Funding cuts in particular encouraged institutions of Higher Education to try and attract new sectors of the market, especially those groups that had previously been excluded, such as the socially disadvantaged, mature students and students from ethnic minority groups. Theodossin (1986) focuses upon a variety of ways to do this, one of which is access, as entry into degree courses had to be made easier. Publications in the 1980s, such as “Basic Skills”, “Progressing from Vocational Preparation” and “Moving Up” encouraged this move. Counselling Services were also introduced to provide advice to any students facing particular problems, as was a flexible curriculum structure by means of modularisation.
Indeed, this led to the increasingly common notion of students as ‘customers’ rather than scholars. This was, and continues to be particularly applied to foreign students when the initial market of British students was found to be limited. Full-fee paying foreign students create a large percentage of many universities’ funding initiatives and the ‘exporting of educational services’ is a common occurrence. (Taylor, et al p.90) For example, recent statistics published by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) suggest that in 1997 there were 1,502,040 foreign students in the top 50 host countries, an increase of 13 per cent compared to the previous year (Bruch & Barty 1998 p.18). Attracting such great numbers of foreign students means it is necessary to change the structure of the higher education institutions to cater for any cultural differences that may be faced such as dietary requirements, religious holidays and single sex accommodation. By satisfying the students’ needs in such a manner one is relating back to the market principle of creating ‘happy customers’. This is encouraged as it would then increase the possibility that they will encourage friends from their home country to attend an overseas institution, and thus will bring more funding to the university (Bruch & Barty 1998, p.23).
This emphasises the business-led consumer/provider relationship that has developed within most academic institutions. The exchanging of ‘goods’ (which in this case is knowledge) typifies any other business that provides a service ranging from hairdressing to restaurateurs – all aim to please their clients with the service they provide in order to boost their reputation so as to attract more customers, or students in terms of institutions of higher education (Theodossin, 1986). It seems therefore that the business principles surrounding the university structure are increasingly apparent. So much so, that it has been suggested that it is possible to categorise students into different types of clientele. For example, primary clients may be seen as the students themselves and secondary clients are acting agents for the primary clients such as government departments and local authorities (Theodossin, 1986).
University courses themselves are also becoming increasingly consumer-led through modularisation, thus allowing the student to choose particular topics to cater for their specific needs. By listing the range of topics available the student soon becomes,
“a shopper who will want to make his own purchases to serve his own ends.” (Theodossin 1986 p.99)
No longer is there a rigid structure to degree programmes that all students must follow, instead customisation allows for the pre-planning of objectives, content and structure, teaching methods and assessment (Theodossin, 1986). However, not only does this provide more choice for the potential student, it also creates more competition between institutions as each strives to provide a better, more innovative degree programme to the next institution, thus incorporating market principles.
Degree programmes are also increasingly becoming ‘sold’ and viewed upon by prospective students as whole packages in terms of the quality of degree that will be gained, accommodation, social life and cost of living. Degree programmes however, are no longer the primary focus as open days incorporate a ‘tour’ of what university life as a whole encompasses. Indeed, critics may view such tours with scepticism and see it merely as a sales pitch for the university rather than an opportunity for students to see the university in its true light. University buildings themselves also have to be maintained and cared for in order to give a positive projection of the institution and in doing so, as Buchbinder and Newson (1994) suggest, they could be seen as
“physical plants whose profitability is to be enhanced at all costs” (p.24)
rather than focusing upon academic achievements. It may in fact hinder such achievements, as classrooms may become overcrowded as a result of an institution’s strive towards profit by recruiting more students. Prioritising profit in this manner emphasises the business-led infrastructure of academia today.
Such business-orientated dealings have affected the internal structure of universities, as a new hierarchy of staff has been formed alongside the more traditional academic roles. Professors are increasingly becoming ‘entrepreneurs’ whose purpose is to produce a marketable product (Buchbinder & Newson, 1994) in terms of creating an attractive and appealing course structure for potential students. Academic researchers also aim to produce a marketable product to attract the interest of multinational companies. This highlights the notion of ‘producer capture’ within higher education, as institutions become more responsive to the economy and industry than the students that attend that particular institution (Huckerby, 2002). The growing amount of university administration has also produced an increasing number of independent employment opportunities which in turn leads to what Buchbinder & Newson (1994) refer to as ‘a high powered team of managers’ (p.27) in order to supervise the clerical staff in their dealings. This emphasises both the notion of a ‘service’ being provided and the notion of universities as businesses through their ‘teamwork’ approach, and hierarchical structure. Separate faculties have also begun competing for students in order to gain more funding for their department as money is gained from each student that enrols onto the course.
One particular way for students to distinguish between universities and the quality of their teaching methods is to look at the university league tables. These rank universities in terms of credit given by the External Quality Assessment team in order to assist the government in allocating funding, as they have an obligation to reassure the public that funding is justified to the quality of teaching that is provided. This may in fact be seen in terms of market principles as the ‘quality control’ (Shore & Roberts 1995) team in association with Higher Education. In turn, it allows individual institutions to review the progress of their university and improve upon it if necessary. Indeed in terms of its effect upon students, if the consumerist notion is correct in asserting,
“the right of individuals to be able to choose in an unconstrained market”
(Taylor et al, 1997 p.92)
then such tables are a necessary resource in order to provide potential students with as much detailed information as possible.
However in ranking institutions in such a manner, it is seen in marketing terms as more elitist than mass educational, as it is giving more value to the most respected ‘products’ (or degree programmes), thus it is argued, making it more desirable to the ‘customer’ (Theodossin 1986). This creates the belief that whilst such forms of assessment are primarily seen as information aids to prospective students, it is surrounded by market principles, thus possibly prioritising financial gains and corporate image over providing more choice for students. It may also be argued that many students do not acquire more choice as a result of such league tables, as choice is culturally constructed and often dependent upon one’s cultural and material resources (Taylor et al, 1997). For example in terms of the elite universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, many would not be able to afford the relatively expensive living conditions that these institutions provide, and may not feel comfortable in the middle/upper class majority that attend, therefore some may argue, those from the working class are immediately excluded.
Theodossin (1986) suggests that it is this principle of giving more value to the more ‘respected’ institutions that surrounds the breakdown of the binary divide, between what are known as ‘red-brick’ institutions and those that were previously polytechnics. The new market which was created by allocating polytechnics as new universities, is suggested to have been promoted as a lesser version of what he describes as the ‘luxury item’ in order to make the original product (i.e. the older universities) look more desirable in comparison. However, this argument is questionable as although such a marketing principle may be said to exist it is quite a negative notion and more popular beliefs assume that the binary divide took place as a result of the government’s strive towards mass participation in education, rather than to promote the reputation of the pre-existing universities.
The increased accountability of institutions of higher education to such forms of assessment from the government and industry in general, suggests that the importance of service provision and some sort of economic gain from university graduates is now viewed with increasing value. The focus upon ‘production’ is indeed a marketing principle and is inescapable in today's economically driven society. No longer is the more liberal view taken that university provides freedom of ideas and thirst for new knowledge, instead the focus centres upon corporate gains, particularly for those universities that have links with businesses exchanging research for financial funding, in particular research that will produce a marketable product or technological breakthrough (Buchbinder & Newson 1994 p.24). Indeed, knowledge is transforming from being
“a social good to a marketable commodity”.
(Buchbinder & Newson, p.25 1994)
However, is marketisation often attached to the wrong product within Higher Education? Should the focus be upon the more intangible attributes gained from a university education such as achievement, fellowship, success and status rather than certificates, degrees and courses that are focussed upon today? (Curtis, 1984) These arguably may be said to have more intrinsic value than any degree certificate that is gained. This however, would make marketing near impossible, as it is unfeasible to market something that is intangible.
As a result, it seems that although focus upon academic achievement and knowledge have not disappeared completely, the increasing use of market principles means that traditional academic principles such as these are certainly being given less priority. Indeed, economic gain seems more important. This has produced an almost societal belief that any form of institution needs to be run as a business, incorporated within which are market principles in order to be successful.
As shown, this has particularly been the case within institutions of Higher Education today, as the competition between institutions has led to an increased number of advertising campaigns to attract students, increased notoriety is given to corporate image and particularly the notion of institutions as service providers, and students are viewed as customers. The underlying factor encouraging the use of such principles is educational funding. Most institution’s maintenance depends upon such principles, given that this is often the only way that money can be put back into the system. Often, emphasising knowledge and academic achievement is not enough to attract new students in the ever-competitive world of academia, therefore one would expect that as long as the current number of universities remains constant, the use of market principles is set to continue.
REFERENCES
Bargh, C; Scott, P; Smith, D (1996) “Governing Universities – Changing the Culture?” pp. 1- 25 Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Boshier, R; Brand, S; Dabiri, Azri; Fujitsuka, T; & Tsia, Chiao Yet Joy (2001) ‘Virtual Universities revealed: More than just a pretty interface?’, “Distance Education”. Vol.22, No.2 pp.212-31. ODLAA inc.
Bruch, T & Barty, S (1998) (eds) ‘Internationalizing British Higher Education: Students and Institutions’ ch.2, pp. 18-31 in P. Scott “The Globalisation of Higher Education”. SRHE/Open University Press.
Buchbinder, H & Newson, J (1990) ‘Corporate-university linkages in Canada: Transforming a public institution’ “Higher Education” 20, 4: 355-79 cited in S Taylor et al (1997) “Educational policy and the politics of change”. Routledge. London.
Buchbinder, Howard & Newson, Janice (1994) ‘Social Knowledge and Market Knowledge; Universities in the Information Age’ ch.2 in E. Dennis & C. LaMay (1994)“Higher Education in the Information Age”. Transaction Publishers.
Curtis, J. H. R (1984) “Marketing Further Education: beginning with a definition of the Nature of the product.” (Information bank paper;1939) Blagdon, Further Education Staff College, cited in E. Theodossin (1986) “The Modular Market”. Pp.95-118 .The Further Education Staff College. Bristol.
Huckerby, S (2002) ‘People in Higher Education”, lecture on 3rd May 2002.
‘Marketing Power, Inc’ as accesseded 4th April 2002.
Symes, C & Hopkins, S (1994) ‘Universities Inc: Caveat emptor,’ “The Australian Universities”. Review 37, 2 : 47-51 cited in S. Taylor et al. (1997) “Educational policy and the politics of change”pp.90. Routledge. London.
Taylor, S; Rizvi, F; Lingard, B & Henry, M (1997) ‘Educational restructuring’, chapter 5 in “Educational policy and the politics of change”. pp.81-93 Routledge. London.
Theodossin, E (1986) “The Modular Market”. Pp.95-118 .The Further Education Staff College. Bristol
UNESCO (1997) “UNESCO Statistical Yearbook”. Paris. UNESCO, cited in T. Bruch &S. Barty (1998) ‘Internationalizing British Higher Education: Students and Institutions’ ch.2, pp. 18-31 in P. Scott “The Globalisation of Higher Education”. SRHE/Open University Press.
Bibliography
Mace, J (1993) ‘University funding changes and university efficiency’, “Higher Education Review” 25 (2), 7-22.
Shore, C & Roberts, S (1995) ‘Higher Education and the panopticon paradigm: quality assessment as ‘disciplinary technology’, Higher Education Review” 27 (3), 8-17.
Smithers, A & Robinson, P (2000) “Further Education Re-formed”. Falmer Press. London. p.2, p.119/120.
Vroeijenstijn, A. I (1995) ‘Government and university: opponents or allies in quality assurance?’ “Higher Education Review”, 27 (3), 18-19.
