This was pretty yucky:
Adderall, a stimulant composed of mixed amphetamine salts, is commonly prescribed for children and adults who have been given a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. But in recent years Adderall and Ritalin, another stimulant, have been adopted as cognitive enhancers: drugs that high-functioning, overcommitted people take to become higher-functioning and more overcommitted. . . . In 2005, a team led by Sean Esteban McCabe, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Substance Abuse Research Center, reported that in the previous year 4.1 per cent of American undergraduates had taken prescription stimulants for off-label use; at one school, the figure was twenty-five per cent. . . . white male undergraduates at highly competitive schools–especially in the Northeast–are the most frequent collegiate users of neuroenhancers.
Lots of creepy stories if you follow the link. Or maybe I have the wrong attitude: I don’t happen to need these sorts of drugs, so who am I to say that others shouldn’t be able to attain similar levels of productivity through chemical means? Maybe I’m like somebody with two good legs, complaining about the development of a new super-efficient prosthetic limb.
Anyway, without passing judgment on any of this, I’d just have to say that I feel fortunate to have grown up in a noncompetitive environment, in which nobody was telling us that we had to work twice as hard to compete in the global marketplace, etc. I also consider myself fortunate to have grown up before success was defined as becoming super-rich. There really does seem to be more pressure now on students–more opportunities, sure, but more pressure, a tradeoff that I wouldn’t like, I think.
Would you ever consider changing the format of your exams or grading structure if you found out a fair number of students in your classes were abusing drugs like these?
Using drugs is not a free lunch, it always has a colateral damage.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this; it is good to improve yourself. One day cognitive enhancers will allow you to surpass normal human cognitive ability with few side effects. That will be a good day. For now, we have some drugs that have side effects.
The problem is, it is a crutch. It is not you and if it goes away when the drug wears off, how is this going to improve you?
But imagine the output of Andrew Gelman on neuro-enhancers.
I found the competitiveness more disturbing then the drugs. Anyone who says "resume-building" with a straight face should be shot.
NPR had the author on for an interview a week or so back: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor…
You may have also missed the commentary published in Nature in December advocating use of cognitive enhancers (with some half-hearted caveats about safety):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7223/f…
I agree about the emphasis on being rich as not a good thing. On the other hand, it sounds like you don't work as hard as I'm sure you do (I don't know you personally but it is not difficult to tell based on your blog, publications, etc): do you really think rich people work harder than you? I doubt: they're just in more profitable business, more focused on doing things because of the money.
What ever it is, using cognitive enhancers is one of the worst things that you can do to your health. Because your metabolism works in its own regular cycle that it's familiar for years. If you give an extra fire via enhancers you are going to feel very good at first. But in the long run your metabolism will totally collapse. ıt's just like forcing an engine to work out of its capacity.