Debate (Part 2): Be it resolved; Treating students like customers improves educational quality (Rebuttals)

By Gonsalves & Lovisa | We engaged in a friendly debate presented in three parts as follows; Opening; Rebuttal; and Closing. Your vote picks the winner, fill out the poll at the end of each post.

Written by Neil Gonsalves & Don Lovisa for Seeking Veritas | Sankarsingh-Gonsalves Productions

(Angry image generated by AI using Chat GPT - We are named it Alfred Hitchcock Presents a debate on Education. Note: No friendships were harmed in the exchange of these arguments)

Resolution: Be it resolved; Treating students like customers improves educational quality

Arguing the Affirmative - Don Lovisa

Arguing The Negative - Neil Gonsalves

Rebuttal by Don Lovisa

David Hume warned that "the corruption of the best gives rise to the worst." My colleague, Neil Gonsalves, views the customer-centric model as a form of educational corruption. I disagree - not because I deny the challenges, but because I believe that recognizing students as customers improves educational quality when implemented thoughtfully.

Let's be clear: we are not discussing handing out diplomas like a diploma mill. We are talking about accountability, responsiveness, relevance, and respect—all of which can elevate the educational experience when students are treated as customers.

Redefining "Quality" in a Modern Context

The first point of opposition is the elusive definition of "quality" in education—a long-standing debate. Educational quality today cannot be defined solely by tradition or academic integrity. It must include relevance to the labour market, mastery of skills, student satisfaction, and post-graduation success. A high-quality education equips students with both disciplinary depth and transferable, vital skills such as communication, critical thinking, and adaptability—the same attributes customers now expect.

Surveys, like those cited in Colleen Flaherty's, "Students Are Customers" (2025), show that students already perceive themselves as customers. Students' perception of themselves as customers emerges from their lived experience: They pay tuition, evaluate services, choose between colleges, and expect value.

We cannot claim to improve quality while dismissing the evolving expectations of our students. If quality includes satisfaction, learning, and employability, then customer/student awareness is not a threat; it's a catalyst for reform.

The Customer Role Drives Institutional Accountability

Treating students as customers doesn't cheapen education—it demands better service, more transparent communication, and institutional accountability. Students now expect clear answers on tuition value, program outcomes, and job prospects.

That pressure forces colleges to modernize programs to reflect real-world careers, not just credentials, guided by industry-led advisory committees. Colleges have enhanced services, including academic advising, mental health support, and digital infrastructure. They have improved communication through increased honesty, aligning marketing with actual outcomes because misleading a customer, unlike a passive learner, carries reputational risk.

Institutions that respond to student feedback are better equipped to deliver high-quality education. At Durham College, the new Stop, Start, Continue model can be embedded in course evaluations and strategic planning. Students can share what the college should stop doing, start doing, and continue doing. This framework will drive continuous improvement by placing actionable insights directly into the hands of faculty and administration.

It creates a culture of reflection, responsiveness, and adaptability. It reinforces that the student experience matters. When students take on the role of customers, feedback becomes a tool for improvement rather than merely a complaint mechanism. Consider the institutional improvements driven by KPIs, student satisfaction surveys, and demands for more work-integrated learning. These aren't signs of decline - they're signals of evolution. As students assert their customer role, colleges must respond with responsiveness and accountability.

Career Relevance is Enhanced—Not Eroded—by Customer Focus

Neil argues that commodification leads to "unrelated employment." But this view oversimplifies a complex and evolving labour market. For too long, we've evaluated graduate success by matching job titles with program names rather than recognizing the broader, transferable skills students acquire through their education. A graduate with a marketing diploma who now works in digital fundraising hasn't failed to use their education—they're applying relevant, adaptable skills in a different context.

In fact, the customer model has encouraged colleges to think beyond static credentialing. It has driven the expansion of career services, increased employer engagement, and promoted work-integrated learning opportunities, such as co-op and placements. It has also prompted colleges to develop more pathways and credentials that cater to shifting labour market needs and emerging sectors.

These developments do not result in quality erosion - they are features of a college adapting to serve both learners and the modern economy. Students, as customers, demand their "money's worth," and I believe this improves quality. Education is a purchase. Students invest thousands in tuition and years of their lives. Like any informed consumer, they demand a return on that investment.

They ask:

• Is this program aligned with current jobs?

• Are my instructors engaging and effective?

• Are my learning materials up to date?

While uncomfortable for traditionalists, this demand improves quality because institutions are compelled to answer. And unlike customers buying a toaster, students cannot "swap out" their education mid-semester. They demand quality from the beginning because they must live with the outcome.

That's not entitlement; it's responsibility and pushes colleges to raise their standards.

Aligning to Student Success: Why Good Students Struggle

A customer-centred approach also helps address a quiet but critical truth: many good students do poorly in college. According to "The LearnWell Projects", students who thrived under structured high school systems often struggle in post-secondary settings, not due to a lack of effort but because institutions fail to equip them with strategies for self-directed learning, time management, and adapting to new expectations. They don't know how to learn in this new environment—yet are told that success is up to them.

Treating students like customers challenges institutions to recognize this mismatch and build solutions into the design of programs and services. It means delivering not just content but support for the transition to self-directed learning. It demands instructors who clearly communicate expectations, a curriculum that fosters critical thinking, and services that identify when students are at risk and intervene in a timely manner.

In short, students fail not because they aren't good enough—but because colleges aren't always good for them. A customer model flips the script: it puts the onus on the colleges to deliver a product that works.

Historical Context Demands Change

Ontario colleges were founded in 1967 to meet the workforce demands of the time. However, as noted in "The Historical Evolution of the Canadian Education System" (2024), society and technology have undergone radical changes.

The concept of education as a static social good must give way to education as a dynamic partnership between learners and providers. Our mandate as colleges has expanded from serving local needs to equipping graduates with global competence.

Students are no longer passive consumers. They are agents of their own success. And if we want them to achieve mastery—not just memorize content—we must meet them where they are.

That means:

• Listening to their needs.

• Respecting their investment.

• Designing learning experiences that align with personal, professional, and civic outcomes.

The original mission of Ontario colleges emphasized vocational training. Under customer logic, the modern interpretation has driven the expansion of industry-aligned curricula and skills-based pathways in response to labour market data. This is progress!

Rigour and Satisfaction Are Not Opposites

Let's reject the false assumption that academic rigour and student satisfaction are mutually exclusive. The best programs challenge students while also providing them with support. A customer-centric lens doesn't require us to "give away grades"; it requires us to:

• Be transparent about grading and outcomes.

• Provide timely and accurate feedback.

• Make expectations clear.

• Offer quality instruction and accessible support.

Students engage more deeply when they know the rules, see their progress, and understand the purpose. Satisfaction stems from feeling heard, supported, and prepared. The accusation that a customer-focused approach requires grade inflation is disproven by high-performing colleges that apply strict academic standards while maintaining high student satisfaction. One enhances the other.

The fear of commodification is understandable but misdirected. The real risk is irrelevance—offering programs that don't align with what learners or the economy demand. Education must also be a viable, responsive, and valued outcome to remain a social good. Even sociological scholars acknowledge that the commodification of education, if guided ethically (The Commodification of Education: Trends and Implications, 2023), can democratize access, introduce competitive pressure to improve, and lead to better-designed and outcome-driven programs.

We must ensure equity, inclusion, and integrity, but these can coexist with customer service principles. In fact, student-as-customer logic amplifies the call for inclusive learning environments, just as any service must serve its entire customer base.

It also helps identify weak links, such as poorly designed courses, outdated teaching methods, and administrative inefficiencies that harm learning outcomes. Students speak up when they are dissatisfied; that voice serves as a continuous improvement mechanism. This is represented by the comprehensive program reviews conducted by the colleges.

Addressing the Real Equity Gap: Transparency and Empowerment

Neil raises a valid concern about relational equity—the inherent power imbalance between students and institutions. However, framing students as customers can actually help close that gap. When students are seen as active participants rather than passive recipients, institutions are compelled to offer greater transparency. This includes clearly articulating learning outcomes, openly sharing graduate employment data, and ensuring that promotional materials align with the actual student experience.

By empowering students with information and a platform for feedback, the customer model gives them the tools to ask the hard questions and demand accountability. Rather than reinforcing inequality, it levels the playing field. It invites institutions to serve all students more equitably by making promises explicit and performance measurable. In this way, recognizing students as customers doesn't weaken education—it strengthens the foundation of trust and responsibility upon which student success is built.

Adaptability and Innovation Thrive in a Customer-Centric Model

A customer lens fosters innovation when instructors adopt new technologies, diversify assessments, and personalize learning, as students expect modern and relevant learning experiences.

Colleges must respond to real-time feedback, innovate in teaching and delivery, and further develop hybrid and online options that cater to students' needs. Student expectations—the "customer voice"—continue to drive this evolution, and quality improves because competition demands it.

Even the shift to work-integrated learning is an outcome of the customer's idea. Employers and students want an education that connects theory to practice and a customer model that meets their needs.

Conclusion

Treating students like customers does not reduce education to a transaction. It reframes it as a relationship—where both parties have responsibilities. The college must provide quality instruction, relevant programs, and clear pathways. The student must engage, stick it out, and learn. When this happens, educational quality improves.

This notion may have risks. However, rejecting a customer model out of fear is not leadership. Transforming it into a model of respect, transparency, and accountability is.

The student-as-customer model is not the total answer to improving college programs and outcomes. However, it is a powerful method to enhance relevance, responsiveness, and quality when guided fairly, grounded in teaching, and balanced by academic standards.

If the purpose of education is to prepare individuals for a life of purpose, productivity, and participation, then it is time to respect the student's voice. And that voice is loud and clear: "Treat me with respect. Deliver on your promises. Prepare me for the world I'm entering."

That is not the voice of entitlement. That is the voice of the modern learner.

The college that listens to the voice of its customers will be the one that delivers the highest quality of education.

Rebuttal by Neil Gonsalves

The good gentleman from Fort Frances cited Peter Drucker in his opening statements and that is an excellent place to begin my rebuttal. Writing around 75 years ago, Drucker stated unequivocally that the only “valid definition of business purpose is to create a customer. The customer is a foundation of a business and keeps it in existence. The customer alone gives employment.” - College’s have clearly heard that message and incorporated it into their practice. As previously mentioned, nearly 60% of students view their education as a product they purchase, emphasizing their demand for value, personalization, and responsiveness. But how we define value, personalization, and responsiveness is central to assessing whether customers demand quality of education or efficiency of process. The college system’s focus on attrition, retention and graduation rates suggest that they value process efficiency over quality - a fact plainly visible in the myriad of surveys and reports that highlight the fact that despite being one of the most credentialed nations in the world, employers routinely describe graduates as ill prepared for the workforce. Some of that disconnect is directly attributable to a declines in quality and rigour within the learning environment. These facts seem to be contrary to the offered proposition that programs have become more career-aligned and relevant to market opportunities.

A Forbes article shared a report that indicated 44% of educators surveyed say that students today often ask for better grades than they’ve earned. Four out of five educators say they’ve given into these demands because parents and students have become increasingly assertive, and “many school leaders and educators have decided that it’s easier to appease them than to fight them”. They attribute this to education leaders and advocates becoming uncomfortable with traditional notions of rigour or grading. They do however seem comfortable with the customer styled interaction of bargaining, demanding, and if required complaining if learning and assessments get in the way of their grades or credential completion.

To be clear, Drucker also pointed out that if “we want to know what a business is, we have to start with its purpose. And the purpose must lie outside the business itself. In fact, it must lie in society, since a business enterprise is an organ of society”. If we were to truly heed Drucker’s advice then the purpose of an education would take priority; graduates would leave with market ready skills that employers value. They should be able to leverage those skills and convert them into gainful employment that leads to social mobility. However the current generation face higher rates of underemployment, significant challenges in wealth accumulation, and increased student debt. Economic downturns have undoubtedly played a role, but the eradication of traditional entry-level jobs have made it harder for young people to launch their careers. Many entry level jobs now demand higher levels of education, a criterion fuelled in large part by rampant credential inflation resulting from educational institutions prioritizing equality of outcome and credential acquisition over durable skills development and demonstrable mastery. The increased demand for credentials contributes to financial hardships through student debt resulting in financial stagnation, and delays in achieving major life milestones like family and home ownership. These facts seem to be contrary to the offered proposition that the customer-centric model pushes institutions to prioritize student success — academically, personally, and professionally.

In the Peter Drucker Management Theory, he argued that customers should be highly valued, and servicing their interests will make a business profitable. The college system’s drive towards profit maximization led to significant mismanagement of international student enrolment that has contributed significantly to the current financial crisis within the Ontario college system. A crisis that has resulted in multiple colleges closing campuses, suspending programs, and laying off employees. I’d argue it's hard to make a case for quality when so much of the system is apparently expendable now that the bill for mismanagement has come due. The bastion of stability now appears to be a precarious employer producing the precarious labour force of the future. The self-inflicted financial crisis seems to fly in the face of the offered proposition that treating students as customers creates a culture of accountability and responsiveness.

In my opening statement I forthrightly admitted that I am an advocate for free-market economics and capitalism, I do not believe that a customer-centric model is inherently negative. I believe that competition can drive innovation and being customer-centric could lead to better service delivery. I appreciated that my opponent acknowledged that some educators worry that the customer-centric approach commodifies learning and undermines academic integrity. He argued that treating students as customers should not mean they dictate academic standards or "buy" credentials, but the lived experiences of educators across this province says otherwise.

I will concede that the customer-centric model can possibly bring positive change but that would be contingent on the system being willing to reduce the imbalance in relational equity between institutions and students, they would have to be more transparent about the vocational utility of their offerings, more honest in their assessment of mastery, and they would need to prioritize the long term sustainability of their institutional reputation over short term profit maximization. The customer experience could be aligned with quality if institutions would focus on their social purpose not merely their instrumental function. And finally institutions could actually create customers and keep them, while offering quality, if they are clear on the limits of creating commodities with short life cycles.

In an age where college’s often claim they are preparing students for jobs that do not yet exist, they should recognize that the pace of social and technological advancement renders learning content obsolete faster than at any previous time in history. Perhaps the first step towards enhancing quality is educating customers on what durable and transferable skills will actually benefit their life in the long term. In the end, grades or the number of credentials they accrue will be far less important than the quality of their thoughts. A student’s capacity to transfer knowledge to new and novel domains will be a far greater determinant of their future prosperity than any instant gratification they receive in the present by being the customer who is always right.

About the Authors:

Neil Gonsalves is the author of the book, ‘I’m Not Your Token: Unapologetic Clarity in Divided Times’’, a TEDx speaker, and post-secondary educator for the past twenty years. He is a 2025 Durham Community Champion Medallion Award recipient, recognized by the Member of Parliament for Durham from the Canadian House of Commons for unwavering commitment and dedication to improving the community.

Don Lovisa is President Emeritus, Durham College, retired after a distinguished 16 year tenure as President. With over 36 years experience in the Ontario post-secondary sector, his focus has always been on transformative leadership that nurtured strong community relations built on an open, supportive, and welcoming organizational culture that made space for divergent views.

Sankarsingh-Gonsalves Productions.2025 ©️