Asymmetrical Information

Hmm, we all took stimulants before tests - it's just we were pretty much limited to caffeine. They just have better stimulants today ;)

I'm roughly our host's age, and I don't think I took any test, standardized or otherwise, in a state other than doped up on caffeine, between 1989 and today. My standard has been two Excedrin and a DP (sugar AND caffeine) before any test for years. Ritalin et al are the next obvious step.

As for calling it cheating because it can't be maintained constantly, I don't know about that. Most university grades seem to be based heavily on 1) papers written (in practice) in extended all-night sessions, and 2) tests which may be prepared for in the exact same manner. Since SAT and LSAT are designed to measure performance in school (not in society or as a lawyer, respectively) it seems valid to have circumstances be the same. Drug tolerance may well be a determining factor in school performance, in practice.

Personally, I've always wondered if a scotch or two would be a good way to prep for a test if one were subject to testing anxiety. A drink has been the time-honored prep for anxiety-inducing acts like proposing, marrying, flying, and the after-dinner address, why not a test? It is entirely possible the performance loss from being slightly tipsy would be more than offset by the performance gain in avoiding the anxiety, at least at reasonably low doses. (Not recommended for driver's tests and flight tests.)

You should have titled your Bush endorsement similarly.

Is it "cheating", though? Really?

Kleimann's arguments don't convince me (though, in fairness, he rarely does on any subject) of that.

His argument that doping would be prevalent but not help everyone (and is thus unfair) doesn't convince me because, of course, the same argument applies to courses of study and cramming, and I don't see that drugs are any different.

Relatedly, and more effectively, he suggests that a drug-related score improvement does not indicate ability to succeed as a law student, which is the whole point of the LSAT (this would apply, of course, roughly to any test in its context). This may be true, but likewise, ability to cram well (even if one does not retain the information) is probably of dubious utility - and at any rate, even if such students can eventually cram to pass the bar, they won't be good lawyers.

Sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me, and the inevitable result of relying on scores from a single test.

(I'm also unconvinced that drugs that help one score well on the LSAT won't be helpful while one is a law student or lawyer...)

I find this discussion interesting because I have a hard time believing that any stimulants will actually improve test-taking ability on testws such as the LSAT. Unless they've changed the test radically in the last 25 years, the LSAT was designed more as an aptitude test than a test of general knowledge. It was also somewhat of an endurance test, with no breaks. As I recall, I finished all parts except for one and obtained a decent score. I don't know how "super-coffee" would assist, but then, I've never taken any illegal drugs, so I just don't know.

There's supposedly a nasal spray that will temporarily raise your IQ. That would seem to be even more effective prescription pills. [insert Kleiman bashing, use of nasal sprays in voting booths here]

I drank coffee for the first time before my SAT - I am convinced it cost me points. ;)

The problem may be genuine, and the morality it describes clearly deficient, but I don't think the Kleiman post describes the system broadly enough.

>But test-taking is part of a competitive process
>where the (astonishingly valuable) prizes are the
>small number of places at the top colleges and
>professional schools.

You can't take these drugs 24 hours a day. Eventually, in some real-world setting, you're going to have to produce, and do so in unpredictable circumstances. (To the extent that this isn't true, the insularity of academe is its own problem.) Economics will probably diminish the worth of these "(astonishingly valuable) prizes" eventually.

I work in Hollywood, where lots of pretty girls sleep their way to the top. Well, actually, they sleep their way up a rung or two. Then the narcosis of their beauty loses its tang, and they have to produce just like everyone else. It ain't the end of the world.

Sigivald:

I'm not sure you're being entirely fair to Kleiman's argument. As I understand it, there are two parts to it.

1. If these drugs have a short-term beneficial effect, ultimately everyone will be required to use them b/c of the enormous importance of these tests. The problem, from his perspective, is that(unlike cramming)occassional planned drug use may have big, long, negative effects.

2. As you note, it is the problem of the importance of a single test. But these tests can be that important, and access to a good professional school can have dramatic impact on one's career 10 or 20 years down the line. And we are horrible, in the marketplace, at determining relative merit of various workers, so you may not be able to fix it down the line by being a better lawyer. (I think Jane's written about schools as sorting mechanisms for employers, though she probably disagrees about the "horrible in the marketplace bit").

That said, it's out there. What are you going to do about it except get better at measuring ability in the real world.

Although, obviously, having to affix a urine sample to your SAT test sheet would be funny.

Personally, I've always wondered if a scotch or two would be a good way to prep for a test if one were subject to testing anxiety.... It is entirely possible the performance loss from being slightly tipsy would be more than offset by the performance gain in avoiding the anxiety, at least at reasonably low doses."

I tried something like that the first time I took the SAT. I took a No-Doz (caffeine) to keep me alert and a capsule of valerian (natural herb from which Valium was originally synthesized) to settle my nerves. Naturally it worked the opposite way, and I was falling asleep on my feet while shaking from caffeine jitters.

Still scored a 1380.

Cripes, Cridland - Hollywood? Have you seen the idea for "Election Club"? It's like 4 posts down. (And credit due, it's really Karl's insight).

The market awaits you.

I'm not sure of the dynamics of whatever sectors Mr. Kleiman works in, but in those I've been in (commodities trading, enterprise software) ability to appropriately manage your stimulant intake for maximal performance is seen not so much as a moral failing, but rather as a baseline job skill. You certainly weren't going to do well in jobs that required sustained manic activity or 100 hour ship-or-die weeks without being able to master your own nervous system, using all of the tools at your disposal. I can't imagine that law school is much different.

Back in the mid-80's, they cracked down on cocaine use at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Apocryphally, this caused the various trading firms to alter their recruiting practices. Instead of hiring traders who performed well on cocaine, they hired people who acted like they were on cocaine even while sober. Explained a lot, really.

Hi Jane,

I was wondering if you were Canadian or British. I noticed a lot of "colour"s and "programme"s in your writing and wondered why. Thanks.

Cutout,

Jane is a New Yorker, however, she has been brainwashed by her employer to use British spelling. I don't think the brainwashing extends to her identity, tho; I think she still considers herself an American.

Brings up an interesting point, tho: does she still sound American, or is she developing a British accent? I've neither met her nor seen her on TV, but the comprehensiveness of her spelling change makes me suspect that the entire language center of her brain has been affected...

I find the use of drugs for nonrecreational purposes disgraceful...

Shucks, kids were taking amphetamines (benzedrine?) to cram for tests when I started college in '71. Never seemed to do them any good in the long run.

Me, I just learned the subject cold during the term, did a quick review, got a good night's sleep, and stayed calm through the test. No sweat. I was there to learn something, not to get grades.

But if this practice of using stimulants has increased, the culprit seems obvious: all the Ritalin the schools push at boys that may be ADHD, or may just need some real discipline. It sounds like a lot of them learn to depend on drugs, and tell their friends how great they are too.

That reaction is not universal: I was definitely ADHD, Ritalin helped a lot, but the side effects were unpleasant enough that I got off it as soon as possible and ever since I won't even take a Tylenol until I really, really need it...

I'm with Dave. I work in a profession (actuary) where numerous high-stakes tests are part of the qualification process; stimulant use in prepping for and taking these tests is the norm. Yes, the only stimulant I know people are using is caffeine--but when you start monitoring intake, detoxing beforehand to maximize impact and then drinking 1000 mg of caffeine before the exam (which leaves you nauseated and trembling after the exam is over), dissolving No-Doz in water because coffee is banned in the exam room--you are using caffeine as a drug. If some prescription stimulant works better, I certainly don't see the harm.

I'm skeptical about the efficacy of stimulants in increasing test scores.

I used ECA stack supplements (ephedrine/caffeine/aspirine) fairly regularly until the FDA banned ephedrine earlier this year. They were great for turning my daily 8-mile run from a chore into a pleasure, a godsend whenever I had to get by on little sleep, and a hell of a lot of fun when combined with alcohol. However, I'm pretty sure that along with the elation and energy boost came a shorter attention span and slightly reduced capacity for problem solving. I was probably a more productive programmer without ephedrine than with, because I'd be less susceptible to distracting thoughts (also better able to resist the urge to, say, play air guitar along with Pete Townshend ;)).

Unless I was completely exhausted from lack of sleep, I would much rather take a test stimulant-free.

I had a behavioral pharmacology professor who said--based on firsthand experience--that methylphenidate (Ritalin) was readily available and widely used by the undergraduate population at his school in the 1950's, before it was a strictly scheduled substance.

See Stimulant Use in Extended Flight Operations for the military uses of amphetamines. I believe the ban discussed in the article has been rescinded.

The mathematician Paul Erdos used amphetamines most of his life in the belief that it improved his ability to do mathematics.

So the claim that amphetamines can't be used to improve job performance without causing long term damage seems dubious.

In general there seems to be a somewhat irrational prejudice against drugs that don't cure some disease or defect but instead improve normal performance.

Wow -- this is an eye-opener! I didn't realize how seriously people took their drugs. As for Valium, I don't believe that the statement above about valerian is accurate. I could be wrong, but Valium was a synthetic analog of Librium, which was discovered by a chemist in a serendipitous manner.

On a 'similar-but-different' note, I've heard of people taking SSRIs (like Prozac) to "improve" their social skills before a job interview or the like.

I suspect that any improvement would be a result of the placebo effect (assuming they take one dose before the interview, and aren't on it regularly), because it takes a couple of weeks to kick in.

Same idea... get a edge on the non-users.

Comments are Closed.