This blog post examines whether peer evaluation is truly the best solution for tackling the frequent free-riding problem in group assignments.
There’s a popular Korean webtoon that resonated with countless college students and was even adapted into a drama a few months ago. Its title is ‘Cheese in the Trap’. The protagonist, Hong Seol, comes from a financially struggling family and must earn academic scholarships every semester. For her, group assignments were literally a hellish word. Let me share one of the most memorable scenes from the drama. Hong Seol, who has no choice but to work hard, ends up doing all the work for a group assignment meant for four people because her teammates dump all their responsibilities on her. Even though Hong Seol prepared and provided the presentation script all by herself, she ended up receiving a low D grade on presentation day because her group members hadn’t properly memorized the content. Devastated, Hong Seol told the professor she had worked extremely hard on the assignment, but instead received the criticism that “her attitude of trying to solve everything alone without communicating with others was the problem.” Watching this scene made me ponder the best way to prevent free riders from emerging in group projects, so victims like Hong Seol don’t arise. It also made me think about why one should live properly, not as a free rider like Hong Seol.
I believe the best solution to prevent free riding in group projects is a peer evaluation system. This peer evaluation system could be operated similarly to how courses are evaluated on Papyrus, Seoul National University’s lecture evaluation site. By granting evaluation rights to students who were in the same group among those who took the same course, allowing them to rate each other on a 5-point scale and write comments like “was late or absent from group meetings several times” or “did not research their assigned section,” a more accurate assessment would be possible. This evaluation should be mandatory to include in eTL alongside the student’s name and department information. This allows groups to be formed for the next class by prioritizing students with higher evaluation scores.
The peer evaluation system is the optimal method because it can yield positive effects for both high- and low-rated students. High-rated students, granted the privilege of choosing when new groups are formed, will generally seek to be grouped with other diligent, high-rated students, ensuring consistent, conscientious participation. Groups composed of diligent students will have fewer free riders. While the temptation to free-ride might arise from thinking “it won’t matter if I slack off,” the expectation of receiving a low score in the next evaluation and being grouped with less diligent members will suppress this impulse, encouraging sincere participation. Therefore, in such groups, each member will responsibly carry out their assigned tasks, enabling group activities to proceed without anyone being disadvantaged.
Students with low grades are less likely to be chosen first during team selection, making it highly probable that those with low grades will end up in the same team. In such cases, two scenarios can occur. The first is when all team members fail to participate diligently in the group activity. In this case, all members will receive low grades of D or below, but at least no student will unfairly receive a low grade due to the absence of other members despite their own hard work. The second is when a member who previously received a low grade for free-riding in another group actively participates to avoid the worst-case scenario of everyone getting low grades. While they might have gotten a high grade in the previous group because someone else did their work, in the new group, since no one else is putting in effort, they will be forced to participate diligently to avoid retaking the course or getting a very low grade. In the drama ‘Cheese in the Trap’, a character named Sang-chul, who constantly used the excuse of being busy to dump group assignments on Hong Seol, appeared and drew the anger of many viewers. The biggest reason free-riding occurs in group activities is likely the assumption that even if one doesn’t do their part, someone else will cover their share. The way to make such people participate diligently in group activities is to create an environment where they have no one to pass their work onto. If a student who previously received low evaluations works hard in group activities in a new group, they will receive high scores in the group member evaluations. This will allow them to be placed in a group with more diligent students next time, making it easier for them to participate comfortably.
Living rightly means living well and morally, benefiting others, so it can be assumed to mean the same as living kindly. Living rightly benefits others, but it may bring no benefit to oneself or even cause loss. Is acting rightly still the right thing to do? The answer is ‘yes’. The belief that acting rightly brings personal loss stems from considering only narrow benefits while ignoring broader ones. Narrow benefits are short-term, direct, and material, whereas broad benefits are long-term, indirect, and spiritual. Therefore, we must live rightly because these broader benefits ultimately return to us.
The first reason we should live virtuously can be explained through the ‘birds of a feather hypothesis’. This hypothesis states that good people tend to gather and interact with each other, creating an environment where their tendencies are maintained or evolve appropriately. To draw an analogy with a peer evaluation system: after a group project, when forming new groups based on peer evaluations, those with high scores tend to group with others who scored high, while those with low scores group with others who scored low. It’s extremely rare for someone who received a high score in the peer evaluation to deliberately choose to group with those who scored low. If you want to be in a group with diligent people and receive fair compensation for your efforts, you must first become a hardworking person who earns high marks in the peer evaluation. Applying this to daily life means that if you want good friends and good people as acquaintances, you must first become a good person yourself. Having good people as acquaintances may not bring direct or monetary benefits to you, but it ultimately yields indirect and long-term advantages, making it a broader form of benefit.
The second reason we should live rightly can be explained through the ‘costly signaling hypothesis’. This hypothesis posits that people’s altruistic acts are not mere devotion but serve the purpose of gaining recognition or trust from others. According to this hypothesis, people incur costs and exert effort to showcase altruistic deeds like donations or volunteer work that others cannot easily replicate. For example, beggars often solicit on streets crowded with young couples. This is because, despite the financial loss of a few coins, the act of charity provides an opportunity to demonstrate their economic wealth and moral character to potential partners. Examples of the costly signaling hypothesis can also be found in animals. The larger and more colorful a male peacock’s tail feathers are, the more likely it becomes a target for predators. However, surviving despite possessing such showy plumage serves as proof that the bird possesses superior capabilities compared to other males. Thus, the peacock demonstrates its dominance to other males, avoiding unnecessary fights, and increases its chances of being chosen as a mate by females.
Applying this analogy to group evaluation systems, students pay a costly ‘price’ in time and effort—thoroughly researching their assigned sections, arriving early for group meetings to prepare—to demonstrate their diligence to fellow members and secure high ratings in the evaluation. Conversely, members who do not participate diligently in group activities continuously send negative signals, ultimately fostering a negative perception among others and leading to their exclusion from the group. Living correctly—that is, participating diligently in group activities and, when unavoidable, covering for others—may appear to yield no immediate personal benefit when viewed in the short term. However, in the long term, it leaves an invisible badge of honor—a good impression—by demonstrating one’s sincerity to other group members. This ultimately earns the trust and credit of others, yielding broader benefits.
Imagine a society where people with water and people with food are mixed together. Since both water and food are essential for survival, humans need both to survive. If those with water and those with food mutually yield and share their resources fairly, everyone can survive together. However, if those with water show selfish tendencies, refusing to share their water and seeking only to obtain others’ food, those who give all their food but receive no water will perish. Consequently, the probability of survival increases only for the individuals possessing selfish tendencies. In the short term, this may appear to benefit the selfish individuals while harming the altruistic ones. However, if this pattern repeats, the number of people with food will decrease over time. Consequently, the mortality rate among those with water—who could have exchanged it for food to survive—will also rise, ultimately causing significant harm to the entire society. Therefore, we must live rightly to build an altruistic society and gain indirect, long-term benefits.
Thus far, we have examined the peer evaluation system as the most efficient method to prevent free-riding and, based on this, explored why we must live rightly. The peer evaluation system is the most effective anti-free-riding measure because its results influence subsequent team assignments, positively impacting both those who free-rode and those who did not. The reasons presented for living rightly—the ‘birds of a feather hypothesis’, the ‘costly signaling hypothesis’, and ‘society’s overall benefit’—all imply that we should live rightly because, ultimately, long-term and indirect benefits return to us when we act correctly. As humans are social animals, it is only by pursuing broader benefits that will eventually return to oneself, rather than narrow, immediate gains, that one can truly become a genuine human being.
