This is a surprisingly good book, especially because it gave me some sense of "why cheating". When I was a child, I was basically able to support myself in learning, and I looked down on those who cheated (perhaps a little bit like the male protagonist felt at the beginning). So I was a little surprised when I found out that I quickly turned to sympathy and support for the heroine's actions. In hindsight, it may have been a scene in the movie that inspired some of my deep-rooted premise: after the heroine Xiao Lin was found cheating, the principal called her father to talk and said to him, "Let your daughter read, not only I hope she can study well and have good morals", and educate Xiaolin that "school is a place to learn, not make money". Xiaolin sneered and questioned the principal. She herself also collects donations from her parents. Isn't she also making money at school.
Indeed, we can look at this issue according to Xiaolin's thinking. The principal seeks benefits from status, which is power rent-seeking. Similarly, Xiaolin uses her knowledge to obtain income, which may be called "intellectual rent-seeking". There is indeed no substantial difference between the two in terms of selling their own strengths.
Perhaps because of this being exposed, the headmaster looked embarrassed. She slapped the case and canceled Xiaolin's overseas study opportunity as a punishment. It can be said that "only the principal is allowed to set fire, and the students are not allowed to light the lights". Behind this scene, there is actually a struggle over rent-seeking rights. As shown at the beginning of the film, not only the principal, but also the ordinary teachers are also realizing their power through remedial classes. Regardless of whether the principal was clearly aware of this when she resorted to moral conduct to teach Xiaolin, what she did was indeed, as a member of the education system, reaffirming the system's monopoly on rent-seeking rights.
The interesting thing about this passage is that all of the situations it reflects can be explained by the above-mentioned micro-level power and interest relations, but when these situations add up, they can produce a macro-level effect: able students as a whole cannot get rid of them The existing order is restricted, the individual's initiative is suppressed by the allocation of power, the ascending channel is blocked, and the existing social stratification is reproduced.
Come back and think about what cheating = intellectual rent-seeking actually is. In the adult world, spending money on knowledge and skills is completely commonplace. Modern countries have even designed policies and laws for this matter, called "combination of production, education and research" and "patent law". In the test of market economy, if a merchant is worried that his product is not good enough and his grades (market share) are not good, he can buy other people's ideas, and he does not have to rely on his own research and development. So why are students not allowed to sell their knowledge and skills? The reason for this concern is also because the film is suggesting that this income may be one of the few ways to open up the ladder.
There are three generally accepted answers:
1) This disturbs the fairness of talent selection - unless the "justice" here refers to "reproduction as it is", as the previous article has shown, suppressing intellectual rent-seeking does not achieve justice.
2) This makes academic performance irrelevant and undermines the operating rules of the academic system - rather than saying that, it is better to say that the education system, especially the examination institutions, will lose credibility and commercial value because of this, and these are their more matter of concern. Although the portrayal of the white male proctor in the film is artistically exaggerated, it reflects the anxiety of the examination system in this regard.
3) Students should never cheat. It violates the moral imperative—perhaps it does, but what is this "morality"? When we say cheating is immoral, it is often (imagined to be) equated with immorality like "thief" and "liar". However, at least in the case of this film, it's not such a generic thing.
As mentioned before, this is an immorality with a scope - exclusive to students, minors, latecomers. It is a morality used to spiritually bind their hands and feet, or simply put, an ideology that is a teacher/rule-keeper. Its requirement is that students/participants have no right to define the rules of the game. This is my conclusion.
View more about Bad Genius reviews
