However, even banning cognitive enhancement would not ensure a level playing field for students. This is the second reason to answer ‘no’ to the question above. Consider that, even without access to drugs like Ritalin, most students have to compete with other students who are naturally more intelligent, disciplined, alert, and focused. As such, most students are already at a disadvantage. It may be objected that, in aiming at a level playing field, we should ignore such ‘natural’ advantages, and concentrate only on ensuring that students have equal opportunities to achieve the best grades given their existing abilities. However, even this does not leave us with a level playing field. Some students are able and willing to employ personal tutors, others are not. Some students spend most of their time out of school studying, others spend their time relaxing or working to earn money. Some students use caffeine or computer software to aid their studying—both of which are types of cognitive enhancement—others do not. Such practices ensure that, even without prescription drugs like Ritalin, students do not compete on a level playing field. And, that schools and universities do not currently outlaw the use of personal tutors, caffeine, and studying outside of school suggests that creating a level playing field is not as important as some opponents of enhancement suggest.
However, none of this is relevant to the question of a 'level playing field'. Consider athletics, where we definitely do want a 'level playing field'. And rewrite Roache's argument, mutatis mutandis:
"However, even banning physical enhancement would not ensure a level playing field for students....Consider that, even without access to drugs like steroids, most athletes have to compete with other athletes who are naturally faster and stronger, with more discipline and endurance. As such, most athletes are already at a disadvantage. It may be objected that, in aiming at a level playing field, we should ignore such ‘natural’ advantages, and concentrate only on ensuring that athletes have equal opportunities to achieve given their existing abilities. However, even this does not leave us with a level playing field. Some athletes are able and willing to employ personal trainers, others are not. Some students spend most of their time outside of the sport practicing, others spend their time relaxing or working to earn money. Some athletes use carbohydrate loading or exercise machines to aid their practice—both of which are types of physical enhancement—others do not. Such practices ensure that, even without drugs like steroids, athletes do not compete on a level playing field. And, that schools and universities do not currently outlaw the use of personal trainers, carb-loading, and practice outside of school suggests that creating a level playing field is not as important as some opponents of enhancement suggest."
Clearly something has gone utterly wrong with this sort of argument: clearly, whatever people may mean by a "level playing field," it has to be radically different from what this argument takes it to mean, since this argument makes the only level playing field a nonexistent one. So either this argument ends up being a reason for regarding the notion of a "level playing field" as simply incoherent, or it breaks down entirely.
[UPDATE: Rebecca responds to this concern in a comment.]
