Satisfied Customers versus Pedagogic Responsibility: Further Thoughts on Student Consumerism

Abstract

DESPITE OFFERING ALTERNATIVE explanations of the changing nature of teaching in higher education, we are gratified to see that both Anne Eisenberg, in Education and the Marketplace: Conflicting Arenas? and Jerry Shepperd, in Relevance and Responsibility: Postmodern Response, agree with two assumptions underlying our Conversation piece, A Postmodern Explanation of Student Consumerism in Higher Education. First, pedagogical ideals often conflict with student motives for pursuing a degree in higher education. Second, faculty members must assume some responsibility for the challenges they now confront in the classroom. In the following paragraphs, we juxtapose the authors' positions with our own thoughts about student consumerism. According to Eisenberg, the changing dynamics of college classrooms do not result from postmodernism, but rather represent a disjunction between innovative pedagogical goals and the expectations of a diverse student population. She asserts that the pedagogies strive to heighten critical and reflexive thinking. We welcome any teaching innovation that produces such learning outcomes, but doubt the new pedagogical approaches (e.g., working in groups, having choices about required assignments) are exempt from exploitation by the student-as-consumer. Does Eisenberg really believe that will view group work and assignment selection as anything other than a customer seeking the best deal (grade) for the least investment (amount of work)? We find Eisenberg's endorsement of pedagogical styles that encourage the of students symptomatic of faculty members' promotion of student consumerism. We agree with her point that it is important to understand the of our students, but the needs orientation assumes higher education can be understood and practiced as a business. To view education as a marketplace requires that faculty members maintain satisfied customers (Edmundson 1997; Long and Lake 1996). Consequently, faculty members must avoid requesting that complete difficult assignments because this may result in confused or angry students. We view this approach to higher education as an impediment to teaching and learning. While the idea of meeting our students' appeals to us emotionally, it is pedagogically suspect. As Stephen D. Brookfield (1995) writes: