Purpose: This paper explores some management concepts and how applying these concepts from business to higher education can be problematic, let alone incompatible, particularly in relation to measuring quality in higher education.Design/methodology/approach: It provides a conceptual understanding of the literature on quality in the higher education context. It does so by examining the literature on students as customers, customer expectations, customer satisfaction and other management theories that have been applied to higher education.Findings: It argues that the current bases for perceiving quality such as meeting customer expectations, satisfying the customer, ensuring quality control, meeting standards and assessing the cost associated with poor quality are in disagreement with the principal aims and measures of quality in higher education.Research limitations/implications: This paper can certainly benefit from many other concepts in business that have been applied in higher education, which it lacks. It only focussed on a number of key and popular ideas in management theory that have been used in higher education more broadly.Practical implications: Student-focussed quality initiatives can be devoid of the student as customer concept. How programs, subjects and experiences are curated can be solely for the purpose of continuous improvement. Second, universities that choose to treat the student as a customer may find it beneficial to apply a relationship marketing approach to higher education. Lastly, those against the student as customer concept may focus on the long-term impact of quality initiatives such as promoting lifelong learning, building long-term relationships with alumni and employers and those that further promote academic integrity.Originality/value: Some considerations have been offered. These considerations revisit the basic notions of teaching and learning in higher education. It puts an emphasis on sidestepping the student as customer metaphor, that learning is not expressed in dollar terms, and that the quality of the student experience cannot be measured by student evaluation alone because it is felt much later in life.

The launch of new tools in late 2022 heralded significant growth in attention to the impacts of generative AI (GenAI) in education. Claims of the potential impact on education are contested, but there are clear risks of inappropriate use particularly where GenAI aligns poorly with learning aims. In response, in mid-2023, the Australian Federal Government held an inquiry, calling for public submissions. This inquiry offers a lens onto the policy framing of GenAI in education and provides the object of investigation for this paper. We use the inquiry submissions, extracting structured claims from each. This extraction is provided as an open data set for further research, while this paper focuses on our analysis of the policy recommendations made. Implications for practice or policy For practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. the paper provides an overview and synthesis of submission recommendations and their themes, by source type. For respondents to the inquiry (sources), the paper supports reflection regarding synergies and gaps in recommendations, pointing to opportunity for collaboration and policy development. For stakeholders with responsibility for aspects of policy delivery and/or those applying a critical lens to the inquiry and recommendation framing(s), the paper offers actionable insight.