|
Ok, I think we're making progress here! I think that your appeal to student expectations helps clarify the issues. With it, we have at least two plausible criteria for what constitutes bribe-taking (or, I'd say more broadly, corruption): - The professor receives some direct purely personal benefit from a publisher, like cash or a trip to Florida; or - The professor receives some benefit that allows them to shirk their responsibilities to students, as defined by the common reasonable expectations of the academic process. Maybe that second one should also have a proviso that the result of this shirking is that the students get less-good instruction, or maybe (being more strict with the professor) that the instruction the students receive doesn't improve, or doesn't improve sufficiently to justify the extra cost passed onto the student. I think this does some work to track the difference between corrupt and non-corrupt textbook-assigning practices. But it also, unsurprisingly, leaves plenty of grey area. For example, I'm not sure if publisher-provided homework and grading falls into this category, since textbooks in many fields have included assignments and have teachers' manuals with the answers since basically forever. (I know that I had homework assignments out of the book in math-y classes as far back as the 80's and 90's, for example.) So I'd think that this would be part of the ordinary expectation of students. On the other hand, it does seem fair to suggest that if the professor offloads all, or substantially all, of the course to some textbook publisher, then they're violating the expectation of the students that their own professional judgment will be used to guide their education. (And yeah, I try my best to provide free materials to my students. I can't do it in every single course, because it takes an immense amount of time to create them, and, often, it's hard to figure out what materials work best for a course until you've taught it a couple of times. But I do it as much as possible.) |
I think what bothers me is that the professor is forcing the student to buy a tool with their own money, when buying that tool is neither expected nor optional. And not cheap.
If access the tool were purchased standalone, rather than being bundled with a book, they might not get away with it. Because the students would (rightly) say that they're already paying tuition, so any systems that are mandatory for them to use should be provided by the university.