Wrote my comment before reading this one--this is a real issue in many classes. Your "objective" score on a test is only a relative score on the grading curve.

To me this question could also be listed as an exercise in "rational self interest."

If 100% of the students look at it from self interest, and not knowing what anyone else is doing then 100% would opt for 2 points.

However, there is a difference between being 100% selfish and having rational self interest.

If 100% of the students are 100% selfish "not the objectivist" selfish which is rational, they would all pick the 6 points and nobody would get any.

This has the potential to be looked at in numerous ways, and I have absolutely no doubt some objectivists here will attempt to excoriate me for my analysis of this.

One thing missing in the analysis is that often in competitive grading, there are only a certain amount of top grades given out--so raising everyone the same amount wouldn't necessarily benefit anyone.

Another thing to consider is that the top students will usually know they are the top students, and would therefore "selfishly" opt for the 6 points, not to pad their own score but to ensure that no one gets extra points--they would know they are helping sink the ship by appearing selfish, and would stay atop the rankings no matter the outcome of the collective choices made.

Here's an interesting twist. Was the class graded on a curve? If so, the only rational answer was six. If everyone gets 2 points or zero points, your grade would be unchanged, but if you are among the 19% or less who got 6 points, your grade goes up.

This is where I was going with this one.

That's exactly what it is

It would be interesting to see the results state-by-state and grade -by-grade.

I didn't see the question, but I can gather enough from your comments, all, what it was.
how about declining to play on the grounds that the table's rigged? how about rewriting the question? how about refusing to answer because everybody knows that this question is written so as to convince us that taking care of our selves is ALWAYS a bad idea? and it isn't.

my personal fave so far: a clean surgical critique of a professor who would write such a question.
idiot.

This sounds like some varient of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and not something new.

We can only hope.

It's a poor analogy for life and an artificial construct without much to offer. Life is very rarely limited in such a way. But, I guess it is another lesson in how to steal concepts in setting up a false choice.

"Earn extra credit"...righhht.

Rich, you think outside the box. I love it!

More excellent brainwashing in academia. Grrr!

So many issues here...
1. Choosing 2 points is obviously the safest option. No downside risk and certain gain, although modest. The article didn't say how many people chose this, only that 20% chose 6 points.
2. Ingenuity and innovation should have taught us by now (not to mention economics) that the fixed pie mentality is bogus. Tragedy of the commons is real. Individual freedom and capitalism will inevitably arrive at more than two choices with an arbitrary constraint on a test. :-)
The question did, however, provide an opportunity for learning. Not sure the proper lessons were learned, however.

He said he only gave the extra points once. Maybe there is hope...

Pretty cool. I would have been prepared for the exam and selected 6 in hope that none of the stragglers were helped.

Well, now we know where some of the indoctrination of students into progressives and socialists comes from and how insidious the teaching can be. At least, a percentage got it right.