Should students be made umpires in an academic wage contest? Frank Furedi thinks not.
Politicians seem to find it difficult to have any constructive ideas about higher education. Education ministers appear to regard the university sector as a commercial enterprise that should be run along straightforward business lines. Universities are there not so much to educate as to sell education in a competitive market to customers, who, in the past, were wrongly thought of as just learners. Academics and their institutions are invited to compete against one another and to market their courses as if they were selling just another consumer good.
Many academics have resigned themselves to this state of affairs and privately hope that the situation will not deteriorate further. Do not hold your breath!
Last week, higher education minister Baroness Blackstone indicated that she would like to see university teaching resemble even more the practices associated with a cash transaction. She told the Commons education select committee that she wants lecturers to be promoted if they can demonstrate that their teaching is of a high quality. And how would we assess the quality of teaching? By taking evidence from students, who, according to Blackstone, "should know best". Lady Blackstone believes that if a teacher gets the nod from students "we should be giving them additional increments".
From the politician's standpoint, the idea that students "know best" who is and who is not a quality teacher has a distinct populist logic. It is also consistent with the government's educational philosophy, which upholds the idea that the customer knows best. Unfortunately, by transferring the relationship of conflict that characterises the marketplace, politicians threaten to erode further the collaboration and trust between teacher and student that is the prerequisite of an education. Flattering students that they "know best" might win votes but it can serve only to incite them to regard their courses as something they consume and not as an experience they interact with.
To treat students as umpires in a beauty contest is likely to have a destructive impact on education. It will reinforce the already considerable pressure to transform education into a commodity. Lecturers who know that their pay increments are closely linked to the approval they receive from their students will learn to avoid teaching practices that might undermine their popularity. Many courses have already reduced or dropped theoretical themes and other "difficult bits" from their programme. Lady Blackstone's proposal will help to accelerate this trend. Lecturers will be more interested in communicating what they think students want to hear than what undergraduates need to master a subject. After all, customers are not there to be challenged.
The transformation of the student-teacher relationship into a commercial one does not simply have a regrettable impact on what happens in seminars and lecture halls. It bears on every aspect of university life. Take assessment and examination. Academics who are forced to court student approval know that what concerns their customers above all is the mark they receive for their essays and exams.
If we go down the road of Lady Blackstone's formula, universities will not only be pressurised into commodifying teaching but also into throwing marking and assessment into the deal. To retain competitive advantage, lecturers and their departments had better learn to market their customer-friendly system of assessment.
An unlikely scenario? There is considerable evidence that the commodification of education is proceeding at a rapid pace. In most universities, lecturers and departments are almost never reprimanded for grade inflation and other customer-friendly practices. There are, however, numerous instances where departments have been warned that they are failing too many students or that they are not giving enough 2.1 or first-class degrees.
By forcing the lecturer into the position of a mendicant directly dependent on student approval, Lady Blackstone's proposal will encourage cynicism and intellectual corruption. What she fails to realise is that the best teaching takes place when both lecturers and students take responsibility for their learning.
The proposal to turn lecturers into insecure pedlars is not only an insult to academics but also to the intelligence of university students.
Frank Furedi, department of sociology, University of Kent.
* Should students have a say in lecturers' pay? Email us at soapbox@thes.co.uk