Must Everyone Have a Prize?

School sports days and end-of-term prize-giving sessions have changed.  There is a pervasive, evidence-free myth that by identifying some individuals as successes, those not so recognized feel depressed.

The argument is that by publicly differentiating the more and less talented hardworking or ambitious one creates two spirals.  The virtuous circle means that “to him who hath more shall be given”.  While the vicious cycle means downwards to doom and depression.

The eye of the self-appointed socially concerned counsellors naturally alights on the victims of viciousness.  They believe that if one does not receive recognition and prizes for ability and effort (however equitable that might be) people lose their self-confidence and self-esteem.  This in turn leads them both to try less hard, less often, and even become phobic about competitive situations.  So everything is self-fulfilling and it begins with prizes.

They also believe that self-confidence is vital.  That confidence leads to performance and not vice versa.  So the key is self-esteem – hence the American led and almost obsessional self-esteem movement.  The idea is to nurture and bolster children’s self-esteem – especially those who are disadvantaged – so that they might realise their full potential.

So all must have prizes at all competitive events.  Either they will all get something or no-one gets anything.  Equality over equity.  This philosophy has at least three major and significant problems associated with it.

1.      The first is that once young people have left the cloistered and protective world of educational and recreational institutions, they find the ‘real’ world is full of cut-and-thrust; winners and losers; the accepted and the rejected.  Not quite dog-eat-dog, but certainly where competition is rejoiced in rather than rejected. It then comes as a terrible shock to the self-esteem-bolstered young person.  Indeed, the President of the American Psychological Society recently suggested that the increase in adolescent suicide may be directly attributable to the ‘all must have prizes’ philosophy.  Is it not the task of the educators to prepare pupils for the real world, not protect them from it?

The world of work, relationships and recreation is a competitive world.  We learn both to co-operate and compete.  And we learn about the benefits of hard work, practice and sacrifice.  At the Olympic games only winners get prizes.

2.      The second issue is that of direction of causality. This is essentially whether the causal relationship between self-esteem and (academic) performance is from the former to the latter or vice versa.  The self-esteem movement insists the former; the doubters, the latter.  Self-esteem does influence self-confidence but unless it is, at least partly, related to ability and effort, it is rather hollow. One could make a good case for ‘performance leads to performance’.  All people get a good sense of how they are doing, comparatively over time and with others.  They see and feel their development and respond to it.  Thus, for the sports coach the target is behaviour, skill, performance, not self-esteem.   Do well and you feel good about yourself.

3.      Thirdly, there is a yet more worrying consequence of the ‘all must have prizes’ philosophy and it can be clearly seen in our current educational crisis.  This refers essentially to the effect on the talented.  Concentrating on the processes in the vicious circle ignores the issues of the virtuous cycle.  If all get prizes, how does this affect the talented and able? The A level crisis and the first class degree problem is a manifestation of the issue.  Whether exams are getting easier, students brighter or lectures and marking more lenient is not the issue.  The issue is about differentiation.

Peers know more about ability and effort than teachers.  All students know which of their group are really talented or indeed who make-up for it by conscientious endeavour.  By sending the signal that ability and effort are not that important, because whatever you do you receive a prize, it can very fundamentally demoralise the talented.  It sends the signal that input is not related to output; that inequality of performance is met with equality of reward.

Some believe the talented and hardworking are robust enough to withstand all this.  Others secretly enjoy the schadenfreude of it all; how the mighty have fallen.  If the system is fair in the sense that real winners are identifiable and identified then paradoxically the ‘all must have prizes’ philosophy can be a double whammy.  It does not succeed in raising the performance of the less successful and demotivates the really successful.

All must not have prizes!

Article by: Professor Adrian Furnham of University College London