لماذا تفشل المدارس؟
اللاعبون والمصالح والنقطة الخفية التي تصنع النظام

Game Theory #2: Why Schools Suck

Original Transcript

Okay, so welcome back to game theory. As I discussed last class, our goal is to use game theory to analyze global events, to understand why they're happening as well as make certain predictions about how they should develop. But to do that, I first need to train your mind in how to see the world using game theory. So last class in our first class we discussed the example of the dating game — of why men and women are motivated to behave the way they do when they look for a mate. Today I want to discuss the issue of school.

So for the first few classes I'm going to use examples from your life that you know pretty well in order to develop the mindset for game theory. School is something that you should know very well. As you know, the purpose of school is to train you in a way that allows you to be functional in society as well as to be creative. So the goals are basically literacy — reading and writing. This is the primary purpose of school because in order to function in our society, you need to be able to absorb information and convey information.

Number two is what we call the core competencies. These are skills that you need to be successful in life, including the ability to think critically, to cooperate with others, to collaborate, to communicate. The last thing is what we call lifelong learning. So in an age of AI, in an age of globalization, school is just a start of the learning process because every five years the world changes. So you need to be in a constant state of learning. You have to actually love learning and know how to learn for yourself. These are the three basic purposes of school, and that's why you're at school.

Unfortunately, what we know is that most schools — I'm not saying all schools — but most schools are pretty bad at these three things. In fact, you can make the argument that most schools not only do not teach you these skills, but they have the opposite effect. They make you hate learning. So let's look at literacy. Today in most schools you're not required to read books. In fact, when you go to university the professors there are so shocked that you don't read books that instead they make you read paragraphs or watch videos. So in terms of literacy, around the world people are losing the capacity to read and to write. And not only that, but people's attention spans have decreased. It's very hard for a professor to give you an hour lecture — people lose focus after about five minutes.

Another problem is that school is supposed to teach you creativity, critical thinking skills, and collaboration, but it doesn't do that. Look at collaboration: in school, it's a competition where you believe it's a zero-sum game. So for you to get ahead, you need to screw over your classmate. Class ranking is very important. And the last thing, of course, is lifelong learning — where school teaches you to hate school and therefore teaches you to hate learning. Especially in China, where you work hard until the national entrance examination at age 18. And then after the examination ends, what do you do? You burn your books. That's the great ceremony in China — right after the examination, you take your books, you rip out the pages, and you throw them in the sky to signal your liberation. And you're like: I never ever want to read a book again. I never ever want to take a test again. I never want to learn again.

So around the world, most schools — not all schools, there are some really good schools out there — but most schools are failing in their mission. School sucks. And so the question for us today is: why is this the case? And we're going to use game theory to analyze why.

So what I'm going to do now is tell you a story about myself. The year is 2008. I went to Yale College in the United States and I was an English major. I did very well in school. So I was hired in 2008 to go to Shenzhen in South China and help a school — Shin Middle School — build a national program to send kids abroad. Back then not that many students wanted to go abroad, and there were really few international schools.

So the first thing I did was look at the situation at the school. I found that students — even though about ten percent of them were planning to go abroad, about 80 students each year — the way they were going about the process of studying abroad was problematic. First of all, they were taking regular Chinese classes where all you do is sit in a room of fifty kids, take notes and take tests, you don't communicate, you don't ask questions, you don't debate. Another problem is that the students were spending all their time memorizing SAT word lists — not reading, not writing, just memorizing words. And the other thing they did to make their applications look good was Model United Nations. That's a great activity, but everyone was doing it. There was absolutely no differentiation.

So I looked at the situation and said: these kids are very smart, and they might be able to get into a good American university, but I wanted them to do well at the university and to do well in life. So I made certain changes to the curriculum and to the school. First thing I did was set up a seminar system. Rather than the Chinese class format, I invited American teachers to come and teach seminars — ten or twenty kids in a room discussing books they read together. Rather than SAT word memorization, I had them read books. Students were required to read a lot of books. In fact, I established a five-thousand-book English library at the school where students could just go and borrow books and read. I wanted to teach students the joy of reading.

And then in terms of activities, I didn't want students to do Model United Nations anymore because I didn't want kids sitting around just talking. I wanted them to do things. So I set up two new activities. The first is called the Coffee House — the first coffee house in a Chinese high school. Students had to run a business, work as waiters, provide good service to customers. It was a collaboration effort, great for students to learn collaboration, finance, entrepreneurship. It was a very successful activity. The other thing I did was the Daily Newspaper — the first daily newspaper in a Chinese high school, and probably maybe even around the world. Students every day had to report, collect information, write articles, edit and publish, and they worked until midnight, sometimes until two a.m. Then at seven a.m. they had to get up and deliver the newspaper to all the students. These were two very successful activities.

So I understood that game theory says: if you want to make this transition from the old system to a new system, you also have to establish a new culture to allow these activities to flourish. My three major principles were transparency, innovation, and openness. Rather than a curriculum that was perfect, it would be a curriculum that would evolve over time. We would learn from mistakes together, admit them, and then correct them together — and that's what learning is. This system, even though there were a lot of problems in the beginning, became very effective after a semester or a year. And not only that — the students who went through this program did very well in life. They went to Yale, to Wharton, to Cornell. This program became the most famous program in South China, and our students had the best record of college admissions in South China.

So this sounds great, right? The problem is what happened after I established the program. The first thing that happened was: I was fired. They said, "Get out of here." Second of all, the teachers, the parents, and the students were all happy to see me go. The third thing that happened was I did go to a new program that was very similar to this, but after four years of doing this and being very successful at it, I was never allowed to set up another program again. No one wanted me to work in management again.

Why? The reason is this: when I was doing this, the word that everyone used to describe me was not reformer, not visionary, not idealist, not dreamer — but dictator. One other word that was more common was: this guy's an asshole. Why? Because I insisted on fairness. I don't care who you are. I don't care who your parents are. I want you to work hard and learn. And as you can imagine, that pissed off a lot of powerful people, because that's not how the game is played in China — and it's actually not how this game is played anywhere in the world. The game is not fair. The game is established by stakeholders and they play the game according to their interests.

So let's go over who the players are. In game theory, the stakeholders are just the players. And who are the players? You have the students, the parents, the teachers, the administrators, the school leaders, the government, and the colleges — the US colleges where I'm trying to send my students. And if you want to understand game theory, you need to understand the motivations and interests of all the different players, because that tells you how they will behave.

So here is my original understanding of the players — which was clearly wrong, because I got fired. I thought the students wanted to love learning, get into the Ivy League, and be the best. I thought parents wanted successful kids who were independent. I thought teachers wanted to do a good job — they love teaching, they love students, they just want to be given the space and opportunity to teach their passion. I thought administrators just wanted good results: as long as I provide good results, they're happy. I thought the government wanted innovation, good workers, technology, a strong China. And I thought colleges wanted students with the best possible potential — students who would be the leaders of the future.

Clearly I was wrong. So let's now do an analysis of what they really want. And the easy answer in game theory is that all players are motivated by achieving the best possible results by doing the least amount of work possible. People are lazy and people are greedy. It's that simple. So students want to get into the Ivy League, but they didn't want to work hard to get there. If it meant they had to work very hard, they'd rather get into another school — who cares? The best possible result, the least possible work. Parents are like: what's important is for me to control my kid, because only I know how to ensure my kid succeeds. So I don't want my kids to think critically or be independent. I want my kids to obey me. Teachers are like: listen, this is a job. I have kids. I don't want to work hard. I just want to come to school, do what is minimally required of me, collect my salary, and then go home. I don't want to teach my passion because I don't have any passion. Administrators are like: what's important is for me to make sure the powerful parents are happy. I don't care about poor parents or middle-class parents. As long as the parents who are powerful are happy, I can keep my job. The government is like: I don't want innovation in this country — even though I say I do — because I don't want problems. I just want things to stay the way they are. And colleges just want the money. That's all they care about.

So now we understand what happened. A game is constructed when all the different players agree on the rules and incentives of the game. I was an outsider. I was not a player. I came in to construct a game in which I felt that students would thrive — and they did thrive. But that's not what the players wanted. They wanted to have control over the game. And if they lose control, they call the outsider an asshole.

So let's objectively think about what the interests and motivations of each player are. And when their interests converge, that's the game they play. Another thing you have to do in game theory is rank the power of each player. Not all players are equal. In this game, even though students are the majority, what students actually think and want doesn't really matter. What matters, of course, are the parents, because the parents pay to play in this game and parents can cause a lot of problems if they don't get what they want. So the most important players are the parents. Then you have the teachers, because the teachers are the ones implementing the rules of the game — the way teachers behave determines how this game is played. Then maybe you have administrators as well, but they're not as important as the parents and the teachers.

The government doesn't really matter because they don't really care — it's one school among thousands. The colleges don't care either. They say they want really passionate, curious students. They don't care. For them, it's a business — they just want students who are willing to pay money for an education. And the Ivy League? Everyone has this talk about wanting the best motivated students, the most passionate. It's all nonsense. They want people from powerful families. So the game is rigged.

So these are the three major players: the parents, the teachers, and the administrators. Students, government, and colleges are in this game but they don't really matter. Now let's analyze the mentality, the worldview, and the interests of each player. Once you figure out where they converge, you know how the game is constructed.

Students: they want to be popular. Most students come to school and their priority is not to learn — it's to make friends and to be popular. Then they want to please teachers and parents. You're not in school to learn; you're in school to please parents and teachers. Parents are the ones who pay for your way in life, and teachers are the ones who give you grades. Grades are a way of showing how well you're pleasing the parents and the teachers. And then you want to have fun. And then get a good college.

Parents want successful kids — but they want successful kids not because they believe success will make their kid happy. What they really want is face. They want their kid to go to the Ivy League so they can brag to their relatives and friends and colleagues. Face also means treating education as a luxury product. Why do parents send kids to international schools? Not because international schools provide a better education — it's because they are more expensive and most importantly they have white faces. White faces: that's the main marketing tool of international schools. You don't care if the teacher is actually good at what they're doing, you don't care if the kids are actually learning, you don't understand the curriculum. You just understand: ten white faces, therefore this is a good school. It's that simple.

Teachers are really simple because their priority is to do as little work as possible to get by. They have families, they have other responsibilities. The minimum amount of work in order to get by. Administrators want good outcomes, but their real priority is to protect their relationship with parents. Just give parents what they want. Their job is to sell the school. And administrators also just want to get by — they're not trying to build the best school possible, they're not trying to change the world. The government says they want innovation and creativity, but really it's just: no problems, guys. As long as you don't cause any problems for us, we're happy. And also: they want students who will be no problems in the future. Compliance. As long as schools are teaching you how to obey authority, how to comply, how to do what you're told, they're happy. Colleges again just want the money.

Now a student raised a really good question: you mentioned that the purpose of education is those three things, but now schools don't do that — so what caused the transformation? What we discussed last class is the idea of superstructure. Superstructure is just the macro picture of a society: demographics, how many people are there, the economy, politics, religion. And we discuss how societies are born, they mature, and then they die.

There's actually another way of understanding this. You can use three metrics to understand how societies develop: cohesion, openness, and energy. Energy just means you want to work hard, you are motivated, you're driven, you're focused and attentive. If you're working at a restaurant as a cook, you want to make a really good meal. That's energy. Openness just means that you want to learn, you want to grow, you're willing to admit you made a mistake and improve on yourself. And cohesion means you see yourself as part of a society, part of a community, and you want your community to grow as well.

When you have all three things together, the schools are great. Go to Finland — it's a small country, maybe about five million people, but the schools are amazing. Why? Because Finland is an energetic, open, and cohesive society. When you're like that, what you want to do is invest in the future. And that means you want to make sure that every child — not just your child but every child — has a good future and a good education. So what you do is you have your best and brightest become teachers. You pay them very well. You give them high status and a lot of autonomy. And if you do that, the schools are great.

And in China in maybe the 1980s, the schools were amazing. In an average school, teachers felt respected. They believed in their responsibility to train the young. They took pride and joy in their work and the students enjoyed learning. Back in the 1980s, kids did less work — there were fewer tests, less pressure — and they learned a lot more.

So when a society starts and begins, you have these three aspects. But over time, all three decline. Why? Because there's more corruption, more inequality, more wealth. Wealth generation and inequality and corruption make people feel under stress. Rather than cohesion, you have individualization: everyone is like, I don't care if other kids are doing well — what's important is that my kid does well, because it's a zero-sum game. If all the other kids in the school do really well but my kid flunks out, I'm screwed. So I'd rather my kid do okay and every other kid gets screwed over.

Openness: are you willing to learn from your mistakes? The answer is no. Because if you're an administrator and you say to parents, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake today," the parents will say: you're fired, get out of here, you're incompetent. So you could be the best person in the world, but if you make a mistake, the parents will come after you. But you could be the worst person in the world, and if you just hide in your office, the parents can't find you. So school administrators are now afraid to admit they're wrong, which means that a school can never improve.

Then you have energy: if I do a good job, parents will want me to do a better job. I can't please all the parents. So I'll just hide in my office, do as little work as possible, and if parents complain I'll just shut off my brain. And this is happening because of wealth generation. In the 1980s China was really poor, and the only way to lead a better life was through education. That's why students worked hard. If students worked hard, teachers were motivated to teach well. But now in 2025-26, parents have money. So it doesn't matter if you don't do well in school — your parents can just give you an apartment, buy you a car. Who cares if you do well in school? So you're not motivated. If you're not motivated, as a teacher, why am I going to want to teach?

So it's the superstructure of society. Superstructure determines the motivations of the players, and where the interests of the players converge is the game that you have. So what we're seeing is: parents just want white faces and successful kids which means good grades. Teachers just want to get by and do as little work as possible. Administrators just want to protect their relationship with parents. And when you do this convergence, this is what schools look like now — international schools in China, and I'm saying the majority, not every school. What you have are white faces, easy grades, some top students who are given scholarships and sent to top universities so the school can brag about them, lots of cheating, and high turnover where students leave and teachers leave but new ones come in — so who cares? Lots of nice buildings, fancy activities, great marketing, beautiful website. Everyone gets an A no matter what you do. If you don't get a good grade, just complain and you'll get a good grade. If you don't like a teacher, just complain and then the teacher has to change. This is why schools suck — not just in China, not just in our schools, but in most places around the world.

But the point of today's class is not "schools suck, don't go to school." The point of today's class is to analyze why schools are the way they are. And one way to analyze it is by figuring out at what point the different players converge. Think of it as different sets — parents, teachers, students, government, colleges — and their convergence point is the game they play. Now what's important to understand is that there is actually a lot of room to this convergence point. So it's possible to do reform, but only within a subset of this convergence point. My problem back in 2008 was that I was like: I'm going to set up a new universe, my own world, make up the rules, be god, and you just have to play the game I tell you to play. That's why everyone was like: you're an asshole. Whatever game you set up has to be within this convergence point in order for players to accept it. And this is true for everything — if you want to implement political reform anywhere, you have to figure out where the different stakeholders converge and figure out how to move them from one part of the convergence point to another. Slow, incremental reform.

A student then asked: where do the interests of these different players come from? And the answer is: yes, the superstructure of society matters. People are responding to their culture. But in game theory, what I want to teach you is that it's because they themselves are playing different games. Look at parents. Parents have different identities. They are family. They are colleagues. And depending on their identity, they're playing a different game.

What does family mean? Family means you might have brothers. Brothers compete against each other — you want to prove you're better than your brother. By having more money, by having better kids, by having a more beautiful wife. But then you have colleagues, and the game you're trying to play there is to get along with your colleagues, because that's what ensures your success in life. You need to make sure that your child — no matter how he or she is educated — is able to become friends with the sons and daughters of your colleagues. And so there are other games as well, but you understand: the calculation isn't just "I want my kid to be successful." You're thinking about how to play different games and be successful in all of them. Because if your kid becomes very successful but not in a way that pleases the colleagues, you can be thrown out of the game.

The thing that people fear the most is the idea of ostracization — basically exile — where you are no longer part of the group. That's why people are motivated by what they do, because they're trying as hard as possible to play the game and get along with other players, while at the same time competing against them. So it's a weird psychology: you're trying to beat them, but at the same time you don't want to piss them off and get thrown out of the game.

And this is what prevented acceptance of what I was doing as a reformer — I was subverting traditional Chinese values. I was arguing against the norms, the values, the conventions of this country. And so if people believed in me, they risked being ostracized by the larger community.

Students are trying to play a game where they do well in school because that ensures a good outcome. But at the same time, students play other games as well — a friendship game where you're trying to have as many friends as possible and to be popular. You're also trying to please your parents because by pleasing your parents that ensures a comfortable life. In fact, you could argue that of these three games, pleasing your parents is the most important. Then comes having good friends because that will also ensure your success in life. And the game that you care least about — that matters the least — is actually learning in school.

So game theory sounds easy but it's very, very complicated, because we're complicated individuals. Each one of us has different identities, different motivations, and different outlooks. And what's really important to understand is we're always changing as people. The way you behaved in kindergarten is not the way you behave today in high school, and it will not be the way you behave when you enter society. You're always changing because the game is always changing. You must adapt to new games that have different players and different requirements. We are easily adaptable and resilient, but we are always changing according to the game. And who we are is often determined by the nature of the game.

You could have come into school wanting to learn and being creative, but eventually you recognize that that's not really rewarded in school. Getting along, having lots of friends, helping other students cheat — that's rewarded. And so you adapt to the game, and that's why you behave the way you do. And if you actually go back and think about everything that you did in school, the answer is: you're responding to a certain incentive or rule of the game.

That's what we need to understand about game theory. Game theory is not about ideas. It's not about ideals. It's not the way things should be. It's the way things are. And the way things are is determined by who the players are, and the way players behave is a response to the game they believe they're playing.