Would You Like Fries With That?
by Brian Caterino
No, academia hasn’t quite been assimilated to the model of McDonald’s fast food outlets, but the latest step in the commodification of knowledge has come into view with the recent announcement by Barnes & Noble of its new on-line “University”. Barnes & Noble will be offering free, nonaccredited, courses to the public, on-line, though its Internet site. Courses on a variety of topics hope to appeal to a potential audience ranging from adult learners to high school students.
The Barnes & Noble “University” is a joint venture with on-line course provider notHarvard.com, in whom Barnes & Noble recently acquired a minority stake. According to a May 30th Reuters news report, Barnes & Noble will become notHarvard’s primary distributor of course materials to its network of on-line universities. In the past, notHarvard has developed on-line courses primarily for businesses hoping to attract customers to their Web sites. Some of its clients include Jobs.com, TalkCity.com, and Bloomberg.com. NotHarvard hopes to do the same for its new partner, Barnes & Noble. According to Judy Bitterli, CEO of notHarvard.com, the purpose of notHarvard on-line courses is to promote “brand loyalty” to companies such as B&N. “They help Barnes & Noble.com build their brand and, ultimately, we hope, they will help sell goods and services.”
In its current incarnation, admittedly only an early version of a larger project, Barnes & Noble University poses little threat to higher education. Only a few courses have been developed. These consist mainly of how-to courses (business and computer applications) and a smattering of arts and humanities courses such as Introductions to Jazz, Western Music, Shakespeare’s Comedies, and a course on film noir. Each of these courses is led by an academic or by an experienced practitioner. However, almost all of these courses are short (about four weeks), and thus fairly limited in scope.
In one sense however, Barnes & Noble offerings resemble college courses — in their use of expensive, high-end, high-profit textbooks. Unlike colleges or universities, where a supply of used textbooks for popular courses often helps to cut costs, students at Barnes & Noble University have no easy access to used texts. The major text for the Shakespeare course comes in a whopping $60.75 One recommended text costs $71.75; a third is cheap at $16.76. I imagine most texts will be purchased though the convenient links to Barnes & Nobles on-line bookstore for fast ordering and delivery. (Don’t forget those shipping and handling costs, which often negate any on-line discounts.) Since all courses have to meet the approval of Barnes & Noble staff, questions could be raised about the rationale for the choice of textbooks. Are they chosen for pedagogical merit or profit potential?
On-line courses such as those at Barnes & Noble “University” aren’t inherently bad. They serve a purpose. Those who want to acquaint themselves with an issue or a topic for their own enrichment can do so without any of the pressure of academia. The real danger with the Barnes & Noble “University,” and with similar enterprises, lies in the way that they link education and commerce. Applied to higher education, even in small measure, this model would impact on the integrity and autonomy of education.
The EduCommerce model, in spite of its lofty rhetoric, subordinates the aims of education to those of turning a profit. A university run on these principles would turn administrators into entrepreneurs who made decisions about which courses to offer, who would teach, and what research, if any, would be pursued, on the basis of the bottom line. The agenda for education would be set by commercial and corporate interests. Much like other on-line enterprises, the pay for instructors seems low (about $1500 per course and the instructor cedes intellectual property rights for the course, at least according to the sample agreement I found at the notHarvard.com site). It would be hard to imagine an independent faculty in EduCommerce. The tenure stream would be replaced by the revenue stream.
Proponents of unfettered markets have come to flatter themselves that the spread of enterprise is the main political factor in the spread of democracy and freedom. Technology and e-commerce companies have wrapped themselves in this rhetorical flag even as some corner the market and squeeze out innovators. They confuse democracy with the expansion of the market. The expansion of commercial markets does not necessarily lead to more democratic participation. Quite the opposite: it can sometimes lead to more passivity, when citizens are reduced to consumers of goods and passive viewers of spectacles.
EduCommerce doesn’t rest on the democratic model of the student as a participant and learning as collaborative, but a passive consumer model of education in which a provider serves the client. As in the real market, however, needs are created by advertising.
EduCommerce is only a few steps removed from the surrender of the agenda of education to commerce and business. In the pursuit of funding and power, educational institutions have strayed from traditional ideals. Universities have given in to the demands to shape educational outcomes to match economic needs, and they have sold off chairs, research units, and even departments to corporate interests. Can they be expected to oppose EduCommerce if it comes to your neighborhood? Not a chance.
