Many of higher education’s conflicting values have to do with competition, as the promise of opportunity often collides with the reality of failure. This dilemma has driven a shift in learner attitudes, with many young people viewing the college experience through a lens focused on grades, rankings, and future earnings potential. The ramifications of this shift extend far beyond individual campuses, resonating throughout society and shaping the fabric of our collective future. The intensification of competition in higher education, viewed by some as the great equalizer, has become a powerful engine of stratification. Such competition, often unacknowledged in institutional rhetoric, serves to magnify existing disparities, creating a system where success becomes increasingly elusive for those facing challenges and disproportionately attainable for those with abundant resources and support. [i]
Consider First Gen learners, navigating a labyrinth of academic expectations and cultural norms sometimes with little familial guidance. For these learners, the playing field may not be level. While some of their peers might seamlessly transition into campus life, buoyed by generations of accumulated social capital, First Gen students can encounter unfamiliar customs and unspoken rules. Even though present throughout academia, these dynamics get worse at elite institutions.[ii]
The tragic reality is that many learners fail without fully comprehending the forces arrayed against them. They may have earned their place through merit, their admission apparent proof of their potential, yet find themselves struggling against invisible currents. These are not isolated cases of individual shortcomings but rather symptoms of a system ill-equipped to support the diverse needs of a changing student body. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s work in Academically Adrift underscores learning losses occurring among students, suggesting a broad failure to engage and educate learners effectively.[iii] Their research raises alarming questions about the true value of a college education in its current form and the epistemic damage that may be occurring for learners and the broader society.
It is crucial to understand that the structural and systemic biases holding certain learners back are not necessarily the product of individual prejudices or malicious intent. They come from outdated methods, inadequate support systems, institutional failures to effectively communicate with or detect the difficulties faced by their students, and pedagogical philosophies predicated on the intentional failure of prescribed numbers of learners.[iv] The consequences of these academic Hunger Games are far-reaching and profound. Learners who might have thrived under more supportive conditions are faltering, their potential unrealized. The psychological toll is immense as some grapple with feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt, unaware that their struggles are more reflective of institutional shortcomings than their undoing.
In this high-stakes environment, the pressure to succeed can become overwhelming. The relentless pursuit of grades and rankings, once seen as a means to an end, has, for many, become an end in itself. This shift of student focus from learning to grade metrics reflects not merely changing learner attitudes but also a rational response on the part of learners to a system that increasingly values quantifiable outcomes over holistic development. The problem can begin before some students step foot in the classroom, with the admission process functioning to favor learners who thrive on pressure and competition. This is yet another area where learners may blame themselves for outcomes that are not their fault.[v] As educators and policymakers grapple with these challenges, it becomes clear that a fundamental reevaluation of higher education is necessary. The goal should not eliminate competition entirely but create a more equitable system that keeps it in perspective.
The path forward might take some damage control. Many institutions are already investing in support systems beyond academic tutoring to address the myriad challenges diverse learner populations face. This includes mental health resources, mentorship programs, and initiatives designed to help encourage perceptions of belonging on campuses. Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Laura T. Hamilton’s Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality highlights how institutional culture can perpetuate inequality, suggesting the need for a fundamental shift in campus priorities.[vi] The authors conducted research on campus of a midwestern university where they studied social life in first-year dorms. In doing so, Armstrong and Hamilton discovered a stratifying “party pathway” of social gatherings, fraternity/sororities, and sports teams enabling the values of affluent students to coincide with extant inequities within universities. Paying for the Party underscores the importance of holistic analysis support systems to incorporate non-academic factors such as study habits, life skills, and well-being in their portfolios.
A fresh look at institutional priorities could help as well. Ultimately, the true measure of a university’s success should not be its selectivity or punishing internal standards but its ability to nurture and develop the potential of all its students. By addressing the structural inequities and systemic biases that pervade higher education, we can create a system that truly lives up to its promise of being a transformative force in society. Raj Chetty and colleagues’ research on intergenerational mobility highlights the crucial role that colleges can play in promoting social mobility, emphasizing the potential for higher education to be a powerful equalizing force.[vii] Their work provides a compelling argument for investing in higher education to address broader societal inequalities with more generous attitudes toward learners as they prepare for life after college.
Building on these insights, the academic Hunger Games, it becomes clear that higher education institutions must critically examine their structures and competitive practices to ensure they genuinely serve all students. This self-reflection is particularly crucial in an era when the commercialization of higher education has become increasingly prevalent. As universities adopt more business-like models and prioritize institutional rankings and achievement metrics, they risk losing sight of their fundamental educational and societal missions. The tension between market-driven approaches and the egalitarian ideals of higher education sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the challenges posed by the encroachment of self-interested values in academia.
[i] Alfie Kohn, The Case Against Competition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986).
[ii] Anthony Abraham Jack, The Privileged Poor: How Elite Colleges Are Failing Disadvantaged Students (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2019).
[iii] Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
[iv] Sara Goldrick-Rab, Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).
[v] Jeffrey J. Selingo, Who Gets in and Why: A Year Inside College Admissions (New York: Scribner, 2020).
[vi] Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Laura T. Hamilton, paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013).
[vii] Raj Chetty et al., “Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 23618 (2017), https://www.nber.org/papers/w23618