Peel Away Ads…

Richard says ‘Labels are important but the relations underlying them are more important still.’ Perhaps labels are _only_ important in so far as they affect how people are treated? If labels define relationships then all parties are affected, eg if students play a customer role then university staff play a vendor role.

University staff can if they wish ‘label’ students in many ways and we have rehearsed some of these. No label has ultimate validity (the map is not the territory) but any label may or may not be helpful and we can see our differing views on the relative utility of some of them.

If students _themselves_ *decide* to act as customers in certain situations (eg their approach to choosing courses and universities) then universities have to deal with that _somehow_ – if only by defining clearly where/when the customer relationship ends and inducting/educating people into the ‘different’ student role, which includes responsibility for learning (the gym analogy), effort (Sue’s investor analogy), selectivity (not everyone can benefit from playing), community membership etc.

I would be inclined to go a bit further and ‘think of them as customers’ to ensure that the services, structures and practices _surrounding and supporting_ learning and the student relationship do meet students’ needs in the best possible way (at least better than the alternatives of other universities or non-HE lifestyles, for those who can benefit from HE.)

However I don’t think a sort of ‘marketing fundamentalism’ that says the whole architecture of customer relations and associated terminology is necessary and sufficient is not appropriate in a university situation.