Dear James,

It is an interesting point which is being discussed in Spain right now, specially cinnected to the economic crisis, the crisis of  "letters" and the high unemployment rate.

I would say that universities are becoming less instrumental in the labor market but more for economy. Therefore, there is an increasing divide between those with a bigger role in the economy (Havard) and those who do not have this kind of symbolic and economic capital.

A recent book in Spain "Adios a la universidad" by Jordi Llovet, has examined those issues in the Spanish context. You may find interesting.

Hope that it helps.

Luis

James:

The growth in digital technology has helped to transport higher education beyond borders, giving students across the globe equal access such as in MOOCs. In other instances, if they can afford it, students can choose from a range of degrees offered by universities worldwide (blended, F2F, or Online). As such, the portability of HE has led to great deal of time spent engaging students in collaborative tasks that demands a high level of socialization. I think we could end up" education's use-value has been replaced by social-value" if we do not strike a good balance between socialization and learning performance.  Here's what is available on RG for further reading:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_higher_education_has_become_commodified_what_are_some_of_the_consequences

Best regards,

Debra

Thanks, Debra!

James

One reason for the commodification of education generally is perhaps the dominance of the view that it is important for economic growth. Anyway,  Alison Wolf makes a strong case against the notion that education is a commodity and a driver of economic growth. A point she made that struck with me came near the end of the book, so I looked it up again. Best I think to quote her words direct.

"The contribution of education to economic life is an important subject, and an interesting subject, and it can actually be investigated empirically. but it is only one aspect of education, not the entirety, and it does not deserve the overwhelming emphasis which it now enjoys. Reading modern political speeches and official reports and then setting them alongside those of twenty five, let alone fifty or a hundred, years ago is a revelation. Contemporary writers may pay a sentence or two of lip-service to the other objectives of education before passing on to their real concern with economic growth. Our recent forebears, living in significant poorer times, were occupied above all with the cultural, moral and intellectual purposes of education. We impoverish ourselves by our indifference to these." (page 254, original emphasis)

We loose some values and purposes and replace them with the values and purposes of the market place. Are we happy with that?

Wolf, A. (2002) Does Education Matter? Myths about education and economic growth. London: Penguin

Thank you for pointing this out James, and for providing references to the sort of critical introspection that is essential to our work. Your second paragraph seems much like the revelation of the boy who exposed the farce in the story The Emperor's new clothes. However misguided or distorted academic contexts may come to be, what makes playing the game worthwhile (beyond material survival) is the possibility for enlightened communication and action at the level of smaller segments of the academic community, creating ripple effects (and sometimes, when the right factors align, butterfly effects) in our immediate and global social contexts.

A very critical subject, obviously, and one that seems to be affecting all parts of higher education, beyond the question of education "use-value" and "social-value."

Consider the current trend towards "adjunctism" at US universities. An increasing number of schools seem to be on the road to axe tenure-track positions completely, and aiming to rely entirely on adjunct faculty. This obviously stems from an economic cost-benefit analysis on the part of the universities (saving salaries, health-care and retirement expenses, etc.) but at the cost of an increasing economic marginalization of new faculty. Based on a sample of two (an acquaintance and myself), I can say that in terms of "professional prospects" this is nothing short of a frustrating perspective, and I'm sure many who are in the same position would concur.

And then there is the question of "valid" vs. "superfluous" areas of education. "Humanities" ("Geisteswissenschaften" in German) is the catchphrase here. Both in the US and Europe (Germany I'm most aware of) there are frequent attacks on (and snide remarks about) study areas that are not deemed to have any economic value - for example, the History majors, English literature majors, or Anthropology majors (this one hits close since that is where my degree is in). Influential segments of society would have universities crank out primarily MBAs, law school grads, and suchlike. Again in the US, that attitude is also reflected in repeated attacks, from certain political corners, on NSF funding of "luxury research," again mostly in the Humanities.

There are thus many aspects to the issue of commodification of Higher Education. Call me a skeptic, but  I don't see these trends being reversed in the current climate of monetary-driven social values. An Orwellian slope almost. Depressing, really...

 Yes, Michael, Wolf ends her book sounding a bit depressed also. With no tenure goes academic freedom and I would expect, academic creativity too. And we would be less human without the humanities and social sciences.  Beginning to get depressed myself, and I am retired, not at the beginning of my career, most of which wasn't academic, but still devoted to education. i hope David is right about possible butterfly effects.

The effects can be intensified if we remember to have fun along the way, associating ourselves with the right people for the right reasons. And in the end, if the results are not as spectacular as we had hoped, at least we will have enjoyed the journey.

The drift towards the commodification of education is readily apparent in many new students, particularly those from lower SES groups for whom the purpose is economic access.  Perhaps those with more foundation look differently at education, however, I think not.  An interesting signaling by the current administration in the US has actually supported the use of education for economic growth, changing the focus from the emergence of the self to economic viability.  In response to Debra's point above that education has eclipsed traditional borders to create a more ubiquitous access through technology, keep in mind that students may still choose how to respond to a course; for example, will a student simply respond to the limited scope of the curriculum, or delve further into the larger scope of the subject matter.  The real cost of commodification is that the curriculum is a packaged commodity which people buy and complete to show the level of their 'education', however that in itself does not amount to an acquisition of knowledge, nor to the transformation of the individual.

Higher education has become commoditized in many, but not all, places. When students started to pay tuition fees, some scholars expected the academic institutions to turn into businesses. The universities increased the tuitions fees for foreign students first in a well-played game. The home students were charged lower fees initially but they were hit, later on, by loans on increased fees. As time went on, many students joined universities thanks to money & not to brains. Academic institutions became more lenient in grading in order to attract more students, with each student being considered as a specific sum of money. Some persons were bolder in stating that higher education has turned into educational tourism & universities have become distribution centers of certificates.

Since the providers of education have changed their purpose, then the students were driven to universities on the basis of offering an environment for socializing & recreation. I have taught in universities for 33 years & I saw how the sets of priorities have changed over the years. Many, but not all, students do not take into account the use-value & they just seek easygoing professors. Most of them like a course that is turned into abbreviated slides from which exams are given & most of them do not study continuously. Old scholars, like me, are so sad about the current trends but our efforts to rectify are too limited.

"Progress" is defined in economics as more for less cost.  "Progressive" policies would provide more (health, education, materials, etc) at less cost to the consumer.  When the same product is available from a variety of sources cost comparisons are possible, and in American higher education we are seeing the most regressive trend in our lifetimes.  Some would say that price increases are due to inflation, but inflation has nothing to do with higher education.  The current college costs to students is due to naiveté regarding finances since young people have little or no context for the amount of money they will earn to pay off the massive amounts of crippling debt they accruing.  One of the commodities is the college loan, another is the degree itself.  I told my students that internally they would acquire skill, knowledge and understanding.  Their chain of efforts are to acquire certification of competence (degree, license, certificate), get references and a portfolio, get an interview, get a job, hold the job, and save for the future.  The college loan takes the place of the last step since their futures have already been spent. Unless a student wants an ROTC commission, the biggest bargains in today's HEd commodity market are the local public community and technical colleges, and the Canadian universities. In Minnesota the UofMinn the tuition for in-state students is above $12K while the equivalent University of Manitoba  in Winnipeg just across our border is around Can$7k.  Travel, of course, affects the total cost.  One must question the economic intelligence levels of students willing to go into massive debt for a degree.  The only reason that the current system allows for these huge price tags is that the public allows it.  No uproar is taking place and until the media pay attention, public HEd will continue the substantial increases that threaten the possibility of upward mobility among the talented but poor population segment.  The so-called financial aid and scholarships are a farce for these students at the lowest rungs on the financial ladder.  Where is the land of opportunity for these students?  Since American students cannot work in a foreign country while attending school, Canada is not an option for students who need to attend part time.  My biggest disappointment in the current system is the on-line courses where the tuition has not declined.  On-line may be more convenient for the minority of students who are adept at writing and are self-disciplined in completing the courses, but the vast, vast majority of online enrollees do not complete or drop out.  Online ed is not a viable system for all, is still regressive financially, and produces massive amounts of course failures, drops, or incompletes. So,  The commodity aspects of HEd have yet to sort out.  In the meantime, American students are much too often made into financial cripples.  HEd has become a commodity and the price is set by those who can pay the entire cost without financial aid, but, the fallout is immoral and ineffective for the lower and middle classes.  I know this commentary sounds harsh, but I am looking long range at the effects of current policy.  HEd in the USA is regressive since the price of the commodity has increased instead of becoming more efficient and lowering costs.

hello 

here's my latest speech relevant to the query .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4qwva4qNH4

cheers,

a.