Opinion: students behave like consumers

Supermarkets are a highly intriguing phenomenon. A game begins between you and the supermarket as soon as you walk in. With a shopping list in your pocket, you wander through the aisles, eventually arriving at the self-service checkout, where you'll be pleased if your groceries didn't cost much. Meanwhile, the supermarket does everything in its power to make you feel that it cares about you. The competitive prices and personal bonuses serve this purpose. Everything is designed to ensure that you leave the store with peace of mind, without feeling that you've been ripped off. That's the game between consumers and producers, and it's a game we all implicitly agree to play.

It worries me to see this attitude reflected in the university. In this article, I would like to briefly explain what I mean by this, the problems that arise from this phenomenon, and offer students tools to resist it.

Students' expectations are often rooted in the idea that they are paying for it

Let's start at the beginning: what exactly is a consumer? A consumer is someone who purchases goods and services to satisfy their needs. In a supermarket, this means that consumers are primarily focused on their desires and convenience. They want their groceries to cost them as little as possible in terms of money, time and energy. They are seeking a satisfactory result within a certain budget. Consumers pay for services and therefore expect to be served, so they harshly reject anything that disrupts the purchasing process.

This role play does not only take place in supermarkets. Other shops offering goods or services also act according to this consumer attitude. However, Karl Marx acknowledged in 1867 that this role play entails several social problems. In his famous work Das Kapital, Marx introduces the term “commodity fetishism”, which refers to the concealment of social relationships that assign value to products. It makes it seem as if that value is inherent in the goods themselves. By concealing the social relationships from which value derives, i.e. the people who perform the labour and make production possible, only the product remains visible as the carrier of value. Take a carton of milk, for example. We forget who made it, under what conditions and with what kind of suffering it was produced. We forget the spatial processes and logistical activities required to get that product to the supermarket.

Learning is a social process, and the value of education lies not in the learning products it produces, but rather in the social structures.

I've noticed that this attitude and commodity fetishism are also gaining ground at the university, more specifically in the classroom. When I'm teaching, I often see that students have clear expectations of the course, which must be met through a clear structure and relatively little investment in terms of time and energy. These expectations are often rooted in the idea that they are paying for it.

For example, we lecturers are expected to write crystal-clear emails so that there is no room for misinterpretation. Fieldwork should preferably take place close to the campus because travelling by bicycle or train is seen as too much of an investment. Students also often find the reading material overwhelming because the time investment required to understand the materials is considered too great.

This attitude also entails a form of commodity fetishism. Organising, teaching and assessing courses, including grading, takes a lot of time, which teachers often spend beyond their formal working hours to keep the education running smoothly. Yet, in their emails, many students reveal a lack of awareness of this effort, as teachers' mistakes are rarely tolerated. Learning is a social process, and the value of education does not lie in the learning outcomes it produces, but rather in the social structures (including the lecturer) that enable the learning process. It should be noted that lecturers are not immune to this attitude either: sometimes students are implicitly reduced to mere test-producing subjects to avoid disappointment, as I previously wrote on DUB.

In their emails, many students reveal little awareness of this effort, as teachers' mistakes are rarely tolerated.

It is not my goal to dismiss all criticism we get from students. Many courses can and should be improved. However, I am concerned about how they are following courses and the kind of criticism they express.

A student who behaves like a consumer is not committed to learning. Instead, they are seeking an entertaining learning experience that takes relatively little time. A thorough review shows that an active attitude ultimately enables in-depth learning. This attitude often requires time, effort, endurance and a good deal of stress. Interestingly, students seem to have a very different perception of learning. Research shows that students generally find the most structured, bite-sized information to be educational, but, in practice, such information does not stick in the long term. Effective learning requires effort to process complex situations. A learning student is therefore not a consumer but a producer: someone who actively shapes their own education.

ChatGPT will never critically examine your input and ask you to reflect carefully on your request for information.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, shows the consumer in education at its best. The default settings of an LLM see you as a consumer. The tool provides information about what you ask for.

An LLM will never critically examine your input and ask you to reflect carefully on your request for information. For example, if you ask for an explanation of Marx's commodity fetishism, you will get a neat summary. ‘What do you think commodity fetishism is?’ will not be one of the answers. Moreover, an LLM does not know where you are in your learning process, something that a good teacher is capable of seeing.

The bite-sized information you get after a consumer prompt can be a great starting point, as can the videos and tutorials online. But, ultimately, you must actively engage with this information.

What I want to convey is that time, effort, uncertainty and failure are inherent to the learning process.

I know that student life takes a lot of time and energy, so I understand the temptation to take a relatively frictionless path. It is not at all wrong to outsource certain things so that you have more time and energy for other things. A good example of this is our frequent use of navigation apps to get us from A to B. Having the ability to plan a route yourself requires multiple skills and knowledge. What does the area look like, how are the roads called, and how do you orient yourself during your journey?

By using a navigation app, you are partially giving this learning process away, as your knowledge of your location and orientation is not activated. The navigation app takes over this process for you so that you no longer have to think about it, and most of us are quite happy with that. But remember: outsourcing and externalising such skills and knowledge is a choice, and this choice has consequences for your development. To relate this back to education: the more the teacher takes difficult choices and problems away from you, the less the learning process is internalised.

I realise that the consumer analogy is uncomfortable for some students. It is certainly not my intention to undermine their commitment and involvement in the subjects. On the contrary, we welcome students who contribute their ideas; active students are extremely valuable! What I want to emphasise is that time, effort, uncertainty, and failure are inherent to the learning process. Not all structure, information and skills can be grasped immediately. This entails a certain amount of effort, stress and uncertainty. The trick is to learn to deal with this and train it like a muscle.

Don't forget that the lecturer is just an employee in a complex institution with limited resources.

In line with commodity fetishism, remember that teachers are just employees in a complex institution with limited resources. Don't be too quick to distrust them. I haven't met any teachers who take their teaching duties lightly.

Of course, I understand where some of the complaints about classes come from, but it is important to realise that complaints and reviews belong in a consumer world. When complaints are expressed from a purely consumer-oriented perspective, they often fail to recognise that teachers are also active producers. The tone of the music matters, so be careful.

Finally, a brief comment on the university's attitude. Marketing and brand identity are aspects of a supermarket that try to entice consumers to make a purchase. A public knowledge institution, such as a university,y should not allow itself to be tempted by this, despite the severe budget cuts and efficiency-driven nature that politicians often impose on us. Therefore, do not treat students as consumers who are purchasing an education. Our educational role entails much more than that.

This is an op-ed by Daniil Scheifes, junior university lecturer in the Global Sustainability Science Bachelor's programme. Scheifes is affiliated with the Copernicus Institute as a lecturer and researcher. The views expressed in this op-ed belong to the authors only and are not necessarily shared by DUB.