The link between student consumers and CIEE is the most obvious relationship. It is obvious because the study abroad period is organised by CIEE, because many activities during the semester are carried out as a CIEE group, and because the survey is administered by CIEE in terms of customer feedback. The consumer position is characterised by the desire for information and choice. If the student is well informed s/he is in a position to make a good choice. For example, Leonardo omits the first question37 He responds to the second question about strengths and weaknesses of the CIEE orientation validating the information given; ―we were made aware of the resources that were available to us‖ and acknowledges, by use of the word ―resources‖, that the options were there. Because he had both choice and information,
his survey was very positive, activities were ―incredible‖, the program was ―wonderful‖, and ―[a]ll-in-all [it is] really hard to go wrong in Stellenbosch.‖
If the information or options are lacking, the student cannot make a choice and the experience is a negative one. For example, Bette responds to the first question negatively; ―I would have appreciated knowing it‘s such a small group and that there are not any program activities that take you out of Stellenbosch/Cape Town.‖ Later, she also wishes that ―[she] would have
104 known that in Lusitania you do not meet South Africans‖ and wishes that ―someone would have explained what a cultural opportunity [taking classes with locals] would be‖. She also
thought that there would be more opportunities for volunteering and to meet South African students. This misinformed student is far more negative about her experience, listing various things she thought the group was going to do but didn‘t this was ―a very big disappointment‖. She also rues the fact that ―meeting South Africans was very hard for [her] to do‖. This sense
of disappointment, coupled with a high level of consumer position-taking, is echoed by East (2001:7) who noted that ―the student who was the least satisfied was keen that students should have customer rights.‖
Although the two examples given above can be seen as opposing views, it is important not to fall into seeing binaries in the data. Rather these examples are offered as two poles of a continuum which charts extreme happiness (cf. Denzel‘s individual positioning analysis) with
choice, information and experience at the positive pole, and extreme unhappiness (cf. Lauren‘s individual positioning analysis) with the same factors at the negative.
Julie is an example of a student who lies in a more middling position, positively appraising the CIEE orientation which ―covered important and useful information‖, but complaining that she did not know that ―Afrikaans is still such a strong component of the host university‘s language, resulting in it being difficult to take mainstream courses.‖ Yet she still evaluates her ―experience with this program [as] very positive and extremely beneficial in [her] life‖.38
Many students are happy with both the amount of information they are given and the choices they have been able to make. Happy consumers give positive feedback in direct reply to questions on the survey. They praise CIEE‘s work in many aspects: the selection of
community engagement options; the cultural program; the residences; and the CIEE staff. However, some students are unhappy with the information they were given, believing that
105 they could not make good choices. Some unhappy customers do not report on misinformation, but only on a lack of choice. Other unhappy customers report negatively on quality – of courses, cancellations, food, and residences.
What so many students are doing is taking on the position of consumer who has paid CIEE to do a job (i.e. provide them with a cultural experience). The survey itself is an example of this relationship. CIEE offers the position ―consumer‖ to the student, and then many students take
this position up. In this sense, it is not only ―institutional demands on the identity‖, as outlined by Lemke (2008:31-34) but rather institutional possibilities for the identity. The happy consumers accord praise to CIEE for having done a good job, while the unhappy consumers blame CIEE for not having done a good enough job. In doing this, many students remove self- responsibility from the educational process. It is worth bearing in mind the quote from Naidoo (2003:253) that was used in Chapter 2:
―Such research reports that the consumer mentality in students has resulted in a loss of responsibility for their learning, an instrumental attitude to their work, an unwillingness to be judged and little tolerance for the expansion of study beyond the routine and the predictable.‖
While this ―instrumental attitude‖ does appear in many students‘ reports, it must be noted that
not all students feel this way. Some students articulate the idea that they must be more responsible for their own learning. For example, Audrey states that
―While I definitely think some details about Stellenbosh were left our in the orientation process, such as that the dorm food is disgusting, I think that was appropriate in order to allow me to figure things out for myself once I arrived.‖
He realises that some things meant to be learnt in a cultural experience, must be experienced by the student, rather than told to the student by the provider. In a similar, yet different, vein Leonardo articulates that it was good to be made aware of the resources on hand, ―however, we were encouraged to reach outside our comfort and see our community‖. He acknowledges
106 that support and information was in place, but that some things needed to be sought by the student. These students are the ―active educational partners‖ rather than the ―passive recipients‖ Franz (1998:68) was referring to. This remark is reflected by Marlon when he
states that
―students must willingly be curious about all that they see and experience. You can promote and encourage, but it‘s a decision and attitude that the student must ultimately, perhaps sadly, adopt of his or her own volition.‖