We talk about resisting, but we wind up playing games.
You lie, steal, cheat and deceit
In such a small, small game
Don’t you know it is wrong
…
You better stop, it is the Wrong ‘Em Boyo
Lyrics from the song Wrong ‘Em Boyo written by Clive Alphonso, originally performed by The Rulers and popularized by a cover version recorded by The Clash.
*******************
I recently attended a faculty meeting after my university unveiled a new budget plan. The plan places cash value on students’ heads. The more student contact hours my department has, the greater our cut from a university-wide annual budget.
It’s a Butts-In-Seats model (the more students in our department seats, the bigger our piece of the pie). It’s not new. It started in the UK under the title of Bums-In-Seats (‘bum’ is English for ‘butt’). The downsides of that model have been well documented. The key point for this essay is that none of my faculty colleagues favor the model. It sacrifices ethical principles of education at the altar of a ‘student as customer’ approach that is more suited to corporations than universities.
In the faculty meeting, a discussion came up about classes we offer to undergraduate students who are researching with faculty. The classes are one credit, as that is reasonable for the time commitment from faculty and students. A colleague asked if these classes count as butts-in-seats (BIS) for budget purposes.
The answer was “Yes.” Then, the fun began….
Our BIS rewards are not just based on the number of BIS we contact but also on how long we have contact with any given BIS. That is, how many credits a class is assigned. The time delay from my chair saying, “Yes, the classes count for BIS,” to a colleague saying, “We need to make them all three credits,” was less than a second.
The discussion that followed did not address whether faculty could or would increase the time they commit to the classes; the key was that we had a way to game the BIS system. That the goal was to game the system was not disguised by any of us. It was stated openly. Gaming the system was a ‘solution’ to a monetary problem, and academics (me included) fancy ourselves as problem solvers (some even self-apply the title of ‘thought-leaders’). The impromptu brainstorming session ended when a colleague said, “We should make all the classes 12 credits.” Laughter ensued.
I get that the 12-credit comment was a joke, but what hit me after the meeting was that it was a joke after a chain of ideas, in the same vein as the joke, that were not jokes (it was a natural endgame to the discussion). We were going to shift class credits based on a budget model we found unethical in order to get some added monetary rewards from the model. The only limit was how far we would be willing to shift before it became silly (not unethical; that line was already crossed, but laughable to the degree of being too obvious).
Under normal circumstances, I would not have had a second thought about gaming a system we didn’t like and not thinking too hard about collateral damage (e.g., departments competing against each other in a zero-sum game, departments working to ‘sell’ students on classes they offer).
The un-normal circumstance that made me pause was that this was our first faculty meeting after the November 5, 2024 presidential election. After the election, I discussed a question with faculty colleagues: How could all those voters abandon ethical principles for some perceived economic/monetary gain (e.g., cheaper gas prices, lower cost of eggs)? How indeed.
I hear colleagues yelling at me that I am moving toward an apples-to-oranges comparison. That misses the point. The ease with which a room full of intelligent people (ask them) could sacrifice principles was a microcosm. The ease with which we could slip into gaming a small, small game was eye-opening. We pushed an ethical line for rewards that, by any reasonable perspective, are small – we could have held the line and still be able to feed our families and pay our mortgage. But it’s a small line we moved. A small transgression. Such things are relative, are they not? Don’t hate the player; hate the game.
An interpretation of the song from which this essay takes its title is this: small games reveal as much as big games, perhaps more. The ease of sacrificing ethics in a small game gives direct insights into how such sacrifices happen. Direct experience is different from theories and pet hypotheses. Academics use pet hypotheses to explain the actions of others. I was afforded a direct experience, and it was harder than living with theories as it forced introspection.
Yes, my colleagues and I could say the problem was the system imposed on us. Someone cheated first, and we responded.
I take the phrase “Wrong ‘Em Boyo” to mean that responding to a system one finds unethical by seeking to game it (to cheat) is unethical and wrong. That has left me with no pride (‘we found a flaw in the game’) or satisfaction (‘we are thumbing our noses at leadership’) about my actions, or lack thereof, at my last faculty meeting. We talk of resistance but resort to gaming.
What will one do when the wolf is at the door? It is a question rarely, if ever, asked at a faculty meeting. The wolf of universities adopting corporate modes of operation – profit before ethics – has been at the door for some time now.
It has already led faculty gaming the research publication system to publish more papers per year – cash equivalents in academia. It’s getting bigger fangs, too, as corporations become entrenched in universities by privatizing university research and as universities dive deeper into real estate games.
Those fangs could still get bigger as corporations align with political leanings and as real estate tax breaks are doled out or withheld by political parties in exchange for a favor. The wolf is now offering added rewards if some educational principles are relaxed.
How could reasonable people abandon ethics for some small monetary rewards (e.g., a bigger cut of a budget pie)? How indeed.
AL 2024-1115
Add Ons
I suspect that arcane topics like history (zero corporate value) will not survive Butts-In-Seats and will fall into a doom loop (low BIS one year leads to less budget, which leads to fewer resources for classes, which leads to even lower BIS, which leads to even lower budget, and so on, until “We’d like to keep you, but students don’t seem to want you, and they are the customer”).
That’s a shame, as history can teach us about systems centrally planned around quotas (e.g., the number of students in seats). The Soviet Union had a quota on chandelier makers. The easiest way for leaders to see if the quota was met was to use a metric based on the weight of annual production. Clever chandelier makers (perhaps former faculty) solved the problem by making chandeliers heavier (“Take that, you silly leaders”).
It is a small ethical compromise, and who gets hurt other than the fat cats who imposed a quota-based budget (“They started it, don’t blame us”)? Who indeed. The full system was not just Soviet Leaders and Chandelier Makers. The people also put chandeliers up on their ceilings and sat below them. If the analogy is not clear, seek out a history teacher before they disappear.
Imagine the future campus where every university department is fighting to increase butts-in-seats metrics (increased BIS = increased budget rewards). All departments will want to entice students into their classes. The number of flashy fliers advertising this or that class will grow. Students cannot walk across campus without seeing some form of advertising. They will continually get invitations to visit various departments for free samples of what’s on offer, with free pizza. Some departments will team with others to sell linked products. The number of multiple majors will grow while time dedicated to any single major will not, but classes can be adjusted to help the customer with that.
How long will it take before a clever department takes its butts-in-seats budget bump and hires an advertising firm to sell students on their product? It will only take one clever department, and others will follow (“gotta play the game, bro”). Walking the campus will be like a stroll through the mall – 40% off at the Department of Biology, a two-for-one offer at Physics, and a business sale at Philosophy.
The song “Wrong ‘Em Boyo” has been the subject of some writing. One commentary I enjoyed can be found here. It focuses on how The Clash’s covering the song made sense within their ethos, but it also talks more generally about lessons the song can offer. In particular, “integrity and fairness are crucial, even in seemingly trivial situations. “
This essay was motivated by how I felt about my own choices. I understand that sacrifices will be made in life and that options are one’s own. All is good if one reflects on them and is good with them.
I was not feeling good about being too quiet at a meeting. I realized that what I was feeling was the feeling of becoming a hypocrite (“I’m not sacrificing ethics, I’m playin’ the game”), and a condescending one at that (“How could those people do that”). My choices at that stage were to reach for the bottle of scotch or sit down and write it out. I chose the slightly healthier option of the two. The feeling of “I should have spoken up” reminds me of the phrase “Avoir l’esprit d’escalier,” which translates to “wit of the staircase.”
It means thinking of something helpful to add to a conversation after the fact (on the staircase walking home after the actual discussion or event). Better late than never is often wishful thinking. It is better to work on speaking up when needed, whether in a small game or a large one (the former frequently feeds into the latter).
_____________
Cover photo: The Rulers, Wrong Emboyo (2009), courtesy YouTube (listen here).
Stagger Lee met Billy and they got down to gambling
Stagger Lee throwed seven
Billy said that he throwed eight
So Billy said, hey Stagger!
I’m gonna make my big attack
I’m gonna have to leave my knife in your back (start all over again)
Why do you try to cheat?
And trample people under your feet
– Don’t you know it is wrong?
To cheat the trying man
– Don’t you know it is wrong?
To cheat the trying man
So you better stop, it is the wrong ’em boyo
You lie, steal, cheat and deceit
In such a small, small game
– Don’t you know it is wrong
To cheat the trying man
– Don’t you know it is wrong
To cheat the trying man
You’d better stop, it is the Wrong ‘Em Boyo
Don’t you know it is wrong
Billy Boy has been shot
And Stagger Lee’s come out on top
– Don’t you know it is wrong
To cheat the trying man
– Don’t you know it is wrong
