I remember when the Dawkins Reforms came in and overnight faculty at the Standing Committee started talking about 'markets' not students. "This ain't gonna end well", thinks me. A lot of people don't understand that you can't pay for knowledge. A lot of people don't even get that's what you're there to get. Jus' gimme the embossed piece o' paper and a starting salary of hundreds of money!
No, I don't think they should be treated as consumers. At least not in relation to most of what they are doing at university. Consumerism is destroying academia in my view.
I think - at least in the UK - the only answer now would be to legislate carveouts or constraints because the application of consumer law to universities has been accepted without any real challenge.
Goodness, I wasn’t aware of that! I am not sure, now I think of it, whether the ACL applies to universities here. If it does, it hasn’t come to my attention (perhaps there were no remedies involved…)
The only saving grace is that undertakings have no real legal status and are largely a headpat for the CMA by the person under "investigation" who can't be bothered with the expense of having a fight. But, it does show an attitude of defeat on this issue in the sector.
So much to discuss here. I feel like I could spend hours writing comments despite (or perhaps because of) my very brief experience in teaching at a university. It is fascinating to think about what students are paying for and what they are getting. Is a student paying to learn or paying to get a degree? If a student paid more, should they get to learn more or be taught better or should it be more convenient to get the degree? Should universities provide assessment only for the conferral of a degree and leave it open for anyone to offer teaching (for a price) to pass that assessment? (Shudder but interesting to think about - obviously you would still expect universities to be leaders in such teaching but maybe there would be a market for different levels of teaching.) Who bears the cost where a student gets a degree despite learning little? Clearly not the University directly - otherwise there would be fewer hurdles when failing a student. Probably not the student necessarily either - we all know of people who are appointed to or remain in roles despite not being good at their job. (And also, let’s face it, getting good marks at university does not necessarily mean that you will be good at a particular job). But I suspect that ultimately the cost will borne by all of us (society as a whole) in some way. And one thing we are not good at is dealing with incentives to manage costs that affect everyone in some indeterminate way (see also climate change).
What I’ve written here is only the tip of the iceberg. There’s the whole, “University should be more practical/vocational” versus “Universities should teach theoretical perspectives to develop critical thought” debate. The University doesn’t immediately bear the cost if a student graduates and doesn’t know much, but eventually, the university will likely get a bad reputation, and less students will be hired from that university. The other really interesting point you raise here is that good marks don’t mean that you’ll be good at a job. Often the skills needed in a job are quite different. And then, what of the fact in law that a lot of lecturers have only practiced for a short amount of time, or not at all? Does this matter? For what it’s worth, I think my various forays into practice have vastly improved my teaching, but then I teach a practical subject (the pointy end of litigation - what do you get?) I also think my status as an academic helps to see the big picture in a way which isn’t so possible when you’re in the hurly burly of practice...
I remember when the Dawkins Reforms came in and overnight faculty at the Standing Committee started talking about 'markets' not students. "This ain't gonna end well", thinks me. A lot of people don't understand that you can't pay for knowledge. A lot of people don't even get that's what you're there to get. Jus' gimme the embossed piece o' paper and a starting salary of hundreds of money!
Yuppers. I recall that too. 😭
1. Monetising everything through markets (and instrumentalising including through govts) is pernicious - unfair for those lacking wealth but also undermining essential values - https://scholar.harvard.edu/sandel/publications/what-money-cant-buy-moral-limits-markets
2. Looking forward to your sequel on similar problems re university ranking metrics!
Oh myyy. You know the way my mind works... As well as something on marketing.
No, I don't think they should be treated as consumers. At least not in relation to most of what they are doing at university. Consumerism is destroying academia in my view.
It may not surprise you that I agree. The problem is that it distorts the incentives. I am not quite sure what the answer is, though.
I think - at least in the UK - the only answer now would be to legislate carveouts or constraints because the application of consumer law to universities has been accepted without any real challenge.
Goodness, I wasn’t aware of that! I am not sure, now I think of it, whether the ACL applies to universities here. If it does, it hasn’t come to my attention (perhaps there were no remedies involved…)
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/consumer-protection-review-of-higher-education
The CMA has a lot to answer for. None of it good.
!!!!!!!! Okay. This is not good. Indeed, I would say downright bad.
The only saving grace is that undertakings have no real legal status and are largely a headpat for the CMA by the person under "investigation" who can't be bothered with the expense of having a fight. But, it does show an attitude of defeat on this issue in the sector.
So much to discuss here. I feel like I could spend hours writing comments despite (or perhaps because of) my very brief experience in teaching at a university. It is fascinating to think about what students are paying for and what they are getting. Is a student paying to learn or paying to get a degree? If a student paid more, should they get to learn more or be taught better or should it be more convenient to get the degree? Should universities provide assessment only for the conferral of a degree and leave it open for anyone to offer teaching (for a price) to pass that assessment? (Shudder but interesting to think about - obviously you would still expect universities to be leaders in such teaching but maybe there would be a market for different levels of teaching.) Who bears the cost where a student gets a degree despite learning little? Clearly not the University directly - otherwise there would be fewer hurdles when failing a student. Probably not the student necessarily either - we all know of people who are appointed to or remain in roles despite not being good at their job. (And also, let’s face it, getting good marks at university does not necessarily mean that you will be good at a particular job). But I suspect that ultimately the cost will borne by all of us (society as a whole) in some way. And one thing we are not good at is dealing with incentives to manage costs that affect everyone in some indeterminate way (see also climate change).
What I’ve written here is only the tip of the iceberg. There’s the whole, “University should be more practical/vocational” versus “Universities should teach theoretical perspectives to develop critical thought” debate. The University doesn’t immediately bear the cost if a student graduates and doesn’t know much, but eventually, the university will likely get a bad reputation, and less students will be hired from that university. The other really interesting point you raise here is that good marks don’t mean that you’ll be good at a job. Often the skills needed in a job are quite different. And then, what of the fact in law that a lot of lecturers have only practiced for a short amount of time, or not at all? Does this matter? For what it’s worth, I think my various forays into practice have vastly improved my teaching, but then I teach a practical subject (the pointy end of litigation - what do you get?) I also think my status as an academic helps to see the big picture in a way which isn’t so possible when you’re in the hurly burly of practice...