Behavior and Social Issues

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 65–70 | Cite as

Higher Education: Social Institution or Business?

  • P. A. LamalEmail author
Special Section: Education


American higher education has been undergoing significant changes in recent years. These changes affect students, faculty, and administrators and involve interlocking contingencies and meta-contingencies that constitute a great part of higher education but also involve issues of social justice. Changing practices (e.g., distance learning, posttenure review) are sources of controversy and instability in contemporary American academe (Lamal, Rakos, & Greenspoon, 2000; Willis, 2001). A fundamental transformation underlying, and responsible for, many of the changing practices is the movement toward the “corporatization” of higher education. On this view, the model for higher education should be the business world, specifically the corporate world. The rationale is that by adopting the structure and practices of the corporate world, higher education will be better able to meet its current challenges. These challenges include: (a) the need to serve a wide range of students, (b) mounting costs, (c) questions regarding the occupational status and role of faculty, and (d) institutional governance.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411–431.Google Scholar
  2. Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Burbules, N. C., & Callister, T. A. Jr. (2000). Universities in transition: The promise and the challenge of new technologies. Teachers College Record, 102, 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnevale, D. (2000, December 15). Accrediting panel grants candidate status to Western Governors U. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A51.Google Scholar
  5. Carr, S. (2000, December 15). A day in the life of a new type of professor. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A47–A48.Google Scholar
  6. Hebel, S. (2001). Experts call for a renewed emphasis on student aid that is need-based. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47, A28.Google Scholar
  7. Kirschenheiter, M. (2001, April 6). A Columbia U. professor praises the interactivity of teaching online. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A44.Google Scholar
  8. Lamal, P. A., Rakos, R. F., & Greenspoon, J. (2000). Collegiate contingencies. The Behavior Analyst, 23, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Palattella, J. (2001, March). May the course be with you. Lingua Franca, 11, 50–57.Google Scholar
  10. Qualified low-income students locked out of higher education, says report. (2001). Black Issues in Higher Education, 18, 28.Google Scholar
  11. Ruch, R. S. (2001). Higher ed, Inc.: The rise of the for-profit university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Smith, C. W. (2000). Market values in American higher education: The pitfalls and promises. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. Taylor, S.S. (2001). Under fire, Chicago colleges step back from outsourcing classes. Community College Week, 13, 2–3.Google Scholar
  14. Willis, E. (2001, May 28). Why professors turn to organized labor. The New York Times, p.A15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Behaviorists for Social Responsibility 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North CarolinaCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations