Globalization and Higher Education

Part II. A Closer Look

pa r t 1i A Closer Look A Closer Look Introduction • 65 • Our attention so far has been focused on the macro level of analysis , the nature of globalization and its consequences for higher education . In this section, our authors look more closely at the microprocesses and at some details. All too typically, people think of globalization in terms of marketization —extending market “logic” across the globe, including, therefore, the increasing marketization of many institutions, including higher education . Charles Smith’s essay is a frontal assault on the generally uncritical views of markets. He argues that both friends and foes of markets misconceive them, with disastrous consequences for our understanding. Instead, then, of assuming that both parties to an exchange know the value of what is to be traded and that the “price” is the intersection of the two curves representing this evaluation, he argues that we need to see that “markets are rather first and foremost definitional systems. They do not just reveal the preferences of the participants; they constitute the social process whereby participants determine such preferences /values. Put slightly differently, they are mechanisms for establishing a consensual definition of goods and services under conditions of ambiguity.” Thus, we “don’t have to agree on why we value a given object for a hundred dollars in order to exchange it for that sum.” Moreover, instead of thinking of markets as disembedded and morally neutral, there is no good reason to believe that the rules identified in mainstream neo-classical theory either do fit or should fit all markets . Indeed, once this is acknowledged, we can see that the problem is not markets as such, but the failure to notice that little attention has been paid to how markets currently function in allocation decisions in higher education and how they might function to resolve current and growing ambiguities. These include, importantly, ambiguities regard- ing the “products” of higher education—what is being produced and for whom?—ambiguities regarding the roles of relevant participants— who are the producers and what competences do they have?—and the rules that should govern allocation processes, including, critically, being clear about priorities and increasing transparency over questions of cost. Smith concludes his essay by arguing against some misguided “solutions ” to the current ambiguities. Most academicians, we may guess, have a low opinion of the forpro fit institutions of higher education: they are diploma mills, with low-paid, overworked faculties, and tyrannical administrations. Their students, often paying more tuition than students in public institutions, are not getting the value that they believe they are getting. Richard Ruch’s essay will not convince the inconvincible, but it ought at least to shake up our thinking—especially if we suffer from a distorted view of practices of the nonprofits. Ruch is the first to acknowledge that “as a guardian of institutional integrity and quality, the marketplace is limited in terms of what it reveals about an institution and how it functions to improve quality.” He continues: “The market alone cannot determine educational quality.” Indeed, the success of (say) the Phoenix University may be a fluke, or a case of duping the unsuspecting public. But even if this is the case—and this is doubtful—there can be no doubt that Phoenix is filling an articulated need. As others in the present volume would seem to agree, Ruch offers that, at a minimum, “the for-profit providers represent another form of institutional and missional diversity, one that serves a useful purpose and contributes to the overall vitality and breadth of the higher education industry.” Similarly, as he notes, it is not clear whether useful purposes are being served when institutions take for granted the “luxury of inefficiency,” a sentiment shared by Charles Smith. As suggested by his thoughtful consideration of the goals of higher education —the theme of Part III of this volume—Ruch is not an uncritical advocate of “efficiency,” especially as defined by neo-classical theory, but he does argue that there are things that might be learned from the practices of the for-profits. Scott Thomas offers us some detail of the structure of higher education in the United States. He examines the idea of “a knowledgebased economy” and the growth in postsecondary opportunities. Both, he argues, are consequences of the globalizing of the economy. He 66 • Globalization and Higher Education [3.142.250...