One of the capital errors in the evaluation of people and organizations is the use of ranking, because quality cannot be measured with quantities.
Very few opinions and human actions are perfect, ubiquitous and timeless. Then there are different degrees of responsibility, wilfulness, conscience and the evident right to discrepancy. Yet this should not mean that, although the solution for a serious problem is difficult, those of conscious mind cover up or keep quiet.
I also believe that every situation has its good and negative side. Public workers, I think, should have a dose of patriotism, understood as serving the general interest, albeit only out of gratitude to the State, which contracts us with exaggerated guarantees compared to the rest of the Spanish population. We suffer a severe epidemic of “rankingisation”, of numerical seduction, that is apparently objective, clean, impartial and almost perfect for its supporters, who are almost always unthinking, trusting and superficial. Rankings exist for everything, are bought and put to use for all kinds of interests, and favour social vices like those of betting.
Rankings can serve to give us a slight idea, but can definitely not be used as dogmas of faith, or to judge personal developments or complex organisations like a university, an army or a teacher’s or researcher’s merits.
Numbers do not suffice to measure intangibles like creativity, trust, withstanding adversity, communication capacity, envy, greed, honesty, the capacity to generate excitement or confidence. Besides, we have to add a group’s complexity, as well as the different initial conditions and the environment of the organisation. Apparently, the mass media tend to blindly believe what rankings state given their scientific appearance, but should not do so because of their limitations and mistakes. The PISA or Shanghai ranking are like tautological truths full of weaknesses and paid for.
Apart from all this, we quite frequently forgot that we humans easily fall for greed, envy, avarice. Since Spinoza, we know that we humans are more emotional than rational, everything infects us, but more easily by vice than by virtue that tends to come with effort. Generally speaking, Campbell’s Law explains how the more important the consequence of assessing people is, the more easily it is to distort the assessment mechanism and to fulfil objectives that are quite the opposite to those sought.
Excellence is, according to Aristotle, the habit of doing things well. It is virtually impossible for humans to be individually or collectively excellent; some might in certain activities, but in a small group it is harder. Duration of excellence in time is impossible. As we are aware of this limitation, it is good to aspire to attempt it, value it and avoid its opposite, which is mediocrity.
In Spain, culture also infects us: fear of failing, of a possible religious influence, aversion and shame to fail all prevent us from improving. Besides, those who seek short cuts and advantages abound; they are scoundrels, as Quevedo would say. Then there are also the virtuous, honest and examples, but they are few and far between. These circumstances lead us to mistrust, others to keep quiet, and the State solves everything for the majority; our civil society is extremely weak, the independent intellectual is very rare, and exists, but scarcely like missionaries.
Politician’s visibility shows their evident mediocrity and, unfortunately, they look a lot like us who vote them. Mediocrity is doubtlessly general, as are education and research, of course. Even some authors like C. Hedges attribute to university the responsibility for general mediocrity. The mediocrity of modern public managers is noted by them depending on rankings, which tends to put rankings to use and pay them with public money to lie in the sense that J.F. Revel reveals, and projects their public image by identifying its personal interest in that of the institution they represent for whatever is more convenient for them.
Nothing can cause more public damage than leaders who are fans of rankings, not only for the magnitude of the caused damage, but also because such leaders believe they are doing the right thing. To this we can add silence, which is voluntary or not, of those who keep quiet out of shyness; the interested shouting by flatterers and those seeking money and medals; they are aware of error, but prefer peace; there are many resigned people and the silent plague of mediocrity floods the whole organisation. Its effect will be contagious all over the country with time.
This takes place at Spanish universities with researcher teachers’ evaluation whose metric accreditation lacks certain defects, which exceeds those suffered in former exams to occupy life-long civil servant posts, where clans and their influences decided those holders with almost unanimous frequency. Fortunately, such influences have been considerably diluted, and a panel can better judge than today’s mechanical, automatic and almost robotised system.
The present system guarantees neither the real authority of publications of many authors nor the degree to which ideas are repeated or the quality of publications, that cannot appear, and all these cannot fit in a role badly played by referees who are discouraged to do things well.
Worse still, and something different, is that teaching is neglected and youths are taught quickly and sure results, and the risk of research works is done away with. As if this were not enough, all this stresses people and red tape is unbearable. Academics’ mental health progressively becomes worse, and the workaholics and separated abound. I suppose that emulation being any student’s encouragement is odd.
Education is not only deteriorating by the thoughtlessness that research metrics and rankings involve, but we also suffer other rankingisation effects. Spanish regional governments finance universities according to the number of graduates, which is another corrosive indicator that seems positive. Apparently, financing according to graduates is financing successful management, but Campbell’s Law appears again here.
What is going on? As a budget depends on the number of graduates, rectors place pressure all along the academic promotion ladder to pass what is sufficient and the demanded university level gradually drops.
The effect of rankings on education does not end here. Exams to access university, which are a farce because they do not select what they must, that is, a specific exam per faculty, would also suitably guide students to choose the appropriate High School graduate.
As High School teachers are not evaluated as being good or bad, they are concerned about their centre’s successful ranking in university access exams, and rather than teaching the syllabus they must, they focus to prepare students for university access exams. So the level that students must have to be able to access university continuously lowers.
What is more, many students from public universities, which are well-subsidised by tax payers’ money, have no real vocation to learn, and only want to pass and have a degree. Many, indeed a great deal of them, should never have gone to university, and would have been better qualifying for very praiseworthy jobs via vocational training. Despite unemployment rates, we need plumbers, upholsterers, carpenters, cobblers, tailors, etc. Given the lowering high expected level, holders of degrees, obtained almost as a gift, have no idea what to do when they are employed by firms because no university-company connection exists.
Many of our best students emigrate after having trained to countries where salaries are decent. As F. Bastiat would say if he lived, the worse of rankings is what is not seen, and the undersigned adds what is not said. No excuse is valid, imagined, for saying their education cannot be that bad if they are taken on in advanced countries. To this I say for, even the worst teacher can help the best students, but they would learn alone.
Post published in Las Provincias