“The trouble with the rat race is that, even if you win, you’re still a rat” (Lily Tomlin)

All this is unfair to rats: as a biologist, I can assure you that, in normal and natural life, rats do not race. We do, or at least some of us do! A ‘rat race’ is a term used for an endless, self-defeating or pointless pursuit. It conjures up the image of the futile efforts of rats in a laboratory trying to escape whilst running around a maze or in a wheel. They make lots of noise bumping into each other, but ultimately go nowhere, i.e. achieve nothing, either collectively or individually. Like people, it seems, in some modern settings.

The ‘rat race’ is a term often used to describe competition at work, in schools and universities, business, commerce and industry, show-biz and “professional” sports, politics and research, even amongst NGOs and religious sects and, of course, in life in general. If one is constantly competing for everything, with “beating the adversary” (at any cost?) as the main aim, one is in the ‘rat race’.

The idea of modern life as a ‘rat race’ has led many to question their own attitudes to making a living and to seek better alternatives. For example, a more harmonious and balanced approach to life is one where ‘co-operation replaces competition, defeating others is replaced by service to others, the stronger come out to help the weaker and ultimately peace replaces conflicts’.

Particularly in big cities, in business, financial and political communities, many believe that long working hours, pressure to do better than colleagues or competitors, unpaid overtime, stressful jobs, continuous performance evaluations, less time for family life, have led to people being unable to enjoy the benefits of increased economic prosperity and a higher standard of living.

Escaping the ‘rat race’ has become the lietmotiv of many. It can have different meanings for different people but, in all cases, it involves a change in attitude from competition to co-operation.The best recent example of such change comes from education, with the abolition of CPE ranking as admission procedure to Form 1. Consider a class of 30 brilliant Std 6 students : with ranking, only one can come first, only one second, etc.

But, with the grading system, all 30 can achieve 5 ‘As’ and the top aggregate of 20. Co-operative learning (inclusive pedagogy) becomes possible in class throughout the year, which is both healthy and joyful, and admissions to relatively equal-level secondary schools with parity of esteem would be reasonably easy. I have personal experience of students doing projects in groups of three to five, with all group members getting the same grading (i.e. for the overall value of their project) achieving a degree of excellence far beyond that achieved by students working individually and in isolation.

So the idea of reverting to a Form 1 national intake into QEC (meaning the selection of 140 out of 8-12,000 applicants) requires careful consideration. As I wrote in The Politics of Education (2003), the public should “accept no major policy changes in education without prior public debate and public participation in the decision-making process”. “A proposed amendment is made public; it is then debated in forums, on radio and TV, in the press and amendments/counter-proposals, etc. are made, within strict limits of time before it is tabled in Parliament for final consideration and adoption”.

It is perfectly possible to live happily and successfully outside the rat race. The best gift we can give to all the young people of this country is a chance to learn to live in cooperation with each other instead of being in perpetual conflict and in cut-throat competition.

<B>Dr. Michael ATCHIA

[email protected]

http://www.michael-atchia.info</B>