Liberal Education, McDonaldization of Education, and Student Fees - Essay Example

Liberal Education, McDonaldization of Education, and Fees fees are the natural and logical conclusion to the "McDonaldisation" of higher education. Critically examine the statement in terms of the traditional notion of a liberal education and what constitutes a university (see John Newman). 1. Introduction In October 2010, the Sutton Trust, an organization founded in 1997 “with the aim of promoting social mobility through education”, has expressed fears that “students could end up paying up to five times as much as they current do for degree course at England’s top universities if tuition fees are completely unregulated.” Sutton Trust also warned that universities could also decrease their focus on home students and increase their focus on the more lucrative international students. Sutton Trust also expressed a view that the combination of higher student fees and an increase in focus on international students “could be damaging for social mobility”. Sutton Trust said that the “fees for overseas students have risen to between three and five times the current fees for undergraduate students,” assuming that the education government subsidies as of October remain. The Sutton Trust revealed that overseas students have increased more than proportionately with the increase in the number of home students in the United Kingdom. The Sutton Trust has stressed that the “complete removal of the fees cap and the pressure on universities among to admit higher paying non EU students could have serious implications for fair access to leading universities”. The Sutton Trust predicts that by 2015, as a result of higher student fees, 1 in 10 of undergraduates would be likely overseas students. Further, by 2015, non EU students would likely compose 50% of the postgraduates because of higher school fees. Sutton Trust is a registered charity under British Laws with registration number 1067197. One of the advocacies of the Sutton Trust was for “financial universities to recruit poorer students, and giving students from poor homes their first university year for free”. 2. Liberal Education In Britain, the concept of university is usually associated with ideas of John Newman. John Newman’s idea of a university is that ‘it is a school of knowledge of every kind, consisting of teachers and learners from every quarter” (Halsall I). Newman also pointed out that a university is “a place for the communication and circulation of thought, by means of personal intercourse, through a wide extent of country” (Halsall I). For Newman, the University is “the very constitution of society” but “it needs of aid and support external to itself to complete that nature and to secure that object” (Halsall III). In other words, John Newman’s idea of a university is that, first and foremost, it is a venue for exchange of thought, of ideas, and knowledge. The aim of a university is to produce and circulate knowledge. For Newman, a university or knowledge has no commercial ends. Knowledge is an end by itself and the reason of existence of a university. More than this, John Newman’s idea of a university is that the university consists of “teachers and learners from every quarter” that implies that just as a university must be able to accept every kind of knowledge from all perspectives and persuasions, it must accept all types of learners from all quarters. A university must be able to accept all types of students from all walks of life or occupations to merit the word universal or university. However, when fees are raised, the higher fees can limit learners’ access to a university. It is possible that as a result of higher fees, the learners no longer come from all walks of life but from only a few sectors of society who can afford the higher fees or the higher costs of education. At the same time, when learners’ access to education are limited or constrained by higher fees, knowledge also ceases to be “knowledge of every kind” because the knowledge only comes from a few or fewer members of society who can afford the higher fees. 3. McDonaldisation: Meaning, Advantages/Disadvantages, Unavoidability, and Higher Fees as Consequence Ritzer used McDonaldisation as a metaphor for the general trends characterising society (100). The metaphor is used to illustrate society’s concern for rationality, speed, and efficiency that is “so well illustrated by the McDonalds’ style of operation” (Ritzer 100). Further, the McDonalidisation has become so pervasive in society that one can find the McDonald style operation in all of society (Ritzer 100). Ritzer viewed the McDonaldisation as part and parcel of a “wide-ranging process of rationalisation” that is occurring in society (100). In the words of Ritzer, rationalisation in the form of McDonaldisation “encompasses disparate phenomena as fast-food restaurants, TV dinners, packaged tours, industrial robots, plea bargaining, and open-heart surgery on an assembly-line basis”. However, despite McDonaldisations negative aspects, Ritzer appear to have a positive outlook on McDonaldisation as he pointed out that McDonaldisation “begun a process that promises even more extraordinary changes (e.g. genetic engineering) in the years to come” (100). Ritzer proposed that we view rationalisation as “a historical process and rationality as the end result of that development” (100). Ritzer linked McDonalidisation with Weber’s view of the ongoing rationalisation that is also expressed in bureaucracy as “its paradigm case” (101). However, for Ritzer, the model of rationalisation is no longer the bureaucracy but the McDonald’s fast food chain instead. For Ritzer, “a society characterised by rationalist is one which emphasizes efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty” (101). Weber’s view of rationalisation has four stages: 1) the germinal stages; 2) orderless social action; 3) social action among individuals oriented towards each other based on a non-enacted order; and 4) social action among individuals based on an rationally enacted order (Orihara 145-46). Yet, at the same time, Ritzer pointed out that “we are in danger of being seduced by the innumerable advantages already offered, and promised in the future, by rationalisation” (101). He pointed out that that there are “irrational consequences that often flow from rational systems” and that there can be “the irrationality of rationality” (Ritzer 101). For Ritzer, for example, McDonaldisation has taken over dinners: the prepackaged meals and frozen TV dinners have been beaten by organized dinners in which a “simple menu that can be cooked and served in an assembly-line fashion (101). Ritzer implied the McDonald meal may be efficient but, at the same time, society may be losing sight of the objectives of why we eat in the first place. Ritzer used the analogy of a Nazi concentration camp: Nazis devoted so much attention to maximize the efficiency of the camp’s operations and lost sight that the purpose of the camp was to murder millions of people in the first place (106). Thus, Ritzer pointed out that irrationality is an inevitable product of today’s concern for rationality (106). In stronger words, Ritzer said that “rational systems are not reasonable systems” to put emphasis on the point that rationality does not always lead to rational systems (106). Further, he also pointed out that “rationality brings with it great dehumanisation as people are reduced to acting like robots (107). Ritzer complained that a “fully rational society would be very bleak and uninteresting place” (107). In summary, Ritzer concluded that while rationality brought innumerable advantages, “it also created a number of problems” (107). Ritzer stressed that what is needed “is not a less rational society, but greater control over the process of rationalisation involving, among others, efforts to ameliorate its irrational consequences” (107). It can be argued that higher education is now McDonaldized. First, higher education is accessible only to those who are able to pay for it or to those who are able to borrow money for education. Second, higher education is McDonaldized because rationality required that higher education be mass produced and served along an assembly line in the name of efficiency and so it won’t be too expensive. Unfortunately, higher education cannot be served like heated frozen TV dinners. Given a highly changing world, it must be served hot, fresh, newly-cooked and easy to prepare just like the training modules that are ready to broken up yet easy to integrate to conform with the demand, tastes, and needs of consumers. Third, education must be in a way similar to a menu in McDonald’s food chain: identification of wants is easy by simply identifying what one needs. Finally or fourth, higher education must be deliverable fast enough and on time along a conveyor belt. Given the various types of higher education specialization that can be conceived, there is no other option but to use subjects or modules to build a course. The approach ensures speed as the approach attempts to meet a learner’s needs. Unfortunately, the rationalisation or the McDonaldisation of higher education implies costs. The McDonaldisation is society’s attempt to rationalise. At the same time, however, there is a risk that the rationalisation or McDonaldisation of education creates a scheme that defeats the purpose of higher education or a university: instead of having a community of learners from all walks of life, we can have a community of learners only from those of walks of life who can afford the education. Instead of having ideas, thoughts, and knowledge from every sort, higher education can be a privilege of the few. 4. The Browne Report In November 2009, Lord John Browne was asked to head an independent panel to review higher education and formulate recommendations on how higher education can be financed sustainably (Browne 2). The findings were published 12 October 2010. The panel headed by Browne produced the following recommendations that are hereby reproduced almost verbatim (4-5): 1. More investments should be made available for higher education because the United Kingdom is at risk of falling behind rival countries. In direct relation to these recommendations, higher educational institutions must persuade students to pay more in order to get more. 2. Student choice should be increased and related to this, students should be informed of the range of options available to them. 3. Everyone who has the potential should be able to benefit from higher education and no one should be deprived higher education because they cannot afford the fees. 4. No one should have to pay until they start to work and government will have to meet the upfront cost of higher education through a student finance plan. 5. Payments for higher education, when they are made, should be affordable. 6. Part-time students should be treated the same as fulltime students for the cost of education. More concretely, the Browne proposal or proposed scheme called for government payment of the learning upfront (6). The Browne proposal also called for an annual loan of £3,750 with no means testing for access to loans for living costs (6). The Browne proposal also called for additional support of up to £3,250 in grants for students coming from families earning below £60,000 annually (6). More specifically, in the Browne proposal, students will pay nothing up front and graduates only pay when they are already earning above £21,000 per year (6). Further, the payments will be “affordable” at 9% of any income above £21,000. Moreover, any balance after 30 years is written off (Browne 6). If graduates stop work for any reason, payments also stop (Browne 7). According to Browne, government finance of education is sound because given costs and returns, the net private present value of education is at least £207,655 (15). Further, according to Browne (42), their panel’s proposal is superior to the current system because the benefits are far greater beginning on the third decile of the population of the United Kingdom. This is shown by Figure 1. Figure 1. Net Present Value of Payments by Decile: Current System vs. Browne’s proposal Source: Browne (42) 5. Comparisons In comparing their panel’s proposal with the proposal for graduate tax, Browne said that although both proposals specify no upfront costs, the graduate tax scheme would require two payments, the tax and the loan payments, while their proposal only calls for a single set of payments (10). In the graduate tax proposal, the payments continues indefinitely while their proposal will stop until all costs are paid or within 30 years, whichever come earlier (Browne 10). While the proposal for the rival graduate tax calls for payments when the income tax threshold of £6,475 per year, the Browne proposal calls for payments when graduates are already earning £21,000 per year. Further, while the rival proposal graduate tax is uncapped, the Brown proposal says that their proposal set the maximum payment equal to the cost of the degree (10). According to Browne, while the rival proposal for a graduate tax will require an additional spending of £3 billion a year until 2015-16 at minimum and additional continued additional spending until year 2041-42, their proposal allegedly does not require additional spending (10). 6. Finance Perspective: Sustainable Higher Education and Analysis of the Browne Report and Government Action Undeniably, the Brown recommendations imply that the government of the United Kingdom will continue to shoulder a large bill for higher education. Has this strategy been effective to increase investments for educations, especially in the light the spending for education in the UK has a net private present value of education is at least £207,655 (15)? Figure 2 indicates that countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, and Australia beat the United Kingdom in terms of expenditure as a percentage of GDP in select countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. As shown by Figure 2, the UK spends only less than 0.15% of the GDP for higher education while countries like Australia, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand spend from 0.2 to 0.53 of their GDP. Clearly, many countries are ahead of the UK in terms of spending for higher education. Figure 2. Investment in Higher Education as Percentage of GDP Source: OECD UK Economic Survey 2004 Figure 4.A.A1.2. Figure 3. Tuition Fees in Higher Education in 2000 Source: OECD UK Economic Survey 2004 Figure 4.A.1.1. Figure 3 is revealing on the reason why spending for higher education in the UK is among the lowest among OECD countries. As indicated by Figure 3, the reason apparently lies on the relatively low non-government expenditures on higher education. As shown by Figure 3, while tuition fees only provide less than 0.2% of GDP for supporting higher education in the UK, it s more than UK’s spending for Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, United States, and Korea. Figure 4. Non-government Sources and Expenditure on Education as % of GDP, 2000 Source: OECD UK Economic Survey 2004 Figure 4.7 Figure 4 indicates many things. For one, Figure 3 indicates that the higher the contribution from students and nongovernment sources, the higher the total expenditure for education as a percentage of GDP. Unfortunately, UK is among the countries with the lowest contributions from parents and nongovernment sources. Thus, it is also a country with one of the lowest spending for education as a percentage of GDP. Countries like Australia, New Zealand, United States, Korea, and Canada have higher student and contribution and, thus, have higher spending for higher education as a percentage of GDP. Figure 5. Aged 25-34 and 55-64 with tertiary education in 2008 Source: Browne (16) The surprising thing in society’s investment for education in the UK is that while the government is spending so high subsidizing students in higher education, higher education seems less universal in the UK. This is indicated in Figure 5. As indicated by Figure 5, 18 countries beat the UK in terms of student participation rate in the UK higher education. Countries like Korea, Canada, the Russian Federation, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Israel, Belgium, Australia, the United States, Sweden, France, Netherlands, Spain, Luxembourg, and Switzerland beat the UK in promoting universal education from “all walks of life” This is something that must be explored by the UK. 7. Conclusion Data indicate that perhaps we should explore other strategies being promoted by the Browne Report to make higher education genuinely universal in the UK. Perhaps, the Browne recommendation is an extreme position. At the same time, current policies that would allow tuition fees to shoot up at least five times its current rates as revealed by the Sutton Trust should be examined more closely for its negative effects on universality of higher education. Work Cited Browne, John. Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education. United Kingdom: Panel for Independent Review of Higher Education Funding & Student Finance, 2010. Halsall, Paul. “John Henry Newman: The Idea of a University, 1854”. Georgia, United States of America: Armstrong Atlantic State University, 1998. 20 December 2010 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Economic Survey: United Kingdom 2004. Orihara, Hiroshi. “Max Weber’s Four Stage Rationalisation-Scale of Social Action and Order in the Categories and its Significance to the Old Manuscript of Economy and Society: A Positive Critique of Wolfgang Schluchter” Max Weber Studies, 8.2 (2008), 141-162. Ritzer, George. “The McDonaldization of Society”. Journal of American Culture, 6.1 (1983), 100-107. Sutton Trust. “Student fees could increase five fold.” London: The Sutton Trust, October 2010. 20 December 2010< http://www.suttontrust.com/news/news/student-fees-could-increase-five-fold/>. Read More