Why We’re Stuck in a Zero-Sum Model

The Education Game is Rigged?

Higher education mirrors the broader cultural landscape, shaping and reflecting the behaviors and decisions we make as individuals, families, companies, and members of organizations we support or identify with. We operate in a high-stakes, winner-takes-all game, where success for one often means failure for another. In higher education, institutions compete for students, funding, and prestige. But the reality? This game is rigged. Not by bad actors, but by a system built on scarcity—where only a select few truly win, while the majority struggle within a fragmented, inefficient ecosystem. Just like Monopoly or Chess, the game is designed so that one player dominates while the rest are left behind.

The Elite Model and the Bell Curve Problem

Historically, higher education was structured to serve the best and brightest—the top 2-5% of students who excel within a narrow definition of academic success. The system wasn’t built for the majority of learners, leaving those who don’t fit the elite model stuck in a complex maze of transfer barriers, disconnected credentials, and unclear pathways to employment.

This creates a zero-sum environment—a model where institutions believe they must compete at the expense of others. If one school gains a student, another loses one. If one program secures funding, another struggles. This scarcity mindset fuels division, inefficiency, and exclusion.

Winners and Losers: The Consequences of a Competitive Model

In the current system:

• Elite institutions thrive—attracting top students, faculty, and funding.
• Regional institutions struggle—facing declining enrollment and financial pressure.
• Students suffer—as they navigate transfer credit loss, limited mobility, and debt without clear career outcomes—and have to face an unnerving workplace often unprepared.
• Employers face skills gaps—as education and workforce pathways remain misaligned.
• Governments question the cost of supporting education and its outcomes. Does this rig the game, change the rules, or improve the outcomes?
• Foundations try to influence innovation and improvements, only to be frustrated by the slow progress.
• Others try to monetize the churn and disruption with innovative changes, further complicating the means to navigate, compare, and make good-fit decisions.

In a world where knowledge should be abundant and accessible, why does education operate as if opportunity is a finite resource? Enter AI, and the game board and rules have changed. What is happening in front of our eyes is a shift in how scarcity is addressed. What does this mean if we consider how this will impact us personally and the education system that has stood the test of time for centuries?

What If We Played a Different Game?

The education-to-workforce pipeline doesn’t have to be a winner-takes-all system. There’s another way—a positive-sum model where collaboration creates more value for everyone. Game theory shows us that cooperation leads to better, more sustainable outcomes for all players, even those who traditionally compete.

Imagine an education ecosystem where:

• Institutions collaborate instead of compete—sharing students, credits, and pathways to success.
• Students have seamless mobility—moving between institutions without losing progress.
• Employers and educators co-design programs—ensuring graduates are job-ready.
• Technology connects, rather than fragments—creating a shared marketplace of learning.

Funding the Future: A Balanced Model

This brings us full circle to finances—how do we fund both the public good and the private benefits of education? The answer lies in a value-based funding model where stakeholders contribute in alignment with their interests:

• Sponsors can fund educational initiatives that generate positive societal impact.
• Employers can invest in tuition remission and workforce development programs to attract and train new talent.
• Families can benefit from a system that ensures a strong return on their educational investment.
• Government gains through a more productive workforce that requires less public support while contributing to shared resources that benefit all.

Next: Game Theory 101 – How Cooperation Creates More Winners

In my next post, we’ll explore how game theory provides a roadmap for escaping the zero-sum mindset. We’ll break down the concept of Nash Equilibrium—where no institution benefits from working alone—and show why collaboration beats competition in the long run.

?? Follow along as we reimagine the rules of the game.

#EducationGame #CollaborationWins #FutureOfLearning #HigherEducation #Learning #Workforce #AI