Clearing! (a new *exciting* game between students and institutions)
Rabu, 22 Agustus 2012
0
komentar
I've been involved in a game of risk and strategy over the last week which has been played out in every University in the UK. The game is called 'Clearing', and it is a complex game of psychology that appears misleadingly simple. Actually, it used to be a bit simpler than it is now, but in the last year, the Society for Umpiring Clearing Knowledge and University Protocols (SUCKUP) has amended the rules regarding the pay-offs and penalties for certain moves which have had a profound impact on the way in which the game is played. Having said that, the moves that players may make in the game are unchanged.
Player A is an individual - usually an individual lacking in social, cultural or financial capital. The deep objective of Clearing is to increase capital, or rather increase cultural and social capital in the hope that financial capital will follow. Player A's means of increasing their capital is to enroll in an institution run by Player B. Not all institutions are open to Player A, depending on how much 'educational' capital they already possess. The higher the starting capital, the greater the choice for Player A.
Player B runs (or is employed by) an educational institution. Player B's goal is to maintain the viability of the institution by increasing (or at least maintaining) its social and cultural capital, which in terms of institutions is generally referred to as its 'reputation'. Player B's cards are not evenly distributed. Some Player Bs will have high reputation; others will not. The higher the reputation of Player B, the more likely they will be able to attract good Player As in order to maintain their viability and (potentially) grow.
With the amendments by SUCKUP, Player A must now pay a lot of money to Player B in exchange for the the cultural and social benefit. Given that Player A doesn't have any money, what they must in fact do is promise to pay in installments after they have left the institution.
In this situation, there are a number of risks that are borne by both Player A and Player B. Player B, if they have a poor set of cards, risks either not attracting any Player As, and therefore going broke, or only attracting Player A's whose educational capital is low, and whose risk of dropping out are high, with consequent damage to Player B's institution.
Player A's risks are considerable and unfold in the range of decisions that need to be taken as Player A moves through the game. These decisions are:
Some of the risks relating to these decisions are calculable, and others are not. The risk relating to each one can be summarised as:
Current indications show that there is a "graduate premium". It is difficult to predict if this will reduce or increase over the next 20 years.
These choices can be summarised in the diagram below:
Player A is an individual - usually an individual lacking in social, cultural or financial capital. The deep objective of Clearing is to increase capital, or rather increase cultural and social capital in the hope that financial capital will follow. Player A's means of increasing their capital is to enroll in an institution run by Player B. Not all institutions are open to Player A, depending on how much 'educational' capital they already possess. The higher the starting capital, the greater the choice for Player A.
Player B runs (or is employed by) an educational institution. Player B's goal is to maintain the viability of the institution by increasing (or at least maintaining) its social and cultural capital, which in terms of institutions is generally referred to as its 'reputation'. Player B's cards are not evenly distributed. Some Player Bs will have high reputation; others will not. The higher the reputation of Player B, the more likely they will be able to attract good Player As in order to maintain their viability and (potentially) grow.
With the amendments by SUCKUP, Player A must now pay a lot of money to Player B in exchange for the the cultural and social benefit. Given that Player A doesn't have any money, what they must in fact do is promise to pay in installments after they have left the institution.
In this situation, there are a number of risks that are borne by both Player A and Player B. Player B, if they have a poor set of cards, risks either not attracting any Player As, and therefore going broke, or only attracting Player A's whose educational capital is low, and whose risk of dropping out are high, with consequent damage to Player B's institution.
Player A's risks are considerable and unfold in the range of decisions that need to be taken as Player A moves through the game. These decisions are:
- Do I play the game at all?
- If I play the game, which Player B do I (can I) play with?
- What are my chances of success?
- Will success really increase my social and cultural capital?
- Will my financial commitment to my studies hamper me later in life?
- Will my financial capital increase as a result of my success with Player B?
Some of the risks relating to these decisions are calculable, and others are not. The risk relating to each one can be summarised as:
- Do I play the game at all?
If I don't play the game, I may be hampered in my career, but I will not be saddled with debt.
- If I play the game, which Player B do I (can I) play with?
If I choose my institution or course badly, I will increase my risk of failure. I will finish as if I had chosen not to play at all, but I will be carrying some debt
- What are my chances of success?
If I fail my course, I will finish as if I had chosen not to play at all, but I will be carrying debt according to how long it took me to decide to cut my losses
- Will success really increase my social and cultural capital?
If I choose my institution or my course badly, then even if I pass, my course may not reward me in the way I hoped.
- Will my financial commitment to my studies hamper me later in life?
The student debt is considerable. I will notice the payments early in my career when I am likely to be wanting to buy a house, get married and have children. I am unlikely to be earning enough for the debt payments not to notice until later in my career. Financial pressures might make it more likely that I get divorced, lose my house and end up on the streets!
- Will my financial capital increase as a result of my success with Player B?
Current indications show that there is a "graduate premium". It is difficult to predict if this will reduce or increase over the next 20 years.
These choices can be summarised in the diagram below:
The important point to notice here is that there are a number of ways that Player A can lose. They can choose not to play, but carry no penalty; they can choose to play but not succeed, where they lose whatever costs incurred up to the point they leave; and they lose even if they succeed if they fail to capitalise on their degree. At the centre of the problem for Player A is an inability to assess the risk they take in pursuing a course.
Player A has no knowledge when they make their early moves as to whether they will be able to succeed. There is nothing Player B does for Player A to help them assess the risk they might be taking. Ironically, this is also against the interests of Player B, because Player A's failure impacts on Player B's viability.
I think the logical conclusion from this is that Player B should invest in open education, making it easier for Player A to assess the risks they are taking. That way, the judgement of risk between playing and not playing can be left to Player A working with more complete information both about what they are dealing with and what they believe their capabilities are.
Amongst the recent initiatives of SUCKUP have been requirements for Player B to publish data concerning their success rates, employability and satisfaction. This presumably has been done as an initiative to address the risk situation bearing on Player A. However, this is unlikely to succeed because every Player A is different, and not every Player B reflects accurately in bland statistics: such statistics can in fact be mis-information.
Only the opening up of the actual product can do the job. An urgent amendment to SUCKUP's rules and regulations is required!
TERIMA KASIH ATAS KUNJUNGAN SAUDARA
Judul: Clearing! (a new *exciting* game between students and institutions)
Ditulis oleh dasfseegdse
Rating Blog 5 dari 5
Semoga artikel ini bermanfaat bagi saudara. Jika ingin mengutip, baik itu sebagian atau keseluruhan dari isi artikel ini harap menyertakan link dofollow ke https://wallpaper-dindingz.blogspot.com/2012/08/clearing-new-exciting-game-between.html. Terima kasih sudah singgah membaca artikel ini.Ditulis oleh dasfseegdse
Rating Blog 5 dari 5
Categories:
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar