beyond the debates: measuring and specifying student consumerism

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 02 October 2014, At: 10:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Sociological Spectrum: Mid-SouthSociological AssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usls20

Beyond the Debates: Measuring andSpecifying Student ConsumerismEmily Fairchild a & Suzanna Crage ba New College of Florida , Sarasota , Florida , USAb University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , USAPublished online: 21 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Emily Fairchild & Suzanna Crage (2014) Beyond the Debates: Measuring andSpecifying Student Consumerism, Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association, 34:5,403-420, DOI: 10.1080/02732173.2014.937651

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2014.937651

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usls20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02732173.2014.937651

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2014.937651

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Beyond the Debates: Measuring and SpecifyingStudent Consumerism

Emily Fairchild

New College of Florida, Sarasota, Florida, USA

Suzanna Crage

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Existing discourses suggest numerous aspects of the faculty-student relationship are affected by a student

consumerist ideology, but no clear definition of ‘‘student consumerism’’ emerges, and there are no tools

for systematically measuring the phenomenon. Using data from 527 undergraduates at a large, public uni-

versity, we provide an operational definition via development of the Consumerist Attitudes Toward

Undergraduate Education scale. Correlations between ‘‘Consumerism’’ and four additional scales indicate

that a consumerist approach is distinct from many of the concerns associated with it. These findings pro-

vide new tools to advance the discussion of student consumerism and its effects on teaching and learning.

Scholars and social critics have argued that western societies are dependent on ideologies of

consumption. Consumption is not only a marker of social status, as described by Veblen more

than 100 years ago (Veblen 1994 [1899]), but also a way of solving problems, constructing

meaning for the environment around us, and even shaping personal identity (McCracken

1990; Miles and Paddison 1998; Miller 1995; Murphy 2000). The increasing reach of consumer-

ist ideologies has extended the traditional definition of ‘‘commodities’’ to less tangible services.

As services become commodified, the institutions that provide them tend to become more

focused on ‘‘customer service,’’ with the goal of attracting and retaining customers. In this arti-

cle we methodologically explore the idea of higher education as a ‘‘service’’ affected by a mar-

ket ideology by developing a measure of student consumerism, and identifying and discussing

associated attitudes. As reviewed below, discussions of student consumerism exist in disparate

forms, often without rigorous evidence, but nonetheless with wide reach and influence; student

ideology is a critical aspect of broader debates about the effects of market forces on higher

education. Our research provides needed clarity for scholars approaching this topic.

Higher Education and Market Ideology

Higher education is not impervious to a market ideology (Gould 2003; Kirp 2003). Potential

effects of demands for cost effectiveness have been discussed in academic literature for decades

(e.g., Sanders 1992), and many universities’ routine activities such as enrollment, hiring faculty,

Address correspondence to Emily Fairchild, New College of Florida, 5800 Bay Shore, Sarasota, FL 34243, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

Sociological Spectrum, 34: 403–420, 2014

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0273-2173 print/1521-0707 online

DOI: 10.1080/02732173.2014.937651

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

and obtaining external funding are increasingly seen as products of market forces (Geiger 2004).

The institutional context, including high proportions of high school students expecting to go to col-

lege and the growth in privatization and for-profit universities, is now more competitive and directly

affected by capitalist forces (Newman and Couturier 2001; O’Meara 2001; Rosenbaum 2001).

With this, we find ourselves at a particular moment in the evolution of education (particularly

public education) that leads us to ask questions about student consumerist attitudes. Education

has shifted from a public good concerned with developing democratic citizens and preparing them

for roles within the occupational structure to a tool for private social advancement, and, as result,

schools and schooling policy are increasingly focused on education as about credentials (Larabee

1997). Credentials are proxies for skills and knowledge that are required by employers and sym-

bolic of social status. In this way, they are helpful tools for social organization. However, as require-

ments for social mobility in a competitive social context, they become constructions of competence

not necessarily linked to what happens in the classroom (Brown 2001; Collins 1979). This focus on

credentials raises questions about one aspect of the growing application of a consumerist metaphor

to higher education: what do students perceive to be the goal of their educational experience, and do

they think about their relationship with the university in economic terms?

Numerous books geared toward both academic and popular audiences have examined how uni-

versities are operating in this context, with attention to the potential corruption of liberal arts edu-

cation (Bok 2004; Cote and Allahar 2011; Donoghue 2008; Hacker and Dreifus 2011; Newman,

Couturier, and Scurry 2004; Washburn 2005). In an ever more diversified higher education market,

students ‘‘shop’’ for the school and classes they find most appealing and schools must react to these

pressures (Goldrick-Rab 2006; Newman and Couturier 2001). Documentarians have suggested

there is an ‘‘amenities arms race’’ visible in universities’ attempts to court new students (Merrow

2005), and popular press articles have ridiculed the ways that colleges ‘‘prostitute themselves’’ to

attract paying ‘‘customers’’ (e.g., Budiansky 2006). In this context, some have argued that the

aspects of the college experience that a prospective student can ‘‘see,’’ such as the student center,

become more important for making a decision as to which school to attend than the less visible

characteristics of academic rigor and top-notch faculty (Lewis 2003).

Additionally, public institutions are under particular pressure from political initiatives that

demand reduced tuition, increased graduation rates, and additional measures of faculty account-

ability. Such measures have been conceptualized, for instance, as the number of students taught

and amount of funding acquired (see, for example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s (N.d.)

‘‘7 Solutions’’). Texas proposals, gaining momentum in other states such as Florida and Wis-

consin, have included significant faculty pay bonuses for positive student evaluations. These

recent initiatives come after significant cuts to higher education, during a time of weakened rela-

tionships between states and higher education institutions (Kiley 2012). Such initiatives further

infuse higher education with a market ideology. Michael McKinney, then Texas A&M Chancel-

lor, made the economic relationship between the student and university explicit when he refer-

enced the evaluations-based bonuses as ‘‘customer satisfaction’’ (Patel 2009).

The Clash of Consumer Values, Learning, and the Professoriate

The ‘‘student as customer’’ metaphor does not sit well with many academics, who believe it

fundamentally threatens the mission of higher education. Conversations in the United States,

404 E. FAIRCHILD AND S. CRAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

UK, Canada, and Australia indicate that faculty feel the need to ‘‘preserve and protect the mis-

sion and integrity of general education in the academy’’ (Harris 2006:186) as ‘‘it is apparent that

contemporary government policy is seeking to change, fundamentally, the terms on which teach-

ing and learning take place’’ (Naidoo and Jamieson 2005:268). Some believe the implications of

students as customers are so counter to the endeavor of education that employing the metaphor

has been labeled colonization (Baldwin 1994; Sosteric, Gismondi, and Ratkovic 1998). Taken

with the credentialist frame for education that emphasizes the role of college degrees for stu-

dents’ social advancement, the concern is that continued use of this metaphor will support the

idea that college is an economic transaction students participate in to get ahead more than it

is a learning experience (Larabee 1997; McMillan and Cheney 1996).

This effect on learning and the effect on teacher-student interactions are two of the most

prominent roots of unease about the application of economic and=or business models to higher

education. A clear manifestation of credentialism can be found in a desire for grades unac-

companied by an aspiration for learning. Professors have long worried about grade grubbing

(Delucchi and Smith 1997). Indeed, research indicates that notable percentages of students

believe high grades should come as a result of paying tuition (Delucchi and Korgen 2002), ‘‘try-

ing hard’’ and self-disclosure should be rewarded (Greenberger et al. 2008; Perillo 1997), and

that cheating is not problematic (Bunn, Caudill, and Gropper 1992; Cizek 1999). If high grades

are conceptualized as rewards that do not require work and=or as records that can be manipu-

lated, their purpose is distorted. Moreover, if this perspective were embraced by professors,

methods of assessment could very well not match what is required for learning (Naidoo and

Jamieson 2005).

Concern for grades is one manifestation of how current cultural debates often treat education

as a product rather than a process (Levine 1999; McMillan and Cheney 1996; Pernal 1977).

Another is that degrees, recognizable educational products, are often treated as proxies for the

educational process, as reflected in calls for institutional accountability (e.g., number of degrees

awarded, time to degree, and fixed-price degrees). Degrees are highly valued as they provide

cultural markers and credentials that allow graduates to achieve class standing (Brown 2001;

Schleef 2000). But, if students enter with an assumption that the degree will come simply as

a result of paying, they are likely not to acknowledge the process required; they might also have

little motivation to do the work necessary to earn the credential or interact with faculty (Cotten

and Wilson 2006). Further, an approach that guarantees (or, at the least, expects) a degree in

exchange for tuition dilutes the evaluative component of education that requires students to

achieve a standard of performance before earning a credential.

The faith, trust, and risk-taking that learning requires do not fit with a guarantee of a product

(Naidoo and Jamieson 2005). Indeed, claims that paying students have the right to high marks

and academic credentials suggest a passive model of education (Snare 1997). If seen as an econ-

omic transaction, students-as-customers may be more likely to view themselves as outside the

learning process—as having a consumer identity rather than an identity as a learner (Naidoo

and Jamieson 2005). In other words, they are ‘‘ ‘receivers’ of a service, not as co-creators of

a teaching-learning community’’ (Newson 2004:230). As such, they could desire to be enter-

tained (Edmundson 1997); there is also evidence that students do not want to be made

uncomfortable or have to put forth too much effort (Howard and Baird 2000; Long and Lake

1996; Sacks 1996, 1997; Trout 1997). These conditions are barriers to the educational model

that contends that faculty members have a responsibility ‘‘to create classroom environments that

MEASURING AND SPECIFYING STUDENT CONSUMERISM 405

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

help our students experience the ambivalence, anger, and frustration that often accompany

genuine learning’’ (Delucchi and Smith 1997:337).

Arum and Roska’s (2011) work regarding the overall low quality of undergraduate education

reflects the effects of a consumerist attitude that puts low priority on active, collaborative learn-

ing, which has been shown to engage students in intellectual interactions with faculty (Rhinehart

1999). In some settings, we have seen a shift from replacing learning for intellectual develop-

ment with vocational training (Molesworth, Nixon, and Scullion 2009). The founder of one

of the most prominent for-profit private universities acknowledged their outcome of interest:

‘‘We are not trying to develop [students’] value systems or go in for that ‘expand their minds’

bullshit’’ (John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix; Financial Times 1996:5).Schools and professors have been criticized for enabling a consumerist model, and for the

resulting effects on learning and the educational experience (D’Amato 1987; Snare 1997). Arum

and Roska (2011) argue that schools cater to students as customers and do not give enough atten-

tion to academic rigor. Richard Hersh, former President of Trinity College and Hobart and

William Smith Colleges, has described students and faculty as having a ‘‘mutual nonaggression

pact’’ (Merrow 2006) whereby each contingent grants little accountability to the other and all are

content with low standards that allow each to focus on other pursuits (the remainder of college

life for students and research for faculty).

Thus, the central problem with applying a consumerist ideology to higher education is cast as

a change to the bases of power and authority when students are seen as customers (Long

and Lake 1996; O’Brien and Howard 1996; Smith 2000). Such an inversion minimizes faculty

power and authority based in expertise, and shifts the structure of the teaching relationship to

focus on pleasing student customers. This could take the form of re-designing courses to make

them more appealing (Sheppard 1997), and bowing to a range of customer service demands

including friendliness, understanding, avoiding negative feedback, and limiting professorial free-

dom of expression (Baker and Copp 1997; Cornwell and Stoddard 2006; D’Amato 1987). Meet-

ing these expectations can be significant for professors, as students report they complete

instructional evaluation forms according to how enjoyable the course was, and do not consider

specific questions about instructor behaviors and course content (Titus 2008). Moreover, for

overall evaluations, instructor likeability matters more than what they learned (Delucchi and

Pelowski 2000).

Research says little about how faculty use student evaluations for course design, and finds

that most do not see students as qualified to offer valuable critique (Benton 2011; Nassar and

Fresko 2002; Sojka, Gupta, and Deeter-Schmelz 2002). Given that instructional evaluations

are used in personnel decisions (Benton 2011), however, professors, particularly junior and con-

tingent faculty, might be especially vulnerable to pressures to prioritize courses and teaching

strategies aimed at increasing enjoyment and likeability, potentially at the cost of more critical

content and pedagogically sound methods. As Delucchi and Korgen (2002:106) noted, succumb-

ing to an altered arrangement of classroom power ironically compromises the product universi-

ties aim to provide: ‘‘A folk wisdom of the market—that the customer is always right—can be

pedagogically irresponsible when adopted in the classroom.’’ In the case of higher education, the

customer, literally, is not always right.

In all, scholarship and popular media have been nearly unequivocally critical of the fit

between a consumerist perspective and higher education while sharing concerns for efficiency,

students’ experiences, and changing demands on educational institutions (see, for example,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Baldwin 1994; McMillan and Cheney 1996). The criticism is that the consumerist model frames

professors as ‘‘clerks in an ‘education’ market’’ (Potts 2005:63) wherein the focus is not on

learning, and looking out for the best interests of the students may be distorted. Applying the

customer-seller metaphor to students and faculty ‘‘tilts the relationship away from its symbolic

nature toward an economy of production ill suited to human learning relationships’’

(Martinez-Aleman 2007:580).

What is the Evidence?

Upholding faculty authority, encouraging active learning, and guiding students’ intellectual growth

via a challenging educational program are made difficult if students themselves bring a consumerist

attitude to their studies. It has become common to hear faculty complaints about consumerism that

place the blame squarely on students’ expression of the metaphor; students’ demands on instructors

and institutions bring the perspective to life. However, there is little systematic research on the range

of student attitudes that are commonly referenced as ‘‘consumerism.’’

Delucchi and Korgen’s (2002) survey of 195 undergraduates enrolled in sociology courses

reflected students’ consumerist concerns. Most students (73%) in that public university sample

reported desire for high grades even if they do not learn anything, while nearly a quarter (24%)

expected faculty to consider non-academic criteria when assigning grades (such as financial aid

or graduate school application requirements). Further, more than half (53%) agreed that it is the

instructor’s responsibility to maintain student attention in class while just one-third (36%) dis-

agreed with the statement ‘‘If I’m paying for my college education, I’m entitled to a degree.’’

Two additional empirical studies made progress toward a clearer understanding of student

consumerism. Greenberger and colleagues (2008) constructed a 15-item ‘‘Academic Entitle-

ment’’ scale, which is distinct from other self-centered psychological constructs such as narciss-

ism and generalized self-entitlement. This research provides initial evidence that student

attitudes toward education deserve scholarly attention as a unique phenomenon. Most recently,

Bossick (2009) approached the problem of developing a more nuanced definition of consumer-

ism that accounts for multiple dimensions of the perspective—academic enthusiasm, academic

behaviors, desire for goods and services, and demands for job training. Multiple indices of

student consumerism, based on theoretical justifications, is a step in the right direction.

Still, while researchers have made some progress in transforming the discussion from anec-

dotal to empirically-grounded, the survey items employed have been relatively few. Researchers

have developed questions based on core themes in faculty complaints, but, in so doing, rely on a

narrow definition of consumerism. Indeed, a consumerist attitude may include a focus on grades

without concern for learning. It could also include a sense of entitlement to a degree and desire

for instructors to entertain. Other aspects of the college experience, such as preferences regarding

teaching method (Shepperd 1997), a voice in university policy formation (Mancuso 1976; Stark

1976), and=or requests for technological or extra-curricular resources (Lewis 2003) have also

been discussed as possible constituents of the attitude.

There is a logical potential for a relationship between a customer-seller view of a university

education and these attitudes. Existing research does not, however, tell us if this relationship

exists. Requests for more input into policy could, for instance, reflect more serious engagement

with the process of education. Applying market ideology could also be distinct: students may


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

have the view that they are purchasing an educational product without also holding the specific

beliefs about that product that these attitudes might suggest.

It is this complexity we address here. We push the empirical agenda further by exploring

rather than presuming how the various attitudes that have been associated with consumerism

are related. Our survey reflects components of existing conceptualizations of consumerism in

higher education, including a variety of specific issues and an ideology that invokes a

customer-seller relationship. The extensive instrument allowed us to examine how the items

cluster together, and, more specifically, how student attitudes about an explicit market ideology

relate to attitudes about other concerns raised in discussions of consumerism.

A large, randomly-selected campus-wide sample of undergraduates at a Midwest public uni-

versity allowed us to create a ‘‘consumerism’’ scale that can be implemented in various edu-

cational settings, as well as a set of four additional scales that tap other issues implicated in

the debates. Our findings suggest there is a student-as-customer attitude, but that it is distinct

from many of the specific faculty concerns frequently noted. These results provide information

about students’ perspectives on the rights and responsibilities of students, faculty, and institu-

tions. This can form the basis for a rich discussion regarding how to better achieve institutional

missions in a culture increasingly guided by market ideology.

METHODS

Creation of the Consumerist Attitudes toward Undergraduate Education Scale

The Consumerist Attitudes toward Undergraduate Education scale was created from an original

survey instrument designed by the authors to tap students’ attitudes related to academic and

popular discussions of consumerism. To prepare to write the survey items, we conducted a com-

prehensive review of empirical and editorial works regarding students and consumerism pub-

lished between 1973 and 2004. We examined both peer-reviewed journals such as Sociologyof Education, The Journal of Higher Education, and Teaching Sociology, and periodicals that

are devoted to discussing academia, including Liberal Education, Change, and The Chronicleof Higher Education. From these publications, we developed a list of attitudes, preferences,

and expectations that have been associated with a consumerist approach to higher education.

We created numerical rating statements that expressed these positions, some of which were

reverse-coded, along with parallel questions that expressed the same attitudes in different ways.

For most of these items, ratings ranged from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (coded 1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’

(coded 10). A fewer number of items ranged from ‘‘not important’’ (coded 1) to ‘‘very impor-

tant’’ (coded 10).

Pre-tests with two groups of undergraduates (N¼ 40) suggested that the survey effectively

assessed attitudes about consumerism. After revisions for clarity, redundancy, and the ability

to discriminate among students, the final instrument consisted of 64 statements about specific

issues that have been associated with student consumerism. These asked for student attitudes

about their responsibilities in and goals for classes, concerns about grades compared to content,

various types of expectations of instructors and university administration, what services should

be included with tuition, student say in university practices and policies, the importance of

non-academic facilities and services, and whether they framed education as a product.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

As discussed below, these items were our main focus in scale construction. The instrument

also included questions asking students to choose between two alternatives, such as ‘‘Should

your role in the university be that of a Scholar (coded 1) or Customer (coded 10)?’’ and

‘‘Who should have more influence over the college learning experience?’’ with ‘‘Students’’

coded 1 and ‘‘Instructors’’ coded 10. We used these items to explore relationships between

the scale and student learning focus and inversion of authority. Though not addressed in this

paper, the survey also included one open-ended question asking students for the top three things

they think they are ‘‘entitled to’’ as a result of paying tuition, an eight-item scale comprised of

numerical ratings measuring critical thinking orientation, and a measure of students’ sources of

tuition and living expenses.

Data were collected in Spring 2004 via a web-based survey of undergraduates at Indiana

University. From the total number of undergraduates (n¼ 28,045), the University Registrar

provided a simple random sample of 1,200 currently enrolled undergraduate students. Selected

students were recruited with a letter and e-mail that described the study, invited them to partici-

pate, explained the study incentive (a $10 debit card after completing the survey), and gave

the survey’s Internet address. Students accessed the secure survey with their university e-mail

usernames and passwords. All identifying information was purged from the data.

Five hundred fifty-three students responded to and completed the survey, for an overall

response rate of 46.1%. After deleting cases with missing data, we had a final sample size of

527. We do not know how many students opened and read the e-mail notices. However, 98%of those who logged on to the survey site completed the instrument. This suggests that reactions

to the content of the questionnaire did not affect the response rate. Some reasons for the

non-response rate may include: some students might not have accessed their university e-mail

addresses during the study interval; the invitation sent was toward the end of the semester;

and an unknown number of students received an e-mail reminder multiple times, which may

have dissuaded participation.

Data on gender, residency status, class standing, and grade point average (GPA) of the

survey respondents were provided by the Registrar. Table 1 compares summary statistics

of key demographic characteristics among the survey sample and the total undergraduate

population. The average year in college was late in the sophomore year (2.73); freshmen

and sophomores respectively accounted for 20% and 21% of the sample, 25% were juniors,

and 34% seniors. Seventy-two percent of the students were classified by the university as

in-state, a higher percentage than the university population. At 63%, women were slightly

over-represented, and the average GPA, 3.15, was significantly higher than that of the gen-

eral student population. Potential effects of these sample characteristics are considered in the

discussion.

Responses to the 64 numerical rating items were factor analyzed using a maximum likelihood

solution with an orthogonal (varimax) rotation. This procedure initially identified ten potential

factors with an Eigenvalue of 1.0 or higher. We then examined each potential factor for concep-

tual clarity and utility. For example, we considered the theoretical connections among the items

and eliminated from subsequent scaling factors composed of only two parallel items and most

items with factor loadings lower than .45. These procedures resulted in five scales. We then con-

ducted separate principle components factor analyses of the items comprising each scale. Each of

these separate analyses confirmed that the factors were unidimensional, with no evidence of

items loading on other than the primary factor.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

RESULTS

Our analysis of the Consumerism Study data proceeds in three steps. First, we describe the five

dimensions identified by the factor analyses. Second, to provide evidence of the validity of the

Consumerist Attitudes toward Undergraduate Education scale, we assess the associations

between consumerism and other related attitudes identified in the literature. Third, we provide

further evidence of validity by examining the association of the Consumerism scale with items

that directly address concerns in the discourse about student learning and inversion of authority,

i.e., the relationship between student consumerism and six items tapping respondents’ attitudes

about the financial versus intellectual bases of education and student versus faculty authority.

In addition to providing information on the quality of our consumerism measure, these

analyses add to our understanding of the complexity of student attitudes toward higher

education.

The Dimensions Underlying the Debates about Consumerism in Higher Education

The data reported in Table 2 display the items comprising each of the five scales created in this

research, along with their associated factor loadings. The first, ‘‘Consumerist Attitudes toward

Undergraduate Education’’ (‘‘Consumerism,’’ Eigenvalue 2.30), our main interest, measures the

overall consumerist orientation toward higher education and is comprised of five items. The fac-

tor analysis reveals four additional dimensions derived from the consumerist debate in higher

education journals and magazines: (1) a four-item measure of ‘‘Expectations of Instructors’’

(Eigenvalue 1.88), (2) a four-item scale of ‘‘Job Preparation and Placement’’ (Eigenvalue

2.06), (3) a five-item measure of ‘‘Grade Emphasis’’ (Eigenvalue 1.64), and (4) a three-item

measure of ‘‘Student Responsibilities’’ (Eigenvalue 1.31). As reported in Table 3, the internal

consistency reliabilities of each scale, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, are moderate to high:

Consumerist Attitudes toward Undergraduate Education (a¼ .80); Expectations of Instructors

(a¼ .78); Job Preparation and Performance (a¼ .82); Grade Emphasis (a¼ .72); and Student

Responsibilities (a¼ .74).

In Figure 1 we provide data on the distribution of the Consumerism scale. With a mean of

22.5 and a standard deviation of 10.0, the distribution of this scale closely approximates a

TABLE 1

Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Student Sample and Population,

Consumerism Study (N¼ 527)

Variable

Sample characteristics Population characteristics

Mean SD Mean t

Gender (0¼Male, 1¼ Female) 0.63 0.52 5.20y

Residency (0¼Out-of-State; 1¼ In-State) 0.72 0.67 2.35y

Year in College 2.73 1.13 2.66 1.17

GPA (Grade Point Average) 3.15 0.56 3.05 4.24y

yp< 0.05, one-tailed test.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

normal curve, suggesting that there is substantial variation in attitudes. Some students com-

pletely reject the idea and some completely embrace it; most, however, fall in the middle of

the range. This means that, on the whole, students are not overwhelmingly consumerist, nor

TABLE 2

Scale Components with Factor Loadings, Consumerism Study (N¼527)

Scale Factor loadings

Consumerist Attitudes toward Undergraduate Education (Eigenvalue 2.30)

I think of my education as a product I’m buying. .81

My relationship with university is similar to the relationship

between a customer and seller.

.77

I believe most students think of their education as a product they are

buying.

.52

Students should get tuition and fee reimbursement for classes they

think they didn’t learn anything from.

.45

I believe students should think of their education as a product they

are buying.

.76

Expectations of Instructors (Eigenvalue 1.88)

Instructors should make sure class is interesting for students. .71

Instructors should be required to link course material with ‘‘real

life.’’

.64

Instructors should relate well interpersonally with students. .73

Instructors should communicate class concepts clearly. .66

Job Preparation and Performance (Eigenvalue 2.06)

A good job as a result of the university education.� .65

Counseling from the university that guides students through the

process of finding a job.�.77

Universities are responsible for providing excellent job placement

services.

.78

Universities should provide an education that prepares students to

enter the work force.

.67

Grade Emphasis (Eigenvalue 1.64)

Students shouldn’t have to put a lot of effort into a course in order to

get a good grade.

.54

Instructors should try to avoid harming students’ GPAs with bad

grades.

.60

Students should feel justified in taking a course in which they will

receive an A, even if they learn little or nothing.

.54

Students should do whatever’s necessary to get good grades, even if

it’s dishonest.

.45

Instructors should offer some classes that are ‘‘easy As.’’ .70

Student Responsibilities (Eigenvalue 1.31)

Students should expect to have to put a lot of effort into a class to

get a good grade.

.65

Students should study outside of class as much as necessary to learn

the material.

.71

Students should pay attention during class, even if they think it’s

boring.

.62

Note. Response choices for items marked with an asterisk ranged from ‘‘Not Important’’ to ‘‘Very Important.’’ All

other items ranged from ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ to ‘‘Strongly Agree’’.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

are they overwhelmingly anti-consumerist. Given that women tend to outperform men academi-

cally, and we are using GPA as a proxy for academic engagement, it is possible that our sample,

with more women and higher GPAs than the student population, might underestimate consumer-

ist attitudes. Yet, the range displayed in this table runs contrary to the common assumption that

most students are highly consumerist.

Table 3 presents means and standard deviations for each of the five scales and reports the

correlations between Consumerism and the other scales (the full correlation matrix indicates that

each of the scales is distinct, and is available upon request). Of the four correlations, three are

statistically significant (p< 0.05) and are in directions consistent with that suggested in the

extant literature. It is important to note, however, that the correlations, which ranged from absol-

ute values of .01 to .22, are weak in strength. This finding supports the discriminant validity of

the Consumerism scale: it indicates the Consumerism scale taps an attitude that is more than

simply a conglomeration of the others. The attitude that education is a product students purchase

is distinct from attitudes about expectations of instructors, job preparation, emphasis on grades,

TABLE 3

Scale Means and Correlations with Consumerism, Consumerism Study (N¼527)

Mean Std. dev. Range Chronbach’s alpha Consumerism

Consumerism 22.50 10.00 0-45 .80 1.00

Expectations of Instructors 29.15 5.02 4-36 .78 0.15�

Job Preparation and Placement 31.00 4.83 8-36 .82 0.18�

Grade Emphasis 16.65 7.82 0-45 .72 0.22�

Student Responsibilities 7.43 4.54 0–27 .74 �0.01

�p< 0.05.

FIGURE 1 Distribution of Consumerism, N¼ 527.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

and student responsibilities. This finding clarifies the relationships between attitudes implicated

in the discourse on student consumerism.

Specifically, the insignificant correlation between consumerism and student responsibilities

suggests there is no relationship between consumerism and student attitudes about how hard they

should study. The weak positive correlations between consumerism and the other three scales

suggest that more consumerist students place slightly more emphasis on the interpersonal skills

of instructors and the preparation that a university education and services provide for finding a

good job after graduation. More consumerist students also agree that avoiding effort, taking easier

courses, and cheating are slightly more acceptable means for achieving desired grades. However,

to reinforce the role of these findings in our overall project, the weak strength of these results

indicates that research should treat these attitudes as separate, and not assume they coexist.

Student Consumerism and Attitudes about Student Learning and the Inversionof Authority

Table 4 presents correlations between scores on the Consumerism scale and selected individual

survey items that best address the two most salient issues in the discourse about consumerism:

student learning focus and inversion of authority. Each of the items regarding learning focus is

significantly correlated with Consumerism in the expected direction (‘‘Student role,’’ .31;

‘‘University provides. . .,’’ .17; ‘‘Choice of major,’’ .15). In other words, consumerist students

think of their role at the university as more of a customer than a scholar, believe the university

should provide job credentials more than a learning community, and choose their major based

more on earning potential than intellectual interest. On the other hand, we did not find significant

associations between consumerism and items about student and faculty authority.

TABLE 4

Correlations Between Consumerism and Items About Student Learning Focus and Inversion of Authority,

Consumerism Study (N¼ 527)

Correlation

Student Learning Focus

‘‘My choice of major depends mostly on:’’ Intellectual interest (1); Futureearning potential (10)

.15��

‘‘Should a university mainly be providing:’’ A learning community (1); Job

credentials (10)

.17��

‘‘Should your role at the university be that of a:’’ Scholar (1); Customer (10) .31��

Student and Faculty Authority

‘‘Who should have more influence over the social environment of the classroom?’’

Students (1); Instructors (10)

�.08

‘‘Overall, who should have more influence over the college learning experience?’’

Students (1); University (10)

�.02

‘‘Who should be the real authority on what being ‘‘well-educated’’ means?’’

Students (1); Instructors (10)

.03

��p< 0.001.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

DISCUSSION

The effect of a market ideology on higher education is a wide-reaching cultural phenomenon that

we approached by examining just what kinds of attitudes students bring to the classroom.

Scholars, critics, and commentators have asserted that students who bring a consumerist attitude

to their studies are posing significant challenges to university education. Without a clear concep-

tualization or measure of student consumerist attitudes, however, researchers have not been able

to test these claims. In this study we have developed the tools necessary to bring an empirical

perspective to a discussion populated with anecdotal evidence and expansive claims.

We asked what a consumerist attitude consists of, and how it relates to the melange of cri-

tiques with which it has been linked in scholarly and popular discourse. With the Consumerism

scale, we present a more precise, empirically-based conceptualization of a consumerist approach

to higher education. Our analysis also identified measures of specific student preferences, and

suggests that those interested in them should employ these additional scales to study them

directly, rather than using the idea of ‘‘consumerism’’ as an umbrella or a proxy. This is because

we find that an attitude that posits education as product students purchase from a university is

distinct from attitudes about appropriate student work habits, preferred instructor characteristics,

concern for high grades, and the importance of getting a good job, among others (like a concern

for high-end non-academic facilities). Simply, we found that many attitudes about which profes-

sors and administrators express concerns are not tied to the market ideology with which they are

often linked, and that student consumerism can be measured with a relatively narrow set of atti-

tudes. Moreover, the distribution of Consumerism in our sample challenges the popular belief

that consumerism is a widespread attitude among students. In what follows, we review and dis-

cuss the measures, and we suggest ways that they can be used to advance our understanding of

the nature, prevalence, and consequences of student consumerist attitudes.

Measuring Student Attitudes

The Consumerist Attitudes toward Higher Education scale measures adherence to a perspective

that education is a product students (customers) purchase from the University (the seller). This is

a direct measure of the application of a market ideology to higher education, and its identifi-

cation as a distinct dimension is the main contribution of this paper. We present the scale as

a tool for continued study of the prevalence the attitude, as well as further study of its correlates

and predictors.

The four additional scales can also be employed in other contexts to measure more specific

attitudes that have been implicated in discussions of consumerism. Criticism that education, in a

product-oriented context, has been separated from active student learning can be addressed via

the Student Responsibilities and Grade Emphasis scales. The Student Responsibilities scale mea-

sures attitudes about how much effort, time, and attention students should give their studies. The

Grade Emphasis scale addresses student concerns for high marks irrespective of effort, learning,

or whether they earned the grade. Scholars interested in student preferences for instructors’ char-

acteristics and teaching methods would benefit from employing the Expectations of Instructors

scale. Additional specific demands on the university can be studied with the Job Preparation and

Placement scale.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Implications of Student Consumerism: Effects on Learning and Inversion of Authority

As reviewed earlier, scholars have lamented student attitudes that minimize the importance of

learning and assert student authority over instructors, placing the ultimate blame on the commer-

cialization of higher education. We find that the attitudes about a customer-seller relationship

between students and the university, as measured by the Consumerism scale, do not have a

strong correlation with the attitudes referenced by these concerns. Our understanding of the con-

nections among attitudes is enhanced with examination of the individual items that required stu-

dents to choose between opposing alternatives having to do with learning and faculty authority.

These attitudes are more abstract than those concerning grades, study habits, and demands on

instructors, and provide a different approach to examining the relationship between consumerism

and the role of the student. Here, we see evidence that consumerist students are somewhat less

likely to focus on learning; they are more likely to see themselves as customers who choose their

majors based on future earning potential rather than intellectual interest, and the university as

mainly providing job credentials rather than providing a learning community of scholars.

We also find, though, that preferences for an inversion of authority are not significantly

related to consumerist attitudes. More consumerist students are not more likely to believe stu-

dents should have more influence over the social environment of the classroom or over the col-

lege experience, or that they should determine what well-educated means. At the least, these

results suggest that it is not student consumerist attitudes that are driving any inversions of

authority faculty might observe.

These findings raise interesting questions regarding exactly what consumerism challenges,

and the mechanisms by which it affects the classroom and university. The impact of students

viewing education as a purchased product may be less central than is commonly asserted in dis-

course on the topic. Or, as indicated by the relationship between consumerism and the more

abstract effects on learning, it might operate in less clear ways.

This does not mean students do not hold attitudes that concern faculty, such as focusing on

job preparation and not on strong student work habits. Attitudes about authority could remain a

potential implication of the broader application of a consumerist model to higher education,

whether or not students adhere to a customer-seller ideology. While faculty who alter courses

and administrators who cater to students’ demands have been criticized for contributing to an

inversion of authority, existing literature on student evaluations of teaching makes a strong case

for why professors might grant authority to students—they are held accountable for customer

service traits more than learning (Titus 2008). Allowing the customer to be ‘‘right’’ can erode

faculty authority by shaping how a professor structures and teaches a class, whatever attitudes

students hold about being customers. Similarly, students approaching education as a credential

or means to future earning potential certainly has implications for the meaning of learning and

for student-faculty interactions.

In all, while we find that most of the specific attitudes implicated in existing discussions of

consumerism are distinct from whether students have a consumerist mindset, we do not suggest

they are completely unrelated, nor do we suggest they are unimportant. We believe that a more

refined understanding of the relationships between these student attitudes can help educators,

administrators and policymakers better address the implications of how students approach higher

education. Our findings suggest, for instance, that if faculty want to reassert pedagogical

authority, re-emphasize the importance of working for a grade, or encourage the expression


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

of intellectual curiosity, they may not need a strong focus on challenging the consumer model.

Rather, efforts would be better directed toward those attitudes in particular, or to other market or

political forces encouraging them. It is our hope that researchers will continue to employ the

scales, collecting data at various institutions and identifying correlates that contribute to a better

understanding of these attitudes.

Future Research: Employing the Consumerism Scale

We see several fruitful paths for future research employing the Consumerism scale. One line of

research could address the demographic and institutional characteristics associated with the

degree of consumerist orientation in the context of higher education. For instance, how do

our findings compare with students at elite liberal arts colleges or community colleges? How

might differences across types of institutions relate to levels of tuition and financial aid at vari-

ous schools? Are student choices about where to go to college related to how consumerist an

orientation they have toward higher education? While it is possible to speculate about these rela-

tionships (for instance, those who are more financially invested in their education might have

higher levels of consumerism, as might those in pre-professional programs), existing research

does not provide rigorous data addressing them. Answering such questions will lead to a more

complete understanding of how the variety of students that we teach are approaching their

education, and how our expectations may usefully vary across institutions and populations.

Related, survey data do not reveal how students interpreted the meaning of questions asking if

they thought of themselves as being in a customer-seller relationship with their university, or if

their role was more of a customer than a scholar. Our analyses clarify what is not linked with thisattitude. Qualitative research that explores questions of interpretation would add depth to our

understanding of the student perspective on the broader consumerism in higher education debate.

Also, while this is the largest study to date of student consumerist attitudes, the

over-representation of women and in-state students in our sample, as well as an above-average

mean GPA, suggests some limitations to generalizing our findings that could be addressed by

employing the scale with other samples. The literature provides few clues as to whether gender

might affect consumerism. There is also little evidence regarding the potential effect of

residency, though differences might be expected based on tuition levels. We would expect those

with higher GPAs to be more academically engaged. A sample with a higher-than-average GPA

may be less consumerist than the general student population. Questions regarding these effects,

as well as a clearer understanding of ‘‘how much’’ consumerism exists, could be answered with

continued use of the Consumerism scale.

Finally, another research agenda could more directly examine effects on student-faculty inter-

action and the effectiveness of various teaching methods. Are students who are more consumer-

ist less likely to learn well from a lecture-based teaching style? Do more consumerist students

have different expectations of faculty support outside of the classroom? How do student expecta-

tions of the power they have to shape their institution vary with a consumerist orientation?

Exploring these will put us in a better position to discuss the ways that these attitudes might

be affecting classroom interactions and teaching methodologies—and the ways that teaching

methodologies and faculty-student interactions might be affecting consumerist orientations

toward their education.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

In conclusion, the role of consumerism in students’, professors’, administrators’, parents’, and

the public’s understandings of higher education provides numerous avenues for continued

research. This study addresses the perspective of one of these constituencies—students—and

gives scholars a more precise set of tools for measuring attitudes related to the broader questions

of the effects of market ideology on higher education. As researchers employ these tools, we will

be better able to integrate the role of students’ attitudes in discussion of the various ways market

forces are currently influencing higher education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Bernice Pescosolido, Jack Martin, Ray Smith, Lisa Kurz, David

Perry, Brian Powell, Joshua Klugman, Brian Sweeney, Jeff Dixon, Janice McCabe, Alex

Capshew, and Mary Hannah for their assistance.

FUNDING

Research for this work was funded by grants from Indiana University Instructional Support

Services and the Indiana University Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Program.

AUTHOR NOTES

Emily Fairchild (PhD, Indiana University) is an Associate Professor of Sociology at New Col-

lege of Florida. Her research combines social psychology and sociology of culture, asking ques-

tions about how meaning systems shape daily experiences and how individuals’ actions affects

their and others’ understandings of the social world. This approach is evident in her work on the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as well as her frequent focus on gender inequality.

Suzanna Crage (PhD, Indiana University) is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the

University of Pittsburgh. She is interested in the intersections of culture and policymaking, in

particular as they shape responses to national identity challenges. Projects include a book

comparing refugee policy development in Berlin and Munich, and an analysis of competing

commemorations of VE Day in Berlin. She also teaches a course on higher education that

examines how changing structures and cultural expectations are reshaping college in the United

States.

REFERENCES

Arum, Richard and Josipa Roska. 2011. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Baker, Phyllis and Martha Copp. 1997. ‘‘Gender Matters Most: The Interaction of Gendered Expectations, Feminist

Course Content, and Pregnancy in Students’ Course Evaluations.’’ Teaching Sociology 25:29–43.

Baldwin, Gabrielle. 1994. ‘‘The Student as Customer: The Discourse of ‘Quality’ in Higher Education.’’ Journal of

Tertiary Education Administration 16(1):125–133.

Benton, Raymond Jr. 2011. ‘‘Using Student Course Evaluations to Design Faculty Development Workshops.’’ Academy

of Educational Leadership Journal 15(2):41.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Bok, Derek. 2004. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Bossick, Michael. 2009. ‘‘Student Consumerism in Higher Education: An Analysis of Relationships with Institutions.’’

PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky.

Brown, David. 2001. ‘‘The Social Sources of Educational Credentialism: Status Cultures, Labor Markets, and Organiza-

tions.’’ Sociology of Education 74:19–34.

Budiansky, Stephen. 2006. ‘‘Brand U.’’ New York Times Apr 26:A19.

Bunn, Douglas, Steven Caudill, and Daniel Gropper. 1992. ‘‘Crime in the Classroom: An Economic Analysis of

Undergraduate Cheating Behavior.’’ Journal of Economic Education 23:197–207.

Cizek, Gregory. 1999. Cheating on Tests: How to Do It, Detect It, and Prevent It. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Collins, Randall. 1979. The Credential Society: A Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. New York:

Academic Press.

Cornwell, Grant and Eve Stoddard. 2006. ‘‘Freedom, Diversity, and Global Citizenship.’’ Liberal Education 92(2):26.

Cote, James and Anton Allahar. 2011. Lowering Higher Education: The Rise of Corporate University and the Fall of

Liberal Education. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Cotten, Shelia and Bonnie Wilson. 2006. ‘‘Student-Faculty Interactions: Dynamics and Determinants.’’ Higher

Education 51(4):487–519.

D’Amato, Anthony. 1987. ‘‘The Decline and Fall of Law Teaching in the Age of Student Consumerism.’’ Journal ofLegal Education 37(4):461–494.

Delucchi, Michael and Kathleen Korgen. 2002. ‘‘ ‘We’re the Customer—We Pay the Tuition’: Student Consumerism

among Undergraduate Sociology Majors.’’ Teaching Sociology 20:100–107.

Delucchi, Michael and Susan Pelowski. 2000. ‘‘Liking or Learning? The Effect of Instructor Likeability and Student

Perceptions of Learning on Overall Ratings of Teaching Ability.’’ Radical Pedagogy 2(2):NP.

Delucchi, Michael and William Smith. 1997. ‘‘A Postmodern Explanation of Student Consumerism in Higher

Education.’’ Teaching Sociology 25(4):322–327.

Delucchi, Michael and William Smith. 1997. ‘‘Satisfied Customers versus Pedagogic Responsibility: Further Thoughts

on Student Consumerism.’’ Teaching Sociology 25(4):336–337.

Donoghue, Frank. 2008. The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities. New York:

Fordham University Press.

Edmundson, Mark. 1997. ‘‘On the Uses of a Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students.’’

Harper’s Sept:39–49.

Financial Times. 1996. ‘‘A Haven from Prejudice: With Academia Elsewhere Closed to Teaching for Profit, the

Company’s Boss Turned to Arizona.’’ May 21, p. 5.

Geiger, Roger. 2004. Knowledge and Money. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Goldrick-Rab, Sara. 2006. ‘‘Following Their Every Move: An Investigation of Social-Class Difference in College

Pathways.’’ Sociology of Education 79(1):61–79.

Gould, Eric. 2003. The University in a Corporate Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Greenberger, Ellen, Jared Lessard, Chuansheng Chen, and Susan Farruggia. 2008. ‘‘Self-Entitled College Students: Con-

tributions of Personality, Parenting, and Motivational Factors.’’ Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37:1193–1204.

Hacker, Andrew and Claudia Dreifus. 2011. Higher Education? How Colleges Are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our

Kids—and What We Can Do About It. New York: Times Books.

Harris, Michael. 2006. ‘‘Out Out, Damned Spot: General Education in a Market-Driven Institution.’’ The Journal of

General Education 55(3–4):186–200.

Howard, Jay and Roberta Baird. 2000. ‘‘The Consolidation of Responsibility and Students’ Definitions of Situations in

Mixed-Age College Classroom.’’ Journal of Higher Education 71(6):700–721.

Kiley, Kevin. 2012. ‘‘A $10,000 Platform.’’ Inside Higher Ed, November 30. Retrieved 11=30=12 from: http://www.

insidehighered.com/news/2012/11/30/texas-florida-and-wisconsin-governors-see-large-overlap-higher-

education-platforms

Kirp, David. 2003. Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Larabee, David. 1997. How to Succeed in School without Really Trying: The Credentials Race in American Education.

New Haven: Yale University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Levine, Arthur. 1999. ‘‘How the Academic Profession is Changing’’ Pp. 42–53 in The Social Worlds of HigherEducation, edited by B. Pescosolido and R. Aminzade. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

Lewis, Michael. 2003. ‘‘Forget Classrooms, How Big is the Atrium in the New Student Center?’’ The Chronicle Review

49 44:B7.

Long, Gary and Elise Lake. 1996. ‘‘A Precondition for Ethical Teaching: Clarity about Role Inequality.’’ TeachingSociology 24:111–116.

Mancuso, John. 1976. ‘‘Legal Rights to Reasonable Rules, Fair Grades, and Quality Courses.’’ New Directions for

Higher Education 4(1):75–88.

Martinez-Aleman, Ana. 2007. ‘‘The Nature of the Gift: Accountability and the Professor-Student Relationship.’’

Educational Philosophy and Theory 39(6):574–591.

McCracken, Grant. 1990. Culture and Consumption. Indianapolis and Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McMillan, Jill and George Cheney. 1996. ‘‘The Student as Consumer: The Implications and Limitations of a Metaphor.’’

Communication Education 45:1–15.

Merrow, John. 2005. Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk. Learning Matters, Inc.

Merrow, John. 2006. ‘‘My College Education: Looking at the Whole Elephant.’’ Change May=June:8–15.

Miles, Steven and Roman Paddison. 1998. ‘‘Urban Consumption: An Historiographical Note.’’ Urban Studies 35:

815–823.

Miller, Daniel. 1995. ‘‘Consumption as the Vanguard of History: A Polemic by Way of Introduction.’’ Pp. 1–57 in

Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies, edited by D. Miller. London: Routledge.

Molesworth, Mike, Elizabeth Nixon, and Richard Scullion. 2009. ‘‘Having, Being, and Higher Education: The Market-

isation of the University and the Transformation of the Student into Consumer.’’ Teaching in Higher Education

14(3):277–287.

Murphy, Patricia L. 2000. ‘‘The Commodified Self in Consumer Culture: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.’’ Journal ofSocial Psychology 140:636–647.

Naidoo, Rajani and Ian Jamieson. 2005. ‘‘Empowering Participants or Corroding Learning? Towards a Research Agenda

on the Impact of Student Consumerism in Higher Education.’’ Journal of Educational Policy 20(3):267–281.

Nasser, Fadia and Barbara Fresko. 2002. ‘‘Faculty Views of Student Evaluation of College Teaching.’’ Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education 27(2):187–198.

Newman, Frank and Lara Couturier. 2001. ‘‘The New Competitive Arena: Market Forces Invade the Academy.’’ Change

33(5):10–17.

Newman, Frank, Lara Couturier, and Jamie Scurry. 2004. The Future of Higher Education: Rhetoric, Reality, and the

Risks of the Market. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Newson, Janice. 2004. ‘‘Disrupting the ‘Student as Consumer’ Model: The New Emancipatory Project.’’ International

Relations 18(2):227–239.O’Brien, Jodi and Judith Howard. 1996. ‘‘To Be or Not To Be: The Paradox of Value-Neutrality and Responsible Auth-

ority.’’ Teaching Sociology 24:326–330.

O’Meara, Kerry Ann. 2001. ‘‘The Impact of Consumerism, Capitalism, and For-Profit Competition on American Higher

Education.’’ International Higher Education (Vol. 22). Boston: Boston College Center for International Higher

Education.

Patel, Vimal. 2009. ‘‘A&M Bases Bonus on Student Input.’’ The Bryan College Station Eagle, January 11. Retrieved

5=31=12 from: http://www.theeagle.com/article/20090207/BC0103/302079771/0/SEARCH&slId=2

Perillo, Lucia. 1997. ‘‘When the Classroom Becomes a Confessional.’’ Chronicle of Higher Education Nov 28:A50.

Pernal, Michael. 1977. ‘‘Has Student Consumerism Gone Too Far?’’ The College Board Review 104:2–5.

Potts, Michael. 2005. ‘‘The Consumerist Subversion of Education.’’ Academic Questions 18(3):54–64.

Rhinehart, Jane. 1999. ‘‘Turning Theory into Theorizing: Collaborative Learning in a Sociological Theory Course.’’

Teaching Sociology 27:216–232.

Rosenbaum, James. 2001. Beyond College for All: Career Paths for the Forgotten Half. New York: Russell Sage.

Sacks, Peter. 1996. Generation X Goes to College. Chicago: Open Court Press.

Sacks, Peter. 1997. ‘‘In Response to Trout, P,: What the Numbers Mean.’’ Change Sept=Oct:29.

Sanders, Jimy. 1992. ‘‘Short- and Long-Term Macroeconomic Returns to Higher Education.’’ Sociology of Education

65(1):21–36.

Schleef, Debra. 2000. ‘‘ ‘That’s a Good Question!’ Exploring Motivations for Law and Business School.’’ Sociology of

Education 73(3):155–174.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Shepperd, Jerry. 1997. ‘‘Relevance and Responsibility: A Postmodern Response.’’ Teaching Sociology 25:333–335.

Smith, William. 2000. ‘‘Teaching in a Consumeristically Charged Environment.’’ Michigan Sociological Review 14:

58–72.

Snare, Charles. 1997. ‘‘Implications of Considering Students as Consumers.’’ College Teaching 45(4):122–123.

Sojka, Jane, Ashok K. Gupta, and Dawn R. Deeter-Schmelz. 2002. ‘‘Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student

Evaluations of Teaching: A Study of Similarities and Differences.’’ College Teaching 50(2):44–49.

Sosteric, Mike, Mike Gismondi, and Gina Ratkovic. 1998. ‘‘The University, Accountability, and Market Discipline in the

Late 1990s.’’ Electronic Journal of Sociology 3. Retrieved 5=31=12 from: http://www.sociology.org/content/

vol003.003/sosteric.html

Stark, Joan. 1976. ‘‘The Many Faces of Consumerism.’’ New Directions for Higher Education 4(1):89–100.

Texas Public Policy Foundation. N.d. ‘‘7 Solutions.’’ Retrieved 5=31=12 from: http://texashighered.com/7-solutions.

Titus, Jordan. 2008. ‘‘Student Ratings in a Consumerist Academy: Leverage Pedagogical Control and Authority.’’

Sociological Perspectives 51(2):397–422.

Trout, Paul. 1997. ‘‘What the Numbers Mean: Providing a Context for Numerical Student Evaluations of Courses.’’

Change Sept=Oct:29.

Veblen, Thorstein. [1899] 1994. The Theory of the Leisure Class. 2nd ed. London: Constable Press.

Washburn, Jennifer. 2005. University, Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. Basic Books.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

10:

33 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

beyond the debates: measuring and specifying student consumerism

Documents