Hayes and Wynyard (2002:65) develop from Ritzer’s (1998:159) view of commoditisation, that as a “sovereign” consumer, the individual has increased choice and discretion over her or his subjects of study, but the discreet subject context that differ one academic program from another is much diluted. Hayes and Wynyard (2002:65) continue to say that the shift in the relationship between “producers” and “consumers” of education has significant consequences; thus, meaning that the students have a greater responsibility of choosing out her or his course, but such freedom tends to transform the relationship between and teaching. As a result, the academic exercises power without authority and students seek to prove them, but there is no one in authority to respond (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:65).
“Consuming” education, the student group come to accept the usual ascetic and improvised experience of student life and need to McWork (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:14). In the UK, new student group leave with £12,000 ($18,000) of debt after paying for consumption and state funding which covered everything, including books; thus, this expansion of educational consumption is said to have value (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:14). The British target is 50% for young people to attend university, but that 50% want a liberal education (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:14).
Hart (1990) states that the attractions of a liberal education are easily enumerated that reading literature and philosophy, political theory and history enables students to find ways of explaining human behaviour, that learning about great accomplishments of humanity and the cultural ingenuity evident in all societies, gives a sense of the civilising and humanising function of ideas. The humanities and social sciences show education to be a democratising influence and a source of civil liberty and individual freedom (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:186). Finally, reading and thinking generates a critical perspective that provides individuals with intellectual tools to challenge received doctrines (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:186). This could be inferred that these values and ideals that are seen to be in danger of trivialisation and commoditisation as the effects of McDonaldisation and economic rationalism encroach into the education sector society (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:186).
Newman defined “liberal education” as he set out a network of ideas about people, knowledge and intellectual communities that are increasingly under threat as more universities resembled in his ringing words, foundries, mints and treadmills (Roberts, 2008). At the time, Newman was an Oxonian exiled to Dublin and among the questions that did not concern him were public funding, government regulation, assessment, research, female students, careers advice, cultural activism, widening participation and the Internet (Roberts, 2008). Not to mention, the possibility that compulsory technology might not be the best way to up our UCAS applications or top the league table for student satisfaction (Roberts, 2008).
Although, Newman’s idea of the curriculum has little to do with ours, the fact that he raises it as a primary concern for universities and their students presents a challenge since the student, not the subject is the explicit focus on today’s dominant discourse of higher education (Roberts, 2008). Students are choosers in a market and through individual development portfolios and checklists that make them systematically the objects of their own attention (Roberts, 2008).
Wild (1998) claims that introducing tuition fees will let students ‘wield customer clout’; this means that consumption suggested universities may find it difficult to maintain and increase enrolment levels which reduce level of funding and cost-cutting that is a corollary. Ritzer (1998) supports this view as he believes that the consumer-sensitive McUniversity will incline to limit poor grades, reduce the drop-out rate and ensure that students benefit from the educational services provided. Furedi (2001) defines “benefit” as obtaining a decent job rather than finding intellectual challenging courses.
Hayes and Wynyard (2002:130) state that students have entered centered stage through marketisation of higher education. Hayes and Wynyard (2002:130) continue to explain that getting into a university was really competitive amongst students and some of which were selected and others rejected. Therefore, the use of government funding is used to increase the growth of students, since universities need to recruit new undergraduates (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:130). This method is used to make courses more attractive to students; thus leading students to become customers and lecturers being forced into selling their wares (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:130). However, Hayes and Wynyard (2002:130) say that applying to university could mean turning education on its head. It means that students are no longer supplicants to show that they can be accepted as apprentices, instead, they are the master who must be cajoled by humble lecturers who are warned that students will take their custom to other educational institutions, if they are not satisfied with the marks they receive or the way they are taught (Hayes and Wynyard 2002:130).
Hayes and Wynyard (2002:130) suggest another point about exam boards weighing up a student’s welfare and self-esteem to scrutinise academic achievement. They believe that if students fail, they are not happy customers; therefore, in order to find expansion, students’ paying their own fees underlines the customer/provider relationship. However, Hayes and Wynyard (2002:130) opposes the fact if students are to fall into a huge debt or pay hard cash, they should expect the product they order, in other words, getting a job. This alters all relationships in universities (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:130). Also, Hayes and Wynyard (2002:130) develop their argument by saying power and authority is derived from the academic/student relationship being equalised through a contract with an emphasis on what student get as customers. This had increased the tendency to view degrees as ready-made, soluble commodities (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:130).
Hayes and Wynyard (2002:185) show that McDonaldisation has taken over education because it has made substantial changes to influence the higher education sector in Australia, for example. It has changed from an elite system to a more democratic system delivering mass education (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:185). Back then, university expanded to allow more students to enrol, but there were still considerable financial costs to become by being a student and this kept it a small sector (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:185). In 1970, the higher-education expanded, doubling its enrolment in less than ten years; however, student fees were abolished and government took over different systems of the states of Australia to centralise education finances and policies (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:185). In the 1990s, distribution of Federal funds to universities was thoroughly revised, student enrolments continued to increase and funding began plummeting (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:185). Now, only of 50% of university revenue now derives from Federal sources, giving a sharp decrease in spending of higher education from 3.1% to 2.2% (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:185).
Hayes and Wynyard (2002:185) suppose universities are moving under the control of rationalisation. However, Weber (1970:133) develops this view because in terms of German universities, they were beginning to resemble their U.S counterparts and were becoming “state capitalist” enterprises as increasing operating costs meant they required considerable funds. Weber develops this, as he was driven by an interest in maximising fee income, in order to engage and increase competition for enrolments in German universities (1970:133).
However, Weber (1970:134) mentions the consequence of this was that it would be necessary to have effective new recruits, not as scholars, but as teachers, although it was recognised that the two do not necessarily coincide and enrolment levels on courses began to be regarded as a key indicator on the quality of teaching. From this, it can be inferred that the purpose of rationalisation is to maximise profit; thus, giving the potential to change the mission of higher education through the intrusion of profit maximisation and market principles into education (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:71). This tends to severely challenge higher education’s historic mission and alter educational services (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:71).
Callender and Kempson (1996) say that in the UK, for example, the Labour government (1997-2001) replaced grants with loans to pay fees and maintenance funds. As a result, the student debt burden has risen significantly over recent years and students have become increasingly litigious when the education pay to consume falls beneath their expectations (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:64). A growing proportion of students, in turn have tended to work during term time in order to reduce the debt burden (Callender and Kempson, 1996). However, Callender and Kempson (1996) say that studying can have a consequence as it is one of many pursuits that fit into the student’s life. Many higher-education institutions, particularly the new universities, have moved toward modular and credit-rated undergraduate and postgraduate degree schemes with modes of delivery increasingly accommodating to the new patterns of engagement of the consumer with the educational institution (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:64).
In conclusion, I support this statement because Ritzer (1998) says everyday educational activity is one of those that has been overly and inappropriately McDonaldised. Ritzer (1998) continues to develop his point as he suggests that increasingly McDonaldisation will open the route to university to create spectacle by deMcDonaldising its quotidian activities. Thus, being inefficient, unpredictable, incalculable and employing human technologies will not only seem spectacular and attract students, but will enhance dramatically the quality of the educational process (Hayes and Wynyard, 2002:54).
Quinn (2000:249) also brings up the important issue as well, saying that students themselves may cause the rise of the McDonaldisation process by perceiving the university as consumers would. Students constantly weigh variables, not necessarily strictly connected with academia themselves, like quality, cost, amenity and comfort, in order to get “the best quality ‘product’ for their investment” (Quinn, 2000:249). Thus, students bear some demands towards the curriculum to be attractive and interesting, because if not, students tend to drop classes (Quinn, 2000). Thus, contemporary university, by providing the ‘Information Happy Meals’ (Quinn, 2000), can be seen in terms of consumption. As a result, increase of knowledge is neglected; the priority is given to student’s satisfaction (Fox, 2002). Smart claims that “the values of commercialism, a managerial and marketing ethos, and the imposition and an audit culture are steadily transforming, if not compromising, the standards, values, and practices of intellectual life” (Smart, 2002:44).
Reference
Callender, C., and Kempson, E. (1996) Student Finances: A survey of Student Income and Expenditure. London: Policy Students Institute. In: Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport: Conn.: London: Bergin & Garvey.
Fox, C. (2002). The massification of higher education. In D. Hayes, & R. Wynyard (Eds.), The McDonaldization of higher education (First ed., pp. 129-142). Westport, Co.: Bergin & Gravey.
Furedi, F. (2001). What is university for now? The Sunday Times. 20 May: 15. In: Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport: Conn.: London: Bergin & Garvey.
Hart, D. (1990). The importance of the liberal arts to education: An historian’s perspective. In A.M. Gibbs (Ed.) The Relevance of the Humanities. Canberra: Highland Press (69-75). In: Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport: Conn.: London: Bergin & Garvey.
Hartley, D. (1995). The “McDonaldization” of Higher Education: Food for thought? Oxford Review of Education. 21(4); 409-423. In: Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport: Conn.: London: Bergin & Garvey.
Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport: Conn.: London: Bergin & Garvey.
Quinn, B. (2000). The McDonaldization of academic libraries? College & Research Libraries, 61(3), 248-14.
Ritzer, G. (1998). The McDonaldization Thesis: Explorations and Extensions. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In: Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport: Conn.: London: Bergin & Garvey.
Roberts, D. (2008) John Henry Newman and the Modern University [Online]. Available at: [Accessed: 30 December 2010].
Smart, B. (2002). Accounting for anxiety: Economic and cultural imperatives transforming university life.
Smith, A., and Webster, F. (1997). The Postmodern University? Buckingham. U.K.: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. In: Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport: Conn.: London: Bergin & Garvey.
Weber, M. (1970) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills). London: Routledge. In: Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport: Conn.: London: Bergin & Garvey.
Wild, R. (1998). Fees will let students wield customer clout. The Sunday Times, 8 November: 17. In: Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (2002) The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport: Conn.: London: Bergin & Garvey.