|Image via CrunchBase|
The commentary: "The revelations that dozens of Stuyvesant students had cheated on tests not considered particularly challenging for them were the latest example of the competitive pressures inside top schools."
Latest example of competitive pressures? At which point the Ball Bounces asks, "who wrote this?". Back to top of page. Ah, the New York Times. That explains it. Not the students' fault.
Next up at the New York Times: "Shoplifting Latest Example of Competitive Pressure to Look Good And Wear Nice Things"; "Steroid Use By Athletes Latest Example of Competitive Pressure to Win".
The principal of the school weighed in: "Stanley Teitel sent a letter to dozens of students implicated in the cheating, telling them he found this 'breach of integrity very serious.'"
A breach of integrity taken very seriously -- is that it? What makes the principal think there was integrity to begin with? And what does "seriously" end up meaning? According to the article, the impact on most of the students is they have to re-take the exam.
That's it? How about an automatic zero as a minimum?
If we want to develop moral citizens, shouldn't moral behavior be one of the criteria of academic success?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.