In “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus,” Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser called school an “ideological state apparatus.” Despite it being unclear if he was referring to school or the education sector in general, it is obvious the moniker suggests, while individuals strive to achieve certain standards of achievement, the said criteria are merely state-sponsored selection for artificial prestige and an illusion of excellence.
Academia is a jungle, where only the strong survive and the top predators take credit.
This phenomenon is called the social comparison bias, which is defined as having feelings of dislike and competitiveness with someone believed to be physically or mentally better than themselves. This has resulted in the academe’s toxic nature. For Philippine state colleges and universities, increasing academic ranking requires publishing as many research articles as possible with prestigious research journals. Over time, the more published, the more one can make a name for themselves as a “professor.”
However, such competitiveness is a threat to the department.
There is a quarterly research forum for faculty members who wish to be recognized and funded by their school. Yet, before they can even enter the forum, researchers must submit a unified title (with an abstract) to the committee. The committee then decides who will present.
During the forum, research panels act as omniscient beings that only approve research “least in entry” as the committee often develops insecurity from young researchers. What happens if a young researcher submits earth-shattering data? The panel becomes envious—the social comparison bias at work. This has also led many opting to have research published in “predatory journals,” where large sums of cash are paid out merely to earn points from getting a paper published. Such intense rivalry has become engrained among senior academicians and, once they climb the ladder of seniority, they do the same to their younger colleagues.
Social comparison bias is a real-life “Game of Thrones” and it may be the reason why state colleges and universities hardly excel—except when it comes to accreditation and faculty profile. The problem can also be traced to hiring. For example, ideal administrators should be hiring those better than themselves but, often times, their insecurities drive them to hire mediocre applicants as a means of upholding a façade of superiority. Doubtful administrators lead to simpleton faculty members.
Academia’s Achilles’ heel continues to be reaping a culture of mediocrity. The illusion of superiority cannot hide the uncertainty of the academe. For simpletons, the so-called Dunning-Kruger effect, which is when the inept are gifted at overlooking the extent of their incompetence, they suffer from illusory superiority. Such a situation leads to more thinking errors, which, over time, erodes the overall talent pool, jeopardizes the reputation of the institution, and endangers the country’s entire tertiary education system.
I cannot remember an instance where a professor or administrator vacated their post for the sake of a better candidate or invested in younger researchers that show potential for development.
In the “padrino system,” where decisions are made based on nepotism or cronyism, that currently remains within academia, insecure administrators would rather poison themselves than foster individuals. In the short term, they feel their status is endangered by young upstarts but they fail to see, in the long run, such contributions are needed to attain profits.

***
Comments and suggestions are welcome at sensei.adorador@chmsc.edu.ph/WDJ