Competition in the long run is healthy rather than harmful for the community: GRE issue
Competition is a boon not a bane. In economics we are made to believe that if regulation was removed altogether we will have perfect free market economies in the long run; that will be more efficient than any economic scenario imaginable in the short run.
In academia: The idea that competition is always meritorious supports limited student admissions on the basis of tests/interviews/examination. Ignoring cheating/bribery/sources it is assumed that on a large scale and in the long run; the competing 'majority' is correctly evaluated.
The job market: ...
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Healthy competition is a symbol of a flourishing society. It provides a fair and equal opportunity to all the players in the market.
As asserted in the definition of this debate competition creates merit. Survival of the fittest; means that the fittest come out on top. The end-result of aggressive competition is weeding out those who are no good and seeding out those who outshine their contemporaries/counterparts emerging victorious.
Treating cases of cheating, bribery as negligible without further investigation on the matter is rather presumptuous. Competition would only be fair if every student/worker being evaluated would be put in the same environment exactly, with the same, rather equivalent resources, suited/catered to each student/worker's needs based on individual strengths,weaknesses and personalities. As this is not the case competition reveals a monster of inefficiency labeling undeserving candidates good and bad without basis.
Competition in business greatly benefits consumers. It provides customers with reasonable prices, better quality and greater variety. Further, it maintains demand-supply parity.
Again as asserted in the debate definition; free market efficiency is an ideal that can only be achieved as a result of unconstrained naked competition. Prices will only land to where they should be in equilibrium where price demands by both consumers and producers/sellers meet if competition impinges everything else out of the way.
But while we wait for the homeostatic recuperation of prices; prices rise and fall uncontrollable in the short run forcing banks and the government to intervene. The rules of the jungle do not apply in civilized society. It is the responsibility of governments to safe guard the interests and conveniences of all their citizens; this includes creating imbalances, regulating markets to inhibit competition making sure that most people emerge victorious.
The call of the times is not to extract the creme de la creme of society and annihilate the rest of us minions but to use and cater to everyone. We believe in sacrificing the one for the many and not the statement's converse.
Counterargument: "In a competition to offer cheapest possible prices, there is a desperation to cut costs on the products. Therefore the raw materials used are either of a poor quality or are smuggled in without proper payment of taxes.Bulk production of consumer products is often cost-effective. It can lead to high losses when that particular product gets outdated by another new or superior one in the markets. Recently floppy disks got outdated by compact disks." -[[http://www.syvum.com/cgi/online/serve.cgi/gre/awm/awmis002.html]]
but i even feel that competition sometimes result in under confedence
Competition in education leads to improvement in the quality of students and enhances their performance. Moreover, it helps evolve superior teachers, teaching methodologies and educational institutions.
On the whole competition ensures that students display the best of their abilities using whatever resources they can. Whether these resources are unfairly distributed or are inherently diabolical is irrelevant because the object of competition is to reveal what students students can do in the exam room that is conditioned the same way for all students taking the examination.
If the examination occurs now; the point of the examination is to determine where the student stands now and not how s/he got there. Examiners are interested in what the students know and share within the examination room and at the time of the examination.
Competition forces those with a comparable paucity in resources to work harder than their better-equipped contemporaries. And there have been considerable cases in which those from broken homes performed better than those from aristocratic ones.
The left admits that those with a paucity in resources have to work doubly hard to achieve the same success as their richer peers.
This is not fair and is the crux of why and how competition fails in creating efficiency of any kind.
Competition in sports while in school improves team building in the work place later in life
When kids grow up playing competitive sports, they acquire the team aspect that later in life will help then in the work environment. Growing up playing competitive sports kids learn how to work together as a team in order to be successful, this is important because when you are in the working environment you need to be able to count on your other co-workers to do their work and if by chance the need help you know that you may need to "take one for the team" and help your co-worker out in order to get the job done. this is important especially when you are working to a deadline and need to get your "teams" or groups work done, this is where the team aspect that you learned growing up playing sports come in handy because you are willing to make the sacrifice in staying late at the office to get the work done and have the project done by the deadline, if your group is cutting it close. This is important because if you do not finish the project by the deadline then the entire group suffers. In addition, when you play sports growing up you may acquire the leadership role. This also helps out your team at work because everyone needs at least one leader in a group to look up to and head the group in completing the assignment that your boss assigns you.
Playing competitive sports while growing up is harmful to the community in the long run. Many kids grow up playing competitive sports but the success rate of these kids is slim. Many kids are pushed by their parents to join sport teams against their will while growing up and then take a negative perspective growing up because they are either not good enough to play or are made fun of by other players. This can have a negative effect because once someone is put down enough they begin to believe that they are not good enough to do anything, and begin to feel like outcasts. This is not good for the community because once this child is old enough to start to give back to his or her community he or she will feel less inclined because the community has put him or her down their entire life. This is also detrimental to these individuals when in the work environment because if they are assigned a group to accomplish a project he or she will most likely not be a strong participant in the group causing the group harm. Now instead of working productively as a group the other members have to go out of their way to incorporate this individual into the group taking valuable time away from completing the task at hand, causing delays on turning the project in on time.
for having a fair competition many bright students have to suffer: reservation
reservation is to bring st 's , sc's , obc's forward but in a long run government even feels that this makes bright student skip their study years .
What do you think?