Page 82 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 82
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
public-private partnership deals. Correspondingly, the second means is by
massive spending on domestic and international advertising campaigns.
These tend to feature a given university’s new and/or planned infrastruc-
ture developments, various subject rankings, international demographic
profile, research accomplishments, career services, graduate employment
figures, and/or ‘rock-star’ scientists if any. Accordingly, one of, if not the
main purpose of these building investments and advertisements is to re-
cruit both domestic and foreign students by convincing them that they
are getting ‘value for their money’.
The third means is by the imposition of standardized curricu-
lums, embedding of transferable and professional skills into course
content, and regular deployment of course and teaching evaluation
questionnaires. While one can be generous and assume that these im-
positions are well-intended and meant to improve the student experi-
ence, in practice, they are gradually carving away at departments’ and
individual lecturers’ academic freedom. For instance, course and teach-
ing evaluations are used to discipline and regulate academics. This, in
turn, promotes grade inflation and watered down curriculum, because
low scores reported by disgruntled students could lead to the closure of
a programme and/or firing of a lecturer. Additionally, the aforemen-
tioned impositions effectively force academics to base their course con-
tent on how well it can prepare students to attain gainful employment.
Hence, in addition to undermining academics’ freedom of what and
how to teach, this also goes directly against the Humboldtian objec-
tive of a university pedagogy -which is one of fostering “an approach to
learning, an attitude of mind, a skill and a capacity to think rather than
specialised knowledge” (Ash, 2006: p. 246).
So to summarize, in total contrast with the traditional liberal-hu-
manist model, the neoliberal model defines and aims to transform the
modern university into:
A self-interested, entrepreneurial organization offering recursive
educational experiences and research services for paying clients. In
such institutions, academics become managed knowledge producers
who should follow prescribed sets of organizational processes. Their
research and pedagogy must be justified as beneficial for the univer-
sity through quantitative measures. Students are recast in the role of
knowledge consumers, and have a voice in determining the manner in
which educational services are packaged and delivered to them. (Had-
ley, 2015: p. 6)
80
public-private partnership deals. Correspondingly, the second means is by
massive spending on domestic and international advertising campaigns.
These tend to feature a given university’s new and/or planned infrastruc-
ture developments, various subject rankings, international demographic
profile, research accomplishments, career services, graduate employment
figures, and/or ‘rock-star’ scientists if any. Accordingly, one of, if not the
main purpose of these building investments and advertisements is to re-
cruit both domestic and foreign students by convincing them that they
are getting ‘value for their money’.
The third means is by the imposition of standardized curricu-
lums, embedding of transferable and professional skills into course
content, and regular deployment of course and teaching evaluation
questionnaires. While one can be generous and assume that these im-
positions are well-intended and meant to improve the student experi-
ence, in practice, they are gradually carving away at departments’ and
individual lecturers’ academic freedom. For instance, course and teach-
ing evaluations are used to discipline and regulate academics. This, in
turn, promotes grade inflation and watered down curriculum, because
low scores reported by disgruntled students could lead to the closure of
a programme and/or firing of a lecturer. Additionally, the aforemen-
tioned impositions effectively force academics to base their course con-
tent on how well it can prepare students to attain gainful employment.
Hence, in addition to undermining academics’ freedom of what and
how to teach, this also goes directly against the Humboldtian objec-
tive of a university pedagogy -which is one of fostering “an approach to
learning, an attitude of mind, a skill and a capacity to think rather than
specialised knowledge” (Ash, 2006: p. 246).
So to summarize, in total contrast with the traditional liberal-hu-
manist model, the neoliberal model defines and aims to transform the
modern university into:
A self-interested, entrepreneurial organization offering recursive
educational experiences and research services for paying clients. In
such institutions, academics become managed knowledge producers
who should follow prescribed sets of organizational processes. Their
research and pedagogy must be justified as beneficial for the univer-
sity through quantitative measures. Students are recast in the role of
knowledge consumers, and have a voice in determining the manner in
which educational services are packaged and delivered to them. (Had-
ley, 2015: p. 6)
80
