In their book “The Gorillas Want Bananas” Debbie Jenkins and Joe Gregory describe the once popular phenomenon of flea circuses and how, by putting a lid on the box so that they crashed into it whenever they jumped, fleas could be trained not to jump so high, until eventually they could be kept in the box with no lid at all. I had heard this before and forgotten it, but it also reminded me of a similar story about a glass sheet being put in a fish tank, preventing fish from using the whole tank. Eventually, when the glass is removed, the fish have become so used to the restricted space they make no attempt to swim beyond where the glass was.

As I reflected on both these examples of conditioned thinking, I realised that in “A Feeling of Worth” I am actually challenging the extent to which we, humankind, have allowed ourselves to be conditioned in the same way. To what extent is “tall poppy” syndrome – the tendency for the majority to try to cut down anybody who rises above the rest – inhibiting our ability to progress as a society?

Of course I don’t have any definitive answers, but I do sense that this is a major factor in modern western society, and that, in the name of equality, there is a tendency to lower standards to meet the average. My argument is not with the principle of equality, but simply that this should be equality of opportunity, and that once given the opportunity people should be judged on the use they make of that opportunity.

For example, compulsory universal education is a desirable standard and a principle to which we all happily subscribe. Modern technology even makes it easier to remove the inequities caused by varying standards of teaching (even if it does not eliminate them completely.) Effective use of these capabilities would minimise the historic ‘lottery’ associated with education that created the situation whereby the quality of education depends on social standing and residential location. Yet, even then, results will vary because abilities differ.

Unfortunately, educational effort seems to be focused more on equalising results than equalising opportunity. Consequently, while it is a worthy goal to make university education more accessible to all, this appears to be being achieved by promoting a general lowering of standards that:

• Reduces the spread in results, and ensures that more students achieve the highest grades in their qualifying examinations.
• Promotes university selection policies that are distorted by social considerations rather than pure academic achievements.
• Reduces the calibre of the student intake which, inevitably, has to reduce the standard of the ultimate degree, and hence the graduate capability.
• Proliferates a number of graduate qualifications that are not consistent with the standards normally associated with university degrees.

Some might argue that, precisely because abilities do vary, this ultimately is simply an alternative method of creating “a more level playing field” where more people have greater opportunities than they might otherwise have had. The problem is that it inhibits the capabilities of the more able, and thus, for the wider community, reduces the overall potential. In a world where we need to make better use of resources this is waste, and as such is unconscionable.