A Sense of Self

The goal of students is often to do well in courses, where performance is measured by letter grade. In cases where students are enrolled in many courses, it becomes more difficult to be focused on each individual course. Grades are meant to act as metrics for gauging student understanding, but does not always accomplish its goal. Group projects have varying dynamics; some of which promote gift exchange, while others condone opportunism. I have not been in many groups where other members were averse to contributing to the group’s success, but when it did happen, the situation was far from desirable. At least partially, the amount of effective teamwork that occurs in a group project is dependent upon the rules for the assignment and the punishment(s) for poor performance/engagement.  David Brooks’ “The Power of Altruism” is complicated when modeling academic group behavior. When considering the conditions of college classes and perceived life after school, where good grades lead to better job/grad school opportunities, the threat of opportunism is too strong for there not to be punishment for lack of contribution. The issue with punishing someone is determining where to draw the line between slacking and participation.

Throughout this post, I will discuss four, unique group project situations. The project is a group paper, like the one that we have been assigned.  The class has 30 students. Each group has three students. Two of the groups have a non-participating/poorly participating group member, who I will call a BAD APPLE. Two of the groups have specialized grading for each member. These four cases are oversimplified, and do not contain all of the possible outcomes, since participation is hard to evaluate. In many situations, I would imagine it is an inefficient use of time to try to determine who contributed to what and how much. Also, to simplify the table, each group with a BAD APPLE only has one, whereas in real life there is no limit. This model also assumes that BAD APPLES have faith in the other group members to get the assignment completed.

Case 1: Everyone gets the same grade. Everyone participates.

Case 2: Everyone gets the same grade. Some groups have a BAD APPLE.

Case 3: Each member gets a specialized grade. Everyone participates.

Case 4: Each member gets a specialized grade. Some groups have a BAD APPLE.

Same Grade. No bad apple.	Same Grade. BAD APPLE
Specialized Grade. No bad apple.	Specialized Grade. BAD APPLE.

Thought I have never graded anything in a university setting, I assume Case 1 is the easiest to grade, because in this case, only ten projects need grading. The students do not mind that they are receiving the same grade as their group members because everyone contributes. The students perform better because they collaborate and form a more cohesive paper. This is not to say that the groups are satisfied with their grades, but instead that they believe that it was okay to grade them as a group. This represents an ideal equilibrium, where both the professor and student are better off.

Case 2 describes a situation where the students who wants to do well in the course the most will complete the assignment. The fully-participating group members must make up for the less active member, broadening the division of labor, and creating a poorer paper than groups who did not have a BAD APPLE. The grader still has ten projects. The students may be disgruntled, which may lead to poorer evals. This situation is unlikely.

Case 3 describes a waste of the professor’s time, but it could also lead to a waste of time for the students. Specialized grading requires a means to evaluate the contribution of each group member, which is more trouble than it’s worth in this scenario, encouraging students to spend their time inefficiently. Also, following the idea of “The Power of Altruism,” students may act selfishly, and focus on their own portion of the paper, as opposed to making it cohesive, lowering the quality of the assignment.

Case 4 describes a catch all scenario, where those who slack are caught, and those that perform well are rewarded. The professor is worse off since they have to grade 30 students on 10 assignments. The students are possibly worse off if they act selfishly, which, following “The Power of Altruism,” is expected. 

Major Decisions

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, “80% of students in the United States end up changing their major at least once.” Also, “on average, college students change their major at least three times over the course of their college career. I thought I was a part of the 20% minority that stuck to their initial major. In retrospect, I realize this was not the only factor that affected my decision to come to U of I as a Chemistry major who was trying to transfer into Chemical Engineering. Not only did I switch out of Chemistry, but I ended up switching to General Studies, then to Economics. I imagine that other students who change their majors go through similar experiences as it relates to their collegiate journey.

I am from New Jersey, so Illinois is a long way from home. I did not want to go to college around where I grew up, because I thought that it would limit my potential growth. I figured that I would naturally hang around people that I was comfortable with, or were comfortable with me, so I would be distracted from my studies. Attending a university where I would be forced to meet new people did not help me focus, as I thought it would, but it did force me to exit my comfort zone.

My parents had, and still have, the ultimate power in where/if I go to college, especially at a relatively expensive school. I had the illusion of choice, which prompted me to, at times, strategically misrepresent my preferences. Deep down, I had reservations regarding what major I would have. If I could go back, I would have tried to figure out what career path I wanted, as opposed to choosing a major based upon which subjects I excelled at in school.

Though I did not always think about it this way, many of my decisions regarding college were morally hazardous. I was afraid to say that I did not know what I wanted to do; that was the truth, but I did not want to stay home for a semester. All of my friends were going to school. My parents always expected me to go into college the fall after I graduated from high school. I never felt like I had much of a choice regarding my future. Also, I knew that ultimately my parents held all of the cards, which in this case manifested as dollars, so it was their choice; I just had to convince them that going far away aligned with their priorities. Countless times they asked me if I was sure that Chemical Engineering was what I wanted to do, but I could not show that I would sometimes waiver in what major I chose. I assumed that they would have discredited my interest and made me go to school somewhere cheaper and closer, since I was not absolutely sure.

I thought I wanted to do Chemical Engineering, because I researched new technologies in my spare time and I wanted to bring new tech into the classroom, sports, and day to day life. Also, I wanted to make a lot of money, and I knew that STEM fields would get me that. I didn’t think that my parents would be okay with me not choosing a major outside of STEM, presumably because they wanted me to be financially well off. U of I has a renowned Chemical Science program and it was far away, which aligned with my interests.

            My father works in IT, and he has a lot of passion for what he does, so I figured computer science would be interesting to everyone. Also, I just really did not want to transfer. I did not do well after my first year, and I grew to hate the way Chemistry was taught, so I decided to follow in my father’s footsteps in the Fall of my Sophomore year. Correspondingly, I transferred into LAS-General Studies so I did not have to pay the extra fees that Chemistry majors do. I would still be able to get what I want in going to school out of state, but also my parents approved of U of I’s STEM programs, so I had their blessing. After taking only one CS class, I learned that it was not for me, and that my happiness was most important in my career. I didn’t want to hate my life, even if it meant sacrificing future income.

            The second semester of my sophomore, I had chosen Economics instead, because I could finish the major in 5 semesters, and I figured I could still be on the cutting edge of technology, even if it was in a different way. I didn’t know that much about the major, aside from 103 which I thoroughly enjoyed; it was a leap of faith. If I could go back, I would have coupled Econ with English or Political Science. It’s never too late to educate oneself, but I have a 4-year deadline to graduate.

Even though I did better and better academically each semester, I found myself having to prove that I was where I needed to be in my life. I cannot quite explain this intuition, in order to follow my hunch, I had to pander toward my parents’ interests to convince them that this was right for me. There was no way they would accept my “intuition,” which led to me never telling the truth about why I wanted to stay at U of I.

** ** ** ** **

            In this post, I wanted to work on telling a story that could be understood by other people. The point I was trying to get across is that sometimes it seems natural to misrepresent reality for what we want. I think I may have failed to connect the passages directly to the course. 

Mirror to the Past

Even though only two of them ended up being about sports, I thought to write about sports for just about every post. Sports organizations, especially from high school, are easy to analyze since they were some of my first experiences within organizations. From what I have read, other students tended to write, especially in older posts, about high school, presumably because they have already been thought about. Also, as a senior in college, I have already thought in depth about what happened. It’s easier for me to see what caused some of the issues that we ran into after time has passes.

Sports are often common experiences amongst people. Most people who I interact with have experiences with a high school sport, band, or club that competes against other schools. When people discuss jobs, or other organizations not associated with high school, they have to explain some of the inner workings of their positions, whereas with high school sports, we know that there is a coach (manager), other players (coworkers), and normally a clearly defined goal (winning). There exceptions to these rules; some teams may be more or less hierarchal or may have a plan to not lose, but these exceptions come with the aforementioned assumptions.

When explaining an organization that is unfamiliar with outside people, it’s difficult to choose what information is critical to their understanding of it. In other posts that I have read, I do not feel like I have enough information of the situation to connect with their experiences. In my post about my business venture, I found myself finding ways to make two sentences out of a concept that may take me three paragraphs. I would rather not write a thousand-word blog post, and I do not think my classmates would like to do the same. As far as my writing structure, I find it helpful to outline what I plan on writing about before I do it. Usually the outline is only about 100 words, but it helps get my thoughts in order and have a flow that another person can understand. When I do a brain dump, my points can get convoluted. I wrote countless papers and I am especially interested in Marxism in literature, so I tended to keep that hat on in my previous posts. Recently, I have been trying to link the prompts to classroom discussions and recent experiences within organizations.

Furthermore, I tend to write about the inefficiencies of past organizations, as opposed to efficiencies. I may just be seeing the glass as have empty, but at times, it seems like a waste to focus on the positives. In theory, it’s good to give the positive things and the negative things equal attention, because knowing both may yield a more objective interpretation of the organization. Also, most of my posts discuss instances of the problem of motivation. Different people are motivated by different things, and it is always a challenge to change my technique depending up the situation. In the moment, it is far more difficult to determine what will or won’t work than retrospectively.

 By incorporating the positives of organizational situations, readers will get a wider scope of the orgs I present. For example, on my basketball team, there was a time at the end of each Saturday practice for people to discuss problems that we were having. At times, conversations got heated, and even as a captain, I found myself frustrated and aggressively expressing my emotions. Our team had three captains, and I was the “nice one”, so when I got upset it seemed to mean a lot. Everything that players brought up did not get incorporated in our day to day operation, but at least everyone knew how everyone else felt. As a teenager, it taught me that I had to speak up when something bothered me, because otherwise it could go unaddressed and make me feel worse.

Most people that I see in class seem to be involved in at least one organization, and if they are not, I am sure they have feelings about UofI or Illinois politics. I would not mind a prompt where people discuss how the organizations that they are a part of affect their college experiences. 

Illinibucks Pay to Win

I am having a bit of difficulty determining how to answer this question, because the scope of the rules regarding the Illinibuck market vastly changes my approach. My intuition is telling me that the market is simpler if students cannot trade Illinibucks between each other. Since everyone is allotted the same amount of currency, the issue of unfairness between consumers is less apparent. For example, if students can trade Illinibucks between each other and they can be used for class registration, people who did not wish to use their Illinibucks could possibly trade them to their friends, who have more desired classes. This could lead to the “High School Class President” problem where more popular people have a larger Illinibuck pools, and correspondingly better access to the front of lines.

A possible remedy for this issue is for there to be a diminishing value of returns for Illinibuck expenditure, but this would make the market less free and it would not make it completely fair for less social students. The issue then becomes: Where should diminishing returns set in?

I do not think Illinibucks should be used to be able to move up in registration times, no matter the price, even if it is set by the university. If the price is too low, Illinibucks become less relevant. For high prices, students would only be able to move up in line for one or two classes. This encourages students to use their currency to be able to register into popular courses. In order to match demand, the price of registering early for the popular course would be close to the value of allotted Illinibucks. Without an auctioning system, time would still determine who got into the class, which is what I am assuming was the issue we were trying to be resolve.

Perhaps the Illinibuck system would be better suited for space reservations in the library during finals and moving up in line in dining halls. These cases have lower stakes than registration, but it would possibly be more convenient to use the currency than to not.
               During finals week, the UGL is a hotspot for study groups, which are always booked up a few weeks before finals, but there are not many limits on how many reservations a person can make. Also, as it stands, there is no way to reserve any of the smaller tables at the UGL. Illinibucks would be a way to limit the amount of reservations a person could make, but it would also be a vessel to institute a reservation system for each table in the library. It would be a time consuming task, and someone would have to be in charge of space reservation for the entire library, but it’s a possibility nonetheless. With an auction system, people who really feel like they need to study there have that availability guaranteed. There are other places for students to study, so this could also encourage students to find other places. Even still, fairness is a concern.

Some days, I am especially hungry, and if there were a system for moving ahead in line, I would use it to get ahead in dining hall lines. I spend a lot of time in lines waiting to eat, when I could be spending my time doing other things like procrastinate and study. Paying a flat rate to move ahead in line would get me past people who did not use their Illinibucks to move up, but I still would have to be behind those who did. There are not many places that I can think of, other than registering for classes, that require “standing” in line. From my experience with lines in college, they can be pretty avoidable.  

At first, I was confused by the question, but the application of this sort of decision is riddled with seemingly necessary rules and it is hard to plug up the loopholes. I’m still not sure that I answered the question the right way, but the prompt was thought-provoking.