Debate (Part 3): Be it resolved; Treating students like customers improves educational quality (Closing Statement)

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

(For the last post we wanted to reiterate that no friendships were harmed in the exchange of these arguments - So here is a picture that is NOT generated by AI)

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

Arguing the Affirmative - Don Lovisa

Arguing The Negative - Neil Gonsalves

Closing Arguments by Don Lovisa

Neil, as always, your case is thoughtful—anchored in economic awareness, social concern, and has a clear commitment to academic integrity. But I believe your critique misidentifies the problem. The issue isn’t the student-as-customer model itself—it’s how that model is interpreted and applied.

Let’s start with a familiar example: students have always cared about grades. Long before the customer debate emerged, students in the 1980s lobbied professors for higher marks. That behaviour hasn’t changed. What has changed is institutional accountability. Colleges are now measured by KPIs, audited by government, judged by employers, and increasingly held to account by students—who, like any informed consumer, expect value.

You argue that efficiency has eroded rigour. But streamlined services, digital tools, and faster credit transfers aren’t evidence of academic decay. They’re the features of modern institutions trying to serve a more diverse and demanding student body.

Let’s return to Drucker. You’re right - his philosophy emphasized social purpose. But isn’t the greatest social purpose of colleges to lift people up? Especially those from underserved communities, who rely on education for access, mobility, and self-worth? The customer model, when applied responsibly, sharpens that mission. It forces institutions to ask: Are we delivering on the promise we’ve made?

Consider the new “Stop, Start, Continue” feedback model at Durham College. It isn’t a tool for bargaining grades—it’s a mechanism for reflective learning and program improvement. Students aren’t simply “satisfied” or “unsatisfied” - they’re collaborators in defining what works, what doesn’t, and what should endure. That’s not pandering. That’s co-creating quality.

Now, on credential inflation and underemployment - points well taken. But these problems stem from broader systemic forces: funding misalignment, policy inaction, and global economic shifts. The international student over-reliance, for instance, isn’t a symptom of the customer model—it’s a response to chronic underfunding. We haven’t treated students like customers; we’ve treated colleges like businesses—without giving them the public investment they need to fulfill their public mission.

You close with a call for durable, transferable skills. I wholeheartedly agree. And ironically, it’s the customer model that reinforces this imperative. Why? Because customers ask questions. They want clarity on outcomes. They expect a return on investment. And that pressure—applied constructively—drives institutions to design programs focused on long-term competence, not short-term appeasement.

Of course, a customer model also implies responsibility. When a customer buys a product, most will come with a warranty or guarantee. However, if the customer does not use the product as designed or misuses it, the warranty or guarantee is void. The same should be said for students as customers: they must participate in their educational experience—show up, do the work, and ask questions—to be responsible consumers. Education is not a passive good. It is a co-created outcome.

You also caution against instant gratification. But I propose we rethink the saying “the customer is always right.” What if, instead, we comprised: “The customer is always engaged”? That reframing aligns with our highest aspirations - an education system that listens, responds, and improves.

Treating students as customers doesn’t dilute quality. It demands we define it, measure it, and deliver it—with integrity. And that, I believe, is what the future of education demands.

Closing Arguments by Neil Gonsalves

It is clearly apparent to me that regardless of our disagreements on strategy both Don and I are committed to the same ideas; that education is important, that the student experience should be central, and reform is necessary. The fact that we individually approach this conversation from different perspectives is not inherently problematic because the solutions to these complex problems require divergent thinking and the inclusion of multiple perspectives in order for change to be sustainable over the long term. In the end, the answers do not require an either/or absolute approach but rather a both/and collaboration.

I concede that market driven approaches based on a customer-centric model could lead to greater innovation, and allow competitive pressure to improve quality. It can democratize access, and lead to better-designed outcome-driven offerings as is often the case when we break up monopolies and leverage market pressure for better pricing and products. Educational institutions can apply these principles to the delivery of educational services if they can balance profit maximization and student satisfaction without losing the best parts of their traditional purpose.

Higher education must not compromise its academic mission and rigour as that has a long term detrimental impact on the well being of students and the workforce of the future. To be accountability and responsiveness, institutions must recognize the imbalance in relational power, They must actively function with transparency, especially about elements of educational outcomes that students can realistically expect in a rapidly changing social and technological economy - much of which cannot be guaranteed.

I appreciate that Don conceded that there are real concerns about the commodification of education even if he did not accept the manner in which I characterized it. He did however agree that treating students as customers should not mean they dictate academic standards or "buy" credentials. In order to mitigate this slippery slope, higher education has to do better at considering faculty and support staff as integral stakeholders in the process while actively encouraging a culture that appreciates heterodox views.

When ideological diversity is discouraged, it has a chilling effect on dissent and that has a corrosive effect on educational culture. A top down, administrator knows best approach alienates staff, limits innovative thinking and stifles a willingness to try new and novel strategies. This necessitates compromise on all sides, administrators have fiduciary financial responsibilities, faculty and staff have responsibilities to maintain currency and adapt to changing social contexts while maintaining academic integrity, and students have the responsibility to actively engage, accept justifiable guidance, and demand functional quality from their education. Keeping these three groups in balance while maintaining the equilibrium will be the determining factor in whether the customer-centric model can be properly applied to the education sector.

The student-as-customer model is not the total answer to improving college programs and outcomes but it should be one method among many to enhance relevance, responsiveness, and quality - that is only possible when guided fairly, grounded in teaching, and balanced by academic standards. Credentials are not widgets, they have social utility and significant value beyond their instrumental function, educational institutions can use their relational power to professionally push back when the customer does not know best and in instances when the customer is not always right.

I maintain that treating students as customers does not improve quality - at least not as we practice it today, but I am willing to include the caveat that it could if we meaningfully address some of the negative customer-centric practices that have influenced contemporary academic culture.

I thank my opponent Don Lovisa for engaging in this spirited debate, while we challenged each other’s ideas we never attacked each other. As a Moral Courage mentor I feel it is worth reiterating the counter-intuitive truth that sharing divergent ideas can bring people together rather than tear them apart. When we treat people as unique individuals who are shaped by multiple contexts we recognize that everyone has a part of the truth to share; it allows us to turn contentious debates into constructive dialogue.

END DEBATE

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 ©️