I would argue that there are three commonly held views about the purpose of Higher Education and that they are in conflict with one another.
The three commonly held view of education are:
- Education is a commercial transaction.
- Education is for the good of the wider economy.
- Education is about personal improvement.
I would content that while some of these views might be held at the same time they are in principle contradictory.
Education is a commercial transaction
I think that most people would consider the concept of education as a commercial transaction originating from the introduction of student tuition fees in the mid-90’s; however, I would argue that in different ways it originates both before and after that time period. The initial tuition fees were not as high as they are now and undergraduate student numbers were capped. The big difference came after 2000 when Universities expanded into the overseas MSc market (particularly from the Chinese middle class but also more broadly). A big focus was made on expansion of students paying higher (unregulated) fees and, in effect, Universities, Departments/Schools and even academics started behaving like commercial operators. On the other hand, the definition of a commercial transaction could be expanded a little as being an investment of both money and time. A common analogy for student fees and the expectation of students is that of gym membership. “You pay the membership fee for use of the gym but only you can make yourself fit” goes the analogy. In effect the “getting fit” is the time aspect of the commercial transaction. Students are not particularly likely to say “I’ve paid X so I should get a better mark” but they will say “I’ve spent a lot of time on this so I should get a better mark”. This is a transactional view of education. The work of Bunce, Baird and Jones (2016) shows how students who see themselves as consumers fail to perform as well as students who see themselves as “learners”. I would argue that the (financial) transactional view is actually a broader transactional view with a superficial focus on time leading to success. This time based view of education as a transaction does not require tuition fees and can pre-date their introduction. The financial aspect of the education transaction is a key part of the UK government’s education policy. Quality should be benchmarked. Fees should be variable with the intention of better universities being able to charge more (although this did not happen). Universities with poor financial performance should be allowed to become bankrupt.
Education is for the good of the wider economy.
Education as for the good for the wider economy is also a common view of the government. Universities should be making the future worker bees of the “knowledge economy” (whatever that is). It is also sometimes mentioned by business leaders with graduate skills (or more likely the lack of them) being mentioned. This view has some problems. The specific skills that are required by different companies are quite diverse. Vocational degrees do exist but they tend to include a large dose of time “on the job”. In fact, a lot of said skills might be better described as “work experience”. Even the more general skills such as report writing and presentation skills pose some problems. It can be hard to evaluate such things (and, let’s face it, everything must be evaluated given the transactional view). If they are included as an experiential part of a programme (and do not contribute to the final degree classification) then students who take a transactional view will not take them seriously (my experience of this with masters students is mixed; sometimes they engage others, not). In addition to this students tend to forget things as soon as they consider them no longer relevant (again in accordance with a transactional view).
Education is about personal improvement.
I think that a lot of academics would take this view about education. I suspect that there might be an element of ego about this (my higher level of education makes me a happier/better person). It also harks back to an earlier time when University was a time for (wealthy) young people to spend some time “improving” themselves. But it also goes against a lot of what happens when teaching in the current University climate. Everything about what is to be learned is nailed to the floor including the time available, the methods of learning/teaching and the topics that will be covered. This works against the idea of a person taking time and improving themselves. Two obvious areas where this can take place stand out to me. First of all dissertations. I always found it very satisfying to witness students (some of which might not have been anywhere near top of the class) take their time to research a topic, engage with discussion and produce an excellent piece of work. The open choice of topic allowed students to focus on something that they were interested in. Often this would be quite a challenge given that it is the longest piece of work that they will ever produce. The other example is outside of the classroom. Students engage in all kinds of activities either through student societies or outside of the University all together. The University has little impact on such activities. Perhaps lack of University involvement is a good thing as it avoids such activities from being transactional or for economic good. I have seen Universities try and provide formal recognition for such activities through “unstructured” courses. I am unsure about whether this is a good thing or not.