The Lake Wobegon Effect

Here is what Wikipedia says:

The Lake Wobegon effect is the human tendency to overestimate one's achievements and capabilities in relation to others. It is named for the fictional town of Lake Wobegon from the radio series A Prairie Home Companion, where, according to Garrison Keillor, "all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average". In a similar way, a large majority of people claim to be above average; this phenomenon has been observed among drivers, CEOs, stock market analysts, college students, police officers and state education officials, among others. Experiments and surveys have repeatedly shown that most people believe that they possess attributes that are better or more desirable than average.

While my wonderful colleagues were enjoying the Spring break, I spent last three days solid looking through their peer evaluations for annual review. Thanks God, UNC does it together with merit review; my previous institution thought it necessary to do two separate reviews. At any rate, t is extremely slow, frustrating, and taxing work, perhaps the lest favorite of my duties.

The taxing part does not bother me. It is the relational tensions that get me. Let’s face it, no one likes to be evaluated by others, unless the results are congratulatory. No one really likes to evaluate others. As a new School Director, what stake do I have in being harsh on my colleagues? None, for I neither want to make enemies within this actually very friendly group, nor will such harshness make any difference in terms of improving the School. So, everyone in my School is above average, and I just go along with that, with minor variations. I am trying to do my best to make this process constructive, and include some recommendations, but where the rubber meets the road, that is in actual numbers, I am not doing anything drastic.

However, this institution’s long-term survival depends, in part, on its ability to raise its standing, to attract good faculty and good students, and generally to get better. To do this, we need to produce higher quality scholarship, and generally move closer to institutions with a stronger research mission.

The Lake Wobegon practices are clearly against the long-term interests of the whole, although they maybe in the short-term interest of many individual members. How do you crack this paradox? It is certainly not unique to higher education, but more or less describes the main tension of the entire social life. That’s the classic tragedy of the commons. Do I step forward and force everyone to do what’s best for them? Not likely. First, because I do not have nearly enough power to do so, and second, you cannot force people into a paradise against their will. If the expectations are to be raised and more efficiently enforced, this has to be a collective decision, one supported by the majority, if not by all.

Here is how Lake Wobegon effect works in the Academe. First, you need to design evaluation criteria that are…. Let’s just say, flexible. If you lay out, oh, seven criteria, but do not say how many of them have to be met, one can think of a number between one and six. Next, do not be critical towards your colleagues, and nod-nod, wink-wink to their exaggerated claims. Let’s pretend a small local journal run by our friends is an international peer-refereed publication. Let’s list all the non-existent committees, oh, so what? Who is getting hurt here? And finally, convince yourself that because the monetary gains from merit pay are so small, the fight is not worth fighting. Live and let live.

One problem with the Lake Wobegon is that it creates disincentive for highly productive people to produce. Again, from the point of view of the whole group, it is a bad system, because the highly productive people are valuable asset of the group; they generate most publicity, help attract other productive folks, and generate incomes that can be shared by everyone. Of course, they also create envy and are hard to control. How do we learn to accept inequality when it benefits us all?

I actually agree with the merit pay argument. Merit pay does not work when many states are financially starving their state universities AND blaming them for being liberal, or for not teaching the right stuff. If we are to get more rigorous, this has to be done for reasons other than merit pay. So we are now up to two unlikely suggestions: raising the bar needs to be done collectively, and not for any monetary considerations. Can we do it?