My holiday home in Ruritania

I went earlier this month with my wife to see Coppélia, performed by Birmingham Royal Ballet. This was a great experience, and reminded me so much of our beloved holiday home in Ruritania. As I am sure you know, Ruritania is located in the heart of Mitteleuropa. We do not have a coastline, but there is a varied landscape of lakes, mountains, fields of golden wheat, and dark mysterious forests. Our holiday home is in a picturesque village (all the villages in Ruritania are picturesque), full of timber-framed houses with projecting eaves and crooked chimneys. Along the street, there is the village ale-house, outside which many of our jolly peasants sit drinking and laughing. From time to time, they jump up and start dancing enthusiastically. Across the street from the ale-house lives a comical old inventor, who builds lifelike dolls with ingenious clockwork mechanisms to move their arms and legs.

There are few motor vehicles or trains in Ruritania, but many elegant horse-drawn carriages. Nor is Ruritania influenced by modern fashions: all our peasants wear elegant well-cut clothes, brightly-coloured, with cloaks, boots and hats. The local aristocracy are particularly well-dressed: the wife of the local prince is strikingly beautiful and is said to be violently jealous of any woman who is deemed more lovely.

Life in Ruritania is not all feasting and dancing, however. Few venture out into the forests at night. It is rumoured that young men who have been unfaithful and thereby caused the death of their lovers are haunted by their ghosts and forced to dance until they expire from exhaustion. Some say that at night the swans in the lake near our village turn into beautiful young women. Children who walk alone through the forests seem particularly at risk, and there are disturbing tales of them being chased by wolves or lured by evil old women promising gingerbread - a local delicacy.

When in Ruritania, my wife and I usually visit one or more of the local castles. One near our holiday home was abandoned about 20 years ago and is now completely overgrown with giant brambles. A more interesting castle just up the valley is the home of ancient line of counts, though these are rarely seen around the place during daytime. We have also visited the capital city Strelsau, which is of course the home of Ruritania’s royal family. Some people say the king looks a bit like me, but it would be a work of utter fiction if the two of us were ever confused.

Not staying focussed

Every person who is successful in whatever walk of life now claims that the secret of their success is their capacity to ‘stay focussed’. ‘Staying focussed’ has become a sort of magical mental state, recommended by advisors to the great majority of us who only lead lives of middling achievement. Like all clichés, ‘staying focussed’ is popular because it conveys certainty without any precise meaning. At its most mundane, it could mean that a person should concentrate on the task in hand or on some immediate ambition. In a broader sense it could it could mean that a person is advised to pursue self-advancement irrespective of effects on their health, their personal morality, their responsibility for others, the happiness of their family life, or the mental health of their children.

Of course, it is essential that for any great task to be completed a person or team of people must concentrate on understanding the problems they must overcome and work together to achieve success. But there are two problems with advising people to ‘stay focussed’. The first is that their greatest ambition in life can or should not be achieved. It is amusing to watch programmes like The X-Factor and see contestants who utterly lack both talent and insight. Their rejection by the panel evokes bewilderment, anger and a renewed determination to succeed at becoming stars - even though ‘success’ will probably in their case mean little more than a wasted lifetime of singing out-of-tune to diminishing audiences. All of us, but especially the most focussed, need to learn what we are not good at. That is not to say that we should avoid activities in which we do not excel. We may of course gain great pleasure from singing, dancing, stamp-collecting or whatever: we should persist in such activities even if we recognise that we will never be world-class. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing even if we do it badly.

The second problem with being ‘focussed’ is that people who concentrate on the task in hand lose sight of the broader picture: they do not see the system. We have all met junior members of staff who rigidly apply the rules of their job even where this undermines the purpose of their employer. But this becomes truly damaging in senior management and politics. Alistair Darling’s memoirs of his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer (Back from the Brink) looks at the events leading up to the collapse of the banking system. He notes that the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) were used to assessing the financial stability of individual banks: they did not take into account the massive extent to which banks borrowed from each other, such that the collapse of one bank would topple all the others. The staff at the Bank of England and the FSA were so focussed that they could not see the whole system. Nor indeed were there any senior civil servants in the Treasury with an understanding of the whole system.

A similar failure has occurred recently with the crisis in accident and emergency (A&E) departments in hospitals. The Government has made substantial cuts in funding to local authorities. These have responded by reducing the support the provide for the elderly, the disabled and the mentally-ill. As a result, vulnerable people are discharged from hospital, are unable to care for themselves and are rapidly re-admitted. Governments have persistently failed to see that health and social care services are essentially a single system: cutting expenditure on social services results in expensive hospital beds becoming blocked by people who could remain in their own home (or in a care home) at a better quality of life and less public expense.

Why is system-thinking so rare? The main reason is that it is difficult and becoming more so. System-thinking requires a breadth of knowledge of how many different sorts of institutions operate and the ability to analyse their inter-connectedness. But as society becomes more complicated, people must work ever harder to understand their own small part of it. It is often said that academics advance by knowing more and more about less and less. But the same is true of many other occupations. As a result, people specialise and become experts in their own narrow field or organisation and see the rest of the world as their ‘environment’, either predictable or the origin of unexpected and incomprehensible demands.

Perhaps we need a new set of clichés. Instead of encouraging people to ‘stay focussed’, we should advise them to ‘always see the broader picture’ or ‘look at how it all works together’, or even ‘try not to be too focussed on one small piece of the jigsaw’.

The ancient of day's marking

During my career as an academic member of staff at the University of Birmingham, I probably marked thousands of essays, from both undergraduates and postgraduates. The most miserable experience was marking hundreds of medical student examination papers at a time. As with most markers, I became a sort of machine. I would devise a checklist of suitable responses to each question and tick the number of times each student used one. I could thereby mark each mini-essay in two or three minutes. Much more enjoyable were the essays written by undergraduate medical students for their elective project on learning disability and health, which I still teach and mark. Students choose their own topic within this field and always produce long essays that are stimulating and, in some cases, worthy of publication.

A further problem with marking is not just the number of scripts to mark, but also the requirement to assign a numerical score to a long essay. It was different when I worked with my colleague Dr Beryl Smith when we set up our postgraduate masters course in intellectual (‘learning’) disabilities in 1992. Students completed eight assignments (each of which would be answered by long essays of between 1500 and 3000 words) and a dissertation of 15,000 words. Students were encouraged to write about their area of special clinical interest (such as challenging behaviour, epilepsy and so on). We decided that only four grades were required to mark each assignment to an acceptable standard of reliability. We gave a B if the student met the specified requirement for the assignment, a C if they answered the question but did not argue their case well or failed to draw on sufficient evidence. We gave an A where the answer was a high standard and would be publishable in a professional journal. Finally, the failed D grade was given where the student did not meet the requirements of the essay assignment. To make this scheme work, we needed to make sure the requirements of the assignment were stated clearly, and we included details of our marking-scheme. This system was reliable because there were only three grade boundaries (A/B, B/C and C/D) to decide. We double-marked all assignments and usually came to rapid agreement on the grading for each essay.

All this of course would look like mollycoddling to the sort of academic who believes that the only aims of examinations are to catch students out and identify a would-be elite. Beryl and I took a different approach: we believed that the purpose of our course and hence the marking of assignments was to help students learn to become more reflective and effective practitioners. This would, indirectly, be our contribution to improving the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. The purpose of the assignments was not just to decide whether each student’s work was of an acceptable standard, but also to help us measure their progress, and see what areas required some individual attention. As important as the grade, therefore, were the detailed comments we completed on each essay, identifying how the student could improve what they had written, areas of strength they could develop, and areas of weakness they could concentrate on improving.

Beryl eventually retired and the University introduced new regulations that stipulated that all marking should be numerical. Instead of our four grades with clear descriptions and marked to a high degree of reliability, we had to use percentages. What nobody could tell me was what they were a percentage of. If students are set a large number of questions to answer (for instance in a maths exam), then it is possible to calculate the percentage they answered correctly. This only has any meaning of course if each question is deemed to be of equal difficulty and all questions can be marked as either ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’. But to give a ‘percentage’ for an essay suggests that this is the degree to which it approximates to some perfect essay. No such perfect essay exists. Indeed, it seems rare in universities for any essay, however good, to be given more than 85 ‘percent’. At the lowest end of the scale, I have once or twice given a mark of 35 ‘percent’, but I think that almost all marks for essays fall somewhere between these two extremes.

Since it is not possible to define what marks are a percentage of, the marks are not actually percentages at all: they are ‘pseudo-percentages’. They are an example of the belief that scores and numbers are preferable to description, even when they are used to supposedly measure things that are inherently non-numerical. Academic psychologists are probably the most prone to this disorder, ‘measuring’ such diverse concepts as intelligence, affection, extroversion and so on with numerical scales calculated by summing answers to sets of questions or assigning weights to responses to various ingenious types of numeric scales. Sooner or later, people come to believe that because it is possible to assign a numerical score, then there must be a thing corresponding to it. So  many believe there is an entity called ‘intelligence’ which you can either have a lot of or a little of. This is despite the common-sense observation that people often have a very uneven pattern of mental skills, being, for instance, brilliant at thinking through maths problems but incompetent at remembering times and dates.

The urge to assign scores to people also says something about the people assigning the scores. No competent clinical psychologist would believe that an individual patient could be summarised by a few numerical test scores. Instead, each patient is seen as unique, perhaps having some familiar categories of problems, but still assessed and treated as an individual. A clinical psychologist and academics like myself and Beryl can afford to treat people as individuals because we are assessing so few of them. Once organisations become involved in processing large numbers of people, they see people as numbers. This has happened to many universities. There may be hundreds of students in a single year of an undergraduate course, knowing little of the academics who teach it and having few chances to exchange ideas with them. Indeed, some universities try hard to prevent any such exchange, placing their academic staff in research centres and laboratory blocks behind locked doors, inaccessible to mere undergraduate students. They have become people-processing institutions which, like business corporations, are judged not by how they improve the lives of ordinary citizens but by how much income they generate. Cash has thus become the supreme number which measures all. It is the Modern of Days, replacing the Ancient of Days in William Blake’s painting.

See also