) in schools. In terms of file-swapping through P2P network, since one holds something other people do not have, it appears to be a good idea to exchange goods based on each other's comparative advantages. It makes sense because it lowers costs and sometimes even helps to contact with people who share the same interests in films, music etc.. Through mutual-help, much innovation in mundane world also happens, notably in the case of the free software development. Hence, doesn't this mundane experience on file-sharing sound like a dejavu in schools?

Cross-referencing the case of Internet file-swapping and helping each other getting through school exams by an illegal mean (passing notes sharing information), there are a number of questions I’d like to ask:

1. How come people dare to take risk of committing crime (e.g. exchanging copyrighted files or helping each other in exams), even though they know there is a risk of being caught?

2. While people in modern society propose a powerful argument of supporting file-swapping based on the features of digital goods, how come an alternative file-sharing practice sound less reasonable/acceptable in schools (cheating by passing notes around during the exams) (and students often feel guilty)?

3. If the rules of the game/exam change (ie. file-sharing is no longer regarded as prohibited), would that influence people's practices and attitudes? What are the consequences in schools and in the ICT world respectively?

Following on a pragmatist logic, whether something is reasonable or not depends on whether this act or matter is useful in everyday lives. This stream of thinking drives us to challenge, negotiate and change some meanings of social norms and social rules. While the file-sharing appears to be more useful for modern human systems (e.g. software development, building a digital society etc.), the practice, though originally objected by some predominant institutions in the society, would gradually be defined and redefined, examined and re-examined. Even under the strict law, the risk of being caught is compensated by other more practical and collective incentives. While it turns out that cooperation and sharing facilitate most of modern lives, the concepts of intellectual property, ownership, or other related notions are under review. In other words, some social norms and social rules that decide how a society should work is coerced to change because of new technologies as well as how the technologies are applied.

In a parallel course, the risk of being caught during exam was less significant for Zufus and his peers. There were other matters they valued more. Hence, the risk for them was minor than other things. However, when someone’s risk perception changed, a conflicting interest emerged, and so was their relationship at risk.

However, it is worth asking, why would people constantly attempt to conduct prohibited mutual-help acts? Is this a human nature of taking risk, or is it a human nature of mutual-help? Is prohibition (e.g. school disciplines, law), which we were and still are told to follow, unchallengeable? If mutual-help is a human nature, why shouldn’t we encourage information-exchanging, file-swapping, and knowledge-sharing? Given students’ different talents, why shouldn’t we encourage students to work together to complete a learning task, but introduce a dreadful exam system instead?

The current education system tends to encourage competition among pupils rather than cooperation. Exams are set to assess learners’ abilities, competences and talents. Exams decide whether students are clever or not, in the definition of an orthodox judgement. This stream of thinking ignores that each pupil is unique and is good at something. While the value of competition overrides that of cooperation, current education systems fail to appreciate diverse talents in our society, and also fail to facilitate intellectual exchange.

Furthermore, compared with the increasingly important copyleft issue, while the alternative file-sharing practice is less justified in schools, it also shows how conservative and rigid our current education systems are. And most of us did not realise that we are all trapped by this educational cell. We take it for granted that cheating during exam is illegal. We forget to ask why the education system has to work in this way; why do pupils have to be forced to compete with each other, rather than cooperate with each other. Encouraging pupils to help each other seems to make them happier. After all, if the rule were different, perhaps Zufus and Paolo's friendship would not end, because of their different risk-taking attitude and different values. They could have happily worked together to pass the exams, without feeling guilty.

To conclude, this article aims at showing how the current education system can and should be improved given a peculiar phenomenon, file-sharing network, that has been happening in our ICT world in the past years. I argue how a common practice - sharing -- is given different meanings in different contexts. I use Zufus' story and the example in current ICT world to exemplify that whether a practice is legal or illegal, justified or unjustified, depends on different perceptions of risks, as well as how social norms and social rules are set. The former can be seen in the commonality of Zufus' case and the MP3 file-swapping. From a risk-management perspective, the actors weigh the risks (e.g. of being caught) and other values (e.g. friendship, and more fluid flow of information in case of file sharing) on the scale with pragmatist indications. Choices are made through negotiating the meanings of values. To demonstrate the latter, I then continue to challenge a premise of a taken-for-granted structure of the exam system and the intellectual property rights. I show how the need of taking risks to break the laws of society is in fact a symptom of dreadful laws that are not meeting the actual needs and human nature. In the case of mp3, the current society could better make a policy to facilitate free flows of information, where the negligible cost of sharing and accessing justifies universal access. In the case of school exams, the current society could make an exam system based on cooperation rather than on competition.

Having said that, I am not suggesting that cheating during an exam or breaking laws should be encouraged or justified. I try to question whether an exam system, a competition model, is the best way of encouraging learning. And if this system could be reviewed, I argue that, the human nature of mutual-help in different forms (e.g. cooperation, sharing and exchanging tangible or intangible goods, helping each other, etc.) should be addressed more vigorously in schools. While our society values another human nature (ie. competition) more than cooperation, this unbalanced view will lead to an asymmetrical development and more social problems (e.g. children are depressed and frustrated because of exams and peer competition). To make our children happier, pupils should be taught how to cooperate with each other and helping with each other, rather than competing with each other. When they grow up, they will know how to work together to make the society better. That is what an Internet society entitles, and so does a knowledge society.

Labels: hack