Corporatization in higher education: Negative effects of corporatization in colleges and universities - Research Paper Example

?Philip Quinones Prof. Burgos COS 6/22/11 Corporatization in higher education: Negative effects of corporatization in colleges and universities During my time in Core seminar class, we went over various topics and discussions. One topic that stood out to me most was corporatization in higher education. This is a very important matter to me. As a student I believe that corporations should not be involved in our education sector because of its negative contribution. Many colleges have been affected by these corporations. Schools are now more of a business than a higher place of learning. Nothing good can come from corporatization in education. Satish Tandon (2005), in his article Globalization: Impact on Education, explained the size or depth of corporatization and the profits earned by the corporate companies from the academic world in America. One of the major consequences of the globalization of education has been commodification and the corporatization of institutions of higher learning. It is said that the for-profit education market in the United States is worth more than $500 billion in revenue for the involved corporates. More than one thousand state schools have been handed over to corporations to be run as businesses (Tandon) Before the entry of globalization, education was considered as a sacred act because of the immense benefits it provides to a person in his life. Educators or teachers were respected highly in the society because of the services they were giving to the society for making better future generation. However, the whole concept of education has been changed a lot over the last few decades, especially after the introduction of globalization. Today, like most of the other segments of human life, commercialization has entered the educational sector also. All the schools and colleges are currently focusing more on maximizing their profits rather than providing quality education to the students. Corporatization is not a myth, but a fact at present in educational sector. Former Harvard University President Derek Bok and many others defined corporatization of higher education as a process in which “today's educational institutions are busily striving to profit from teaching, research and all the other activities on campus—offering corporations the right to endow professorships, sponsor courses, bring the university's scientific discoveries to market, even advertise in campus bathrooms”(Clay). Corporatization is the process of introduction of management structure in an institution. It is a kind of privatization. Corporatization in higher education means giving permission to private business people to exploit the business opportunities in higher education sector for profit making. In other words corporatization of higher education makes education as a commodity rather than a service. Jason G Caudill, Assistant Professor of Business Administration Carson-Newman College, has explained various dimensions of corporatization of higher education in his article, A Commentary on the Corporatization of Higher Education. In his opinion, “In recent years there has been considerable discussion in the field of higher education about applying corporate management models to the operation of colleges and universities”(Caudill). Even though, corporatization brings certain benefits to the higher education sector, educators and prominent scholars are of the view that it may destroy the higher educational sector. It is impossible for the corporate world to sustain the sanctity of education when they visualize education just as another means for making profits. All the unhealthy competition and malicious activities prevailing in the corporate world may intrude into the educational sector as a result of the corporatization of higher education. Even though some people visualize corporatization of higher education as a tool to improve the quality of education, I strongly believe that corporatization of higher education may ultimately destroy higher education because of the excessive negative effects it brought to the academic world compared to the positive effects. In an interview with C. Cryn Johannsen, Henry A. Giroux (American cultural critic and the founder of critical pedagogy theory), has pointed out various negative effects of corporatization of higher education. Replying to a question Giroux said that; Many university presidents now assume the language and behavior of CEOs and in doing so they are completely reneging on the public mission of the universities. The state is radically defunding public universities and university presidents, for the most part, rather than defending higher education as a public good, are trying to privatize their institutions in order to remove them from the political control of state governments (Johannsen) The opinions of Giroux point towards the negative effects of corporatization of higher education. The traditional functions of the Universities have been altered a lot by the CEO’s of the corporatized universities. The head of a nonprofit making organization and the head of a profit making organization may adopt different business strategies for successfully leading the organization. Before the introduction of globalization, universities were considered or functioned as nonprofit making or service oriented institutions whereas corporatization transformed current universities into profit making bodies. Since the methods, of a profit making organization and a nonprofit making organization never go in parallel direction, it is evident that the CEO’s of current corporatized universities may shift their focus from improving the quality of education to improve the profit of the organization or the university. The online article, Owing to what Gene Rice identifies, contains the opinions of some of the prominent scholars like Stanley Aronowitz, Roger Baldwin and Deborah Chang about the negative effects of corporatization of higher education. In this article, Stanley Aronowitz “warns that the steady corporatization of American higher education is imperiling faculty governance. Roger Baldwin and Deborah Chang warn that, through a lack of support for faculty in the middle phase of their careers, institutions are squandering a key resource” (Owing to what Gene Rice identifies, p.1). Quality education is a necessity not only for the students, but also for the corporate world. In the absence of better educated personnel, organizations cannot meet their targets and objectives. Quality education helps a professional to bring creativity and fresh ideas into an organization. Moreover, students will lose their faith in morality and ethics as a result of the corporatization of education. For example, in many countries, students forced to pay huge amount of capitation fee for getting admissions in medical or engineering colleges like professional educational institutions. In India like countries, a student forced to pay around $ 50000 to $100000 for getting admission in medical colleges functioning in the private sector. Pushpa Narayan has written on Indian daily, The Times of India, (May 31, 2011) that Tamil Nadu medical colleges seek Rs 25-45 lakh ($ 50000 to 100000) as capitation fee for medical admission (Narayan). How can we anticipate that students completing their higher education from such colleges to keep high levels of morality or ethics in their profession? Such students will try to make money both through legal and illegal channels when they come out from their institutions in order to compensate for the money they lost in the form of capitation fee. In other words, doctors coming out from such corporatized institutions will exploit the poor patients immensely. University of Washington can be cited as one of the best examples of the victims of corporatization of higher education. Three University of Washington professors were fired recently because of their alleged ties to the Communist Party. It should be noted that none of these professors were fired because of their lack of competence in teaching. "It was the off-campus political activities of these men and particularly, their insistence that the institution's investigations not only violated their academic freedom but also interfered with their First Amendment freedom of speech and association that cost them their jobs" (Bader). The above example clearly shows that corporatization of higher educational may limit or control academic freedom of teachers. Teachers and faculties forced to work under the strict guidelines of the corporate management and to safeguard the interests of the management at the expense of quality of education. Academic freedom will encourage critical thinking which is necessary to provide quality education to the students. University of British Columbia can be cited as the best example of institutions which resisted corporatization successfully. To effectively resist the commercialization of public space and the corporatization and militarization of education, students at the University of British Columbia (UBC) created a political group in the summer of 2007 called Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). SDS-UBC consists of students who are unafraid to use direct-action to enact radical social change. SDS-UBC actively resists the corporate funding of education, and it believes that students should have a meaningful role in the decision-making processes at the university. The university should not be a vocational school. It should not be a place where people obtain a few skills to qualify them for a specific occupation in the capitalist economy. The university should be a revolutionary place where students learn the language of critique and dissent and develop critical thinking skills that will enable them to engage with other members of society in a socially and politically relevant manner (Rezaee) UBC realized the threats raised by corporatization of education. So the students in conjunction with the teachers formed a union in order to resist the interferences of corporate world in its educational system. UBC is of the view that an institution is a place where thinking without constraints should be encouraged. It is a fact that the societies which are free of any constraints may advance rapidly whereas societies which function under restrictions may not develop properly. For example, American society is one of the highly developed societies in the world because of the lack of constraints whereas societies in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia lack progress because of the constraints prevailing in those societies. In other words, academic freedom is necessary for the smooth functioning of a university. When a university functions under the strict guidelines of the CEO, it functions similar to a country like Saudi Arabia. It should be noted that in in Saudi Arabia like non-democratic countries, anything said against the administration will bring severe punishment. The fear of such punishments prevent people in such countries from expressing their views even if they are 100% right. A university under a CEO may face similar problems which is not good for the effective functioning of a university. The influence of corporate money on many colleges has meant that corporations, instead of the universities themselves, frequently determine what receives funding. For example, instead of the sociology department of a university deciding that they want an endowed chair and then soliciting funds for it, a corporation provides funding for a chair in an area in which it wants research done. Many university departments no longer exist to educate students but to do research and development for corporations. Corporate foundations give money to programs, courses, college newspapers, and student groups that further their ideology and opinions (Jensen) Some people argue that corporatization is necessary to the educational system because of the ability of the corporate world to bring optimum efficiency by utilizing limited resources. They make use of the arguments of lean enterprise management for substantiating their arguments. “Lean enterprise management is, at its core, simply resource optimization. Every physical space, every unit of inventory, every shipment of raw material or finished product, and every individual in the organization is intended to be utilized for maximum efficiency” (Caudill). However, it should be noted that the principles of lean enterprise management most of the times remain on paper alone; in practice it is difficult to achieve the core objectives of lean enterprise management. In other words, resource optimization in educational systems may destroy the quality of education most of the times. For example, resource optimization or lean enterprise management implementation may result in increased level of operations and decreased levels of funding in colleges and universities. It is evident that the quality of the operations could be seriously affected in the absence of adequate finding. There is no point in doing many activities if it fails to bring the intended results. It is a fact that the corporate world can bring lot of positive changes in the educational system. “Functions such as facilities maintenance, information technology, financial management, and overall operating efficiencies are all things that the business world does well and that educational institutions could manage in much the same way” (Caudill). In traditional universities, more focus is given to curriculum and therefore other areas may usually underperform. For example, traditional colleges or universities may not have good idea about how they can effectively utilize the funding they receive from the government. On the other hand, corporates, with their better finance management abilities can utilize such funds more effectively. “It is often assumed that 'corporatization' of the university is a result of the decline in state funding for education, especially public education” (Rosow, p.13). It should be noted that the governments are slowly staying away from public utility services because of lack of funding. It is impossible for the governments to give more funding to the educational sector without causing damages to the taxpayers. In other words, government can take the money from tax payer’s pocket and use it in education like public utility service sections. People often hate such ideas and therefore the governments left with the option of increasing private participation in the public utility areas like education. “The 'competitiveness' of the American economy was declining, so it was argued, because of deepening economic interdependence and the failure of American education (at all levels, including higher education) to train workers adequately for the new economy” (Rosow, p.15-16) To conclude, corporatization is destroying the higher education not only in America, but also in other parts of the world. The intentions of the Corporates are profit making alone; they will never consider the sacredness and value of education in developing a healthy future generation. Higher education in the hands of corporates is similar to a flower chain in the hands of a monkey. Corporates know profit making only; they don’t bother much about the sacredness of education when they get enormous opportunities to make immense profits from the educational sector. Over involvement of corporates in the higher educational sector should be controlled or regulated by the government in order to save higher education. Works Cited 1. Bader, Eleanor J. "The Lost Soul of Higher Education: Corporatization, the Assault on Academic Freedom and the End of the American University". Web.23 June 2011. 2. Caudill, Jason G. “A Commentary on the Corporatization of Higher Education”. Web.23 June 2011. 3. Clay, Rebecca. “The Corporatization of Higher Education”. 2008. American Psychological Association. December 2008, Vol 39, No. 11 Web.23 June 2011. 4. Jensen, Kristen. “Student’s Solidarity”. 2005. Web.23 June 2011. 5. Johannsen, Cryn C. “Higher Education Under Attack: An Interview With Henry A. Giroux”. 2011. Web.23 June 2011. 6. Narayan, Pushpa. “TN Medical Colleges Seek Rs 25-45 Lakh as Capitation Fee”. The times of India (May 31, 2011). Web.23 June 2011. 7. Owing to What Gene Rice Identifies”. Web.23 June 2011. 8. Rezaee, Jasmine R. “Resisting the Corporatization and Militarization of University Education Students for a Democratic Society at the University of British Columbia”. Web.23 June 2011. 9. Rosow, Stephen J. “Globalization and Corporatization of Higher Education”. Web.23 June 2011. 10. Tandon, Satish. “Globalization: Impact on Education”. 2005. Web.23 June 2011. Read More