The point that the academic arena is a cooperative, not a competitive enterprise is a compelling one. But I believe that it is incorrect, as the academic arena has an element of meritocracy inherent to it that is important to society as a whole.
How does this process act itself out? The testing and grading system is something to which we all subscribe and, by virtue of our admittance to Brown, something in which we have all succeeded. As I describe above, it endeavors to examine, assess and grade each one of us on our will to study, our academic knowledge and our willingness to overcome the pitfalls inherent in hard academic work as well as life itself. But why shouldn't this instead be a cooperative adventure? Why shouldn't we endorse Moffat's view? The answer is that study drugs undermine a meritocracy, and Moffat vastly underestimates the importance of this meritocracy.
The most successful students, those who study well, overcome difficulties and innovate successfully, will one day be offered positions in the highest echelons of their field. The best sociologist will receive generous funding and substantial academic freedom. The groundbreaking writer will gain publishing opportunities. The financier will gain a large market share to implement his investing decisions. The meritocracy begun in school and continued throughout adulthood matches ability and effort with the means and materials to realize those traits. Despite its flaws, it is the most efficient way for society to direct its resources to those most able to make use of them.
Cheating allows for one to fake the abilities rewarded by a meritocracy. Study drugs, as I contend above, constitute cheating, as they artificially replicate the stamina and vigor necessary to triumph the challenges of hard, boring work. In doing so, the Adderall user makes it harder for the unaided student to rise in a system where other contenders have succeeded while being tested on fewer skills. That is fundamentally unfair. Furthermore, those using study drugs attack the meritocracy that matches productive ability with the means to be productive, placing unqualified individuals in positions that require skills they don't have.
Lastly, Moffat discusses how challenging it would be to draw "a principled line between study drugs and a host of other socially acceptable forms of productivity enhancement." I agree. To reach such a conclusion is not intuitive, but I don't think a principled conclusion is impossible. I would rather take on that challenge than accept all performance enhancers as fair, thereby accepting drugs that hurt the hard-working, assault beneficent social structures and stop us from doing difficult, necessary and important things.
