Presented at 2006
Hawaii International Conference on Education
Category: Student Paper
Doctorate of Education Students, Faculty
of Education
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby BC, Canada
Renewal of the Unspoken Compact: Counteracting the Impacts of Globalization
on Higher Education
Jeffs, C., Carr, W., MacFadgen, S.L., Paynter, R. & Waterhouse,
T. (2005)
Introduction
In this paper, the impacts of globalization on higher education are explored
using a multi-unit analysis of institutional culture, faculty, curriculum,
and students. We advance the thesis that unchecked globalization is an appropriating
force in higher education having decidedly negative impacts on the public good.
It is our contention that safeguards must be instituted in higher education
to
counteract these negative influences. The positive steps that universities
can take are proposed to counterbalance the negative effects of commercialization
and to preserve the traditional mission, values, and educational functions
of
the university. In addition, we submit that vigilance and safeguards are needed
to protect the fundamental nature and role of universities with the ultimate
aim of protecting the public good.
A review of the literature reveals that increased market force pressures are
threatening to change the essential nature and practices of present day universities.
Of particular concern are those forces that are pushing higher education away
from its traditional commitments to teaching, basic research, student learning
and serving the public interest. The causes and risks associated with this
shift in focus and activity have centered primarily on the influences of globalization.
Globalization theory and its political economic interpretations explain how
the
rise of global competition has creating conditions that have compromised the “implicit
social contract between the citizenry and government” resulting in less
funding for social welfare and education functions and more money for building
corporate competitiveness (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997, pp. 14, 61). When
applied to higher education globalization has influenced the pursuit of private
revenues
to augment public funding resulting in a dramatic reshaping of undergraduate
education.
Three dominant theoretical approaches are used to support the claim that higher
education should institute more effective limits on globalization to safeguard
the public good. These theorists speak to the notion of higher education existing
for purposes which further the public good, variously described as the unspoken
compact, the implicit social contract and the social compact. We will be considering
these as synonymous terms in constructing our argument. Bok (2003) chronicles
the rise in commercial activity during the last quarter century and he raises
the alarm that its current size and scope threatens to erode the very foundations
of the university. Bok warns that positive steps must be taken to preserve
basic academic values in higher education and to safeguard against “excessive
commercialization,” especially in the domains of education and research,
if universities are to keep commercialization within reasonable bounds (pp.
185-186).
Couturier (2005) advances Bok’s argument by calling for universities to
take action to forestall the competitive, market-like forces that are eroding
the unspoken compact – the overriding accord governing the relationship
between higher education and the public. Couturier outlines how competition is
pushing higher education toward an increased focus on institutional self-interest
and away from its commitment to serving public needs (pp. 85, 87). The changes
in higher education that Couturier highlights include, the blurring of the lines
between the missions of public and private institutions; fierce competition amongst
institutions for the same prestige, students and funding as the research universities;
and increased financial burdens, due to escalating tuition costs, that especially
disadvantage low-income students, first-generation students and students of colour
(pp. 94-95). Couturier advocates for “renewing the compact” between
higher education and the state, as the representative of the public’s
interest, to ensure that higher education will continue to serve society in
the future
(p. 99). And finally, Kempner (1998), in his study of the political economics
of educational change in developing countries, provides evidence that there
are real consequences for the public good from modernization policies that
promote
the privatization of education. Kempner asserts that the pursuit of technological
advances as the path to economic development, on the basis of human capital
theory, does not lead to economic, social and cultural prosperity. He views
education
not as a commodity to serve predominantly private interests but as a resource
to serve all members of society. Kempner calls for the adoption of a more humanist
approach to the development of social capital, elaborated as humanist capital
theory, for the benefit of the public good and to produce individuals who serve
not only the needs of the market but who also attend to government and civil
sectors of society (p. 457). The notion of excessive commercialization and
the contributions of both the unspoken compact and humanist capital will be
used
as the theoretical framework for addressing the impacts of globalization on
higher education.
The encroaching demands of market-like forces have had well-documented impacts
on higher education. These have included the creation of incentives for university
faculty to engage in revenue-generating research at the expense of teaching
commitments and professional autonomy, as well as changing curriculum to address
business
and industry demands while undermining liberal learning and student development
(Slaughter & Leslie, 1997; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Evidence also
suggests that globalization has further marginalized local populations by compromising
access for disadvantaged students, while also treating students as economic
entities in the rush to compete for lucrative tuition revenue and research
grants (Levin,
2005). In general, a strong case can be made that the shift from educational
to entrepreneurial interests threatens to erode the traditional mission, values
and operating practices of higher education. In this paper, we will examine
the specific negative impacts of globalization on institutional culture, faculty,
curriculum and students. Effective strategies for counteracting these negative
influences will be proposed to keep commercialization within check and to enable
universities to serve society in the future.
Culture
The quintessential mission and values for higher education were identified
in the previous section. While we grapple with the demands and pressures of
the
twenty-first century, we are aware that the goals of education were originally
formulated in a different era. The social, economic and political realities
facing today’s educational leaders challenge their resources and ability
to balance the needs of society to produce productive citizens with the needs
to satisfy
the pressures to generate revenue. These realities influenced entire sectors,
including higher education, to change, adapt, and become more like business.
The issue of how this significant change impacts the fundamental values and
culture of these higher education institutions is discussed in this section.
Organizational
culture is complex, multi-layered and influenced by both external and internal
forces. Levin (2001) suggests that cultural change affects the beliefs, norms
and values of organizational members and ultimately the actions of all constituents
(p. 164).
The move toward higher education acting more like corporations occurred in
a relatively short time span. Global forces, primarily economic, began to impact
on higher education during the 1980s. The appearance of educational institutions
adopting the “student as consumer” philosophy was evident in the
1980s (McMillan & Cheney, 1996, p.2). By the 1990s, these business concepts
and language had fully integrated into higher education (Levin, 2001; Wendt,
1994). As a survival mechanism, organizations began to adopt a philosophy of
business that permeated all aspects of higher education to include, faculty,
students and curriculum. McMillan and Cheney (1996) argue that part of this shift
was reasonable to ensure “responsibility, accountability and practical
relevance” (p. 2). However, they believe that adopting the corporate
enterprise culture has allowed us to stray too far from the original goals
of education.
Education has become a commodity and the institutions have become vehicles
for the buying and selling of products. In this new environment students provide
benefits to educational institutions as customers as well as commodities for
the marketplace (Levin, 2005, p. 13). These changes in language and the adoption
of business metaphors have been well-documented.
The usual terms associated with educational practices and concepts have changed
from the “norms related to student learning such as intellectual, moral,
social and personal development” to more business-like references, such
as “skills development, employability skills, outcomes based curriculum,
learner centered, job ready and value added” (Levin, 2001, p. 164). In
addition, Wendt (1994) compares the language of the education model to the language
of the business model where students are the customers, employees are the sales
agents, curriculum is the item being sold and tuition is the fee paid for the
item and/or service (p. 34). Giroux (2002a) is also concerned about how education
has become privatized and can be used as a “form of venture capital” straying
far from the original intent of the public good (p. 7). Furthermore, Wendt (1994)
states that the new culture has changed “the life of the mind into a business” (p.
39). It is curious to reflect on how the culture of higher education has evolved
to what many believe is a dangerous situation, when essentially, the principles,
practices and terms associated with business are respected throughout the world.
McMillan and Cheney (1996) argue that when the language of business is applied
to educational institutions the danger occurs when it “obscures or dismisses” the
intent of education (p. 5). Giroux (2002a) concurs and further argues that
the actions of higher education of addressing the public good have eroded institutions
because they support and promote individualism (p. 1). This cultural shift
towards
corporatization is evident in that these outcomes were not the original intent
of the compact as described by Couturier (2005). Business principles alone
are not responsible for this evolution.
The adoption of business metaphors, not just business practices, is an important
distinction argues Wallace (2001). Wallace claims that metaphors are meaningful
and shape organizational culture. McMillan and Cheney (1996) support this claim
in that “we have a certain tendency to become what we say we are” (p.
2). Therefore, if an educational institution acts like a business this fundamentally
changes how its organizational members and its constituents respond and act.
Changes in these actions influence changes in organizational culture. At first
the adoption of business language appeared harmless however, it is now problematic
on many levels according to McMillan and Cheney (1996, p. 2). They argue that
the metaphor interferes with institutional, faculty and student relationships
and expectations. Giroux (2002a) provides an example of how two students sold
themselves to a corporation in order to sponsor their university costs. They
were essentially used to market the sponsoring company. In the media frenzy that
followed, the students received accolades of “individual ingenuity, business
acumen, and resourcefulness” for their scheme to pay their tuition (p.
3). Giroux is concerned that there was little reaction to the individual and
social implications of these students defining their identities as commodities
and presenting themselves “as objects to be advertised and consumed” (p.
2).
There is an abundance of literature on the negative consequences of higher
education moving away from traditional educational concepts towards a corporate
model.
Students, faculty, and the public bear these consequences. Students suffer
when traditional learning is replaced by less costly methods and the use of
part-time
faculty (Wendt, 1994, p. 36). As a result, the culture of higher education
becomes more corporate and the bottom line is often a consideration over the
pedagogy.
McMillan and Cheney (1996) and Wendt (1994) also document how faculty members
are fearful for their jobs if they do not meet students’ expectations.
The universal business maxim, the ‘customer is always right,’ essentially
turns upside down the traditional role of faculty and students. Subsequently,
students’ sense of entitlement appears to tip the scales of public good
in favour of “individualism at the expense of community” (McMillan & Cheney,
1996, p. 1). It is rather ironic that one of the goals of education is to encourage
students to speak up for their rights. Students are speaking up, but their voices
are directed to attaining shallow privilege rather than to defending rights.
A student might view an instructor’s failure to be entertaining, or the
lack of job guarantees, as injustices requiring redress (McMillan & Cheney,
1996, p. 1). These findings suggest that corporate values are now embedded in
higher education and it appears that a culture of fear and mistrust has developed.
In contrast, some institutions have been able to benefit from profitable departments
that offer customized educational services and sales of curriculum to local and
worldwide markets (Levin, 2005; Dennison, 1995). Regardless of the outcome, it
would appear that there has been a shift in value systems and culture in higher
education (Giroux, 2002a; Wendt, 1994). Wendt (1994) argues that we must “remain
ever vigilant of hegemonic practices that reprioritize the philosophies and values
of education” as they shape our culture (p. 39). Finally, a few alternatives
are suggested to counter the damaging effects of the corporate culture in higher
education.
A silver lining in the dark cloud of higher education operating as a business
can be found. McMillan and Cheney (1996) and Turk (2000) make recommendations
that are supportive of renewing the compact between higher education and the
public. First, institutions can be aware of business language and corporate
practices and their impact on the culture. Second, administrators can weigh
the pros and
cons of decisions and keep the goals of education at the forefront. Third,
even the simple change of referring to the student as client instead of customer
can
make a difference in defining the relationship (McMillan & Cheney, 1996,
p. 12). The warnings about the dangers of higher education acting as a business
have been sounded. It is up to those in leadership positions to understand
these implications and to take responsibility for influencing change toward
the original
goals of education.
Faculty
The unspoken compact between higher education and the public put forward by
Couturier (2005) is based upon meeting societal needs and providing for the
public good.
Faculty hold to this compact in their search for the truth, intellectual creativity,
academic standards, scientific invention, the ideals of citizenship and the
practice of community (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Increasingly, faculty
are diverted from these pursuits as they move from their historical place between
capital
and labour to a place now operating under market conditions (Slaughter, 1998).
Faculty who were once quite autonomous have become increasingly managed as
higher education institutions respond to market forces which demand revenue
generation
and efficiency (Rhoades, 1998). This devolution of the role of faculty is summarized
aptly by Giroux (2002b):
Faculty are now defined less through their scholarship than through their ability
to secure funds and grants from foundations, corporations, and other external
sources. Instead of concentrating on critical teaching and research aimed at
the public good, faculty are now urged to focus in on corporate largesse.
(¶ 1.6)
The tension which has historically existed between market values and those
non-commodifiable values related to the public good has been disrupted in ways
which, it will be
argued, run counter to the social compact. Three themes will be explored, including
the managed and dichotomized nature of faculty work, the quality of pedagogy
in a changing world and the casualization of faculty.
Education must be treated as a public good and as a “crucial site where
students gain a public voice and come to grips with their own power as individual
and social agents” (Giroux, 2002a, p. 7). Faculty engage in pedagogical
practices which are moral and political and serve to influence how students think
about their world. Such a focus on teaching and engaging students is compromised
by the forces of globalization and academic capitalism. The introduction of market
influences in higher education can be traced in the US to the early 1970s when
government gave financial aid to students rather than institutions and in the
UK to the early 1990s when teaching and research, once a single funding function,
were divided into separate bidding systems (Slaughter, 1998). Canadian universities,
originally teaching institutions, changed during the early 1980s as professors
began to define their work by their research rather than by their teaching; teaching
was referred to as a load and research as an opportunity (Fisher & Rubenson,
1998, p. 87). The contribution to the public good of both research and teaching
has been eroded by market forces in a number of ways. The devaluing of critical
or pure research which is not tied to corporate or targeted government funding
has meant that faculty think more and more like entrepreneurs and conduct less
open-ended basic research that has in the past led to some of the most important
and least expected discoveries in history. It becomes difficult for faculty to
address pressing social and ethical issues if the bottom line becomes the most
valued objective. The issue of private versus public good is also contentious,
not only are corporate interests served by applied research, but also individual
faculty benefit personally and professionally by becoming “academic entrepreneurs” (Giroux,
2002a, p. 7). Teaching does not offer such extrinsic reward, in fact, quite
the opposite. Incentive-based budgeting targets for generating student credit-hours
result in larger classes, especially at the undergraduate level, and there
is
little recognition of teaching excellence in the tenure process.
The Boyer Commission (1998) states that teaching in higher education settings
is undervalued and recommends that the standards used to evaluate research
be used for teaching and service. Even though the commission studied only 126
research
universities, its report on teaching quality was damning with reference made
to badly trained instructors, untrained teaching assistants and “tenured
drones who deliver set lectures from yellowed notes, making no effort to engage
the bored minds of the students in front of them” (p. 6). Institutions
in which less emphasis is placed on research do not necessarily show better results
in the quality of teaching as has been shown in the Greater Expectations project
conducted by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU, 2002).
A consortium of 26 university and college leaders analyzed teaching and learning
in American institutions and found that “the dark secret of higher education
is that most college professors are never trained to be teachers” and that
this missing component in the doctoral process occurs because it is assumed teaching
skills are easy to acquire (Chapter 2, ¶ 4). A dearth of meaningful assessment
data on whether students are actually learning what professors are teaching is
also noted. Recommendations include reforming doctoral education so that professors
are prepared to be effective educators with the goal of developing intentional,
empowered, responsible learners. The type of teaching and learning described
in AACU’s proposed New Academy is grounded in liberal education, civic
responsibility and global understanding.
Efficiency-based measures have resulted in larger classes, fewer full-time
faculty, more adjunct and casual instructors and less time working with students.
The
practice of buying out some or all of one’s teaching responsibilities by
using contract monies to hire replacements is now common practice (Slaughter & Leslie,
1997). In the most recent digest of The National Centre for Education Statistics,
the number of part-time faculty in the US is shown to have risen from 40 to 45
percent of total faculty between 1998 and 2001 (2003). Reliance on part-time
labour saves money on one level but it imposes costs at a deeper one. Along with
the increase in number of adjunct faculty members comes their effective removal
from the faculty governance process such that “the hiring of part-time
faculty to minimize costs simultaneously maximizes managerial control over faculty
and the educational process itself” (Giroux, 2002a, p. 17). The task of
mediating the complexity of the undergraduate experience is largely in the hands
of sessional or adjunct faculty who may also lack experience themselves. They
may teach at two or more universities or colleges in the same academic term,
thus reducing the chances for meeting with students outside of class and excluding
their involvement in professional development and the wider life of the institution.
In fact, casual staff may feel as isolated as the first year students they are
teaching (Kift, 2003). Students are not well served under such conditions. Even
by market standards, this is unsatisfactory as the needs and interests of the
enterprise can be seen as taking precedence over the needs of the customer (Slaughter & Rhoades,
2004, p. 286). According to Levin (2001), what is required is a return to putting
student and community needs ahead of economic priorities (p. 181). One step in
this direction is a return to valuing quality instruction such as has been noted
earlier in the Greater Expectations project (AACU, 2002). In Canada, teaching
chairs and teaching excellence awards are now found at Queen’s University,
the University of Toronto and the University of Alberta. Mount Allison University
in New Brunswick has recently established an endowed professorship. These developments
are an example of how faculty can be instrumental against the forces of globalization
by maintaining their focus on academic standards and teaching excellence and
by upholding the ideals of citizenship.
Curriculum
While curriculum, in the narrow sense of the term, refers to a course or program
of study, it will be used here to depict the broad thrust and intent of educational
institutions. The economic concepts of human capital and social capital are
used to illustrate and give context to the comparison of vocational and liberal
arts
curricula.
Schultz (1961) developed the concept of human capital and its importance to
economies. He identified and filled a gap in economic theory by taking into
account the
intangibles of human contribution – knowledge, skill, mobility and health – which
he named human capital (p. 1). Shultz’s definitions of knowledge and skill
were work-related. Knowledge referred to formal education and skills meant specific
job skills. Although the pursuit of human capital has been associated with narrow
instrumentalism by Giroux, (2002a), Healy and Côté (2001) have extended
the human capital concept to include the idea of social well-being as an outcome
of human capital development. Coleman (1988) pursued similar notions in his work
on social capital. Coleman coined the term social capital in an attempt to combine
two otherwise divergent views about social action: that of the sociologist, who
views action within social context and without reference to individual motivation,
and that of the economist, who sees action as independently motivated and undertaken
by self-interested actors without reference to context (pp. S95-S96). Social
capital brings social context and individual motivation together. Social capital
is inherent in relationships between individuals, in networks of obligation,
expectations, trust, and accepted norms and sanctions. Individuals achieve their
goals by participating in webs of relationship. A dichotomy similar to that of
social and human capital is found today in the world of higher education in the
contrast between liberal arts education and vocational training (Brint & Karabel,
1989).
On the one hand is the traditional liberal arts curriculum and agenda. Education
is seen as a public good (Giroux, 2002a; Kempner, 1998). Its task is to shape
character and identity, to develop critically thinking and socially and democratically
involved citizens, and to inculcate such humanistic values as justice, freedom,
equality, ethics, moral vision, civic courage and social responsibility (Fisher & Rubenson,
1998; Giroux, 2002a). In these terms, education is the means to enhance social
capital. On the other hand is vocational training, or the teaching of specific
job-related skills, whether they be for operating drill presses or operating
on brains (Hennigan, 2001). This is related directly to the concept of human
capital. Governments and businesses find common cause in supporting vocational
training in the interests of growing the economy. Slaughter and Leslie (1997)
identify academic capital as a subset of human capital.
In an increasingly instrumentalist-oriented culture, higher education is under
pressure to tailor its outcomes to the marketplace rather than to the betterment
of society as a whole (Fisher & Rubenson, 1998; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997).
The pressure is not just from government and business. Students are also putting
increased emphasis on higher education to provide directly applicable vocational/career
training (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Job-oriented students see no benefit
in taking liberal arts courses (MacTaggart, 1993).
Proponents of the liberal arts have undertaken three broad patterns of response
to the pressure to vocationalize – resistance, expansion in new territories,
and accommodation. Some seek to hold the line, urging one another to maintain
the distinction between education and vocational training and to refuse the temptations
of corporatism (Giroux, 2002a). They offer resistance on the traditional grounds
that research is associated with the public good and that basic curiosity-driven
research is both essential and important (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). As
a new development, proponents are advocating that liberal education is a necessary
element in battling the deleterious social and environmental problems associated
with globalization (Balon-Rotheram, 2003; Bowers, 2001). The staking out of new
territory is another response to vocationalizing pressures from those who value
the liberal arts. Liberal arts colleges are finding fertile new ground in Africa,
Asia, and Eastern and Western Europe. The colleges see themselves as carrying
out their civilizing mandate by taking their values and curricula abroad (Gillespie,
2003; Sylvester, 2002). Some liberal arts advocates have adopted the adage that ‘if
you can’t beat them, join them.’ While the term New Vocationalism
can be narrowly interpreted to mean the co-optation of higher education by the
demands of the marketplace, it is also more broadly considered to mean a blending
of the education and vocational curricula (Hennigan, 2001). The movement is based
in emerging theories of learning, the philosophy of the New Vocationalism, and
the demands of politics and the marketplace (Dare, 2001; Levin, 2001; MacTaggart,
1993; Marginson & Considine, 2000). The blending is intended to give vocational
students grounding not only in their specialties, but also in the traditional
citizenship-building subjects of the liberal arts (Micari, 2003). According
to Bragg and Reger (2000), the experiment is young and has produced mixed results.
It remains to be seen whether or not this blending is accomplished at the expense
of the liberal arts curriculum and its benefits.
It appears that champions of the liberal arts have not yet found a way to halt
the incursions of vocationalism, let alone a way to regain the ascendancy that
the liberal arts maintained during the last two or more centuries. This is
a problematic situation for those who see the public good as consisting of
more
than simply economic considerations. Perhaps they can take comfort in the idea
that extremes tend to move back to the centre. Evidence of the pendulum’s
swing may be found in the Conference Board of Canada’s (2000) Employability
Skills, which along with vocationally oriented skills such as numeracy and
problem-solving, emphasize critical thinking, flexibility and social responsibility.
It may be
that rather than disappearing, the social compact is being embedded in the
emerging curriculum.
Students
Perhaps the most vulnerable group in the move to a business-like model in higher
education is the students. While their presence is vital and central to the
core purpose of the university, they tend to be passive recipients in the educational
endeavour and, for the most part, lack a unified or persuasive voice in the
construction
of the institutional ethos. Student vulnerability comes in many forms – they
are economically vulnerable as the costs of education can be daunting for many
(Astin & Oseguera, 2004). They are socially vulnerable to the compromising
effects of market powers increasingly operating in the lucrative college and
university market (Giroux, 2002a, p. 19). Most importantly they are academically
vulnerable, taught by less experienced faculty as senior academics succumb to
the lure of public and private funds for research that takes them out of the
classroom (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Clearly, a great deal of evidence
illustrates that the adoption of a business model in education can be harmful.
This is especially,
but not exclusively, true for economically or socially marginalized students.
For purposes of the current assertion, three factors will be examined to shed
light on this discussion, namely students as commodities and consumers, increased
cultural diversity, and financial impacts on students. While the pervasive
impact of the business model on our society is recognized, we also agree that
its negative
impact on students can be mediated by the use of traditional business methods
that are geared to ensuring that universities remain economically viable.
Giroux (2002a) states that the increasing tendency to see universities in a
business-like fashion has led to the commodification of students (p. 19). Students
are inundated
with industries that seek their business for financial and leisure products.
Thus, the line between student and consumer is distorted. And this does not
end when a student graduates. It is purported that most alumni can tell stories
of
a regular barrage of credit card and insurance company solicitations to former
graduates as a means for the alumni society to reap significant revenues. Faculty,
too, can be willing participants in the tendency to view students as commodities.
Slaughter (1998) outlines how one university department candidly acknowledged
that while the private sector is largely uninterested in their research activities
they are interested in their students as potential employees. This has led
to the department acting as an employment agent, charging a fee to interview
students
(p. 193). Giroux states that universities have a responsibility to protect
students from the insidious nature of corporate encroachment (p. 19). As these
effects
can be subtle, they may be the most dangerous corporate behaviours threatening
the traditional role of the university in safeguarding the public good.
Increasingly, students are seen as consumers and universities are seen as sellers
(Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Increased migration from non-English speaking
countries has led to educational institutions looking to English as a second
language and international education as lucrative endeavours for reaping several
times more tuition funds than Canadian citizens are required to pay. Furthermore,
consumerization can be seen in the increased numbers of degree granting, for-profit
institutions. Seen within a business frame, these institutions are described
as “efficient, self sufficient, responsive and entrepreneurial” (Pusser
et al., 2005, p. 1). They lack any of the ancillary functions of traditional
colleges and universities such as research, community service, athletics, and
student social life activities; they exist solely to credentialize those individuals
who are willing to buy the educational products (p. 28). Private lenders are
available to provide market rate loans to those students requiring financial
aid. The obvious efficiencies of this model exert pressure, largely indirect,
on colleges and universities that are increasingly under pressure to compete
with these institutions for students.
Globalization is not simply an economic condition. Another byproduct of globalization
involves increased migration which in turn creates a diverse population (Levin,
2001). While this brings many benefits to our society, it
also brings
some often under-recognized effects. Students whose families have migrated
to Canada are often the first generation of students to seek post secondary
education
(Pascarella et al., 2004). While many of these students succeed, many fall
victim to the same conditions that strike all first generation students. They
lack the
cultural capital to understand the social nuances required to navigate post
secondary education and as a result their drop out rates are higher than for
students whose
parents have attended college or university.
As available public money to support universities dwindles, students – especially
disadvantaged students – experience the financial impact more than others.
In recent years, student aid programs have undergone a dramatic shift. Tuition
has increased, grants have been replaced with loans and needs-based aid criteria
have been replaced with merit-based student aid. Financial constraints on the
university translates into the ability to pay becoming a more heavily weighted
criterion than was previously the case. The end result is that wealthy students
are increasingly over-represented in universities and poor and middle class students
are severely under-represented (Astin & Osequera, 2004, p. 323). Couturier
(2005) reports that the impact of this is dramatic, while 41% of students from
wealthy families obtain a degree, only 6% of students from lower socio-economic
backgrounds successfully obtain a degree (p. 95).
Giroux (2002a) states that education has historically been seen as a civilizing
influence, providing the basis by which students can learn and exercise the
rights of an informed citizenry, able and willing to further civic dialogue.
A vital
part of this civic dialogue is contributed by “cultural dissidents” who
resist the pressures that economic forces create (p. 22). While this is a necessary
and vital component of a civilized society, it is not sufficient. Couturier (2005)
offers a model that acknowledges the importance of universities ensuring their
long term viability by keeping an eye on economic conditions and forces without
losing sight of the need to maintain the fragile “social compact…that
exists in spirit only” (p. 96). It is possible that the social compact
could be maintained by using planned performance measures adapted from the
business world. Grant levels for needy students could be used to reflect the
larger communities
in terms of age, gender and race. In addition, rewards could be issued to faculty
for service to broad-based groups of students. While Giroux and others might
disparage the use of these business-like measures to protect the traditional
role of universities, the significant issues of student success and maintenance
of the social compact might be safeguarded in this way.
Summary and Conclusions
Evidence has been presented to illustrate how the shift from educational to
entrepreneurial interests has eroded the traditional mission, values and practices
of higher
education to the detriment of the public good. Several strategies were proposed
and discussed for counteracting the negative influences of globalization to
safeguard the public trust in higher education. The theoretical approaches
of Couturier
(2005) and Kempner (1998) undergirded our argument for upholding the terms
of the compact in higher education to counteract the impacts of “excessive
commercialization” (Bok, 2003, p. 185).
Culture, faculty, curriculum and students were the four aspects of higher education
considered most pertinent for examining the specific impacts of globalization
and for renewing the compact in higher education. With respect to culture,
we recommend that educational institutions be conscious of the business language
and practices adopted while weighing the advantages and disadvantages of various
business-like decisions on organizational culture. At the faculty level, we
recommend
placing a high value on teaching excellence and student learning ahead of simply
economic considerations. To address the challenges that vocationalism poses
to traditional university curriculum, we take heart that the pendulum seems
to be
swinging back in favour of the liberal arts and to those essential elements
that contribute to citizenship. And finally, in relation to students, we suggest
that
universities institute performance measures and incentives that build in rewards
for faculty and staff for remaining responsive to a diverse range of students
and community needs.
We are in agreement with Bok (2003) that we are approaching a critical juncture
where the negative impacts of globalization are threatening to undermine the
very nature and traditions of the university. In addition to the recommendations
put forward, we support Bok’s assertion that systems of governance must
be established to right the balance in favour of higher education practices and
methods of accountability that truly safeguard the public interest. In keeping
with Bok’s recommendations, we propose the following governance strategies:
university leaders should secure the active participation of faculty members
in important entrepreneurial policy and program decisions; boards should develop
evaluative criteria for holding presidents accountable for consistently respecting
academic standards; and government should be held to task for ensuring adequate
and stable funding for higher education (pp. 187-198). We are hopeful that the
strengths of all constituents will be enlisted to uphold the essential nature
and role of the university – through renewal of the unspoken compact – for
the benefit of future generations.
References
Association of American Universities and Colleges. (2002). Greater expectations:
A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Retrieved July 8, 2005
from http://www.greaterexpectations.org
Astin, A. & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining “equity” of
American higher education. Review of Higher Education, 27, 321-341.
Balon-Rotheram, A. (2003). Corporatisation, global banking impact on the Australian
education system: Reflecting on care. EDRS. Retrieved June 22, 2005, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/28/44/e5.pdf
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher
education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bowers, C. A. (2001). Commentary: Addressing double binds in educating for
an ecologically sustainable future. International Journal of Leadership in
Education,
4(1), 87-96.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998).
Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research
universities. New York: Stony Brook State University.
Bragg, D. D. & Reger, W. M. I. (2000). Toward a more unified education:
Academic and vocational integration in Illinois community colleges. Journal
of Vocational
Education Research, 25(3), 237-272.
Brint, S., Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the
promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), S95-S120.
Conference Board of Canada (2000). Employability Skills 2000+. Conference Board
of Canada. Retrieved December 18, 2004, from http://www.conferenceboard.ca/education/learning-tools/pdfs/esp2000.pdf
Couturier, L. K. (2005). The unspoken is being done: The market’s impact
on higher education's public purposes. New Directions for Higher Education,
Spring (129), 85-100.
Dare, D. E. (2001). Learner-centered instructional practices supporting the
new vocationalism. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1(15), 81-91.
Dennison, J. (Ed.). (1995). Challenge and opportunity: Canada’s community
colleges at the crossroads. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Fisher, D. & Rubenson, K. (1998). The changing political economy: The private
and public lives of Canadian universities. In J. Currie & J. Newson, (Eds.),
Universities and globalization: Critical perspectives (pp 77-98). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gillespie, S. (2003). Toward "genuine reciprocity": Reconceptualizing
international liberal education in the era of globalization. Liberal Education,
89(1), 6-15.
Giroux, H. (2002a). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher
education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational
Review, 72, 1-37.
Giroux, H. (2002b). The corporate war against higher education. Workplace,
5. Retrieved July 8, 2005 from http://www.cust.educ.ubc.ca/workplace/issue5p1/giroux.html
Healy, T. & Côté, S. (2001). The well-being of nations: The
role of human and social capital, education and skills. Paris: Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Hennigan, J. (2001). The business of vocational education. ERIC Digest. Retrieved
July 8, 2005 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/
80/2a/36/7c.pdf
Kempner, K. (1998). Post-modernizing education on the periphery and in the
core. International Review of Education, 44 (5/6), 441-460.
Kift, S. (2003). Assuring quality in the casualisation of teaching, learning
and assessment: Towards best practice for the first year experience. UltiBase
Articles. Retrieved July 2, 2005 from http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/march03/kift1.htm
Levin, J. S. (2001). Globalizing the community college: Strategies for change
in the twenty-first century. New York: Palgrave.
Levin, J. S. (2005). The business culture of the community college: Students
as consumers; students as commodities. New Directions for Higher Education,
Spring (129), 11-26.
MacTaggart, T. J. (1993). The new vocationalism: Peril and promise. Trusteeship,
1(6), 6-9.
McMillan, J. & Cheney, G. (1996). The student as consumer: The implications
and limitations of a metaphor. Communication Education, 45(1), 1-16.
Marginson, S. & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power,
governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Micari, M. (2003). Against the norm: Liberal adult education in an age of vocationalism.
Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 51(3), 27-34.
National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Digest of Education Statistics.
Retrieved July 7, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/#5
Pascarella, E., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First-generation
college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes.
The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.
Pusser, B., Gansneder, B., Gallaway, N., & Pope, N. (2005). Entrepreneurial
activity in non-profit institutions: A portrait of continuing education. New
Directions for Higher Education, Spring (129), 27-42.
Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring
academic labor. Albany: State University of New York.
Schultz, T. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review,
51(1), 1-17.
Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies,
and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Slaughter, S. (1998). National higher education policies in a global economy.
In J. Currie & J. Newson (Eds.), Universities and globalization (pp 45-70).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy:
Markets, state, and higher education (pp 181-206 and 279-304). Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sylvester, M. A. (2002). Globalisation, higher education and Pan-Africanism:
A critical compromise. EDRS. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://proxy.lib.sfu.ca/login?url=http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&an=ED476495
Turk, J. (2000). The corporate campus:Commercialization and the dangers to
Canada’s
colleges and universities. Toronto: James Lorimer and Co.
Wallace, S. (2001). Guardian angels and teachers from hell: Using metaphor
as a measure of schools’ experiences and expectations of General National
Vocational Qualifications. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(6), 727-739.
Wendt, R. (1994). Learning to “walk the talk”: A critical tale
of the micropolitics at a total quality university. Management Communication
Quarterly,
8(1), 5-45.
