<p>
[quote]
And Drossl - it's funny, when you go to Princeton you don't even think about the honor code. You just absorb it. If I think about it now, the honor code is implemented in a way consist with culture-building. Cheating is absolutely not tolerated. The honor code is visibly supported throughout the university. That said, I still think the list is a refugee from the College of Bogusology....
[/quote]
Yeah. I gather that this is exactly the case, which is why I think if any school is mentioned in a list of superior character building schools, it ought to be Princeton. It seems to me the notion of honor is built right into the culture of the place so that when a student steps outside of it, they no longer feel “Princetonian” (at least that seems to be the goal, however effective it is). I don’t know anything about this Templeton organization. I do believe that the sort of absorbed, private honor that I see being nurtured at Princeton does not often get honored. So, I figure if someone picks up on this and wants to draw attention to it, power to ‘em.</p>
<p>Rorosen:</p>
<p>Your questions are fascinating. I don’t think I can answer them satisfactorily. But I’ll just say my own belief on the value of honor is that it is not just a meme that has infected us. I think it has a basis that is probably grounded in human biology, based right in the mechanical meaning of being human. Ultimately it is knowledge of the fact that You = Me and that each of our behaviors must reflect this essential truth if it is to conform to what we are. If it does not conform to this truth (i.e. should I push a behavior on you that I would not wish done to me), I act qualitatively unlike what I am.</p>
<p>EK:</p>
<p>My point was that volunteering itself is not proof of a focus on inward character, not to say such a focus does not exist in a volunteer or a volunteer program, but that the amount a person volunteers or the size of a volunteer program is not proof that such focus exists. This is especially true if participants in these programs or the programs themselves are gaining admiration, awards, college admissions, and other valuables for their services (which sometimes causes me to wonder if some volunteers are being as altruistic as they appear). I am thinking that Templeton is more interested in schools that are just as interested in building private character as they are in all this public stuff. If so, then it might help us understand why the foundation might not mention a school with a whole lot of volunteerism. Someone once said that character is doing what you know is right, even when it would be impossible ever to be caught or noticed for it. It could be Templeton is trying to deal with this sort of ethic in the policies of schools in addition to the outward stuff we commonly associate with character.</p>
<p>Now, I am not saying that any school not on the list is objectively void of a concern for private character. I personally don’t know anything about most of these schools where that is concerned. I am saying that it could be the case that Templeton has evaluated the policies of the schools and found some of them focused much more evenly on both private and public character than others. If so, I think it is a worthy effort, even if it merely brings attention to the issue of private character.</p>