In this blog post, I’ll examine the free-rider problem that arises in team projects and, through this, consider whether there is a reason for selfish people to live righteously.
Most of us probably have memories of working on at least one group project during our school days. When we first think of group projects, we tend to have certain expectations. There’s a certain romanticized vision of college students—who have cultivated diverse knowledge and cultural literacy—coming together to share their ideas and collaborate on a final product. The purpose of group projects is said to be experiencing teamwork—which is crucial in professional life—and the achievements that come from it.
However, when you actually participate in a group project, it’s not as easy as it seems. While high school students may look forward to team projects, they have such a notorious reputation that one of the most common pieces of advice college students give to high schoolers is about alcohol and team projects. Even TV personality Yoo Byung-jae has pointed out this issue, saying, “The ones who are more desperate end up doing more work.”
So what is it that undermines the good intentions behind team projects (hereinafter referred to as “team projects”) and plunges college students into a pit of misery? While there may be various factors, I believe that “free-riders” are the most shunned figures in team projects.
To give a few simple examples of free-riders: they might ignore notifications about group meetings or fail to faithfully carry out their assigned roles, forcing the group leader or other members to redo the work.
In this article, I’ll propose ways to prevent free-riding—which lowers the quality of group projects—and create the best possible group projects. Based on this, I’ll ultimately explore the question: “Is there a reason to live righteously?”
First, changing the way professors grade could be a solution. With heavy teaching loads and large class sizes, professors find it difficult to focus on each individual student. Consequently, when assigning group projects, most professors evaluate only the final product and assign the same grade to the entire team. If grades are based solely on the final product, there is no way to detect or address free-riding within group projects. Ultimately, only the group members who participate diligently in the group project end up bearing the brunt of the effort to produce a better final product. If grades were assigned individually, taking into account each member’s understanding of the project and their contribution to its completion, the consequence of free-riding would not be receiving the same grade as the other members, but rather receiving a lower grade than the rest of the group. Therefore, an individual grading system could serve as a solution that takes the form of a disciplinary measure. Possible methods for individual grading include the professor administering quizzes based on group activities or conducting individual interviews to determine whether students accurately understand their group’s work and have participated diligently.
Second, students themselves—not just the professor—can be encouraged to evaluate their group members. Since groups meet multiple times, these meetings can be divided into several evaluation periods; for example, scores could be determined through peer evaluations over three evaluation periods. Because students who have directly experienced a free-rider can evaluate that person, this method can identify free-riders much more accurately than a professor’s judgment alone. However, this approach may be slightly less effective if group members know each other personally. For example, in a course within a department, if a senior student free-rides, juniors may find it difficult to evaluate them negatively out of fear of retaliation.
Both methods mentioned take the form of “punishment.” While each has some drawbacks, if used in a complementary manner, they can effectively deter free-riders and foster the best possible group dynamics.
However, there is one problem that cannot be solved. What should be done in the case of “incorrigible free-riders”—that is, people who free-ride no matter what method is used? A prime example is pre-medical and pre-dental programs, which have a preparatory period where grades are largely irrelevant; such programs may have incorrigible free-riders. Other group members cannot correct them.
Let’s think about the reason we should live righteously. Let’s define “living righteously” as “being altruistic”—that is, “acting to benefit others even at one’s own expense.” Those who argue that we should live righteously persuade us that we should act altruistically because such behavior ultimately brings greater benefits to ourselves. However, the flaw in this logic is that it ultimately proves that humans are “selfish.” So, should we really sacrifice ourselves for others when there is absolutely no spiritual or material benefit to be gained? If there were a reason to do so, people might have to commit mass suicide right now to stop environmental destruction—because countless living beings on Earth could reap enormous benefits as a result. However, the reason we do not do this is that there is no “reason to live righteously,” and therefore, there is no need to sacrifice ourselves for others at the cost of our own well-being.
We have examined selfish human behavior through the “free riders” found in group projects. Selfish people can by no means be considered positive. However, if they have not found a reason to live righteously, we cannot force them to live altruistically. We cannot eliminate selfish people from society; we can only punish them within the framework of the law when they cause harm to others.
