Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hallie Mosteller
Writing 2010
Jessie Richards
Objectives within higher education have changed significantly over the years.
These changes, according to many authors, have not been implemented for the good of
the people, but have been placed only to improve economics within the system. Leaders
within the higher education system have created their own agenda of, as Bob Hanke and
Alison Hearn (2011) put it, chasing the dollars (p. 5). This essay will be focused on
how each of the nine articles by authors Reay, Irvin, Kezar, Hacker, Bonewitts and Soley,
Williams, Hank and Hearn, Wallace, and Hurtado work together and differ on points
related to this issue within the higher education system.
Reading through each of the nine articles, I noticed two major topics that were
discussed either directly or indirectly. The topics include the common good and corporate
agenda. Articles such as Reay, Irvin, Wallace, and Hurtado mainly focused on satisfying
the public good while others including Kezar, Hacker, Bonewitts and Soley, Hank and
Hearn, and Williams focused on both the common good and corporate agenda. Because
of this observation, I realized that the common good is the center of each argument; each
are concerned about the welfare of the people. Some of the points in which the articles
within the camp Corporate Agenda connect with the camp Common Good include
how the business and industry focus within higher education have caused negative effects
on teachers and students. This structure has consequently resulted in higher fees, lesser
quality education, increased labor and decreased salaries. An important topic that I
Hallie Mosteller
Writing 2010
Jessie Richards
included for the section on the common good was the discussion on critical university
studies. I will explain how authors Williams and Hurtado have different viewpoints for
incorporating critical university studies into the curriculum and how each of these
viewpoints relate to other similar ideas given by authors Reay, Kezar, Hank, and Irvin.
Critical university studies show critical analyses of the problems of
corporatization within higher education. They analyze the ways in which the current
system of higher education supports the growth of power and wealth and how it
contributes to inequality and injustice especially of students and teachers (Williams,
2012, p. 2). Williams goes into depth on critical university studies, explaining that this
work as a whole needs to be incorporated into the curriculum (p. 10). He goes on to say
that students need to be able to critically analyze the problems with the system and be
able to give their own ideas for solutions (p. 10). Hurtado, however, focuses more on
including discussion of diversity and inequality within critical university studies,
concluding that this is the most important discussion to be included into the curriculum
(Hurtado, 2007, p. 191).
Williams idea of student involvement, closely associates with that of Kezar and
Hank concerning ways to change to emerging issues within higher education. Instead of
directing the argument towards students, they direct their focus towards teachers. They
conclude that change isnt being made from this industrialized system because teachers
are being misdirected from the larger issue by their own individual fears and concerns
such as loss of power and loss of privilege (Hank, 2011, p. 5). This point, expressed by
Hallie Mosteller
Writing 2010
Jessie Richards
Kezar and Hank, connects to elements within Reays and Irvins articles. Reay asserts the
need for students to recognize how race and class differences affect their choices
concerning higher education. These two points connect because they both require critical
analysis and thinking. Critical analysis alone is mentioned in Irvins article What is
Academic writing? This article, however unrelated to the subject of the industrialization
within higher education seeks, in its own way, to help satisfy the public good by
educating students about how to think critically and how to analyze subjects and writings.
The second larger camp labeled Corporate Agenda shows how certain aspects
of this emerging industrialized model greatly affect the common good. The systems new
objective to increase finances through donors and corporations, creates the need to satisfy
the agendas of these benefactors (Bonewitts and Soley, 2004, p. 82). These agendas
include taking the educational focus away from liberal arts and concentrating more on
vocational majors such as science, engineering, and technology (Kezar, 2004, p. 431). As
a result, students are unable to obtain a well-rounded education. This focus on business
rather than education has also greatly affected tuition, fees, and faculty labor. Kezar
paraphrases an article written in 1993 by Sheila Slaughter explaining that Concerns over
cost effectiveness and competition have led to the creation of a cheaper and more flexible
academic workforce comprised of part-time and contract labor that can easily be laid off
in response to changes in the marketplace. In other words, the greater concern for cost
effectiveness in colleges results in lesser opportunity for faculty and worse pay.
Hallie Mosteller
Writing 2010
Jessie Richards
This map demonstrates how the corporate agenda within this new model of
industry in higher education greatly affects the common good in a negative way. Each of
the authors, although accentuating different ideas and perspectives, generally concur that
the common good is in danger from the industrialization of higher education.
Hallie Mosteller
Writing 2010
Jessie Richards
Works Cited
Hanke,B.,&Hearn,A.(2012).Introduction:OutoftheRuins,theUniversitytoCome.1120.
Williams,J.J.(2012).DeconstructingAcademe:TheBirthofCriticalUniversityStudies.112.
Hurtado,S.(2006).LinkingDiversitywiththeEducationalandCivicMissionsofHigherEducation.The
ReviewofHigherEducation,30(2),185196.
Bonewitts,S.,&Soley,L.(2004).ResearchandtheBottomLineinToday'sUniversity.8192.
Kezar,A.J.(2004).ObtainingIntegrity?ReviewingandExaminingtheCharterbetweenHigherEducation
andSociety.TheReviewofHigherEducation,27(4),429459.