Busch, L. (2017). Knowledge for sale: The neoliberal takeover of higher education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
This timely volume critiques the effect of relying on market forces, the main tenant of Neoliberalism, on higher education. None of these factors are new, but Busch brings them together under the mantra of “neoliberalism” and argues that collectively they represent a crisis for both higher education and society. Busch sees Neoliberalism as “a mirror image of Marxism” in constraining freedom. While this a purely secular work, there are interesting echoes of Newman, Lonergan and other Catholic writers in Busch’s insistence on the need for “learning communities” and higher education as a social good.
Among the major negative effects of neoliberalism are growing numbers, power and salaries of administrators with a mandate to achieve “cost effectiveness” and an associated explosion of “performance-related” reporting and standardized testing, a move from public funding for higher education to a “student-as-consumer pays” model (with resultant student debt and a need for student to work while attending college), a marketing approach to higher education (including money spent on advertising campaigns), a view of higher education as solely a means to increase future earnings, a competitive, divisive emphasis on faculty research and publication rather than teaching, and academic partnerships with corporations. The chapter on “research” gives a well-reasoned and extremely negative critique of “counting citations” and relying on impact factors in terms of faculty advancement which warrants serious reading.
Perhaps the most important, although not fully developed, sections of the book are those that suggest solutions. Busch cautions that these will not be universal: “what may work in one setting may well fail in another” (p. 109). His overarching suggestion is to “resist neoliberal policies and practices” by documenting that they do not work. “We need to show how, instead of promoting liberty … neoliberal reforms promote corporate dominance even as they undermine democratic governance” (p. 110). We need to show that reliance on market factors maximizes profits, not education. He argues that the current system breeds “insecurity” in terms of student debt (reducing educational and career choices) and faculty effectiveness (especially the reliance on adjuncts and term faculty, and the constant need to “justify” one’s courses and work). We need to create “freedom from want” so that
“[Students] can pursue higher education, develop their capacities individually and collectively to the fullest, and overcome the limitations imposed by poverty and want. Moreover, we need to do this in a manner that that doing so is not merely an individual good, but a social good” (p. 113).
Concrete suggestions include
- replacing the “credit hour” system with “student outcomes” (this relates to the “competency” model)
- Reject standardized testing
- Foster more discussion rather than lectures
- Use technology (this is a kind of “flipped classroom” model) and group projects
- Replace “hierarchies” with “heterarchy” based on democratic discussion
- Replace competition between institutions, departments and scholars (the “knowledge economy” model) with a “global ecology of knowledge” that emphasizes interdisciplinary work to achieve sustainable societies.
- Assess assessment. What do really want to assess? How much time to we spend (waste) doing it?
- Better integrate research and education, especially for undergraduates
- Recognize and reward “slow scholarship”, especially in the humanities
- Form alliances with others concerned about neoliberal education (e.g. high school teachers)
- Use pedagogy and “marketing” to show the problems with neoliberalism and explore alternatives
Note
I thank Dr. Paul Robin (University in Montpelier) for bringing this book to my attention following a wonderful presentation he gave at Seton Hall University.
Questions
- How is neoliberalism at odds with a Catholic philosophy of education? (This seems obvious, but we need to clearly articulate it).
- If we place this in the framework of Lonergan’s functional specialities, Busch is suggesting that we examine history and engage in dialectic in order to change societal and educational foundations. This is a really tall order. Is it reasonable to try? Possible to achieve? Or is neoliberalism too entrenched in our society?
- We are doing some of the things that Busch suggests, but they are not specifically linked to “combatting neoliberalism”. Is there a potential advantage to framing our efforts this way?
- Are there allies in “resisting neoliberalism” that Catholic educators might engage, and offer alternatives?