Government continues epic quest to wreck Universities forever

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not a headline I should have looked at - let alone clicked on - given that I'm only online because I can't sleep:

'Universities shake-up eyes greater competition'

aaaaaaaaaaaagh

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One of the sickest things about all this (as a non-Briton, anyway; I'm sure there's a whole galaxy of sick things about it that you notice and I don't) is the use of the word 'consumer'. I see this everywhere, and it actually kind of unnerves me. It's as if the neoliberal project is seeing people as parts of some gigantic socioeconomic food chain rather than real, individual, ensouled (if you swing that way religiously) beings.

Oh, wait. Did I say 'as if'? Sorry, I meant 'is'.

[Gustaf]

One of the sickest things about all this (as a non-Briton, anyway; I'm sure there's a whole galaxy of sick things about it that you notice and I don't) is the use of the word 'consumer'. I see this everywhere, and it actually kind of unnerves me. It's as if the neoliberal project is seeing people as parts of some gigantic socioeconomic food chain rather than real, individual, ensouled (if you swing that way religiously) beings.

Oh, wait. Did I say 'as if'? Sorry, I meant 'is'.

Eh. I'd rather be a consumer in a free market than a "citizen" in a planned economy. I realize why peoples' sensibilities are offended by the term, but consumers tend to get treated much better than clients or subjects (and I don't mean the latter term in any cultural way).

I don't really think competition is too bad a notion when it comes to universities. At lower levels I'm more skeptic though.

[TheGlobalizer]

One of the sickest things about all this (as a non-Briton, anyway; I'm sure there's a whole galaxy of sick things about it that you notice and I don't) is the use of the word 'consumer'. I see this everywhere, and it actually kind of unnerves me. It's as if the neoliberal project is seeing people as parts of some gigantic socioeconomic food chain rather than real, individual, ensouled (if you swing that way religiously) beings.

Oh, wait. Did I say 'as if'? Sorry, I meant 'is'.

Eh. I'd rather be a consumer in a free market than a "citizen" in a planned economy. I realize why peoples' sensibilities are offended by the term, but consumers tend to get treated much better than clients or subjects (and I don't mean the latter term in any cultural way).

I don't really think competition is too bad a notion when it comes to universities. At lower levels I'm more skeptic though.

Agree.  The problems with consumer-ization of the higher education system are, to me, because the government collaborates with those institutions to sell the myth of "more education = more money".  Unfortunately, education only creates a competitive advantage against those less/not educated; if everyone consumes education, then few material benefits accrue.

(And don't try to sell me the "education is its own reward" line -- have you ever talked to a hippie sociology grad?  Some degrees have less ephemeral value than the last-place award at the Special Olympics.)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

One of the sickest things about all this (as a non-Briton, anyway; I'm sure there's a whole galaxy of sick things about it that you notice and I don't) is the use of the word 'consumer'. I see this everywhere, and it actually kind of unnerves me. It's as if the neoliberal project is seeing people as parts of some gigantic socioeconomic food chain rather than real, individual, ensouled (if you swing that way religiously) beings.

Oh, wait. Did I say 'as if'? Sorry, I meant 'is'.

Eh. I'd rather be a consumer in a free market than a "citizen" in a planned economy. I realize why peoples' sensibilities are offended by the term, but consumers tend to get treated much better than clients or subjects (and I don't mean the latter term in any cultural way).

Why can´t I choose to be none of these things?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you? Seriously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn´t simple supply and demand indicate that will be demand for such degrees anyway? Or have I failed basic economics or something?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Eh. I'd rather be a consumer in a free market than a "citizen" in a planned economy.

Why can't we be citizens (actual citizens) in a democracy? Why must everything be reduced into a crude set of economic calculations; especially when most people don't actually think in such terms? This post is likely to develop into a rant and so I should probably point out that it won't be aimed at you... I mean this idea that students are rational consumers of educational services (the principle that underpins every aspect of this government's mindless assault on higher education policy) is absolutely hilarious. Its an absurdity, a fantasy and ultimately quite dangerous (as well as being offensive and degrading to academic staff and to research students; but then I suppose such people are merely vested interests who's opinions have no value anyway). Basing a policy on such a questionable idea makes about as much sense as basing social policy on some of the more ludicrous ramblings of the New Left in the 1970s.

More to the point (perhaps) it will not end well, especially given that it is being attempted in a society as class-ridden as ours. We will see increased resources heading towards universities that have more than enough already and a massive decline in the quality (the actual quality, that is. I'm quite sure that people working in the old polys will very quickly work out how to game any inspection system, rendering it worthless from the start) of higher education at the old polys. Worse than that, we will see a great mushrooming of dubious institutions handing out degrees in return for cash because, naturally, the title 'university' is about to be devalued to a sickening extent (and quite deliberately). Every year there will be tens of thousands of suckers who will got to these places and emerge with a piece of paper with no worth whatsoever. I don't see how society could ever benefit from that, and I don't see how the individuals who will fall into those scams will benefit either. Meanwhile, artificial market mechanisms will be used to further restrict academic freedom at those institutions where research will still be possible. Of course some (though, alas, not all) academics are rather good at gaming bureaucratic idiocy of that sort, but the impact will still be pernicious. This will, of course, result in a decline in the quality of teaching at universities, though not in a way that can be measured by officious bastards with armed with clipboards, neatly organised forms and crumpled photos of Milton Friedman in their wallets.

[Insula Dei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Errr,... I don't know about the US, but in (continental, Northwestern) Europe sociology is certainly not the object of ridicule. If there's one subject which is seen as generally void, it's bussines studies and the like. On the other hand, I do suppose that subject is 'good value for money'?

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Errr,... I don't know about the US, but in (continental, Northwestern) Europe sociology is certainly not the object of ridicule. If there's one subject which is seen as generally void, it's bussines studies and the like. On the other hand, I do suppose that subject is 'good value for money'?

They both are. Not by quite the same people, but with the same justification. Certainly business classes require a better grasp of math (or of cramming.)

[Foucaulf]

If I am understanding this correctly, British universities are restricted by quotas so an elite crop cannot snatch up all the talent. This White Paper essentially removes quotas on high-achieving students, as well as letting universities that provide "good value" take their pick. Is this correct? If so, this reform is a load that doesn't address the real problem - opportunity for those who cannot and should not afford university. But the collective obsession with social mobility and its correlation with education chokes out discussion of the former.

All it seems to me is that this British government is Americanising their universities in a country where there are none. No British university save Oxbridge could compete with the Ivies, and American liberal arts colleges are unique. What about the novel idea of assuring college graduates will not leave straddled with debt?


Here's an article on a similar subject, I suppose.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Errr,... I don't know about the US, but in (continental, Northwestern) Europe sociology is certainly not the object of ridicule. If there's one subject which is seen as generally void, it's bussines studies and the like. On the other hand, I do suppose that subject is 'good value for money'?

Continental Northwestern Europe=Belgium?

Anyway, I ridicule sociology. I know a couple and I'm not very impressed with it. But that's sort of a side-track here.

[Gustaf]

Eh. I'd rather be a consumer in a free market than a "citizen" in a planned economy.

Why can't we be citizens (actual citizens) in a democracy? Why must everything be reduced into a crude set of economic calculations; especially when most people don't actually think in such terms? This post is likely to develop into a rant and so I should probably point out that it won't be aimed at you... I mean this idea that students are rational consumers of educational services (the principle that underpins every aspect of this government's mindless assault on higher education policy) is absolutely hilarious. Its an absurdity, a fantasy and ultimately quite dangerous (as well as being offensive and degrading to academic staff and to research students; but then I suppose such people are merely vested interests who's opinions have no value anyway). Basing a policy on such a questionable idea makes about as much sense as basing social policy on some of the more ludicrous ramblings of the New Left in the 1970s.

More to the point (perhaps) it will not end well, especially given that it is being attempted in a society as class-ridden as ours. We will see increased resources heading towards universities that have more than enough already and a massive decline in the quality (the actual quality, that is. I'm quite sure that people working in the old polys will very quickly work out how to game any inspection system, rendering it worthless from the start) of higher education at the old polys. Worse than that, we will see a great mushrooming of dubious institutions handing out degrees in return for cash because, naturally, the title 'university' is about to be devalued to a sickening extent (and quite deliberately). Every year there will be tens of thousands of suckers who will got to these places and emerge with a piece of paper with no worth whatsoever. I don't see how society could ever benefit from that, and I don't see how the individuals who will fall into those scams will benefit either. Meanwhile, artificial market mechanisms will be used to further restrict academic freedom at those institutions where research will still be possible. Of course some (though, alas, not all) academics are rather good at gaming bureaucratic idiocy of that sort, but the impact will still be pernicious. This will, of course, result in a decline in the quality of teaching at universities, though not in a way that can be measured by officious bastards with armed with clipboards, neatly organised forms and crumpled photos of Milton Friedman in their wallets.

That was a rant.

The specifics of the British situation and the class structure and all that I don't really have much comment on - I know too little about it. I'll point out though that in Sweden's university system, which is almost completely devoid of private institutions and where the goal has rather been to make everyone attend where they live as opposed to choosing between different unis around the country, we've seen exactly what you're worried abuot. Increasing class differences (because people without academic backgrounds end up in the state financed sham universities without realizing that's what they are), devaluation of highe reducation and worthless degrees being handed out.

To my mind, adults can make the choice of whether to attend higher education or not. That choice in economic terms is very much on eof consumption (well, technically speaking it's not consumption - it's investment in human capital).I think I share your basic ideals about what education should be about, but it's a question of to what extent I should take my ideals and force everyone into them. Of course, there is no contradiction to me bewteen being a democratic citizen and a consumer.

Gully: I'm not sure if you were only making a clever wordplay on liberalism and choice. You can of course choose not to consume. That's the point of a free market. You can't choose which terms are used by other people for stuff, because that's part of the idea of a free democracy. And of course it would be the same if you won and people did not say consumer. And you can of course still choose how you want to define yourself.

[opebo]

Eh. I'd rather be a consumer in a free market than a "citizen" in a planned economy.

Obviously you would, because you are a privileged.

[Gustaf]

Eh. I'd rather be a consumer in a free market than a "citizen" in a planned economy.

Obviously you would, because you are a privileged.

Well, I'm not to the extent that you are. On both accounts - I would for instance not give up my rights as a citizen of a democratic country just to enjoy being able to buy women on a free market. I'm not quite the materialist that you are, you see.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That was a rant.

The specifics of the British situation and the class structure and all that I don't really have much comment on - I know too little about it. I'll point out though that in Sweden's university system, which is almost completely devoid of private institutions and where the goal has rather been to make everyone attend where they live as opposed to choosing between different unis around the country, we've seen exactly what you're worried abuot. Increasing class differences (because people without academic backgrounds end up in the state financed sham universities without realizing that's what they are), devaluation of highe reducation and worthless degrees being handed out.

To my mind, adults can make the choice of whether to attend higher education or not. That choice in economic terms is very much on eof consumption (well, technically speaking it's not consumption - it's investment in human capital).I think I share your basic ideals about what education should be about, but it's a question of to what extent I should take my ideals and force everyone into them. Of course, there is no contradiction to me bewteen being a democratic citizen and a consumer.

I'm not opposed to the idea that students should be allowed a choice of institutions at which to study or that universities should make an effort to try to encourage students to study at their specific institution; if that's how you define 'competition' then I'm actually in favour of it. People have the right to make choices about their future; that's something that ought to come automatically with citizenship. What I am opposed to is the idea that 'opening up' the Higher Education system to artificial market models (which is the thinking behind every aspect of this government's Higher Education policy; from the ending of all state financing of teaching that isn't defined as 'science' to allowing dubious for-profit institutions to call themselves 'Universities') is anything other than insane. I'm also quite strongly opposed to any further reinforcement of the useless, inaccurate and ultimately counter-productive* A-level system in the university application process, but that's a trivial issue in comparison.

On the issue of Higher Education in Sweden... much as you aren't familiar with the specifics in Britain (which are even more complicated than I've indicated because each nation has a slightly different system; though what happens in Higher Education in England is almost always reflected - in some way - elsewhere. Its unavoidable for obvious reasons; and feels like a real shame right now), I'm not familiar with the specifics of Higher Education in Sweden. But I'm not one of those starry-eyed fools who believes that things are wonderful in the rest of Europe, and your description of how things work in Sweden on this issue is less than encouraging.

On the issue of choice... hmm... most students don't exactly chose whether to go to university or not, while there choices on which university to go to are rarely made in a way that would fit in with the idea of students as being rational consumers of anything. Most go to university because they are middle class and that is what people from middle class households do. Which is an entirely different problem. Most of them have difficulty tying their own shoelaces, but they all have excellent A levels (and what does that say?). Those students that make an active choice to go to university tend to do something for reasons that have little to do with consumer choice (I'll admit to being one of those), or just to get a qualification (any qualification) no matter where from. The latter used to be served by the Polytechnics (which were converted into universities in the early 90s) and will be utterly screwed by what the government is doing at the moment (even those that will end up paying less will be getting less, which is just not on).

*The first year of an undergraduate course in the England and Wales is typically given over entirely to deprogramming students from the bad methods, lazy thinking and rote-learning that they're totally indoctrinated into at A-level. I can give you some truly horrific anecdotes if you PM me...

[Gustaf]

That was a rant.

The specifics of the British situation and the class structure and all that I don't really have much comment on - I know too little about it. I'll point out though that in Sweden's university system, which is almost completely devoid of private institutions and where the goal has rather been to make everyone attend where they live as opposed to choosing between different unis around the country, we've seen exactly what you're worried abuot. Increasing class differences (because people without academic backgrounds end up in the state financed sham universities without realizing that's what they are), devaluation of highe reducation and worthless degrees being handed out.

To my mind, adults can make the choice of whether to attend higher education or not. That choice in economic terms is very much on eof consumption (well, technically speaking it's not consumption - it's investment in human capital).I think I share your basic ideals about what education should be about, but it's a question of to what extent I should take my ideals and force everyone into them. Of course, there is no contradiction to me bewteen being a democratic citizen and a consumer.

I'm not opposed to the idea that students should be allowed a choice of institutions at which to study or that universities should make an effort to try to encourage students to study at their specific institution; if that's how you define 'competition' then I'm actually in favour of it. People have the right to make choices about their future; that's something that ought to come automatically with citizenship. What I am opposed to is the idea that 'opening up' the Higher Education system to artificial market models (which is the thinking behind every aspect of this government's Higher Education policy; from the ending of all state financing of teaching that isn't defined as 'science' to allowing dubious for-profit institutions to call themselves 'Universities') is anything other than insane. I'm also quite strongly opposed to any further reinforcement of the useless, inaccurate and ultimately counter-productive* A-level system in the university application process, but that's a trivial issue in comparison.

On the issue of Higher Education in Sweden... much as you aren't familiar with the specifics in Britain (which are even more complicated than I've indicated because each nation has a slightly different system; though what happens in Higher Education in England is almost always reflected - in some way - elsewhere. Its unavoidable for obvious reasons; and feels like a real shame right now), I'm not familiar with the specifics of Higher Education in Sweden. But I'm not one of those starry-eyed fools who believes that things are wonderful in the rest of Europe, and your description of how things work in Sweden on this issue is less than encouraging.

On the issue of choice... hmm... most students don't exactly chose whether to go to university or not, while there choices on which university to go to are rarely made in a way that would fit in with the idea of students as being rational consumers of anything. Most go to university because they are middle class and that is what people from middle class households do. Which is an entirely different problem. Most of them have difficulty tying their own shoelaces, but they all have excellent A levels (and what does that say?). Those students that make an active choice to go to university tend to do something for reasons that have little to do with consumer choice (I'll admit to being one of those), or just to get a qualification (any qualification) no matter where from. The latter used to be served by the Polytechnics (which were converted into universities in the early 90s) and will be utterly screwed by what the government is doing at the moment (even those that will end up paying less will be getting less, which is just not on).

*The first year of an undergraduate course in the England and Wales is typically given over entirely to deprogramming students from the bad methods, lazy thinking and rote-learning that they're totally indoctrinated into at A-level. I can give you some truly horrific anecdotes if you PM me...

Of course there is an issue of over-education of those from the educated classes. I've met many such people. Still, given a free society that's hard to get away from. In the upper classes people often need a degree for social reasons and so they obtain one. Ideally, we would be able to charge them for it, but that's probably hard to implement. Overall, I suspect the gains from freedo mof choice and cheap/fre higher education largely compensates for that (mind you, I'm again talking from a Swedish perspective here - I'm aware it's more expensive i nthe UK). I do however think that it on average reflects preferences of the individual. These may be irrational or stupid or heavily affected by class-background, of course. I probably wouldn't be an economist if my parents weren't. But that sort of goes for most things people do and I don't think this is a "choice" like the "choice" to be a prostitute or alcoholic.

There are definitely problems with university education, in most countries I think. I just think it is too easy to assume that things one is ideologically opposed to in general (such as consumerism i nthis case) bears the responsibility. While I realize you would know as little about the Swedish system as I about the British, I mentioned it merely to point out that the dummification  of higher education is, I think, a general educational trend, not something specifically related to free markets.

One thing I suspect would be an improvement is to let th euniversities handling the applications instead of the level below. The incentive structure for universities is vital to ensure that they have a reason to accept decent students and give them a decent education.

[TheGlobalizer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn´t simple supply and demand indicate that will be demand for such degrees anyway? Or have I failed basic economics or something?

That was my point, government interventions in education distort the market, with education subsidies creating excess demand for "easy" degrees like sociology, rather than the hard sciences, mathematics, engineering, etc. that career-oriented individuals self-select to.

[freefair]

It's not just that the UK should encourage more science/maths/econ graduates for human capital- it's because we have an utterly SHAMEFUL shortage of graduates in those fields. This will retard the development of our western civilization. We'll fall behind China.
Nobody's saying that there shouldn't be plenty of arts/humanities grads too, but given the choice between reducing those subjects intake by 40% and increasing sciences by 20%, or keeping things the same, I'd prefer the former.
D'yer know who suffers from having not enough science teachers? aspirational working class people who can't do degrees in those subject and lose the place to some upper-middle class fool, or worse, do something else and can't get a job afterwards.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...ooh...

....crumpled photos of Milton Friedman in their wallets.

...I like that one. Will use it again.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It is my rational choice as a consumer in a post-ideological market economy to make higher education more competitive yadda yadda etc etc...

[DC Al Fine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Errr,... I don't know about the US, but in (continental, Northwestern) Europe sociology is certainly not the object of ridicule. If there's one subject which is seen as generally void, it's bussines studies and the like. On the other hand, I do suppose that subject is 'good value for money'?

They both are. Not by quite the same people, but with the same justification. Certainly business classes require a better grasp of math (or of cramming.)

Depends what you mean by "business". Accounting, Economics majors etc certainly enjoy s[inks]ing on the Management/Marketing/HR types. Some business degrees are worthwhile and others are not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is utterly disgusting. Education (and espectially higher education) is one of the sectors where neoliberal thought has done (and is doing) the most harm.

[YL]

It's not just that the UK should encourage more science/maths/econ graduates for human capital- it's because we have an utterly SHAMEFUL shortage of graduates in those fields. This will retard the development of our western civilization. We'll fall behind China.
Nobody's saying that there shouldn't be plenty of arts/humanities grads too, but given the choice between reducing those subjects intake by 40% and increasing sciences by 20%, or keeping things the same, I'd prefer the former.
D'yer know who suffers from having not enough science teachers? aspirational working class people who can't do degrees in those subject and lose the place to some upper-middle class fool, or worse, do something else and can't get a job afterwards.

I don't think encouraging for-profit "universities" with dubious academic standards is going to help the UK have more STEM graduates (not ones worth having, anyway).

[ingemann]

One of the sickest things about all this (as a non-Briton, anyway; I'm sure there's a whole galaxy of sick things about it that you notice and I don't) is the use of the word 'consumer'. I see this everywhere, and it actually kind of unnerves me. It's as if the neoliberal project is seeing people as parts of some gigantic socioeconomic food chain rather than real, individual, ensouled (if you swing that way religiously) beings.

Oh, wait. Did I say 'as if'? Sorry, I meant 'is'.

Eh. I'd rather be a consumer in a free market than a "citizen" in a planned economy. I realize why peoples' sensibilities are offended by the term, but consumers tend to get treated much better than clients or subjects (and I don't mean the latter term in any cultural way).

I don't really think competition is too bad a notion when it comes to universities. At lower levels I'm more skeptic though.

That was a false dichotomy.. BTW when we talk about "free" or subsidised service from the public, a client is much prefered, as it allow the public to set up demands for receiving the service, while as consumer, it's them who set up the demands. Of course best of all are a citizen as its someone, who make and follow demands.
Of course you may prefer ideological that education isn't a service delivered by the state. But it seem weird that someone would prefer the free market to deliver a worse and more expensive product, to the state delivering a better and cheaper alternative with the added benefit that it increase social mobility, equality and productivity.