Even more unfair than drugs, there are native abilities. Some lucky ones are born athletes, others… well. A good body is a totally unfair advantage. Yet this is not cheating. Similarly some people are just brighter, smarter and less lazy than others. They will breeze through while others must sweat tears and blood if they ever hope to enter college. This is even more unfair, yet it is still not cheating.
The reason dope is officially cheating in sports is because they are a breach of explicit rules. It is the same as removing an enemy pawn when no one is looking. You could perfectly have sports where the use of dope were permitted (I'm not sure I would endorse it though: it may have unhealthy consequences —oh, wait it did).
Now college entrance exams are about selecting students smart enough to make it through the curriculum, and make a worthy career afterwards. Ideally, you'd want to select those most likely to succeed. My take is this: any way to deceive that predictor is cheating. Anything else is not. By this analysis, nootropics are cheating only to the extent they deceive the predictor. My bet is that someone willing to take such drugs to go to college will probably continue to do so later (permanently or when needed). In this case, the drug doesn't fool the predictor, it actually helps being a little smarter in the long term. What would be cheating would be to take the drugs for a short term benefit, then never or rarely do that again.
Finally, this really is not a zero-sum game. Even if only an elite 1% take those drugs, even if it does make things even more unfair than they already are, those people may solve problems faster for the rest of us, so we all benefit. And boy do we have problems that need solving.
Starting with Death.[1]
(One last detail: nootroopics also have to work and not have nasty side effects. Personally, I'm still a bit afraid.)
[1] I work from naturalistic assumptions. For those who believe in an afterlife: imagine your soul being destroyed instead of living happily ever after. I don't want that either.
The reason dope is officially cheating in sports is because they are a breach of explicit rules. It is the same as removing an enemy pawn when no one is looking. You could perfectly have sports where the use of dope were permitted (I'm not sure I would endorse it though: it may have unhealthy consequences —oh, wait it did).
Now college entrance exams are about selecting students smart enough to make it through the curriculum, and make a worthy career afterwards. Ideally, you'd want to select those most likely to succeed. My take is this: any way to deceive that predictor is cheating. Anything else is not. By this analysis, nootropics are cheating only to the extent they deceive the predictor. My bet is that someone willing to take such drugs to go to college will probably continue to do so later (permanently or when needed). In this case, the drug doesn't fool the predictor, it actually helps being a little smarter in the long term. What would be cheating would be to take the drugs for a short term benefit, then never or rarely do that again.
Finally, this really is not a zero-sum game. Even if only an elite 1% take those drugs, even if it does make things even more unfair than they already are, those people may solve problems faster for the rest of us, so we all benefit. And boy do we have problems that need solving.
Starting with Death.[1]
(One last detail: nootroopics also have to work and not have nasty side effects. Personally, I'm still a bit afraid.)
[1] I work from naturalistic assumptions. For those who believe in an afterlife: imagine your soul being destroyed instead of living happily ever after. I don't want that either.