Co-authored with Talischa Schilder and Johan Adriaensen, originally published by Wonkhe on 9 March 2022. The Covid crisis has both highlighted and challenged the marketisation of universities. Students have gone on rent strikes demanding a reduction of their tuition fees – as customers, they are not satisfied with the service that they have paid for. An important aspect of the marketisation of universities is how these institutions generate their income. After reforms by David Cameron’s cabinet, government funding has become principally linked to the number of admitted students, further raising the bar of tuition fees. Consequently, UK universities compete on the education “market” for a higher number of enrolled students or a quality premium for their services to generate more income. So what may help to entice student-customers to pay such high fees? Have it your way Many argue that the incorporation of elective or module choice into a programme is a strategy that will attract a higher number of enrolled students. The thinking goes that students are responsible for their learning experience and are thought to be rational-thinking individuals, capable of choosing what suits them best. In this framing, freedom of choice creates a sense of autonomy that attracts student-customers. In other words, the student is the customer, and the customer is king. Curriculum flexibility is supposed to not only raise student satisfaction ratings, but also an institution’s brand strength, ranking and reputation. These factors, in turn, boost the number of student applications and ultimately the institution’s revenue stream. But is that how it works in practice? Back here in the real world We have analysed ninety-three undergraduate programmes in Political Science and International Relations across the UK. In the figure below, we have plotted the programmes’ flexibility (percentage of credits that are electives) against student satisfaction as measured by the National Student Survey (NSS) UK. If there was a connection, we might expect to see data points clustered around a linear upward-sloping graph, but the data is scattered. We acknowledge the widely voiced criticism on the validity of NSS metrics, in particular the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). However, the theory holds that such statistics are quintessential in the public construction of reputation and brand name. We can conclude that curriculum flexibility does not increase student satisfaction nor TEF ratings. Another important feature of the marketisation of universities is the focus on rankings and reputation as integral to the institution’s brand. Such statistics can serve as a quality guarantee to potential students thereby directing their choice of university. In theory, older and higher-ranking universities are less exposed to the workings of the free market because their strong brand generates a steady influx of students along with external funding regardless of any marketing strategy. The hypothesis would then be that younger and lower-ranking universities offer a higher degree of flexibility in their undergraduate programmes to attract more students. Upside down But in reality, our research indicates that the higher-ranking universities lean towards a free-elective system. It doesn’t matter if we select the QS Global Ranking, the Times Higher Education World Ranking or the rankings in the Guardian League Table 2020 – lower-ranking universities with a weaker brand name offer relatively rigid undergraduate programmes in comparison to the elite institutions. How do we explain these contrasting results? Older and higher-ranking universities are known to enjoy larger financial resources. Therefore, these institutions are able to provide a study programme with more free electives and specialisation courses in comparison to younger and lower-ranking universities. Deeper pockets enable a higher staff – student ratio. It enables senior academics to teach electives on their field of expertise, leaving the prescribed subjects to the teaching assistants. Within the academic debate, curriculum flexibility is associated with the marketisation of universities, which could lead to the pursuit of revenue as primary interest at the cost of the quality guaranteed in a prescribed curriculum. However, our research suggests that the incorporation of elective / optional courses / modules into undergraduate programmes is better understood as a premium, “luxury” service.
While “develop your own curriculum” is a catchphrase on many university websites to woo the potential student-applicant, curriculum flexibility is not associated with higher student satisfaction. Instead, it is an organisational trait associated with (past) wealth that is actively marketed. Considering the financial constraints under which (smaller) universities operate, and more specifically the tenuous position of Political Science programmes, we caution against emulating the flexible curricula employed by higher ranking institutions. It is not the silver bullet many may be looking for.
31 Comments
Originally published by the DCU Brexit Blog on 19 January 2022. After a record 271 days of negotiations a new Dutch coalition government took office on Monday 10 January. Although, is it really new? The same four parties that formed the previous government – Christian-Democratic CDA, Christian CU, Social-Liberal D66 and Conservative-Liberal VVD – are also in the new government. Yet, it does come with many new faces and plans. This includes what is at first sight a rather different approach towards the EU.
In the recent past the Netherlands has become known as a reluctant EU member, particularly following ‘Black Monday’ in 1991, when an ambitious Dutch blueprint for a federal Europe was rejected, and the Dutch ‘No’ to the Constitutional Treaty in 2005, partly due to increased dissatisfaction with the pace and extent of European integration. Whether the Dutch ever were passionate believers in European integration before that time, may be questioned. But the country having become known as a member of the ‘New Hanseatic League’ and one of the ‘Frugal Four’ (for an insightful study, see here), it seemed almost like it had become a UK lite, stepping into the gap that occurred after Brexit to become perhaps the most Eurosceptic member of the EU. It therefore may come as a surprise that the new coalition agreement reads that “The Netherlands will play a leading role in making the EU more effective, economically stronger, greener and more secure.” But there’s more.
Of course, the proof is in the pudding; these are words on paper and reality may be quite different. But, as Rem Korteweg of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael also noted in a recent Twitter thread, some of the wording of the Dutch coalition agreement is quite similar to that of the new German government. Unlike the German government, the Dutch are not calling for a federal EU. But with the French and the Germans now seeing eye-to-eye on a number of EU reforms, the similarity between the two coalition agreements suggests that the new Dutch government may have become a Germany lite that will no longer put a break on the further development of the EU. |
Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|