Piyasalaşmanın Yükseköğretim Kurumları Anlayışı ve Öğrenci Rolü Üzerine Etkisi

Tarih boyunca Yükseköğretim Kurumları ve öğrenci algısı, ortaya çıktığı ilk andan itibaren dönemselolarak farklılık göstermiştir. Yükseköğretim Kurumları genellikle devlet tarafından veya dernek, vakıf, şirketgibi özel kurumların inisiyatifiyle kurulur ve bireylerin ana akım toplum yapısı içerisinde kurumlarındevamlılığını sağlamak için ihtiyaç duydukları belirli bilgilerin verildiği yerlerdir. Bazı üniversiteleröğrencilerinden belirli bir yıllık öğrenim ücreti talep ederken, diğer üniversiteler onlara ücretsiz eğitimvermektedir. Bu ayrım, öğrencilerin üniversite algısını farklılaştıran en temel unsurdur. Piyasalaşma olgusuYükseköğretim Kurumlarınıda kapsayarak yıllar içinde daha kapsamlı ve daha belirgin hale gelmiştir.Yükseköğretim Kurumlarıda dahil olmak üzere öğrencilerin müşteri olarak beklentilerine ve isteklerine öncelik veren hesap verebilirlik yapısı ortaya çıktığından, piyasalaşma bu bağlamda önemli bir değişikliğeyol açmıştır. Yüksek öğrenim için piyasalaşma savunucuları, yüksek öğrenime yönelik büyük ölçekli devletdesteğinin artık sürdürülebilir ve geriletici olmadığını, yüksek öğrenim için cömert hükümet fonlarının adilfırsat, üretkenlik ve kaliteden ödün verdiğini savunmaktadır. Piyasalaşmanın birçok YükseköğretimKurumunun karşılaştığı finansman sorununa bir çözüm olduğu kadar, verimsizlik, eşitsizlik ve düşük kalitesorunları için de çözüm olabileceği düşünülmektedir. Öte yandan öğrenciye yaklaşımlara bakıldığındaöğrencileri vatandaş, müşteri ve tüketici olarak gören üç algıdan bahsetmek mümkündür. Bu çalışma,Yükseköğretim Kurumlarının anlayışını ve öğrencilere tüketici veya müşteri olarak yaklaşımını değiştirmekiçin piyasalaştırma çerçevesinde öğrenci rollerindeki değişiklikleri ele almaktadır.

The Effects of Marketisation on the Understanding of Higher Education Institutions and theStudent’s Roles

Throughout history, Higher Education Institutions (HEI) and the understandings of students’ rolehave changed periodically from the first time the HEI founded. HEIs are generally established by the state oron the initiative of private institutions such as associations, foundations, companies and are places wherestudents are given specific information. They need to ensure the continuity of institutions within themainstream society structure. Some universities charge their students a certain annual tuition fee, while otheruniversities provide them with free tuition. This distinction is the most basic division that differentiatesstudents’ understanding of HEI. The marketplace has been getting more extensive and more prominent overthe years in HEIs. The marketisation has led to a significant change in this context as the accountabilitystructure has emerged that prioritises the expectations and desires of students as customers, including HEIs.Advocates of marketing for higher education have repeatedly argued that large-scale government support forhigher education is no longer sustainable and regressive, while generous government funding for highereducation compromises fair opportunity, productivity, and quality. It was also stated that while marketing is asolution to the financing problem faced by many HEIs, it can also be a panacea for inefficiency, inequality,and low-quality problems. On the other hand, when we look at the approaches to students, it is possible tostate the three perceptions that see students as citizens, as customers and as consumers. This study points outthe changes in student roles within the framework of marketisation to change the understanding of HigherEducation Institutions and their approach to students as a consumer and customer.

PDF

___

Adler, K. (1998). Degree upgrades: A new service, a new market and a new strategy for higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(1), 11-24.
Bauman, Z. (2001). Individualized society. Polity Press.
Bay, D. & Daniel, H. (2001). The student is not the customer-an alternative perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 11(1), 1-19.
Brennan, L. & Bennington, L. (2000). Concepts in conflict: Students and customers–an Australian perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(2), 19-40.
Brown, R. (2015). The marketisation of higher education: Issues and ironies. New Vistas, 1(1), 4-9. Bunce, L., Baird, A. & Jones, E. S. (2016). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908
Davies, B. & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies In Education, 20(3), 247-259.
Foskett, N. (2010). Markets, government, funding and the marketisation of UK higher education. In: Molesworth, Mike, Scullion Richard & Nixon, Elizabeth (Ed.), The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 25-38). Routledge.
Further Education Funding Council (1998). Marketing: A good practice guide. Stationary Office.
Greenaway, D. & Haynes, M. (2003). Funding higher education in the UK: The role of fees and loans. The Economic Journal, 113(485), 150-166.
Halbesleben, J. R. & Wheeler, A. R. (2009). Student identification with business education models: Measurement and relationship to educational outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 33(2), 166-195. Home. Global Scholarships. Retrieved from (June 02, 2021): https://uscollegeinternational.com/
Jonathan, R. (1997). Illusory freedoms: Liberalism, education and the market. Special Issue of Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(1), 15-34.
Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketisation in higher education, Clark’s triangle and the essential ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110-135.
Judson, K. M. & Taylor, S. A. (2014). Moving from marketisation to marketing of higher education: The co-creation of value in higher education. Higher Education Studies, 4(1), 51-67.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2008). Principles of marketing. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Langford, C. L. (2006). Consumer student or citizen student? The Clash of campus speech codes and free speech zones. Free Speech Yearbook, 43(1), 93-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2006.10556331
Levy, D. (2006). Market university? Comparative Education Review, 50(1), 113-124.
Li, M., Shankar, S. & Tang, K.K. (2011). Why does the USA dominate university league tables? Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 923-937.
Mark, E. (2013). Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(1), 2-10.
McCulloch, A. (2009). The student as co‐producer: Learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 171-183.
Molesworth, M., Nixon, E. & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277-287.
Naidoo, R., Shankar, A. & Veer, E. (2011). The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(11-12), 1142-1162.
Ngok, K. (2007). Chinese education policy in the context of decentralization and marketisation: Evolution and implications. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(1), 142-157.
Nixon, E., Scullion, R. & Molesworth, M. (2010). How choice in higher education can create conservative learners. In: Molesworth, Mike, Scullion Richard and Nixon, Elizabeth (Ed.), The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer (pp. 196-208). Routledge.
Palfreyman, D. & Warner, D. (1998). Higher education and the Law: A Guide for managers. Open University Press.
Pasternak, R. (2005). Choice of institutions of higher education and academic expectations: the impact of cost-benefit factors. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 189-201.
Rutherford, J. (2005). Cultural studies in the corporate university. Cultural Studies, 19(3), 297-317.
Standish, P. (2005). Towards an economy of higher education. Critical Quarterly, 47(1-2), 53-71.
Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: an under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6(3), 229-241.
The British Quality Assurance Agency (2014). A handbook for alternative providers undergoing review in 2014-15. Higher Education Review (Plus), 7 July 2014, 1-56.
The United Kingdom Higher Education Statistic Agency (2015), “Headline Statistic”, https://www.hesa.ac.uk/mobile/uk-he-stats/?p=sector Tuition Fees. (2021). https://my.collegeboard.org/
Wangenge-Ouma, G. (2008). Higher education marketisation and its discontents: The case of quality in Kenya. Higher education, 56(4), 457-471.
Wellen, R. (2005). The university student in a reflexive society: Consequences of consumerism and competition. Higher Education Perspectives, 1(2), 24-36

ISSN: 2667-5617
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 6 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2006
Yayıncı: ASOS Eğitim Bilişim Danışmanlık Otomasyon Yayıncılık Reklam Sanayi ve Ticaret LTD ŞTİ