In the discussion, Sandel (2009) defines libertarian and utilitarian positions to find out if the free market is fair. He concludes that it is not always so. If we consider similar aspects, that is, the freedom and the common good, it is obvious that utilizing the market mechanism for student assignment grades is pointless. It is not fair since the grades are supposed to be allocated to the cleverest, not the richest.
It does not support the equal opportunities principle since students’ social conditions vary. As a result, while it can be good for the university and the richest students, it is not good for those who are less rich, that is, for the majority. The poorer would be discouraged from studying; therefore, several clever students would be left without proper education, which in the end would turn into a significant disadvantage for the labor market and, in general, for the country.
Apart from that, Sandel (2009) asks if there are goods that can’t be bought, and one might say that grades, even though they are occasionally paid for, are not fit to be sold. However, this point depends on your perspective. The highest grades do go to the highest “bidders” of this particular market, but the currency used by it includes knowledge, skills, and ideas. Still, even from this perspective, while possibly being just, the free market principle would be very discriminatory for the same reason: discouraging the less able from participation in the market.
The students’ opportunities are also in many ways determined by their social background which means that the justness of the principle would be challenged again. From the utilitarian point of view, this is a flawed mechanism for the same reason: too many students who are not very bright but still quite capable would find it too difficult to pursue proper education and would be more likely to give up which would lead to problems in the labor market. As a result, an authority determines the regular “price” for every mark that the general population can “pay”, and the particularly high or low bidders have their market. For the former, it could be the contests where they do have the chance of being judged in free-market terms.
References
Sandel, M. (2009). Justice. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.