Knowledge for Sale: The Commodification of Education

Have you ever wondered about the consequences of treating education as a commodity rather than a public good? Teaching is commonly seen as a fundamental pillar of society that provides access to knowledge, skills, and opportunities. However, in recent years, learning has gone from being a fundamental right to becoming an object of commerce.

This “commodification of education” can take many forms; the pandemic saw the introduction of EdTech tools provided by tech giants known for their profit-maximizing behavior and privacy issues. As the global market expands and society changes, education seems to have joined the inventory of commodified goods and services in a world driven by a capitalist system. This phenomenon converts learning into a commodity to be purchased, raising critical questions about the essence of teaching and its role in society.

The education sector contributes to people’s integral development and community growth; therefore, investing in this sector contributes to economic growth and social welfare. Specifically, higher education helps to improve people’s quality of life and addresses the main social and global challenges. It is one of the critical drivers of progress, prosperity, and competitive performance.

Commercializing education is a symptom of a broader shift by universities and schools toward a capitalistic academic regime, in which educational institutions’ actions align with the financial markets, and the mission of the public good takes a back seat to income and participation in the economy.

Understanding the commodification of education

To begin to address this issue, it is essential to mention that the commodification of education refers to transforming education from a public service to a marketable product. This sector is undergoing a remarkable evolution due to the greater participation of private entities in its management and a growing tendency to treat education as a commercial transaction. What factors drive this conversion, and how can we identify these changes in practice?

According to an article in the Journal of Higher Education Research, the reasons for education’s commercialization are twofold: economic crises and globalization. Regarding the first, this text, written by Meixue Gao, explains that the financial crisis of 2008 was a primary factor in the commodification of education, mainly because many governments worldwide were forced to cut public spending in this sector. This situation forces educational institutions to convert their traditional models to commercial ones to meet cost requirements or make a profit to continue operating. For example, Gao mentions that “as of September 2012, the cost of higher education in the United Kingdom increased from £3,000 to £9,000 a year.” In other words, schools and universities are currently adapting to commercialization to survive.

One crucial aspect of globalization is its impact on the economy and information. This impact means that more and more companies want a relevant role in education because the globalization of information and the economy requires them to master broader knowledge and embrace new technologies. In addition, the demand for continuous training to keep up to date with ongoing changes has led to universities needing to create more for-profit professional courses through different platforms on the Internet.

Furthermore, globalization has been critical in reshaping education because technology has facilitated knowledge sharing. Still, it has also introduced competitive pressures that push institutions to prioritize market needs over traditional educational values. Although technology has facilitated access to information and the creation of new learning opportunities, it has also enabled commodification through e-learning platforms that often prioritize profits over pedagogical quality.

Market logic dictates that where there is demand, supply must follow. In the case of education, the demand for higher education means an increase in private institutions and courses tailored to marketable skills. This commercial-driven approach has implications for educational equity and quality, where students go from being citizens with rights to education consumers. At the same time, teachers are transformed from public servants to education producers and technicians, assessed through specific reference parameters.

Thinking of education as a commodity is opposed to considering it a public good because the pressure to make profits in the market requires constantly producing and selling goods. In theory, teaching and learning are immaterial, as students are encouraged and helped to think and create knowledge. In practice, this is equivalent to selling books, digital classroom materials, computer services, and many other products and services, but education itself?

Dr. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert wrote an opinion editorial for Teach Wire about the commodification of education, where she expresses concern about the proliferation of third-party companies in education and gives examples of course or curricular templates. For some, these tools are a shortcut, as they save teachers from having to produce original lesson plans, and they serve as a security blanket or quick fix for new teachers or those who feel overwhelmed by work. However, it becomes too easy to treat these downloadable resource depositories as the sum of all curricular knowledge.

The problem is that these template curricula often become “a series of exercises designed to practice a specific rule or test a very narrow band of information,” which is not bad in itself. Still, it can cause focusing exclusively on the technical, limiting imagination and dismissing intellectual content. The author illustrates this by pointing to letter-writing activities, where the priority is “applying for employment,” sidestepping creativity and teaching experience. She writes that “this banal and technical approach emanates from the mistaken notion—widespread in teacher education and among policymakers—that education is essentially technical and transactional in nature.”

The growing pressure for competition in education, driven by commodification, is manifested in the proliferation of standardized assessments and rankings. Institutional competition strongly incentivizes universities and colleges to take steps to stand out visibly and enhance their position and status. Unsurprisingly, campuses compete with each other in facilities, services, breadth of programs, and even food. This approach, mainly focusing on quantifiable results, transforms education into a race to financial profitability, leaving behind the pursuit of knowledge for its richness. Consequently, education becomes a tool for achieving economic success and social mobility rather than a continuous, lifelong pursuit of knowledge and personal development.

In addition, commodification creates pressure to meet market demands. Subjects not considered profitable can be marginalized or eliminated, even though they may be excellent for developing critical thinking and creativity and contributing to a fulfilling education. Also, as educational institutions become financially dependent on tuition fees and private funding, the risk of compromising academic integrity and autonomy increases due to the influence of corporate and donor interests in developing curricula, assigning research priorities, and directing education in general.

The late David Noble, a critic of educational technology, wrote an essay in 1997 entitled Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education. In it, Noble criticizes the growing influence of technology and the corporatization of higher education. Noble argues that implementing automated systems in universities transforms education into a marketable product, deteriorating the traditional function of intellectual and civic training. 

For him, incorporating digital technologies in teaching causes less teacher control over the educational content and process. In addition, dependence on them threatens to turn education into an impersonal and mechanical process. Also, globalization creates more collaboration between universities and companies, prioritizing economic gains over academic values and focusing on effectiveness, negatively impacting student learning and development. Noble warns of the dangers of education based on efficiency and profit rather than critical thinking and the formation of engaged citizens. In addition, he argued that these institutions had abandoned a university ideal based on the close interaction of students and professors in favor of a model based on mastering a fixed body of knowledge and skills.

“With the commodification of teaching, teachers, as a workforce, are drawn into a production process designed for the efficient creation of teaching products and are therefore subject to all the pressures that have fallen on production workers in other industries experiencing rapid technological transformation from above,” he wrote about professors working at universities, which at the time were starting to offer online courses and programs. Noble condemned the rise of “digital diploma mills” such as Coursera, Udemy, and EdX, among others, as they are more interested in enrolling as many students as possible at the lowest possible cost than in providing quality education or a degree with genuine value in the labor market. He also condemned universities that have become providers of credentials and commercial companies where students are customers and human capital that must be developed. 

Relying on student enrollment to survive raises many questions about institutions’ priorities and the quality of their offerings. This is not only reflected in online courses. The Guardian reported that many universities in Australia are graduating international students who are not proficient in basic English. An Arts tutor at a world-leading university in Australia told the newspaper that “most [of her students] can’t speak, write, or understand basic English. They use translators or text capture to translate lectures and tutorials, translation aids to read literature, and ChatGPT to generate ideas,” she said. “It’s mind-boggling that you can walk away with a master’s degree in various subjects without understanding a sentence.”

Although the federal government has proposed a cap on international students, increased visa application fees to $1,600 A, and raised visa requirements, these have not been enough. Many academics told The Guardian they have courses where up to half of their students do not seem to understand the content. Many blamed the situation on institutional reliance on fees for international students.

On the other hand, Steven Mintz, a history professor at the University of Texas in Austin, wrote more on the subject for Inside Higher Ed by saying that “campuses are increasingly valued politically as drivers of local economies and of regional economic development and as incubators of basic and applied research. Learning, far from being developmental or transformational process, is increasingly viewed as transactional and equated with passing the requisite number of courses.” This is because it is increasingly common for professors and departments to be encouraged to be as entrepreneurial as possible.

However, the commodification of education also has foreign elements. On this, Mikael Leyi, Secretary General of the non-governmental organization SOLIDAR, gives as an example the tendency to model education according to the perceived needs of the labor market. Leyi argues that the dynamics of the current labor market, characterized by the rapid obsolescence of skills and the growing demand for new ones, generate an imbalance between labor supply and demand. This situation, aggravated by the privatization of education, which prioritizes the training of specialized labor for the market, can reduce the focus of education from its social and cultural function to a mere tool that provides labor power. 

It is easy to see how the economic shift has reshaped curricula, aligning them more closely with industry needs and labor market trends. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has been justified for its economic utility. Consequently, the humanities and social sciences have been devalued, as they are perceived as disciplines that offer less tangible financial returns.

The commercialization of higher education has increased the financial burden on students, creating a disadvantage that few consider. Students have the right not to tolerate inferior quality and demand better facilities, more library materials, and access to educational technologies. Farhad Omar, a cybersecurity consultant, wrote on LinkedIn that this model of chain production only turns education into a means to an end for him. “The intrinsic value of knowledge is underestimated, and the joy of learning and intellectual curiosity are reduced,” he wrote. He adds that the current situation seeks to “compensate for economic uncertainties by producing ‘market-ready’ graduates, rather than promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking.”

After all, isn’t college education supposed to be the opposite of a commodity, one that emphasizes change in intellectual seriousness, mentorship, community, dialogue, discovery, and personal growth? Regarding this, Dr. Dinkar Sewa Rathod published an article on the commercialization of higher education, arguing that a student cannot be called a customer because, unlike a student, a customer buys a finished product at the time of the transaction. A student does not receive a “finished product” when purchasing. This is because a student must have the necessary skills and work hard enough to earn an academic degree. He says, “A student is more like a gardener than a customer because the gardener may desire to grow splendid leeks, but he will not succeed unless he exerts himself properly.”

Dr. Sewa Rathod explains that in a free market economy, customers are seen as rational individuals with specific needs that purchasing products satisfies. This occurs in a place where there is competition between producers and suppliers to meet the tastes and preferences of consumers, whose tastes or choices are not questioned. However, this is not the case with education. Academicians decide what constitutes the product under negotiation; standards determine its content. Although a student, being a customer, is “buying a product,” has no control over it. Educators and administrators have the last word on whether they will receive “the finished product,” the diploma. They have the power to take disciplinary action, manage learning difficulties, provide quality teachers, and assign grades, among other actions. 

It is easy to attack the commodification of education, but the reality is that the economic crises of recent decades and the pandemic have forced many institutions to increase tuition fees, reduce the number of full-time professors by replacing them with chair or part-time professors, and reduce salaries. In addition, it has not been easy for universities to find funding for their research; thus, it is understandable why they seek to market their services. Commodifying education brings benefits such as greater competition between educational institutions, encouraging them to improve the quality of their services and facilities and offer more varied options adapted to their students’ needs. It can also help achieve greater efficiency in managing educational resources, forcing administrations to optimize costs and results. Another advantage is more pedagogical innovation and opportunities to create innovative tools and teaching methods due to market competitiveness. This also means greater flexibility because the educational offerings adapt quickly to labor market demands, facilitating students’ insertion into the work world.

The reality is that the commodification of education is a complex and multifaceted problem that is difficult to discredit. For starters, advocating for more significant public funding to reduce reliance on tuition fees and ensure equal access to quality education would be necessary. It also involves fostering a sense of community and collaboration among educational institutions rather than perpetuating a competitive, market-driven approach. 

Tell us, what do you think about the commercialization of education? Do you think it is due to globalization or the fault of the economic crises? Do you believe that depending on tuition is the solution? We would love to know your opinion on this topic.

Translated by Daniel Wetta

Paulette Delgado

Share

This article from Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education may be shared under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0