Banning neurostimulators will force students to compete fairly
Modern pharmacology produces a whole scattering of drugs that improve concentration and short-term memory: Ritalin, Adderall and other nootropics . These medicines are really effective and are often used by students during exam preparation. According to official figures, in 2009, Adderall accepted 6.4% of all American students . There are estimates that in the US, up to 60% of students take various stimulants of the nervous system (except caffeine). With such a scale of drug use, it turns out that modern indicators of academic performance in American universities can be called the result of chemical exposure.
It would seem that if these medicines are really effective, then universities should pour them into the water and force students to drink without fail? But in practice, everything turns out quite the opposite.
In 2008, the British Academy of Medical Sciences recommended universities to prohibit the use of “educational drugs” by healthy students as a form of cheating and unfair competition, comparing them with doping in sports. Here we are not talking about the health risks of specific drugs, namely, unfair competition. Even in the case of the development of nootropics without any side effects, students should pass urine tests to confirm the purity of the "doping", say academics of this authoritative organization. Moreover, they even want to prohibit the intake of "doping" by intellectual workers, although this directly contradicts the practice now adopted in private companies, which, in order to squeeze the maximum out of the employee, deliberately distribute free coffee in the office in unlimited quantities.
In October last year, the first precedent happened: the Wesleyan University in Connecticut officially included the use of nootropes in the list of violations of the student’s code ( The Code of Non-Academic Conduct ), for which a student may be expelled from school.
')
This interpretation of the use of drugs causes intuitive discomfort. Universities consider nootropics an unethical medicine, because a student gets a dishonest advantage over other students who cannot get a medicine or have no money for it. Indeed unfair. Universities cannot equalize students by prescribing pills on a mandatory basis, because it is illegal, after all, drugs have some side effects, for example, the same Ritalin, according to some studies, is addictive and prohibited in many countries, including including in Russia.
Therefore, the only way to create fair competition is to prohibit the use of drugs by other students.
From a philosophical point of view, this is another proof that the model of modern society works on the principle of creating maximum competition. See for yourself: the system offers monetary incentives for the winners at every stage of this endless race. School graduates compete in entrance exams, students compete for a scholarship, and then for a better job. After employment, they continue the battle for career advancement, and the employers themselves compete with each other for market share.
From this point of view, the use of medication by students to improve concentration and memory really equates to cheating. It doesn’t matter that the student learns better and improves his grades. It is important that he violates the rules of fair competition.
It would seem that if these medicines are really effective, then universities should pour them into the water and force students to drink without fail? But in practice, everything turns out quite the opposite.
In 2008, the British Academy of Medical Sciences recommended universities to prohibit the use of “educational drugs” by healthy students as a form of cheating and unfair competition, comparing them with doping in sports. Here we are not talking about the health risks of specific drugs, namely, unfair competition. Even in the case of the development of nootropics without any side effects, students should pass urine tests to confirm the purity of the "doping", say academics of this authoritative organization. Moreover, they even want to prohibit the intake of "doping" by intellectual workers, although this directly contradicts the practice now adopted in private companies, which, in order to squeeze the maximum out of the employee, deliberately distribute free coffee in the office in unlimited quantities.
In October last year, the first precedent happened: the Wesleyan University in Connecticut officially included the use of nootropes in the list of violations of the student’s code ( The Code of Non-Academic Conduct ), for which a student may be expelled from school.
')
This interpretation of the use of drugs causes intuitive discomfort. Universities consider nootropics an unethical medicine, because a student gets a dishonest advantage over other students who cannot get a medicine or have no money for it. Indeed unfair. Universities cannot equalize students by prescribing pills on a mandatory basis, because it is illegal, after all, drugs have some side effects, for example, the same Ritalin, according to some studies, is addictive and prohibited in many countries, including including in Russia.
Therefore, the only way to create fair competition is to prohibit the use of drugs by other students.
From a philosophical point of view, this is another proof that the model of modern society works on the principle of creating maximum competition. See for yourself: the system offers monetary incentives for the winners at every stage of this endless race. School graduates compete in entrance exams, students compete for a scholarship, and then for a better job. After employment, they continue the battle for career advancement, and the employers themselves compete with each other for market share.
From this point of view, the use of medication by students to improve concentration and memory really equates to cheating. It doesn’t matter that the student learns better and improves his grades. It is important that he violates the rules of fair competition.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/115768/
All Articles