Hasan Khan’s recent article “Accepting Adderall” raised some interesting points about the use of “study drugs” in academics. Cognitive enhancements of some kind may indeed be the next step on our way to a new era of productivity — whether this future is a utopia or an “A Brave New World”-esque nightmare remains ambiguous. But I take serious issue with one of Khan’s assumptions. Khan attempts to debunk the “steroids in sports” argument against Adderall usage, but in doing so he neglects the realities of academia. In his argument, sports, “based solely on individual achievement and glory,” are negatively affected by performance-enhancing drugs, which offer an unfair advantage. But in academia, a “student’s use of neuroenhancers doesn't automatically hurt other students’ productivity.”
I can agree with that. One’s use of Adderall doesn’t hurt my productivity. However, Khan is glossing over a serious issue — the one that makes neuro-enhancer use unacceptable. Another’s use of Adderall doesn’t make me worse at math or biology, but another’s use of Adderall can make me look worse at math or biology, and that’s nearly as bad.
It seems to be a kind of faux pas to say this, but here it goes: if you’re in my class, every point that you get on a test makes my grade worse, either explicitly — by a curve, say— or implicitly by comparison. Grades don’t exist in vacuums: a specific score says nothing without contrasting it with another. My 75 is good if the average score is a 60, and not so good if the average is a 95. Your 5’11” middle-school basketball player is good until LeBron enters the court. And I don’t say that with the intention of seeming vindictive, calculating or hyper-competitive — I say it with the intention of being truthful. Academia is inherently competitive. We can’t all get 4.0s and graduate summa cum laude; there has to be a disparity for grades to mean anything at all. And yes, students should prioritize learning over grades, but if grades didn’t matter we wouldn’t give them.
I take no issue with the cyclist who injects obscene amounts of EPO and goes by himself to scale the Alps. I don’t care if a student illegally pops Adderall and studies chemistry for leisure. However, I do care if that cyclist enters the Tour de France. I do care if that student is in my chemistry class. What makes the competition of academics tolerable is the knowledge that — as much as we can make it — we’re all on a level playing field. We damn the person who cheats on an exam in part because he or she has debased themselves, but mostly because they’re subverting that level playing field by getting grades they shouldn’t get. I wouldn’t care half so much if the cheater cheated on their practice tests: in that case it’s just self-degradation; and although the University’s honor system exists in part to ensure the integrity of each individual in the Community of Trust, the greater value of the honor system lies in its assurance that another’s breach of honesty will not hurt me and the rest of the Community.
So what’s the difference between blatant cheating and Adderall? Both Adderall and cheating enable slackers to make half decent grades and hard workers to make exceptional grades. No matter what, another’s Adderall use negatively affects me. That’s what makes me livid. If you’re in my class, every pill you pop devalues my degree. From a financial perspective, neuroenhancements on Grounds are costing me and every other non-user actual money in the form of jobs and other opportunities lost to study drug users who may not be competitive otherwise. That’s absurd and unacceptable.
Khan’s defense of Adderall and similar drugs is misdirected. It’s not concern for Adderall users that leads me to condemn illegal use of Adderall — it’s concern for myself and others. Although abuse of such drugs offends my sensibilities and, indeed, neuroenhancements’ nebulous psychological and physical effects scare me (I refuse to entertain Khan’s comparison between caffeine and Adderall, a schedule II drug), I’m willing — not happy — to let others use them. But when that use starts affecting the worth of my GPA, I’m taking up arms. Moreover, nobody should be forced to take drugs to be competitive; decriminalization of Adderall may lead some into a golden age of cramming for exams, but for those with serious misgivings about taking neuroenhancers it would negatively affect our academic standing. As such, the University shouldn’t endorse study drug use or even just let it slide. There should be a concerted effort to curb study drug use to maintain the integrity of academics.
Brennan Edel is a Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
BRUNMAN: Stop ghosting us, Governor Youngkin
By Wylie Brunman | December 8, 2024For the sake of students — and the Governor — his state administration should rethink its stance on this meeting and its approach to interacting with students more broadly.
