The Goods

One of the concluding portions, discusses some of the concepts at stake in transparency:

The nature of student- institution relationships is often muddied in the materials published and distributed. Many contain statements that appear to acknowledge the student-centered approach, but often do not do so in reality. Institutions are far from being decentralized and deconstructed, but maintain a tenuous relationship with its students, current and future, by saying so (Connell 1998: 461). Wood (1939: 413) writes about how universities don’t make certain information, such as graduation and retention rates, readily available, painting an incomplete portrait. These numbers are available, but they often must be searched for, a practice that captures some of the more immediate consequences of marketization and commodification. A serious problem of trust is at issue because such a commodity-centered practice has strong ethical implications, especially because of the vulnerable state the students are placed in. On one level, the issue is determining when information is friendly and not just instrumental (Fairclough 1993: 142). On a deeper level, the question comes up about the effects of the academic institution’s authority, as well as the effects on the relationships between the collective identity of the institution and its participants (Fairclough 1993: 143).

Rodintzky (1968: 337) wrote that it was in the interest of the university to honestly reflect faults of the wider community, and concede that the imperfections of the political structure are also expressed in schools. Recent policy and population-specific studies strive for reformation through the printing of high-quality information need for more knowledge of curriculum. Students are conceived as consumers in publication materials, a relationship which is automatic and seemingly apparent. They are placed in a position of dependence where they often are not enabled to gain critical thinking until the university says so says so (Connell 1998: 469). Incoming students criticize glossy information for not being helpful, mostly being superficial, and containing little information on actual programs and how to prepare for them (Venezia 2005: 32). These critiques capture some of the material consequences that makes the case for students’ acquisition of empowerment through information.

Discourse analysis has become a resource for those engaged within institutional struggles, a way to overcome a sense of helplessness (Fairclough 1993: 158). What's at stake in using this analysis is establishing an individual control over the social goods being offered, as well as having the ability to articulate them as social goods. The dimensions of education as a “good” includes access to real information for the prospective and a clear understanding of a current students' relationship with their university. This paper advocates the practice of everyday discourse analysis, because it use cultivates a critical awareness of one's environment. Below are some of the reasons it might be necessary to foster a consciousness which Fairclough (1993: 142) deems as a necessary prerequisite for democratic citizenship.