ANSWERS: 2
-
The sensible assumption would be that the students' test scores, in general, would be worse with such self-limited study time. By everyone agreeing to limit that study time, no one would make an excellent effort and land significantly ahead of the curve. The grades outcome would be the same as if they had not corroborated on limiting the effort. Unions work that way in the labor market. Every member of the union agrees to mediocrity. Union agreements are written such that the employer can only get so much from each employee. Anyone who actually tries to work gets ostracized, or spat upon, intimidated, threatened, or gets their knees broken. The only "incentive" allowed is seniority. The untenable situation ends when employers bypass the situation with automation, such as the rise of container shipping over the longshoremen's unions' objections, or by shipping the jobs elsewhere. Returning to that class situation, the agreement would break down. Some, motivated by fear of failure, GPA requirements, or desire to succeed, would secretly study more than an hour and rise above the mediocrats.
-
This is a sociology problem called a prisoner's dilemma. Two people did a crime and are in police custody. You're separated from your buddy. If you both confess, you get ~5 years. If you both keep your mouths shut, you get a few months on some other charges. But if you speak against your buddy and he stays quiet, you go free and he gets 10. OR if he speaks and you don't, he goes free and YOU get 10. Everyone gets a good result from not studying (assuming you're all about equal/poor students). BUT if one or two people study, they get the best result and screw over the rest of the class. Are you willing to wait for the good result, or are you afraid of your classmates studying and screwing you? If you ALL study (assuming you all get about equal grades), you get the same results but now have sunk the cost of your time into it.
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

by 