Higher education should not be treated as a commodity

Miller (2010), reveals that commodification has alternatively been characterised by the use of terms such as, Mcdonaldisation (Ritzer, 1996), Disneyisation (Bryman, 2004) and

corporatisation (Codd 2005), to critique the increasing consumerism as a negative

consequence of marketising higher education. The commodified state is painted as problematic from social, institutional and pedagogical perspectives. These critiques seek to highlight moves from being a market economy, which is projected as a useful tool for organising productive activity to becoming a marketised society. This according to Sandel (2012), is a worrying development that encourages the commodification of all aspects of life. One aspect of this, Tilak (2008), argues could lead to universities being converted into knowledge factories. This shift in perception of the nature of higher education from a public to a private good, a commodity that can be traded has serious implications. He warns that the treatment of higher education as a private commodity could fortify it as a positional good, only meant for the privileged few. Molesworth, Nixon and Scullion (2009), also warn that commodification negatively transforms pedagogic practice from being a learning experience of challenge, risk and transformation, to the accumulation of employability skills as mere possessions.

2.5.3. (1) At odds with core academic values

The critics of commodification of higher education further argue, that treating it as a commodity might be damaging in a number of ways. Altbach (2001), believes that it will weaken the idea that university serves a broader public purpose. Holmswood (2014), is concerned that instead of serving public interests, higher education might become disengaged, to become an instrument serving narrow commercial interests. Tilak (2005), argues that it might weaken governments’ commitment to public funding, and promote a rapid growth in privatisation, leading to profit seeking from higher education. This Olssen and Peters (2005), speculate may lead to knowledge capitalism, resulting in restricting the access to higher education. It could therefore widen educational inequalities within and in between nations. The likes of Kirp (2003) and Bok (2003) observe that it might impact upon the core academic values of knowledge creation, being commercialised and research being traded for corporate gain. Moriarty (2008), argues that this increasing emphasis on commercialisation and market forces in modern universities, was fundamentally at odds with a core academic principle, that of the disinterested scientist. Martin (2005), emphasises the jeopardising of the social contract, that the present generation finances the education of the future one. This Tilak (2011), warns may impede upon the progress of education systems, whilst straining the social fabric.

2.5.3 (2) Universities as corporate entities

Fischer and Suwunphong (2005), claim that higher education institutions have also become pre-occupied with the internalising of concepts such as customer groups, customer needs and customer satisfaction. Delucchi and Korgen (2002) suggest that this may lead to universities operating as corporate entities. Marginson and Considine (2000), speculate, that universities will become enterprise institutions that sell educational products. Morley (2003), points out that institutions were already becoming businesses selling university places and cultural capital, at both home and abroad. Currie & Vidovich (1998), add that universities are cooperating with businesses and selling research products and services. Trow (1968), had lamented about universities acting as credential mills, selling the certification of learning. This

Lange (1998), observes higher education becoming a screening function for employer recruitment. Lawson (1998), endorses that the commodity being sold by university, would be utilitarian skills and students will merely learn techniques to improve their capacity to be a function for the economy. Yang (2003), considers this as an absence of substantive knowledge from the classroom, turning the university into a roll-on-roll-off skilling factory.

2.5.3 (3) Erosion of academic capital

The commodification process according to Shumar (1997), has a discursive impact, on organisational culture leading to a drift away from core tasks, with employability as an output instead the learning process is valorised. White (2007), suggests that this creates defensive processes, such as transference of responsibility, becoming entrenched in the organisational culture, causing staff disaffection and anxiety. For Potts (2005), commodification renders teachers as vendors of educational products, who are pressed into a teaching mode. Naidoo and Jamieson (2005), emphasise that this leads to a passive student customer seeking an entitlement of having a degree, rather than being an active scholar. Molesworth, Nixon and Scullion (2009), add that this inevitably transforms pedagogic practice from being a learning experience of challenge, risk and potential transformation, to merely accumulating employability skills as possessions. The commodification Furedi (2010), contends will lead to the erosion of ‘academic capital’, at the expense of ‘economic capital’. This Hayes and Ecclestone (2008), argue might encourage safe teaching and a therapeutic education, instead of encouraging students to become independent learners and critical thinkers, due to the constant threat of student complaints and litigation fears.

2.5.3. (4) A human right as well as a commodity

Brookes (2003), point out whether higher education is a commodity or not, is not always clear cut, as under certain conditions it provides the possibility to be both. Therefore rather than contesting, the focus should be on safeguarding the public character of higher education, through policies that are economically sustainable and socially just. Marginson (2007), concludes that this debate should move on, to resolve the dilemma of higher education being both a human right as well a commodity. They both state that the following questions should

be posed instead. How to prepare graduates for employment, which is both economically rewarding and socially useful? What might be the consequences of the growing relationship between publicly funded higher education and the private sector? How could universities communicate their purpose of wider societal support?

Schwartzman (2013), also believes that commodification does not deserve total condemnation, as it calls attention to a range of stakeholders ignored by pedagogic practice. According to Maguad (2007), implemented judiciously a commodity focused approach can improve responsiveness to students, identify areas to improve services, and contribute to how resources get allocated. Delucchi and Korgen (2002), acknowledge that the commodification of higher education is unmistakable and perhaps unstoppable. Naidoo, Shanker and Veer (2011), advise moving away from older models characterised by control over passive customer. These should be superseded by models based upon active student participation, encouraging the concept of co-creating knowledge. Miller (2010) asserts, that question the higher education community should address, is not whether or not they want to be sellers. It is contended that government policy, and its adoption by the student population, has established this. The question should be reframed to, what exactly is it that higher education institutions want to sell?

2.5.4 Is the rise of consumerism in higher education a social extension or a deliberate political