In this article, we’ll discuss the effectiveness of the group evaluation system to prevent free riding in group work and why it’s important to live by it, based on the experience of Hong Seol, the main character of the drama Cheese in the Trap.
There is a popular Korean webtoon that resonates with many college students and was turned into a drama a few months ago. The title of the webtoon is Cheese in the Trap. The main character, Hongseol, is from a poor family and must earn a scholarship every semester. For her, the group assignments are literally hell on earth. Here’s one of the most memorable scenes in the drama. Hongseol was forced to do a group project that was supposed to be done by four people by herself because her groupmates took advantage of her hard-working life and put all the work on her shoulders. Hongseol even provides a script for her presentation, but on the day of the presentation, she receives a low grade of D due to the fact that her teammates didn’t familiarize themselves with the content. Frustrated, she tells the professor that she worked really hard on the assignment, but is told that her problem is that she “doesn’t communicate with others and tries to solve everything by herself.” This scene got me thinking about how best to address free riding in group assignments to avoid victims like Hongsun. It also made me think about why it’s important to do the right thing and not be like Snow White.
I think the best way to solve the free-riding in group assignments is the group evaluation system. It can be operated similarly to the way Seoul National University evaluates lectures on Papyrus, a lecture evaluation site. It would be more accurate if students who have been in the same class with the same group were allowed to rate the class out of 5 and write comments such as “He was late or absent from the group meetings a few times” or “He didn’t do his part of the research”. Make these evaluations mandatory in the eTL, along with names and course information, so that the next time you form groups in your class, you can prioritize the highest-rated students first.
This is the best option because it can have a positive effect on both high and low GPA students. Higher-performing students are given a choice when forming new groups, so they’ll generally want to be in the same group as higher-performing students who are guaranteed to be on track. In a group of conscientious students, there will be fewer free riders. Because everyone in the group is working hard, it can be tempting to think, “I’m just one of them,” but the prospect of being in a group with less conscientious members who will score poorly on the next group evaluation will resist the temptation and make them work harder. As a result, these groups will be able to work through the group activities with everyone doing their part responsibly and no one getting hurt.
Students with lower scores are less likely to be selected first in the group selection process, so it’s more likely that students with lower scores will be in the same group. Two things can happen in this case. The first is that not everyone in the group is committed to the group activities. In this case, everyone in the group will get a low grade of D or lower, but at least no one will get an unfairly low grade because they worked hard and the others didn’t show up. The second scenario is when a group member who got a free ride in the previous group and received a low grade actively participates in the activity to avoid the worst case scenario of everyone getting a low grade. In the previous group, they may have gotten a high grade because they didn’t do their part and someone else did it for them, but in the new group, no one is working hard, so they’re forced to participate in activities to avoid retakes or a very low grade. In the drama Cheese in the Trap, there was a character named Sang-Cheol who always used the excuse that he was busy and left the group work to Hong-Seol, which angered many viewers. Perhaps the biggest reason for free riding in group activities is the assumption that even if you don’t do your share of the work, someone else will. The way to get these people to participate in group work is to create an environment where they have no one to pass their work off to. If a low-performing student works hard in a new group, he or she will get a higher score on the group evaluation and will be more comfortable being in a group with more conscientious students next time.
We can assume that living rightly is synonymous with being good, as it means living well, morally, and benefiting others. Living right may benefit others, but it may not benefit you, or it may even harm you. Is it still right to act right? The answer is yes. When we think that doing the right thing is detrimental to us, it’s because we’re only considering narrow benefits and not broad benefits. Narrow benefits are short-term, direct, and material, while broad benefits are long-term, indirect, and spiritual. Therefore, the reason we should live right is because broad benefits will eventually come back to us.
The first reason why we should be good can be explained through the “eudaemonic hypothesis”. The eugenics hypothesis states that good people interact with other good people, creating the right environment for the behavior to be maintained or evolve. An analogy to this is a group evaluation after the group work is done, and the people with the highest scores are grouped with the people with the highest scores, and the people with the lowest scores are grouped with the people with the lowest scores. Very few people would want to be in a group with people with low scores, even if they scored well in the group evaluation system. If you want to be in a group with hardworking people and get a fair reward for your efforts, you need to be the hardworking person who scores high on the group evaluation. Applied to everyday life, this means that if you want to have good friends and good people as acquaintances, you have to be a good person first. Having good people in your life may not benefit you directly and monetarily, but it will benefit you indirectly and in the long run, so it is a benefit in a broad sense.
The second reason why we should live right is explained by the “costly signaling hypothesis”. The costly signaling hypothesis explains that people’s altruistic behavior is not just about commitment, but about gaining the approval or trust of others. According to this hypothesis, people flaunt altruistic behaviors, such as donating or volunteering, that others cannot easily do at a cost and effort. For example, girls beg on streets where there are many young couples, even if it means losing a few dollars, because the act of giving back gives them a chance to show the opposite sex that they are financially well-off and have good morals. Examples of the costly signaling hypothesis can also be found in animals. The larger and more colorful a male peacock’s tail feathers are, the more likely he is to be targeted by predators. But surviving predators with colorful feathers is a sign that he is superior to other males. The peacock thus proves his dominance to other males, avoiding unnecessary fights and increasing his chances of being chosen as a partner by females.
The analogy to the group evaluation system is that students pay a costly “price” in terms of time and effort, such as thoroughly researching their assigned readings and coming to group meetings early to prepare for them, in order to convince their peers that they are diligent and earn a high grade on the group evaluation. On the other hand, members who are not conscientious about group activities will continue to send out negative signals, which will create a negative perception of others and eventually lead to ostracization from the group. Doing the right thing – participating in group activities and picking up others’ slack when necessary – may seem unprofitable in the short term. However, in the long run, you’ll leave an invisible medal of goodwill with your fellow group members, and you’ll gain the trust and credibility of others, which will benefit you in a broader sense.
Imagine a society with a mix of water and food people. Since water and food are both necessary for survival, humans need both to survive. If the water-holders and food-holders make concessions to each other and share what they have equitably, everyone can survive together. However, if those with water are selfish enough to not share their water and only want to take the food that others have, then all the food will be given away and those without water will die, increasing the likelihood that only the selfish individuals will survive. In the short term, it appears that the selfish gain and the selfless lose. However, if this situation is repeated, over time, the number of people with food will decrease, and the mortality rate of people with water who can trade it to survive will increase, and the whole society will suffer. Therefore, we should live rightly to create an altruistic society to gain indirect and long-term benefits.
So far, we’ve discussed the most efficient way to prevent free-riding, the zoned system, and why we should live rightly. The reason why the group evaluation system is the most efficient way to prevent free riding is that the results of the evaluation affect the next group formation, positively affecting both those who did and did not free ride. The “parasite hypothesis,” “costly signaling hypothesis,” and “benefit to society as a whole” are all reasons to do the right thing because doing the right thing will eventually bring long-term, indirect benefits to you. Humans are social animals, and we can only be truly human by pursuing the broader good that will come back to us someday, rather than the narrower good that is immediately apparent.
