Eagles and Ostriches

So in wrapping up this particular thread, here's where we are: students are not customers, they are students, and colleges should worry more about teaching them than marketing to them. Students are adults responsible for their own learning, and should have some say, especially regarding macro issues, in that education. Professors are responsible for providing students opportunities to learn, and should have some say, especially regarding micro issues, in that education. The question then becomes, where is the line for students and professors in having "some say," i.e., responsibility and determination, in college education?

It's my impression that both students and professors draw that line a bit too far towards college/professor influence. Students pretty much expect to be told what to do, and faculty and staff pretty much expect to do the telling. That's OK for a lot of things, but it would be nice for students to take more initiative and have more responsibility for their education. From more thoroughly considering the options for choosing and matriculating into colleges, to designing and planning programs, to participating in and completing courses, students might be more proactive, or at least have the opportunity to be so. Whether it's cause or effect, professors/colleges, in my opinion, tend to be too extreme in providing structure and requirements for students under the guise that we know what's best for them. Again, this is a matter of degree; I just think that too many of us go a little too far in determining what's good for others.

The latest example at our school is the impending implementation of a requirement for students to meet with their advisors before being allowed to register for classes. Putting aside the very real concerns about feasibililty, I am distressed about students being demeaned this way, i.e, forced to do what others believe is good for them. Of course meeting with an advisor is a good idea, but it should be the student's idea.

There is something in academia called "academic freedom" for professors. It would be nice if there was more of this for students as well.

Big Brother

To this point I've addressed whether students should design the content of their education, and the nebulous conclusion to this point is more so for "macro issues" (which college, program, instructor, etc.) and less so for "micro issues" (structure of program, content of courses, style of pedagogy, etc.). The reason for this stems from the recognition that adult consumers have certain freedoms and rights of choice, but as these consumers are more apprentices than customers (students!), it is the obligation of educational mentors to design and deliver specific features of that education. When considering the obligations of educational mentors as to whether they should design the content of student educations, the converse of the student situation is present, i.e., less so for macro issues, more so for micro issues. The reason is that while some would claim that the professor-as-expert argument is fundamentally flawed (the Ivory Tower thing- again, for another time), most would give faculty some credit for their training and experience, especially in their areas of expertise, which makes them more expert in "micro" matters and potentially less so in "macro" matters. Yet again, where is the line here?

For example, at our college, like most, students must meet certain prerequisites to enroll in some classes. There is scarely a day that goes by that in my role as an administrator I do not encounter a student who wishes to waive a prerequisite to take a course. Thankfully, we rarely have to travel down the "we know best" road because few students will care or understand the rebuttal that perhaps they can "do the work," but should they take the seat of someone who has met the prerequites? (generally met with an indifferent attitude translating to "What's your point?" - as if equity should matter when it's not their equity) and the ever popular, "Yes, you may be able to do the work, but odds are you could do it better if you were better prepared." (Generally met with a simple bovine stare.) All this reduces to the simple idea that "I want what I want, and I'm the customer (who is always right, and in a sense your boss since I contribute to your salary), so your job is to satisfy my wants." Now I run into that attitude enough at home (except for the contribute to my salary part), but am courteous enough to point out that the prerequisite represents the collective wisdom of a highly qualified faculty.

Ironically, I personally believe that there should be no prerequisites for anything, and that faculty should provide advice regarding which courses should be taken in preparation, allow students with seniority first opportunity to register for the courses, and if seats are available to those who are less qualified, let them make an informed decision to take the course or not. It will probably not be an optimum experience for those that do, and they may well fail, but as students/apprentices they are also responsible for their educations. We are here to help them reach their goals. We are not here to insure their success, but to insure their opportunity.

When the apple is ripe it will fall. [Irish Proverb]

So even if students are not "customers" in the colloquial sense, they are consumers, and shouldn't adults who pay a great deal of money for their education have a major role in deciding what that education is like? In a macro sense, sure, people who want to learn certain skills may choose to go to vocational schools, people who just want to get their tickets punched can go to degree mill schools or get distance learning degrees, people who seek prestige and its perceived rewards may go to elite schools, people who seek value may go to state schools, and so on. But in a micro sense, what role should students have in determining programs, curriculum, requirements, content, etc.? More fundamentally, do students have the ability and right to do so?

One common argument regarding ability is that students are adults, and as responsible and knowledgeable individuals are capable of determining (and perhaps have a responsibility to do) what is best for themselves. There may be some quibbling as to whether students are really adults, as their cognitive processes, maturity, and more are still in the early stages of adulthood, and college is sort of a "half-way house" between childhood and adulthood (or that alleged "real world"). I'd say that college students are formative adults. But this may be a specious argument, as who really is an "adult" anyway? Don't we all want to know what we want to be when we grow up. Aren't some of us -let's call them men- just children in bigger bodies? But I digress...

The not-quite-adult argument is a tenuous one at best. So if we assume that college students are adults, the real question is whether they are capable of educational self-determination in that micro sense. To cut to the chase here, do students know what they should know? They often know what they want (i.e., "best practices" to use on their job, easy classes and good grades, to be entertained, to get a degree that creates the opportunity for a rewarding career, to learn about things they find interesting, to find their calling, etc.) It's a nice idea that students should have the major say in deciding what should constitute a degree, major, course, lecture, assignment, etc. But it is probably extreme to maintain that students as adult customers should determine what their needs are and how they should be satisfied. It may also be extreme to maintain that students are not adults and are not customers so these sorts of academic decisions should be made for them. Somewhere in the middle lies the notion that as fledgeling adults in a society that values freedom of choice and the consequences of those choices, where those young adults have tacitly agreed to act as aprentices in entrusting their mentors, that these students bear certain rights and responsibilities in their education, as do their mentors. But where is that line to be drawn?

The customer is always right

I remember way back when I was in college, sometime during the Pleistocene, that there was a minor movement about to have students design not only their majors, but the curriculum as well. That experiment did not last long, but it illustrates a basic question: how much input, and in what form, should college students have in their education? There are a lot of facets to this question, but let me start with the examination of a popular premise, that is, that students are our customers, and if we (college faculty and administrators in particular) are to stay in business, we should meet the needs of those customers. Generally the discussion then develops into whether colleges address those customer needs adequately, and how colleges may do so. That would imply at least three doors: 1) we could assume that we know what students want/need and hope that we build a better mousetrap, 2) we might recognize that even if we build it they may not come, so we need to find ways to attract students to our institutions, or 3) acknowledge that we need new paradigms to find out what students want and give it to them. After outlining these elementary options gleaned from Marketing 101 you're probably thinking that we're about to see what the lovely Carol Merrill has behind door number three.

But wait: are students really our customers? This is an interesting notion, and one that, as a marketing instructor, I frankly reject. Yes, there are elements of market, exchange, satisfactions, and the rest of it, and yes, students pay their money and shop for courses, instructors, majors, and the like. But students, or those who study, are there to learn, and to learn from those who supposedly know, or profess to (professors). So while there are elements of students as customers, if you need a more appropriate metaphor, maybe students as apprentices will do. The selection and admittance processes, demonstration of expertise to progress and finally graduate, and the qualifications required and authority entrusted to college personnel to guide students to attaining knowledge are just some of the points that bolster the apprentice model.

However, it seems so much simpler to just refer to students as students, or those who come to learn from educational mentors. We aspire to be your guides in learning, and while there are elements of the marketing concept present, we do not really try to find out what you want and to give it to you as though you are "customers." Should we? Perhaps. Why don't we? The customer is not always right.