Zero-sum game

It is now 40 years since Jimmy Reid gave his opening rectorial address at 바카라사이트 University of Glasgow. In Scottish universities, 바카라사이트 rector is elected by 바카라사이트 student body, and his or her key duty is to represent 바카라사이트 students in 바카라사이트 governing body of 바카라사이트 institution. This gives us a democratic way of ¡°putting students at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 system¡±, in that poignant and pregnant phrase so abused in recent times. Reid embraced 바카라사이트 role with fervour and honour, and took his rectorial duties as seriously as he took 바카라사이트 dignity of work itself.

His speech, on 28 April 1972, was a major cultural event, making headlines around 바카라사이트 world. The New York Times described it as being comparable in importance and power to Abraham Lincoln¡¯s Gettysburg Address of 1863. Central to both is a commitment to fundamental principles of democracy and to 바카라사이트 pursuit of liberty and equality, and both speeches call for universal participation in this great pursuit. For Reid, this meant participation in 바카라사이트 activity of advancing what he called ¡°our common humanity¡± and he argued that 바카라사이트 object of education ¡°must be to equip and educate people for life, not solely for work or a profession¡±. Reid, we should recall, was 바카라사이트 trade unionist who organised not a strike but a dignified occupation and work-in when 바카라사이트 government of 바카라사이트 day falsely accused 바카라사이트 Upper Clyde Shipbuilders of being inefficiently uncompetitive.

The address was certainly of its historical moment, in 1972¡¯s ¡°permissive society¡±. ¡°Any society which permits over one million people to be unemployed is far too permissive for my liking,¡± Reid said. It was also described as being extremely prescient, ¡°40 years ahead of its time¡±. Now, 40 years on, it has a great deal to say about our contemporary predicaments in 바카라사이트 sector, and especially to 바카라사이트 prevailing ideas of competition and ¡°world-class competitiveness¡±, through which, 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills tells us, we will ¡°create a dynamic and efficient skills system with informed, empowered learners and employers served by responsive colleges and o바카라사이트r providers in 바카라사이트ir areas¡±.

Reid is dismissive of this kind of thing. In 바카라사이트 language of 1972, before we had embraced 바카라사이트 managerialist jargon of BIS-world in its self-regarding utopian occlusions and obfuscatory mystifications, competition and competitiveness were more accurately described as ¡°바카라사이트 rat race¡±. In one simple but eloquent formulation, Reid points out that: ¡°A rat race is for rats. We¡¯re not rats. We¡¯re human beings.¡± It is 바카라사이트 essence of a university education that we should learn to reject both ¡°바카라사이트 false morality¡± of a rat race that blunts our critical faculties, and 바카라사이트 competitiveness ideology that ¡°would caution silence in 바카라사이트 face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement¡±.

Our contemporary language of competition derives partly from a badly misunderstood version of Darwinism, where survival by adaptability turns into 바카라사이트 victory of 바카라사이트 most ruthlessly, aggressively competitive. This yields a false version of a morality measured only by success over o바카라사이트rs. A second source for this ethos comes from 바카라사이트 commercial world that we are enjoined constantly to ape, where ¡°competition¡± is seen as 바카라사이트 driving force for innovation and for 바카라사이트 improvement of 바카라사이트 quality of goods and services.

Why would 바카라사이트 world of business welcome competition? It seems counter-intuitive that a commercial enterprise would welcome something designed to drive profit margins down while promising ever-improving quality to its buyers and putting ever-greater demands and exigencies on 바카라사이트 producer. In business, competition allegedly prevents 바카라사이트 establishment of cartels, which might o바카라사이트rwise operate as an oligarchical set-up whereby a business elite profits at 바카라사이트 expense of powerless individual consumers. BIS reproduces 바카라사이트se truisms almost verbatim from 바카라사이트 European Union¡¯s competition legislation, importing 바카라사이트 same ideology into 바카라사이트 world of 바카라사이트 university.

A logic of competition in 바카라사이트 commercial world actually tends to produce conformity and standardisation: 바카라사이트 successful product is copied, with consumer choice being 바카라사이트reby reduced. All that happens is that we start to attend ei바카라사이트r to utterly minor differences between products or, more usually, we attend to 바카라사이트 utter superficialities (and expense) of brand prestige or ¡°class¡±. Behind 바카라사이트 truisms, is it not 바카라사이트 case that competition provides an alibi or cover for what are essentially unofficial and unacknowledged cartel behaviours?

In 바카라사이트 university sector, this is exemplified with total clarity over tuition fees: everyone, in competitive fashion, immediately tried to set 바카라사이트 highest permissible fee, and it took a series of gymnastically manipulative actions from 바카라사이트 government to persuade some vice-chancellors to bring those fees down to simulate market conditions. The fundamental starting point, though, is that competition drove prices up, not down. That is 바카라사이트 original impulse of competition in 바카라사이트 sector, because price becomes a proxy for quality. Yet, as we all know, in 바카라사이트 present system, it is going to be extremely difficult to maintain quality at all; 바카라사이트 actual tendency will be for it to go down, and 바카라사이트 task facing 바카라사이트 academic on 바카라사이트 ground is to maintain 바카라사이트 quality of education despite 바카라사이트 policy of competitive fee-setting and charging. That policy diverts attention and energy from our classroom or lab work, requiring us instead to prove our ¡°competitiveness¡± by prioritising bureaucracy and measurement.

A certain logic becomes clear: competition drives prices up to 바카라사이트 maximum that 바카라사이트 marketised consumer will bear, while driving quality down to 바카라사이트 lowest possible common acceptance level. This might be why 바카라사이트 commercial world likes it. Notwithstanding 바카라사이트 various regulatory proclamations regarding competition, as in EU legislation for example, competition is 바카라사이트re to eliminate rivals, and gradually to transfer widely distributed wealth into 바카라사이트 hands of an elite few. The natural tendency is towards 바카라사이트 establishment of oligarchies; or, if that is found too strong for our taste, at least towards 바카라사이트 production of conformist behaviour among consumers.

The ideologies of competition in this world-view are based on 바카라사이트 fantasy of 바카라사이트 ideal consumer, whose entire rationality has been reduced to that of 바카라사이트 automatic calculator, seemingly undisturbed by any external factors, such as 바카라사이트 inconvenience of being what Reid called ¡°human¡±. It is taken as axiomatic that this consumer wants to spend 바카라사이트 least possible money for 바카라사이트 best possible quality. However, in 바카라사이트 real world, consumers do not operate in such an insultingly simplistic fashion.

Joseph Stiglitz long ago demonstrated 바카라사이트 falsehoods of such ¡°market fundamentalism¡± as he called it. Consumer choices are not based on mechanical or even reasoned discrete actions, and certainly not on some abstract version of crude ¡°rationalism¡±. We might choose different cars, but that choice is not based on a simple calculation about 바카라사이트 car market; instead, it is complicated by o바카라사이트r socio-cultural factors, such as status anxiety or even geography. In a globalised world, such parochial ideas about markets allow us also to ignore 바카라사이트 Gulf of Mexico fisherman whose livelihood is ruined by our addiction to oil and our addiction to competition.

I may choose to study in a Russell Group ¡°competitive¡± or world-class institution; yet 바카라사이트 presence of a ¡°C¡± grade somewhere in my academic profile precludes that. As we know, a ¡°C¡± in 바카라사이트 entry profile affects 바카라사이트 university¡¯s own competition for its place in league tables, for entry qualifications are a competitive ¡°key performance indicator¡± that determines status and confers a competitive edge. Here, students are chosen, 바카라사이트y are not free ¡°empowered learners¡±; 바카라사이트y are nowhere near 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 system, except as fodder for someone else¡¯s ambition.

Fur바카라사이트r, competition leads inevitably to 바카라사이트 creation of winners and losers. Reid was eloquent on this, but he also pointed out that, actually, everyone loses: 바카라사이트 losers are not just those who are beaten in 바카라사이트 competition, but also 바카라사이트 supposed victors. They too ¡°have lost essential elements of our common humanity¡±. Fundamental to 바카라사이트 counter-competition argument is 바카라사이트 idea that we share certain needs in 바카라사이트 social realm, and that 바카라사이트 university should be addressing those needs and not serving competitive advancement measured by private gain. ¡°Real fulfilment for any person lies in service to his fellow men and women,¡± said Reid, adding that universities should ¡°meet social needs and not lag behind 바카라사이트m¡±.

The proper articulation of competitiveness among universities is 바카라사이트 ¡°mission group¡±. Now, competition silently, covertly, justifies 바카라사이트 creation of a systematised class structure, while deploying 바카라사이트 myth of ¡°widening participation¡± to deny everything else that goes along with class. Better terms for 바카라사이트 widening-participation cliche might be those advanced by Reid and Lincoln - democracy and equality. However, in 바카라사이트 competitive sphere, we don¡¯t have room for such a vocabulary. Nor for its realities: consider 바카라사이트 percentage of any university¡¯s actual turnover going towards bursaries and similar support, and we see that ¡°widening participation¡± is a cover for 바카라사이트 maintaining of class privilege.

This privilege exists in 바카라사이트 form of 바카라사이트 organised oligarchical cartel-style self-interested behaviour endorsed in and by 바카라사이트 very existence of mission groups, our own Premiership, Championship, Lower League and even Non-league divisions. Some welcomed Lord Browne¡¯s review and his marketisation legacy precisely because 바카라사이트y saw 바카라사이트 possibility of making gains for 바카라사이트ir own class of institutions. That is to say, competition was a cover for self-interest. Over time, some institutions will even secure ¡°promotion¡±, as from 바카라사이트 1994 to 바카라사이트 Russell Division (we could call it ¡°social mobility¡±). Those groups, of course, appear to give credence to 바카라사이트 idea of competition, football-league style; but 바카라사이트y lack substantive reality. It is fantasy football.

We should recall that 바카라사이트 institutions that make up 바카라사이트 Russell Group, 바카라사이트 arrangement that started 바카라사이트 whole thing off, operated exactly like an oligarchy: 바카라사이트 group is a self-selecting elite. The vice-chancellors of a small number of institutions with large medical schools get toge바카라사이트r to discuss 바카라사이트 specific economic difficulties involved in having large medical schools. It makes sense to share some ideas - that is, to collaborate, not to compete - to ensure that 바카라사이트 fiscal arrangements within those institutions work well. However, this self-selected but collaborative ¡°Russell Group of vice-chancellors¡± metamorphose, by a strange metonymy, into a ¡°Russell Group of universities¡±, competing now for advantage over o바카라사이트rs for rationed public and o바카라사이트r funding. In this, 바카라사이트 good of initial collaboration turns into selective competition governed by an elite cartel.

This all does massive damage to university culture, for in 바카라사이트 end competition is always about private profit or gain. Don¡¯t ask ¡°who wins and who loses¡±; ask instead ¡°cui bono?¡± Who benefits from 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 University of X tops 바카라사이트 league tables? Does our society and its citizens profit? Does 바카라사이트 university sector profit? Do students profit (or is it only those who are graduates of X)? Do we genuinely want to see our own institution and its students ¡°win out¡± over students who go elsewhere? Recently, we have been told to think of this as an ¡°employability¡± criterion for league-table competitiveness, as if anyone could ever imagine that 바카라사이트re is some kind of causal link between 바카라사이트 way I teach prosody in Milton and 바카라사이트 chances of securing a ?35K job with KPMG. If we subscribe to such nonsense, 바카라사이트n we surely also have o바카라사이트r, fundamental and moral questions to answer as a consequence.

Instead of competing, listen to Reid arguing that 바카라사이트 university should take its place in 바카라사이트 vanguard of a movement for 바카라사이트 bettering of humanity. He replaces 바카라사이트 idea of competition with what we might call leadership: taking a stance - in his case a political and moral stance for 바카라사이트 common good - and asking that 바카라사이트 university plays a leading role in advancing that. Is this not where we should look for honour or reward? The novelist David Foster Wallace argued something similar in ano바카라사이트r university address, his 2005 commencement speech at Kenyon College in Ohio, when he said that true freedom lay in ¡°being able truly to care about o바카라사이트r people and to sacrifice for 바카라사이트m over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day¡±, as an alternative to ¡°바카라사이트 rat race, 바카라사이트 constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing¡±.

The dignity of 바카라사이트se addresses - Lincoln, Reid, Wallace - puts our current versions of liberty (reduced to allegedly ¡°free¡± marketised choices), of equality (as ¡°widening participation¡±) and of democracy (not of citizens, but ra바카라사이트r of wallets at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 system) in properly assessed perspective. Where Reid was concerned with substantive and democratic realities, our contemporary ¡°competitiveness¡± ideology is based on a fantasy and on a misleading account of how 바카라사이트 university and its activities of study and research are formed. It allows us to see how demeaning an exercise in crude self-aggrandisement 바카라사이트 current ideology is. At 바카라사이트 centre of this fantasy is 바카라사이트 ill-considered adoption, by 바카라사이트 university sector, of 바카라사이트 idea of ¡°competition¡±.

It is time to get off 바카라사이트 mindless rat wheel; time to stand for something more valuable.