This article was downloaded by: [Tartu Uellikooli]On: 30 August 2012, At: 03:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rehe20

Full-time employed students asuniversity consumers – consequencesand triggers of marketisation of highereducationEve Mägi a , Krista Jaakson b , Anne Aidla b , Laura Kirss a & AnneReino ba PRAXIS Center for Policy Studies, Tartu, Estoniab Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, TheUniversity of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

Version of record first published: 09 Jul 2012

To cite this article: Eve Mägi, Krista Jaakson, Anne Aidla, Laura Kirss & Anne Reino (2012): Full-time employed students as university consumers – consequences and triggers of marketisation ofhigher education, European Journal of Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/21568235.2012.698486

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.698486

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Full-time employed students as university consumers � consequencesand triggers of marketisation of higher education

Eve Magia*, Krista Jaaksonb, Anne Aidlab, Laura Kirssa and Anne Reinob

aPRAXIS Center for Policy Studies, Tartu, Estonia; bFaculty of Economics and BusinessAdministration, The University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

(Received 5 March 2012; accepted 25 May 2012)

This article draws on a qualitative study of student employment patterns amongstudents who both study and work full-time. In the study, 17 employed bachelorstudents at state-commissioned study places in three Estonian universities, 12lecturers from the same universities, and 13 employers supervising those full-timestudents, were interviewed. While recognising that the role of marketisation inhigher education can be explored from a number of vantage points, the aim of thisarticle is to demonstrate how marketisation has caused the change in students’expectations towards universities and encouraged them for full-time employmentin Estonia. As the latter is a widely accepted phenomenon and adjustments onthe ‘supply’-side are made, the implications of full-time employment on educationare discussed. The results reveal three areas in which university education is notcorresponding to students’ expectations: content of study provided at the university,the study process, and university requirements. In some respects students’ point ofview was supported by the lecturers’ and employers’ perspectives. The authors arguethat the consumer model and customer orientation in universities has decreasedrather than enhanced the quality of education. However, the development in qualitycan only occur with policy measures and a shared responsibility of participants asuniversities in the current situation appear to have insufficient power to improve thesystem independently.

Keywords: student employment; marketisation of higher education; educationpolicy; consumer metaphor; education quality

Introduction

Working and studying at the same time in higher education has become a norm rather

than exception. The authors of the international students’ survey EUROSTUDENT IV

(Orr, Gwosc, and Netz 2011) concede that regular paid employment is a reality of

student life in most EUROSTUDENT countries. Eastern European countries like

Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Estonia seem to be particularly

prominent in this respect. In these countries students spend on average the most time

on paid jobs. In Poland, for instance, bachelor students spend an average 19 hours

per week working. The amount of working among students depends on student age

and field of study, but also on study program, national customs and study

environments in general (Orr et al. 2011). These aspects are especially relevant in

*Corresponding author. Email: eve.magi@praxis.ee

European Journal of Higher Education

2012, 1�19, iFirst article

ISSN 2156-8235 print/ISSN 2156-8243 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.698486

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

the case of Eastern European countries, coupled with a dramatic change in the

economy and in higher education in these countries. Public universities, once

monopolistic, have been forced to change due to the emergence of private

universities, student mobility, and shrinkage of public financing. Higher education

has turned into a product in the marketplace, where universities have to acknowledge

the particularities of ‘consumer behaviour,’ including the fact that many students

have paid work. The rise of private higher education institutions (HEIs) in Estoniastarted at the beginning of the 1990s reaching its peak at the beginning of 2000es

when 27 institutions out of 49 were private (Estonian Education Information

System). The share of students studying in these private institutions rose to 22% in

2001/2002, although lately their numbers are decreasing again (13% in 2010/2011)

(Estonian Education Information System). Due to the nature of the funding system

of higher education � state funding is limited to the commissioning of only a certain

number of study places in HEIs � public HEIs reacted to the demand for additional

study places in some study fields (e.g. Social Sciences) and started providing

fee-based study places in order to raise additional funding. While at the beginning of

the 1990s the large majority of students were studying at state commissioned places

(88% in 1994/1995), this indicator had dropped to 45% in 2006/2007, today being

51% (2010/2011) (Estonian Education Information System). Hence, it is evident how

privatization occurred at the public HEIs.

Research on the effects of working during study time has been rather mixed so

far. Still, many authors conclude that academic success and employment duringstudies tend not to be positively correlated (Paul 1982; Curtis and Shani 2002; Little

2002; Stinebrickner and Stinebrickner 2003; Callender 2008). In general, the negative

effect of working seems to decrease with lower work load (part-time working) (Hood,

Craig, and Ferguson 1992). Even though many studies have focused on student

employment during study time, they mainly address the effects of part-time

employment only. Full-time employment � students are first of all employees and

then learners � has not been the focus of research so far. Traditionally, acquiring

higher education and full-time employment simultaneously have been exceptional

cases that have not deserved researchers’ attention. Today, given that the financial

pressures on both the HEIs and the learners have increased, full-time employment

appears to have ‘invaded’ higher education. This phenomenon is strongly present in

the Estonian higher education system. For example, a survey of university graduates

in 2009 revealed that every fourth student commissioned by the state1 was actually

working full-time during studies (Eamets, Krillo, and Themas 2011). Estonia has a

rather exceptional education system in the sense that the share of full-time students is

very high � even though the share of part-time students is growing slightly, the large

majority (88% in 2010, according to Statistics Estonia) of students are studying full-time. This is mostly due to higher education regulation that excludes part-time

students from certain important benefits (e.g. study loans). Hence, most students are

supposed to study (formally) full-time. The existence of full-time study and full-time

employment is made possible due to several factors, most of them relating to the

organisation of studies and low demands on the side of HEIs but also flexible work

arrangements.

In this article, we show that student employment is largely a result of the

marketisation of Estonian higher education, and accepting full-time student

employment as a norm further facilitates the problems inherent in marketisation.

2 E. Magi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

Thus, the aim of this article is to: (1) show how marketisation has caused a change in

students’ expectations towards universities and encouraged them to work (full-time);

and (2) discuss the implications of students’ full-time employment on marketisation

of education. This article is structured as follows: first, the concept of marketisation

of higher education is elaborated, then the method and sample is briefly described,

followed by the study results and discussion.

Marketisation of higher education

Cornerstones of marketisation: student as consumer

The traditional view of students in higher education treats students as members of

the educational institution and part of the academic community. From this

perspective, students are referred to as ‘partners’ (Halbesleben and Wheeler 2008),

‘co-producers’ (McCulloch 2009; Neary and Winn 2009), ‘collaborators’ (Taylor and

Wilding 2009), ‘participants,’ ‘change agents,’ ‘evaluators,’ ‘co-creators’ or ‘experts’

(Kay, Dunne, and Hutchinson 2010). Developments during the recent decades,

however, have brought along a shift in the students’ role. Not untypically, they are

considered ‘consumers’ (McMillan and Cheney 1996; Palfreyman and Warner 1998),

‘clients’ (Lee 1996; Bailey 2000) or ‘customers’ (Schwartzman 1995; White 2007).

These relational models and metaphors indicate changing student roles which have

important implications for students, universities and the state. Research by Little

et al. (2009) shows that universities view students more as consumers and rather less

as partners in a learning community, even though institutions view student

engagement as central to enhancing student experience.

The consumer metaphor originates from the marketplace (McMillan and Cheney

1996). The concept’s emergence and widespread adoption in higher education date

back to the 1980s, as part of the wider New Public Management (NPM) movement

in the public sector which brought the notion of managerialism and marketisation

of public services to the centre of attention (Chan and Mok 2001). With the

development of capitalism, the buyer assumed a more central position in an

economic system.

In the student as consumer model, in which quality is defined in terms of

conformance to the requirements of the customer (Kumar 2003), the organisation

tries to detect and adapt to the wishes of its primary audience, consumers (McMillan

and Cheney 1996). The fascination of this model lies in its challenge to organisa-

tional and institutional power, and its appeal to individual rights. In terms of this

model, a university acts as the provider of products and services and the student acts

as a consumer of those products (McCulloch 2009). Increased competition and

autonomy among universities is incidental in conditions in which universities are

responsible for their own budgets, management, and hiring of staff and teachers

(Chan and Mok 2001).

It has been acknowledged that the consumer model and customer orientation in

higher education have experienced an increasing significance through the processes

of marketisation of education, internationalisation and globalisation (Maringe

2011). The model is driven by the intensification of the graduate labour market

which demands that students pay undivided attention to their employability and

prepare themselves for periods of unemployability and debt (Neary and Winn 2009).

European Journal of Higher Education 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

The notion of the student as a consumer has been brought into sharp focus as the

responsibility for funding higher education in universities has to a greater extent

shifted from central governments to individual students, directly or indirectly

through various loan schemes (McCulloch 2009; Maringe 2011).

Caveats of marketisation

The consumer model has many advantages for higher education transformation:

universities responding to a changing cultural and social environment; responsible

use of financial resources; recognising and addressing concerns of the ‘real world’

and labour market; development of students’ confidence and outspokenness

(McMillan and Cheney 1996). However, the consumer paradigm has severallimitations in the context of higher education as well (see for example Clayson and

Hayley 2005). Maringe (2011) argues that education is not a traditional product or

service provided to other people, but is fundamentally a conjoint activity between

teachers and learners where new knowledge is gained as a result of effort from both

parties. Therefore academic teaching does not fit easily into the paradigm of

consumption � it becomes something else if it is commodified, ‘bought and sold.’ It

has been argued that treating education as a commodity leads to standardisation,

calculation and formulaic teaching, which reduces quality into quantity andtransforms academic relationship between teacher and student into a transaction

dominated by concerns that have little to do with education (Furedi 2011).

Success in consumerism depends on satisfying customer needs and expectations

which means that the quality is associated with customer satisfaction. Just as

businesses measure service quality from the customers’ perspective, universities

measure service quality from the students’ perspective (Harrison-Walker 2010).

Customer satisfaction in higher education is important, but it should not prevail as

an overall objective of the higher education process. Customers in education can bestudents, parents, employers or anyone who wishes to establish a relationship with

university. The growing focus on meeting students’ expectations could marginalise

the role of staff in exploring the quality of what they do (Maringe 2011). McMillan

and Cheney (1996) indicate that the metaphor fosters the self-promotional activities

of professors, while promoting the entertainment model of learning, in which there is

an emphasis on learning for short-term outcome. In other words, the paradigm

confuses the momentary satisfaction of wants with long-term educational outcomes.

It is argued that by adopting a ‘customer is always right’ attitude, academic staff ismore likely to be pressured towards simplicity to satisfy students as consumers, such

as to award better grades (McMillan and Cheney 1996; Maringe 2011).

The consumer model places great weight on the consumer being able to make

informed choices, and on the role played by information in ensuring that those

choices are the correct ones for the individual consumer. However, students in the

learning process are not well placed to exercise an ‘informed choice,’ because they do

not have the necessary information and skills to do so. This is something that

develops during a programme of study (McCulloch 2009) and often the role of thelecturer includes providing such information (Peters, Bradbard, and Martin 2005).

Maringe (2011) argues that the idea of guaranteeing satisfaction suggests that

students and staff need to enter into a contract before the start of instruction.

Satisfaction with instruction and its outcomes should be the primary focus of such

4 E. Magi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

guarantees. However, students have varying learning styles and will respond

differently to similar types of instruction. Therefore, students most likely will not

respond uniformly and positively to the outcomes regardless of the best efforts of the

lecturer.

Short-term orientation paves the way to contingency rather than dedication.

Defining students as consumers points to undue distance between the student andthe educational process in which students are likely to have only partial commitment.

The dual status of students, as both clients and relatively long-term members of the

organisation, is weighted completely toward the external role. As consumers,

students are part of a consuming public, rather than being committed members of

the organisation to participate actively in the educational process they are buying

(McMillan and Cheney 1996). Fevre, Rees, and Gorard (1999) also referred to higher

education mainly seen as a key to open certain doors in the labour market,

conveniently ignoring that the effort during the process was traditionally assumed to

get that key, i.e. diploma. Treating a university degree as a product to be sold poses

various threats to the university’s ability to serve the long-term interests of society

and to maintain the quality of programmes. In other words, the quality of education

is in jeopardy by the use of a commercial relationship between students and the

academic institution (Driscoll and Wicks 1998).

If the prevailing model of higher education sees the student as a consumer, then it

is challenging to offer opportunities for students to be fully engaged with the studyprocess. Viewing students as consumers reduces their status to non-participants in

the process of education. Therefore, their role as co-producers of knowledge and

understanding is de-emphasized and minimized while they tend to act in a passive

manner (McMillan and Cheney 1996; McCulloch 2009). In contrast, allowing

students to determine learning outcomes challenges the model of student as

consumer, but collaborative approaches to the shaping of learning outcomes could

give students an increased responsibility of the outcomes while maintaining the

accountability that the student as consumer model demands. Such involvement could

serve students to prevent them from feeling like curriculum is being ‘done to them’

and would instead foster a sense that changes are ‘done with them’ (Taylor and

Wilding 2009).

It is important to note that basing on student views alone is unlikely to deliver the

quality that students and society yearns. The satisfaction one derives from a higher

education experience is often delayed and comes from various challenges students

experience throughout their learning ‘journey’. It is an experience where quality,

relevance and usefulness cannot be guaranteed, assessed and measured by studentsalone, but in conjunction with their lecturers, parents, employers, and other

interested parties (Maringe 2011). Thus, marketisation of education is a trend that

poses serious threats for the quality of education if student satisfaction is not

combined with other indicators. Placing students at the centre of educational process

� where they belong in close connection with institutions’ and state’s needs and

expectations � would arguably lead to a renewed quality of higher education. It also

helps to democratise, increase accountability and contribute to the enhanced quality

of the overall higher education experience (Maringe 2011).

In the context of a growing surge of student complaints regarding the quality,

quantity, relevance of their tuition and educational experience of higher education

(Maringe 2011), this article focuses on the impact of student full-time employment

European Journal of Higher Education 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

on marketisation of higher education with an emphasis on the consumer metaphor

perspective as one of the dominant metaphors of the relationship (Palfreyman and

Warner 1998). We explore to what extent the application of the metaphor in higher

education in Estonia might contribute to or detract from the capacity of universities

to deliver a quality learning and educational experience to its students and to society.

Next we will present the results of research carried out among university students,

their lecturers and employers. Based on the opinions of all mentioned participants we

focus on how the education offered in universities meets full-time working students’

needs and expectations, and how universities consider the needs of one group of their

customers, i.e. full-time working students. Consequently, we can find out what impact

the full-time employment of students could have on marketisation of education.

Method and data

This article is based on a qualitative research project carried out in Estonia in 2010.

In order to gain insight into the phenomenon of student full-time employment work

during full-time study, 42 semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out with

the main stakeholders. In addition to students, lecturers from the three Estonian

universities and employers were interviewed.

The interviews with the students allowed us to collect information about the

reasons for taking-up full-time employment and issues concerning working during

studies. Furthermore, the interviews reflected students’ attitudes on the quality of

education provided as well as the extent to which students appreciate the knowledge

and skills gained (including employability at the labour market) at the universities.

The interviews with the lecturers and employers invited them to reflect on these

respective issues.

The sample was based on the cost of a higher education study place and the share

of employed students in different fields of education based on the Estonian Student

Socio-Economic survey in 2007/2008. The sampled students represented the fields of

Social Sciences, Business and Law; Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction;

and Humanities and Arts. The students were approached through e-mail lists. The

sampled students needed to meet the following criteria: (1) be at least a second year

full-time bachelor student; (b) study on a state-commissioned student place; and (c)

work full-time, i.e. 40 hours per week.

In total, 17 students (10 female and seven male) aged between 21�25 were

recruited and interviewed. The interviewees were employed at various organisations

and held very different positions. The list included, for instance, an accountant,

editor, journalist, project manager, consultant, security guard, system administrator,

bank teller. The sample of employers (13) was formed on the basis of the interviewed

students � the interviewees were typically the managers of the participating students.

The employers represented mostly large organisations operating in different

locations across the country. The areas these organisations represented varied from

banking, trade, media and communication, to energy, the accounting industry, but

also the public sector. The sample of lecturers was drawn from the respective

universities that the students studied at, recruiting only lecturers and professors who

had experience with teaching full-time employed students. All interviewees retained

anonymity.

6 E. Magi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

The interviews were based on interview guides. Interview guides were prepared

separately for each interviewee group, touching upon questions of interest from

different perspectives. For students it included questions on the process of starting

employment, reasons for employment, nature of the work performed and itsrelevance to the study programme, an overview of a typical weekly schedule,

experienced challenges in matching work and study. For employers the interview

guide contained questions on their experience with employees who are full-time

university students and their expectations on higher education and its outcomes.

Lecturers were asked about their positive and negative experiences with full-time

employed students, their views on student working experience during studies and

higher education outcomes.

In order to ensure the quality of the data, a pilot study was concluded withfour participants, after which the interview guide was reviewed and refined. The

interviews were recorded and then transcribed. The analysis of interview data aimed

to classify and describe the phenomena under the study. The initial coding of

collected information followed the structure of the research questions. At the second

stage of the analysis, coding categories were created and the analysis followed those

categories. The interview data was analysed using the qualitative data analysis

software QSR NVivo 8.0.

Results

The following is an outline of the needs and expectations of university full-time

working students based on the opinions of all interviewed parties (students,

lecturers and employers). The results of the research indicate that full-timeemployed students are critical about education offered at the university. Most

interviewed students highlighted the disparity between the study experience and

their expectations. Three thematic issues will be elaborated on as follows: (1) content

of study provided at the university; (2) the study process; and (3) university

requirements. Students’ point of view was supported in some respect by the

lecturers’ and employers’ perspectives. However, differences in viewpoints can be

identified as well.

Perceived shortcomings in the content of study provided at university

The experiences of full-time employed students concerning the content of

study describe a gap between theory and practice that is manifested in various

ways. Most interviewed students highlight their unmet expectations of the balancebetween academic knowledge and practical skills during the educational pro-

gramme. While acknowledging that university education develops their generic

analytical skills and provides an extensive theoretical background, the interviewed

students feel that too often they are not able to gain the necessary practical

knowledge and skills and the expected role of professional training in academia is

perceived to be marginal:

[The content of study] is actually really, really theoretical, really, really extensive. So Idon’t see the practical part. No, I’m not particularly happy with it, but I think that mostuniversity courses are like that. (university student)

European Journal of Higher Education 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

[The content of study] provides you with basic theoretical knowledge and elementarythinking and analytical skills. However, that is all that is provided. [. . .] It’s rather youhave gained knowledge that you need in professional employment instead. (universitystudent)

Employed students’ and employers’ answers suggest their inability to see the

reflective integration of theory and practice in the study experience. This implies

that an opportunity to reflect upon experience and articulate learning is perceived to

be limited:

You may study theory, but you do not achieve anything while doing it. (universitystudent)

Students’ answers reflect that in their opinion, the main role of a university is to

prepare the students for a competitive labour market and from their perspective,

academic study content fails to complete this function. This expectation is in line

with the marketisation theory, and the fact that universities fall short to meet that

expectation shows that there is a pressure for further marketisation. Many students

argue that a more intensive integration of practice into an educational programme

would be a step towards satisfying their needs and expectations.

Students appear to be rather explicit about their educational expectations as both

interviewed lecturers and employers are very much aware of that perception. The

lecturers state to have received feedback from their students about the content of

study being overly academic. The lecturers admit that academic part is prevailing

and that the practical side is more understated in the content of study:

Education provided at university is inevitably more academic compared to, let’s say,professional higher education institutions. A university graduate might be engulfed intheory. At the same time, the more practical side, an ability to make something with ownhands, might remain weaker. (lecturer)

At the same time, the lecturers consider the role of university to be somewhat

different compared to students. In lecturers’ view, the function is not necessarily to

prepare students for a specific job, but rather to provide them with general and

analytical skills to be able to comprehend a bigger picture. Lecturers consider it short-

sighted to focus predominantly on developing practical skills in the content of study.

Thus, among university staff, there is a clear resistance to further marketisation.

Similarly to the employed students and the lecturers, the interviewed employers

find the content of study provided at the universities to be rather academic and

offering to a lesser extent practical skills. Employers feel that students expectations

involve more integration of professional skills in the curriculum:

The university really is too academic and has no connection with real life . . . that [the so-called real life] is what they really want to experience. (employer)

The interviewed employers support the students’ viewpoint about perceived

shortcomings in the content of study and find practical experience relevant to

provide them with competitive positions and skills in the labour market after

completion of studies. However, their estimations are somewhat controversial. On

8 E. Magi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

the one hand, employers criticise the insignificant role of professional training in the

content of study which would provide students with immediately applicable skills in

employment. It means that employees coming from university have not sufficient

practical skills. On the other hand, employers prefer to employ students with a

university (academic) degree due to their perceived ability to learn and adapt their

initiative, and associative skills. The latter confirms that the interviewed employers

attach importance to an academic degree, even though they stressed the need for an

increased practical element in the content of study:

Higher education as such undoubtedly benefits an individual, because an educatedperson has a better view of the world and a broader horizon. Such an individualhas acquired a better understanding of people, a general sense of everyday livingand perhaps an ability to avoid making as many mistakes as less educated people.(employer)

Consequently, the results of our research indicate that all three parties consider

university education to be rather academic and not serving the interest of employ-

ability as the first priority. Students express discontentment, while the lecturers deem

this aspect highly necessary. The employers are ambiguous recognising the value of

academic preparation and expecting the development of professional skills at the

same time. In the hope of finding the desired combination, employers’ prefer for the

students with previous work experience.

Therefore it is fair to say that a divergence of opinions exists between the three

interviewed parties regarding to the content of study provided at university. Students

as consumers may not necessarily notice all elements in the big picture, even though

they are articulate about their expectations of their university education. Given the

views of lecturers and employers it is apparent that the distinction between academic

and professional higher education is unclear and falls short to form adequate

expectations among students and perhaps also employers and lecturers.

Imbalanced study process

In addition to the perceived gap between theory and practice, the design of the

courses offered at university seems to cause discontenment among students.

Employed students claim in the interviews that lecturers often leave them only a

passive role which results in their modest involvement in the study process (especially

at lectures with numerous attendants). Many students argued they are demotivated

to actively participate in the study process also because of their dissatisfaction with

instruction as active teaching methods are not often used by lecturers. Students

describe a typical lecture as follows:

A large crowded auditorium with a lecturer standing and talking in front of the room.In fact, there is no real participation in any of them [lectures], you just sit and listen.(university student)

Perhaps one should attend university not so much for mere listening, but more for activelearning. [. . .] There should be a trend towards modern and innovative teachingmethods. (university student)

European Journal of Higher Education 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

Employed students appear to find it challenging to see the links between theory and

practice as indicated previously. Their answers expressed that students did not feel

responsible for learning outcomes. Instead, from students’ perspective, lecturers

conduct their classes in a way that does not allow for engaging in a comprehensible

manner. Students feel that lecturers lack information on student backgrounds and

previous work experience, a tailored approach being the exception rather than the

norm. It is not that the lecturers are deemed unprofessional. Quite the contrary, as

one student and one employer outlined the dilemma:

Those people there are great [in their field] but they’re not very good teachers.(university student)

A person can teach courses for decades and update a few things every now and then.But (s)he may be unfamiliar with the practical side of things. (employer)

Lecturers’ responses confirm students’ perceptions that lecturers are incognizant of

students’ backgrounds and previous work experience. The interviews bring out the

apparent reasons. First, there is no established mechanism to inform the lecturer

about the background and work-experience of the students the lecturers are

supposed to teach. Second, it is impossible to offer opportunities for full engagement

through an individual approach and active learning methods for students due to

large class sizes and overcrowded auditoriums. As lecturers’ responses reveal, the

situation is further complicated by the fact that employed students turn up

irregularly, underprepared more often than not and the curriculum is not the focus

of their motivation. The mutual coexistence of the two � full-time employment with a

full-time enrolment at an university programme � is challenging to cope with as

stated by the interviewed students. Our findings show that full-time employment by

students is accepted with a certainty that studies will remain a priority. However, the

behaviour pattern during employment revealed that in reality, employment becomes

more important, starting to affect studies at the university. While all interviewed

students admitted to have occasionally missed lectures and seminars, according to

their own evaluation most of them missed more than half of their classes.

Consequently, lecturers may not have a sufficiently precise overview about the entire

enrolled course when student attendance is infrequent.At the same time, the lecturers find that they make an effort to engage students in

the study process and provide them opportunities to practice their role as co-

producers of knowledge. To illustrate this, a lecturer brought the following example:

During lectures we definitely use various kinds of practical assignments; discuss theresults both in teams and individually. (lecturer)

The lecturers acknowledge the importance of student engagement. Several lecturers

have noticed that in the absence of student involvement or motivation, they quickly

find replacement activities. Student presence in the lecture is not sufficient � they

might be sitting in the lecture hall, while focusing on reading a newspaper, surfing the

Internet, etc. At the same time, students stress the efficient use of time. Planning is

crucial which means that once they are present in the lecture hall, most of them

expect to participate in the study process. Some students, however, admit that every

10 E. Magi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

now and then, their class-time entails activities that require short-term concentra-

tion, i.e. responding to emails.

Consequently, the results indicate that students like to be considered as partners

in the learning process and expect to be involved, but overcrowded classes andoutdated teaching methods preclude it. The problem of large classes is a by-product

of marketisation as every student is a paying customer either by the state or by

him/herself. From a university perspective, this calls for an optimisation to teach as

many students as physically possible. It is only natural that in larger classes the

backgrounds and levels of students vary to a great extent and this makes it even

more challenging to engage them. However, these circumstances cause discontent-

ment among students. Unmet expectations pave the way to entering the labour

market in parallel with studies to partly make up for the shortcoming perceived inthe study experience. It can be concluded that a more intensive study process, as well

as modern teaching methods employed at the university would increase attendance

and therefore, benefit students with resources available only through participation.

University requirements too flexible

In relation to the flexible conditions of university requirements, employed students

stress the following causes for their discontentment: lack of challenges, apathetic

effort and considerable time-budget aside from study-related activities:

By boring I mean that it’s not challenging. You don’t have to make too much of an effortto complete the course. Thus, it doesn’t really motivate you to invest time in it.(university student)

The interviewed students explained that a considerable amount of classes can be

passed without participation in the lectures which leads to a low attendance among

extremely time-conscious, full-time employed students. Even though it seems to

provide an easy road to a university diploma, the students express their disapproval

and discontentment:

There are plenty of classes which do not require attendance, yet you can still get gradeA, which I think is completely absurd. (university student)

From the lecturers’ perspective the picture is different: employed students

struggle to meet the university requirements on time. Therefore, students expect

and often are in need for exceptions which, in part, are achieved at the expense of

other students. The lecturers further specify that employed students rely predomi-

nantly on individual work, missing benefits from lecturers’ comments and reflection

provided in lectures. Frequent emails, extra consultations, last minute timing andrepetitive explanations is a challenge the lecturers have to face while educating

employed students:

They don’t participate [in the lectures]. And then they come at the end of term, obliviousto what and where. (lecturer)

Their grades are mostly ‘E’s and they clearly have problems with school work. ‘E’ oftenmeans a stretched ‘F.’ (lecturer)

European Journal of Higher Education 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

It seems that the amount of those [employed students] who are more interested in passingthe class rather than learning and obtaining good outcome has increased. (lecturer)

Students tend to prioritise employment for several reasons. First, universities are

more responsive to their needs than employers; lecturers are more flexible and allow

negotiation. Second, a legally binding contract with an employer and formally fixed

tasks prevail over school assignments. Hence, meeting university requirements

appears to be more of an ethical question than an accepted responsibility.

The work must be done and then I just have to be physically absent from school.(university student)

I have tried to complete my job tasks and then do school stuff, because at work I don’treally have a choice. (university student)

The interviews clearly suggest that a formal agreement (employment contract) takes

precedence before a non-formal one (a study place at a university). Therefore, the

employers also consider it natural that work must be duly completed because this is

agreed upon in a formal employment contract. While the employers are concerned

about the completed work they do not pay attention to the academic success of

students. Almost all interviewed employers admit that they are not interested in

academic transcripts showing the content and results of university studies when

hiring an employee:

To be honest, I’m not interested in grades. We have never inquired about these no matterwhat position we are talking about. (employer)

Instead, prior work experience is a sought after and an important quality of new

hires. Employers’ indifference towards candidates’ grades in the recruitment process

further cultivates student behaviour to invest a minimal effort into studies up to the

extent of a preference for courses with low demands. Consequently, students do not

feel any outside pressure to make an effort and demonstrate excellent academic

results. Even though students themselves have high expectations towards the

education offered in universities, they tend to lack real motivation to aim for the

best possible results.

This raises the question of lecturers? expectations and demands of full-time

employed students. The interviews outlined that lecturers could be divided into three

distinct groups based on their attitude toward employed students and their respective

needs during their studies:

1) Lecturers, who do not make any exceptions for employed students;

2) Lecturers, who make certain exceptions in certain special circumstances;

3) Lecturers who try to be as accommodating as possible.

The lecturers point out that students employed full-time often require additional

attention (i.e. take exams at another time) and deadline extensions (submit papers

at a later time). It can be noted that employed students rely predominantly on

individual work, while trying to avoid group assignments. Thus, our analysis shows

that the particular needs of individual customers, i.e. employed students, are partially

12 E. Magi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

met by lecturers. At the same time, it is also clear that the ‘student as consumer’

approach has considerable costs. It often means that it requires additional resources

(time and energy) from the lecturers. The students who have not been present need

additional consultations and more frequent emailing. It holds also for those lecturerswho refuse exceptions as they have to explain their rules and justify choices

repetitively. These additional activities, at least in part, are achieved at the expense of

other students and staff development. Therefore, meeting the expectation and

making exceptions for employed students’ may jeopardise the quality of education,

but in the spirit of marketisation, lecturers are rather given the signal by the

university management that it is important to please the customer and not to take

the risk of losing him or her.

An interesting phenomenon emerges. On the one hand, students are dissatisfiedwith the quality of university education which does not challenge them. At the same

time, full-time employment commitments affect studies which results in students’

need for exceptions and additional flexibility in the study process compared to their

counterparts. As stated previously, the lecturers often act in a consumer-friendly way

by trying to meet the students’ needs. This points to the marketisation of higher

education and patterns that further deepen the marketisation in universities. The

patterns can be viewed as a viscious circle depicted in Figure 1.

In fact, marketisation of higher education has generated interrelated behaviourpatterns from the students’ and lecturers’ side that further cements the marketisation

and ‘student as a consumer’ perspective. It is worth noting that employers indirectly

and perhaps even unintentionally contribute to the circle. Individually, all parties

seem to act rationally, but the synergetic effect of their behaviour causes

discontentment for all involved in the long-term.

Discussion: is marketisation deepening the only way?

Our study of full-time employed students leads us to conclude that marketisation of

higher education, a widespread trend due to emerging demands and constraints

2. Simultaneous full-time employment,missing classes, job as first priority

4. Lower course demands, extra work, frustration, unattractive teaching methods

Students’ perspective:

Professors’ perspective:

Employers’ perspective ‘oiling’ the circle:rhetoric of unpractical education, relevance of work-experience in hiring,

full-time job-offers, students as flexible and innovative employees.

1. Unmet expectations affected by marketisation; discontentment

3. Low study motivation by students, big and heterogeneous classes

Figure 1. Students’, professors’ and employers’ perspectives facilitating marketisation of

higher education.

European Journal of Higher Education 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

especially in Eastern European countries, will eventually eat its children � students,

lecturers and finally the society at large. Education that purely relies on demand and

supply ideology lacks proper self-correctional mechanism to reach the equilibrium �the more universities treat students as customers the less satisfied these students and

their future employers will be in the long-term. The dynamics of the number of HEIs

in Estonia (see Figure 2) allows concluding that the booming of education has indeed

attracted many entrants, but during the last 10 years many of HEIs have left the

market, leaving the masses of students to those who have remained. Quality

problems discussed above have stayed if not sharpened.

Therefore, it has been realised that marketisation of education needs policy

intervention and it should not be left to market forces alone. Below, the implications

of working students on higher education are outlined and some policy issues are

teased out.

To attract students, universities have largely played their cards on graduates’

employability rather than their personal growth and development through a journey

of discovery. This tendency has created expectations that universities should offer

knowledge and skills that are directly applicable in the labour market, and as

revealed by our study, universities are indeed blamed for their small share of practical

training as opposed to academic tuition. However, one should be careful in

responding to these claims unreservedly: as discussed above, students are not always

able to make informed choices. In Estonia, there is some evidence (Oras, Siilak, and

Unt 2010; Eamets et al. 2011) that academic education predicts lower unemployment

rate especially in times of crisis. While employers say that the graduates lack

particular skills, they also admit that academic education is valuable for other

reasons: academic tuition enables their employees to better adapt to different

situations, be open to new ideas, learn more easily, analyse and synthesise, etc. Thus,

the strengths of academic education are appreciated by the labour market in reality,

but the rhetoric displayed in public claims the opposite � universities should

downsize and enable professional HEIs to develop or even worse, they should take

the role of the latter. As all organisations fight for their existence, distinctions

Figure 2. Dynamics of the number of students and HEIs in Estonia between 1991�2011.

Source: Authors’ figure based on data from the Estonian Education Information System.

14 E. Magi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

between academic and professional education have become blurred and as was

shown it has cut the hand of academic HEIs. Yet, re-profiling universities as

providers of narrow skills currently needed at the labour market would do a

disservice to the society in the long-term � speed of technological development and

internationalisation has made it impossible to predict the exact structure of the

labour market in the future. Furthermore, as revealed by a recent survey (Vadi et al.

2011) among Estonian organisations, long-term planning is a rare practice and very

few are engaged in estimating the future needs for labour forces. In this context

relying on employers’ opinions about the skills needed after five years would make

little or no sense.

But this is not to say that there is no need to bring students’ expectations and

reality closer to each other � building up the university curricula and general

education play a critical role here. Universities should stop competing with

professional HEIs and stress the academic features of their curricula instead,

perhaps also close programmes that fit better to a school offering professional higher

education. Secondly, high-school level career counselling systems have to inform

potential students about the differences between academic and professional HEIs

and should contribute to forming adequate expectations among high-school

graduates. Thirdly, training on the job as part of university tuition should be

developed towards a meaningful and highly integrated study experience. Even

though universities require practical training, the responsibility for organising it

largely lies with students themselves, which often results in formal practical training

or training that does not correspond to student’s major field. More effort by

university staff and programme developers is needed to integrate theoretical studies

to practical work-experience: university should remain an academic institution;

nevertheless developing general skills deserves attention.

Marketisation of education has been accompanied with certain phenomena that

make students (and lecturers, too) unhappy: standardisation, mass higher education,

and an inactive role of students. These outcomes are somewhat interrelated.

Standardisation refers to certain qualities of the courses that the university

guarantees to ‘the customer’ prior to purchase. The moment of enrolment in a

course assumes that a student is informed in detail about the learning outcomes and

ways of achieving these, i.e. the contractual relationship pointed out by Maringe

(2011) is largely present. In itself, these phenomena are not necessarily a bad thing,

but this paves the way to overregulation, rigid content and one-size-fits-all approach

to teaching. Because of standardisation and financial considerations, universities

tend to prefer large classes and unified teaching instead of individual approach. The

passive role imposed on students is a by-product of large classes on the one hand,

and the change in assessment criteria on quality of education from the students’

point of view, on the other. A large bulk of lecturers stick to traditional methods of

lecturing equally because of not understanding the need for changes, as well as being

unprepared to use alternative teaching methods. Until today, expertise in the field

and scholarly achievements are preferred to pedagogical training in academic

universities. Thus, the reasons for students’ dissatisfaction appear to be a lack of

active learning and non-charismatic professors; they choose to spend their time at

work, but this in turn increases their discontentment with the education (Spooren

and Mortelmans 2006).

European Journal of Higher Education 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

Certainly, there are no quick-fix measures available to change the situation as

many dimensions (financing of universities, the dual role of research vs teaching,

entertaining vs effective teaching, etc.) are intertwined. Yet, a close contact between

lecturers and the student should not be sacrificed to standardisation in general. With100 students in a class it is impossible for a professor to even learn the names of the

students, not to mention becoming familiar with every student’s background,

interests, and current or past work-experience. However, possessing and applying

this information in the study process is exactly what quality-study means for all

parties. Personal contact and elements of Socratic teaching are greatly missed in the

current system.

Universities’ autonomy to maximise the efficiency of their financial and human

capital resources should be balanced with stringent quality measures; financing thatis based on quantity, such as a number of graduates for instance, has to incorporate

indicators related to quality, i.e. the study process. Students as customers in the

university implicitly induce lower demands, creating exceptions and an inflation of

grades. Again, trying to please the customer in this respect may be self-defeating as

the students in our study would actually have liked stricter demands and making

more effort in order to achieve good results. In fact, students accused universities for

not fulfilling their time and channelling the energy with study-related activities. The

reason why universities have let it happen stems directly from marketisation: publicfinancing has shrunk and many students pay for their studies as was explained

earlier. This has two implications: first, universities do not wish to ‘lose a customer’

by demanding too much from him/her, and secondly, the groups become rather

heterogeneous. A professor might face a group with dissimilar motivations and

abilities to learn the subject. The latter means that requirements are adjusted

according to the average student, leaving talented and ambitious students’ abilities

and needs unattended. In addition, university offers next to no incentive to

demonstrate excellent results � scholarships are negligible. The role of employerscannot be underestimated in creating study motivation either: they are to send the

signal that it does matter what and how the student has learned in the university, i.e.

the diploma is not all that counts. Instrumental credentialism (Fevre et al. 1999)

which treats a certificate of higher education as a key to open certain doors paying

no heed to the process itself is closely related to marketisation of education.

Unfortunately, it has serious shortcomings in shaping the better future for a society.

Conclusion

Marketisation in higher education has certainly taken place and the trend is

accompanied by new phenomena, including students who spend most of their time at

work. Currently, simultaneous full-time employment and full-time study induce

passivity on the part of students and encourage a consumer-like stance. It has also

been noticed by universities themselves that the free market has decreased rather

than improved the quality of education, but universities are unable to change the

system individually due to the rules of the game in the education system. Therefore,to alleviate negative effects of marketisation, general policy measures cannot be

escaped. As demonstrated in the article, the student as consumer approach involves

several problematic aspects, and policies should restore a market in which student’s

heightened interest and engagement leads to greater effort. This can also lead to a

16 E. Magi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

reinforcement of teaching and a more satisfactory relationship between students and

lecturers.

Note

1. Higher education level studies are financed on the basis of results from the state budgetthrough state commissioned education (i.e. graduates are being commissioned)(Eurypedia).

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Professor Timothy Murphy for his valuable comments. Thestudy was supported by the European Union Social Fund under the Primus programme andthe Estonian Ministry of Education and Research target funding SF0180037s08.

Notes on contributors

Eve Magi is an Education Policy Analyst at Praxis Center for Policy Studies. She is also a PhDstudent at the University of Tartu. Her research interests include international education,student employment, educational equity, student engagement and education policy.

Krista Jaakson is a research fellow at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administrationof University of Tartu. Her research fields are related to individual and organisational values,corporate social responsibility, industrial relations and management.

Anne Aidla is a research fellow at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration ofUniversity of Tartu. Her main research areas are organisational performance, organisationalculture, individual characteristics in the work context and school management.

Laura Kirss is an Education Policy Analyst and Head of the Education Policy Program atPraxis Center for Policy Studies. She has an MA degree in Public Administration and SocialPolicy (University of Tartu, Estonia) with a focus on education equity and policy. Her researchinterests include educational equity and equitable access, educational integration and privatetutoring.

Anne Reino is a research fellow and lecturer at the Faculty of Economics and BusinessAdministration of University of Tartu. Her research fields are related to organisational cultureand business ethics.

References

Bailey, J.J. 2000. Students as clients in a professional/client relationship. Journal of Manage-ment Education 24, no. 3: 353�65.

Callender, C. 2008. The impact of term-time employment on higher education students’academic attainment and achievement. Journal of Education Policy 23, no. 4: 359�77.

Chan, D., and K. Mok. 2001. Educational reforms and coping strategies under the tidal waveof marketisation: A comparative study of Hong Kong and the mainland. ComparativeEducation 37, no. 1: 21�41.

Clayson, D.E., and D.A. Hayley. 2005. Marketing models in education: Students as customers,products, or partners. Marketing Education Review 15, no. 1: 1�10.

Curtis, S., and N. Shani. 2002. The effect of taking paid employment during term-time onstudent’s academic studies. Journal of Further and Higher Education 26, no. 2: 129�38.

Driscoll, C., and D. Wicks. 1998. The customer-driven approach in business education: Apossible danger? Journal of Education for Business 74, no. 1: 58�61.

European Journal of Higher Education 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

Eamets, R., K. Krillo, and A. Themas. 2011. Eesti korgkoolide 2009.a. vilistlaste uuring.Lopparuanne. [Survey of graduates from Estonian higher education institutions 2009].Tartu: SA Archimedes. Available at: http://primus.archimedes.ee/sites/default/files/uuringud/Vil_uuring09_screen.pdf.

Estonian Education Information System. Data on the Estonian higher education system.The Ministry of Education and Research. Available at: http://www.hm.ee/index.php?048055#k6rgharidus.

Eurypedia: European Encyclopedia on National Education Systems. Estonia. Available at:https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Estonia:Funding_in_Education.

Fevre, R., G. Rees, and S. Gorard. 1999. Some sociological alternatives to human capitaltheory. Journal of Education and Work 12: 117�40.

Furedi, F. 2011. Introduction to the marketisation of higher education and the student asconsumer. In The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer, ed. M.Molesworth, R. Scullion, and E. Nixon, 1�7. New York: Routledge.

Halbesleben, J., and A. Wheeler. 2008. Student identification with business education models:Measurement and relationship to educational outcomes. Journal of Management Education33, no. 2: 166�95.

Harrison-Walker, L.J. 2010. Customer prioritization in higher education: Targeting ‘right’students for long-term profitability. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 20, no. 2:191�208.

Hood, A.B., A. Craig, and B. Ferguson. 1992. The impact of athletics, part-time employment,and other academic activities on academic achievement. Journal of College StudentDevelopment 33: 447�53.

Kay, J., E. Dunne, and J. Hutchinson. 2010. Rethinking the values of higher education � studentsas change agents? Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA).

Kumar, P.S.M. 2003. Total quality management (TQM) in higher education and relevance ofaccreditation. Available at: http://www.icwai.org/icwai/knowledgebank/ma38.pdf.

Lee, D.M. 1996. Re-visioning the student as client, or better yet, the client as student.Educational Horizons 75, no. 1: 36�40.

Little, B. 2002. UK institutional responses to undergraduates’ term-time working. HigherEducation 44, nos. 3�4: 349�60.

Little, B., W. Locke, A. Scesa, and R. Williams. 2009. Report to HEFCE on student engagement.London: Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI).

Maringe, F. 2011. The student as consumer: Affordances and constraints in a transforminghigher education environment. In The marketisation of higher education and the student asconsumer, ed. M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, and E. Nixon, 142�54. New York: Routledge.

McCulloch, A. 2009. The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration aboutthe student-university relationship. Studies in Higher Education 34: 171�83.

McMillan, J.J., and G. Cheney. 1996. The student as consumer: The implications andlimitations of a metaphor. Communication Education 45, no. 1: 1�15.

Neary, M., and J. Winn. 2009. The student as producer: Reinventing the student experiencein higher education. In The future of higher education: Policy, pedagogy and the studentexperience, ed. L. Bell, H. Stevenson, and M. Neary, 126�38. London: ContinuumInternational Publishing Group Ltd.

Oras, K., K. Siilak, and M. Unt. 2010. Korgkoolilopetaja tooturul: majanduse ja tehnikaer-ialade vilistlaste hinnangud oma tooturuvoimalustele [Higher education graduate in thelabour market: The assessments of graduates in economics and technical studies to theirlabour market prospects]. Tallinn: Tallinn University, Institute of International SocialResearch No.1.

Orr, D., C. Gwosc, and N. Netz. 2011. Social and economic conditions of student life in Europe:Synopsis of indicators, Final report, Eurostudent IV. Hannover: Hochschul InformationsSystem, Socrates and Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung.

Palfreyman, D., and D. Warner. 1998. Higher education and the law: A guide for managers.Buckingham: Open University Press.

Paul, H. 1982. The impact of outside employment on student achievement in macroeconomicprinciples. Journal of Economic Education 13, no. 2: 51�6.

18 E. Magi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012

Peters, C.O., D.A. Bradbard, and M.C. Martin. (2005). Consumer decision support systems:Resources for student decision making. Journal of Educators Online 2, no. 2. Available at:http://www.thejeo.com/Cara%20Peters%20Final.pdf.

Schwartzman, R. 1995. Are students customers? The metaphoric mismatch between manage-ment and education. Education 116, no. 2: 215�22.

Spooren, P., and D. Mortelmans. 2006. Teacher professionalism and student evaluation ofteaching: Will better teachers receive higher ratings and will better students give higherratings? Educational Studies 32, no. 2: 201�14.

Statistics Estonia. Statistical Database. Higher education data. Available at: http://pub.stat.ee/pxweb.2001/I_Databas/Social_life/02Education/08Higher_education/08Higher_education.asp.

Stinebrickner, R., and T. Stinebrickner. 2003. Working during school and academic performance.Journal of Labor Economics 21, no. 2: 449�72.

Taylor, P., and D. Wilding. 2009. Rethinking the values of higher education � The student ascollaborator and producer? Undergraduate research as a case study. University of Warwick:The Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research.

Vadi, M., M. Tepp, A. Reino, and T. Kaarelson. 2011. Eesti juhtimisvaldkonna uuring.Uuringu aruanne. [Survey of Estonian management practices]. Tartu: University of Tartu.Available at: http://issuu.com/rup25/docs/easi-juhtimisuuring-2010_eas-i_final.

White, N.R. 2007. The customer is always right?: Student discourse about higher education inAustralia. Higher Education 54, no. 4: 593�604.

European Journal of Higher Education 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tar

tu U

ellik

ooli]

at 0

3:35

30

Aug

ust 2

012