Student expectations in a

deregulated market

Richard James

Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic and

Director of the Melbourne Centre for the

Study of Higher Education

November 2014

1. Two-way interaction — higher education shapes

expectations and, in turn, the character of higher education

is shaped by student expectations.

2. Students’ expectations pertain to their own roles and

commitment as well as to the role of the university

3. Students’ expectations (of themselves and of HE providers)

can be unrealistically high and disturbingly low.

4. Expectations are matched with realities across both short-

and long-term horizons.

5. Clearly higher education is a not a product to be ‘consumed’

- in fact, higher education is co-produced.

First, some broad theorising …

1. Many students do not commence higher education with

complex or sophisticated expectations.

2. There is limited ‘information-seeking’ — ATAR scores have

served as proxy for both quality and personal relevance

3. Competitive admissions can act against the development of

sophisticated expectations while at the same time raising

expectations.

4. Evidence in the past for the potential for significant early

mismatches between ‘imagined experience and relevance’

and the reality.

5. Ultimately, HE is a market that is deeply asymmetrical – the

providers will always know more than the ‘buyers’ about the

nature of the ‘product’.

What do we know about the present situation?

From the perspective of many academics:

• A declining willingness/capacity of students to engage to the

full in university life

• A growing consumer orientation around ‘value for money’ (for

at least a decade)

• Students are increasingly instrumental and comfortable with

minimum levels of achievement.

HOWEVER,

Intriguing inconsistencies between staff views of ‘the students

these days’ and students’ opinions of themselves.

Students’ expectations may already have been changing …

In the ‘here and now’ …

Challenging, stimulating, transformative academic and social

experiences (often highly intangible)

Services, amenities, transactional relationships (usually very

tangible)

A certain amount of positional status associated the institution and/or

course

In an imagined future …

The prospect of graduation and certification

The prospect of (new) employment (inc. for example, professional

accreditation)

A certain amount of ongoing positional status associated the

institution and/or course

So what are students ‘buying’ with their ATAR and $?

In the ‘here and now’ …

Challenging, stimulating, transformative academic and social

experiences (often highly intangible)

Services, amenities, transactional relationships (usually very

tangible)

A certain amount of positional status associated the institution and/or

course

In an imagined future …

The prospect of graduation and certification

The prospect of (new) employment (inc. for example, professional

accreditation)

A certain amount of ongoing positional status associated the

institution and/or course

So what are students ‘buying’ with their ATAR and $?

Probably considerable

preparedness to trade off

shorter- and longer-term

‘objectives’

In the ‘here and now’ …

Challenging, stimulating, transformative academic and social

experiences “MOTIVATION FACTORS” – Linked to satisfaction

Services, amenities, transactional relationships “HYGIENE

FACTORS” – Potentially linked to dissatisfaction, but do not in

themselves lead to high levels of engagement or satisfaction.

A certain amount of positional status associated the institution and/or

course

In an imagined future …

The prospect of certification

The prospect of employability (inc. for example, professional

accreditation)

A certain amount of positional status associated the institution and/or

course

So what are students ‘buying’ with their ATAR and $?

In a deregulated environment, where might we see changing or

emerging student expectations (or new obligations for ourselves)?

1. Expectations of new levels of transparency around admissions.

2. Expectations of the service/amenities/teaching commitments or implicit

‘contract’ that’s associated with the price.

3. Potentially some pressure to ‘opt out’ of certain amenities/extracurricular

opportunities.

4. Expectations of a greater range of choices within programs.

5. Expectations of greater mobility between courses and institutions.

6. Less tolerance of administrative problems and shortcomings.

7. Less tolerance of poor teaching (say, inexperienced, unqualified casual

teaching)

8. More pricing comparisons between modes of delivery (say face-to-face

vs online – assuming pricing at unit/subject level)

9. Increasing expectation of right to ‘buy’ units from other providers.

10.More intensive expectations around RPL and credit recognition.

11.Expectations of fast-track options to limit income foregone.

12.Deeper aversion to, and adverse reactions to, failure and the need to

repeat units/subjects (again assuming pricing at unit level).

Some guessing:

If deregulation were to take place we would witness a spike in new

student expectations before a re-settling to some new level.

Finally, a major imperative:

Rigorous, robust, transparent and defensible assessment and

grading must be key to maintaining academic standards and

ensuring community perceptions that standards are not slipping.

Much work needs to be done to tighten:

the definition and expression and expected learning outcomes

the methods of assessment of these

the grading of student achievement against criteria.

As assessment is the ultimate expression of the co-produced nature of

higher education we need to ensure it is watertight and visibly so.