�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

1. Discussing different aspect of corruption, including the role of cultural factors, corruption as an institutional trap [Polterovich, 2000], the role of formal and informal institutes in preventing corruption. Students are suggested to analyse statistical information reflecting perceptions of corruption and the need for anti-corruption policy among different social groups.
2. The aim of the second step of exercise is to pass from theoretical and empirical data about corruption to a personal assessment and involve personal experience. Result for Russian second year students in 2010 is the following. In the first situation A (student who cheated) is assessed slightly negative (average score -0,44); B (student who allowed A to copy his or her answers) has positive perception (average score 0,58), and C (student who reported the cheating) is perceived as strongly negative (average score -1,76). Meanwhile for the second situation answers are different: citizen A (bribe-giver) is perceived as negative (average score -0,95); bribe-taker is perceived as strogly negative (average score -1,76), and reporter C has a positive perception (average score 0,80).
3. The third step includes a discussion of the results obtained in other similar studies Polterovich [Magnus et al. 2002; Polterovich, 2007] in Russia and other countries. An important part of this step is to identify the role of cultural factors in the ethical evaluation, as well as to carry out parallels and differences between cheating and corrupt behaviour. Typically students argue that cheating is a form of collective work and group solidarity. Psychological aspects of mutual aid in form of cheating and different forms of corruption and similar behaviour are discussed as well. At this stage we try to create a common understanding of cheating harm for education.
4. In the fourth step participants are invited to demonstrate willingness to abide by the rules when there is a common motivation. The teacher invites students to conclude an informal "contract" with respect to the test to be held in the next class. The meaning of "contract" is that if the entire group writes the test in compliance with all rules without coercion by the teacher, the estimate for the test increases by 1 score. Teacher can get out of the audience, and otherwise provide the opportunity for cheating and discussing test questions. In case of beaking the "contract" at least by one student, its terms are void. The most important condition of this step is voluntary consent of students who make a personal commitment to follow the rules of writing test.