Down to the Wire:
Online Education
and the Student-Consumer Model
Benjamin S. Selznick
Almost four million American students enrolled in higher education
during the fall 2007 semester took at least one course with online
components (Allen & Seaman, 2008). For some scholars, this represents
a great achievement (Mendenhall, 2009; Meyer, 2009; Picciano, 2006).
For others, it represents a trend with disastrous consequences for students,
institutions, and their educational integrity (Bejerano, 2008; Giroux &
Giroux, 2004; Noble, 2001). According to Allen and Seaman’s (2008),
research using four-year residential institutions, online education is
defined as courses with 30 percent or more content delivered via the
Internet. The purpose of this paper is to argue that online education
challenges frameworks of higher education. One source of this challenge
is the grounding of online education in the student-consumer model.
In more traditional frameworks presented by Astin (1993), career
preparation plays one of many roles in the broader personal and social
development of students enrolled in higher education. Giroux and Giroux
(2004) perhaps take this concept to the extreme when they claim that higher
education is “neither a consumer-driven product nor a form of training
and career preparation but a mode of critical education that renders all
individuals fit” (p. 238) to engage in democratic governance. The studentconsumer model conceptualizes students enrolled in higher education quite
differently, as primarily consumers interested in receiving the maximum
rate of return on their educational investments (Love, 2008; Winch, 2002).
While some students may be interested in developing broadly, others wish
to pursue specific fields in an online environment to prepare for careers
while balancing other responsibilities (Adams, DeFleur, & Heald, 2007).
Providers of online education, historically linked to propriety education and
technological developments in distance learning, encourage participation
by students who are primarily motivated by professional agendas and who
view for-profit and not-for-profit institutions as providers of educational
Benjamin S. Selznick is a Graduate Assistant in the Office of Career Services at
Marymount Manhattan College. He will complete his Master’s of Arts in Higher
Education and Student Affairs at New York University in May 2011.
Selznick
services (Dykman & Davis, 2008; Heubeck, 2008; Kirp, 2003; Mendenhall,
2009; Meyer, 2009; Thelin, 2004).
This paper will first look at philosophical approaches to the studentconsumer model advanced by Christopher Winch (2002) and Kevin
Love (2008). It will also suggest that online education has the potential
to offer unique advantages for contemporary students. Two arguments
against online delivery and the student-consumer model will be examined.
First is the claim that developments in online coursework represent a
wholesale dilution of higher education (Giroux & Giroux, 2004; Noble,
2001; Selwyn, 2007). Second is the argument that online education is of
a questionable quality (Bejerano, 2008; Carr-Chellman, 2006; Dykman
& Davis, 2008). After examining these criticisms, the author will argue
that while quality is difficult to define and evaluate, the market value
of a degree or qualification obtained online poses perhaps the strongest
challenge to the new landscape of higher education.
The Student-Consumer Model and Online Education
The student-consumer model is inexorably tied to the aims of high
education as it seeks to explain educational decisions made by both
students and institutions. Higher education is open to a wide variety of
students with “some hav[ing] their eye on making a living; on promoting,
questioning and renewing the culture; on commitment to art or scholarship
for its own sake; on politics; on their place in the universe” (White, 1997,
p. 16). Certainly, many students enter with a wide variety of aims that
frequently overlap and are subject to change during their academic careers.
Institutions of higher education recognize these diverse objectives and
seek to create learning environments that are both formative and useful
(Morphew & Hartley, 2006), providing opportunities for students seeking
personal and professional development.
Liberal and Economic Aims
One way to understand the primary goals of students and institutions
is to discuss them as liberal and economic aims. Liberal aims are those that
justify higher education and learning as intrinsic values (Winch, 2002).
Liberal aims favor the educational functions and socialization of higher
education with less regard for its training function (Teichler, 1999; Winch,
2002). Economic aims are those that justify higher education as a means
to obtaining income-generating employment. These aims direct primary
concern towards goals of specific education and training in the service of
workforce preparation (Teichler, 1999; Winch, 2002).
4
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Online Education and the Student-Consumer Model
Winch (2002) argues that economic aims must be understood as
equally important to liberal aims in a climate that favors the latter. He
writes that “education can be an intrinsically valuable activity, but this
does not imply that its value is only to be found within itself” (p. 102). He
instead proposes that institutions strive to provide educational spaces in
which student-consumers can learn about themselves and their interests in
order to best prepare for future employment.
Love (2008) builds upon this work and offers additional justification
for economic aims and the student-consumer model. He explores the idea
that the student-teacher and student-institution relationships are by nature
economic and have been for a very long time. To argue otherwise, he
asserts, is “at its best anachronistic romanticism, and at its worst simply
theoretically and empirically mistaken” (p. 18). Love (2008) constructs
a strong argument against the rationale offered by some higher education
practitioners: institutions are inherently against the student-consumer
model. He positions the model as a challenge to contemporary higher
education by calling on practitioners and other stakeholders to revisit and
clarify “the purpose of education beyond any socioeconomic, political, or
cultural role” (2008, p. 29) before economic aims become the sole focal
point of students and institutions. He then suggests that higher education
must not resist the student-consumer model but rather seek to balance
itself against this model by continuing to serve as an arena open to all
forms of student questioning and self-discovery.
Online Learning
One response from the higher education community to studentconsumers has been to offer courses online (Allen & Seaman, 2008;
Dykman & Davis, 2008; Mendenhall, 2009; Meyer, 2009;). Responding
to these developments from within higher education, several authors
(Hedberg, 2006; Picciano, 2006) propose ways in which online learning
may ensure that the student-consumer model does not lose sight of students
in the name of pure consumerism (Love, 2008; Shin & Lee, 2008).
Picciano (2006) argues in favor of online education and its potential
usefulness in teaching, student engagement, and access. This argument
produces the idea that the structure of online courses may benefit certain
groups of learners. Online discussions can benefit learners who do not feel
comfortable speaking in public or those who find it easier to express their
thoughts in writing (Hedberg, 2006; Picciano, 2006). The online learning
environment can also expand access to more students, potentially to include
Volume VII, 2011
5
Selznick
those who live far from conventional institutions; those seeking to combine
career, educational, and family responsibilities, and those individuals
with disabilities. (Carr-Chellman, 2008; Picciano, 2006). Another group
positively impacted by the spread of online education is military personnel
(Arnone, 2002; McMurray, 2007). McMurray (2007) points out that online
education, combined with classroom instruction, provides opportunities
for “student-soldiers” to more effectively utilize their educational benefits
under the GI Bill and obtain additional educational qualifications for their
workforce entry post-service.
The wider practice of online education leads to a broader claim:
educational content, rather than physical location, may ultimately become
the foundational organizing principle for higher education (Carr-Chellman,
2006; Picciano, 2006). Though scholars who offer criticisms of this
shift (Bejerano, 2008; Carr-Chellman, 2006; Noble, 2001) raise several
potential drawbacks, the shift has the potential to make higher education
accessible to more students both nationally and globally (Campbell, 2008;
Dykman & Davis, 2008; McMurray, 2007; Meyer, 2009).
Criticisms of Online Education
In his 2001 book, Digital Diploma Mills – The Automation of Higher
Education, David Noble outlines several major contentions against the
online delivery of higher education. His main argument is that online
education, existing in economic partnerships with corporate sellers
of informational technology, is transforming educational institutions
from knowledge generators to profit generators. He further claims that
institutions are expanding their use of online delivery to rob faculty of their
unique independence and students of authentic educational experiences.
Giroux and Giroux (2004) and Selwyn (2007) also criticize online
education and the student-consumer model. The main concern expressed
by Giroux and Giroux (2004) is that online education will “supplant
place-based, ‘real’ education with limited forms of simulated and virtual
exchanges” (p.268). It is worth noting here that the authors fail to define
what the phrase “real education” precisely means. For Selwyn (2007),
online delivery of education holds promise but ultimately falls short. He
argues that this failure occurs primarily because online delivery encourages
students to become savvy education customers rather than devoted lifelong
learners. Selwyn, however, offers that debate about online education may
necessitates “a wholesale societal and cultural rethinking of what higher
education is and what interests higher education should serve in a capitalist
society” (p. 92).
6
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Online Education and the Student-Consumer Model
These criticisms indicate that online education has its promises and
pitfalls. On one hand, education delivered online is a real option for many
individuals seeking to engage in higher education in ways that are more
convenient and frequently less expensive than face-to-face, place-based
education (Allan & Seaman, 2008; Dykman & Davis, 2008; Mendenhall,
2009; Meyer, 2009; Love, 2008; Winch, 2002). On the other, critics are
right to openly question new forms of educational delivery and to examine
how these avenues may shape traditional practices going forward.
Online Education: Quality and Value
Further criticisms of online education include the quality of coursework
(Dykman & Davis, 2008), content (Selwyn, 2007) and teaching (Noble,
2001). While the authors advancing these claims offer valid concerns,
none set forth criteria for differentiating between high quality and low
quality educational experiences. Perhaps a better argument against online
education is not one that questions quality, but instead questions value. In
this context, value is the financial benefit a graduate can potentially derive
as a direct result of obtaining a degree or qualification using some form
of online educational delivery (Adams and DeFleur, 2006). The criticism
of degree value is especially relevant in light of the student-consumer
model; if one enters higher education with certain economic aims, one is
expecting these aims to be met upon graduation (Winch, 2002).
Degree Value
Students who earn their degrees entirely or partially online are
perceived negatively by graduate admissions staffs faculty at higher
education institutions, employers on the whole (Adams & DeFleur, 2005,
2006), and health care employers in particular (Adams, et al., 2007). As
degrees in allied health professions represent one of the most popular areas
studied through online coursework, they offer one example of the challenge
facing the value of online education. While this economic sector features
a rapidly increasing demand for a skilled workforce, it simultaneously
holds a continued reluctance to hire those who study online: “If online
degrees have low levels of acceptance under the current conditions of an
anticipated [employment] crisis, then under what conditions will online
degrees be widely accepted?” (Adams et al., 2007, p. 305). The authors
further question what must happen on the part of education providers
and those making admissions and employment decisions to reconcile
professional preparation aspects of online degrees with their ultimate
value in the marketplace (Adams & DeFleur, 2006; Adams et al., 2007).
Volume VII, 2011
7
Selznick
Further Questions
This line of inquiry reflects the rapidly changing, quickly digitizing,
and unabashedly commercializing educational landscape. It is also
indicative of broader questions that can be asked: should the end goal of
higher education be to educate broad-minded thinkers by bracketing out
all concern for costs and their recovery after graduation? Should higher
education be driven by the market value of degrees produced even if this
arguably requires that certain compromises be made to its historically liberal
aims? Where is the middle ground for students, faculty, and institutions
between liberal and economic aims? The answers to these questions, and
the potential for reconciliation between diverse perspectives, rest amongst
various stakeholders of higher education. These answers will impact the
incorporation of online delivery into higher education, the effect of the
student-consumer model in this area, and the future of the enterprise.
Conclusion
Higher education institutions must constantly strive to find a balance
between traditions and innovations occurring both internally and externally
(Keller, 2001). As Merton (1938) wrote in a description appropriate to the
wider scholarship of higher education:
[There exist] groups where activities originally conceived as
instrumental are transmuted into ends in themselves. The original
purposes are forgotten and ritualistic adherence to institutionally
prescribed conduct becomes virtually obsessive. Stability is largely
ensured while change is flouted. The range of alternative behaviors
is severely limited. There develops a tradition-bound, sacred society
characterized by neophobia. (p. 673)
The confluence of new technology, new students, and new societal
problems render this historical moment a dangerous time for institutionbound neophobia to permeate higher education. With budgets being
slashed across the nation and students turning to higher education for
future job prospects, institutions must be prepared to respond in ways that
may look new or different.
As individual educators and the field overall begin to respond, two
practical considerations should be made. First, online learning and other
internet-based tools for conveying information must not be seen as inherent
enemies of the educational process. As the Internet becomes more widely
accessible, students of all ages and interests will seek ways to incorporate
the Internet into their educational aspirations. Though drawbacks certainly
8
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Online Education and the Student-Consumer Model
persist, educators and administrators who can break free of the mindset
articulated by Noble (2001) may find themselves reaching more students
in more creative ways than was ever previously possible.
Second, student affairs practitioners working in traditional or
nontraditional higher education settings must take the economic aims
of their students seriously. This does not mean that liberal aims must
be devalued; it rather suggests that information and support regarding
professional development must move beyond the career services functional
area to include residential education, academic advisement, leadership
development, and other campus constituencies. With these partnerships in
place, learning environments may be able to better help students achieve
a wide variety of aims and better prepare them to enter the physical and
digital communities of tomorrow.
References
Adams, J., & DeFleur, M. H. (2005). The acceptability of a doctoral degree earned
online as a credential for obtaining a faculty position. American Journal of
Distance Education, 19(2), 71–85.
Adams, J., & DeFleur, M. H. (2006). The acceptability of online degrees earned
as credentials for obtaining employment. Communication Education, 55(1),
32–45.
Adams, J., DeFleur, M. H., & Heald, G. R. (2007). The acceptability of credentials
earned online for obtaining employment in the health care professions.
Communication Education, 56(3), 292–307.
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the
United States. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arnone, M. (2002). Army’s huge distance-education effort wins many supporters
in its first year. Chronicle of Higher Education 48(22). Retrieved from: http://
chronicle.com/article/Army-s-Huge/2206.
Bejerano, A. R. (2008). The genesis and evolution of online degree programs:
Who are they for and what have we lost along the way? Communication
Education, 57(3), 408–414.
Campbell, M. (2008). A Texas company sees online learning as growth industry in
Latin America. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(3), A.27.
Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2006). Desperate technologists: Critical issues in e-learning
and implications for higher education. Journal of Thought, 41(1), 95–115.
Volume VII, 2011
9
Selznick
Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008). Part one – The shift toward online
education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(1), 11-16.
Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2004). Take back higher education. New York,
NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hedberg, J. G. (2006). E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come.
Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 171-183.
Heubeck, E. (2008). Higher ed professionals’ perspectives on online education.
Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 25(18), 30.
Keller, G. (2001). Governance: The remarkable ambiguity. In P.G. Altbach, P.J.
Gumport, & D.B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American higher education
(pp. 304-322). Baltimore, MD: The John’s Hopkins University Press.
Kirp, D. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Love, K. (2008). Higher education, pedagogy and the ‘customerisation’ of
teaching and learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(1), 15-34.
McMurray, A. J. (2007). College students, the GI bill, and the proliferation of
online learning: A history of learning and contemporary challenges. Internet
and Higher Education, 10, 143-150.
Mendenhall, R. W. (2009). Increasing access and relevance in distance education.
Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 26(3), 22.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review,
3(5), 672-682.
Meyer, K. A. (2009). Western governors university: Creating the first virtual
university. New Directions for Higher Education, 146, 35-43. doi: 10.1002/
he.344.
Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis
of rhetoric across institutional type. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(3),
456-471.
Noble, D. F. (2001). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education.
New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Picciano, A. G. (2006). Online learning: Implications for higher education
pedagogy and policy. Journal of Thought, 41(1), 75-94.
Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and
learning: a critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23,
83-94. doi: 10.1111/j. 1365-2729.2006.00204.x.
Shin, M. & Lee, Y-J. (2009). Changing the landscape of teacher education
via online teaching. Techniques (Association for Career and Technical
Education), 83(9), 32-33.
10
Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Online Education and the Student-Consumer Model
Teichler, U. (1999). Research on the relationships between higher education and
the world of work: Past achievements, problems and new challenges. Higher
Education, 38, 169-190.
Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Winch, C. (2002). The economic aims of education. Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 36(1), 101-117.
White, J. (1997). Philosophy and the aims of higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 22(1), 7-17.
Volume VII, 2011
11