next »

[dr_strangelove]

So if "student == consumer" is not the right model, what is? How do we hold our institutions accountable for the quality of the education they provide?

[jonesey]

So if "student == consumer" is not the right model, what is? How do we hold our institutions accountable for the quality of the education they provide?

It depends on your definition of "accountability", not to mention "education." 

I don't believe that the purpose of a college education is to provide job training/skills, so the employment rate/income level of graduates at a particular college is irrelevant to me. 

[dr_strangelove]

So if "student == consumer" is not the right model, what is? How do we hold our institutions accountable for the quality of the education they provide?

It depends on your definition of "accountability", not to mention "education." 

I don't believe that the purpose of a college education is to provide job training/skills, so the employment rate/income level of graduates at a particular college is irrelevant to me. 

I agree completely, which is why I asked my question. If we can't provide an alternate answer, how do we argue against the consumerist job-training model?

[svenc]

So if "student == consumer" is not the right model, what is? How do we hold our institutions accountable for the quality of the education they provide?

First, I would like some evidence that the current problems facing higher education constitute a crisis of accountability.  I'm willing to listen to the data on this, but I don't think accountability is the issue at even a majority of institutions.

More to the point, if we assume that we need more accountability, the question is to whom?  The problem with the student = consumer model is that it sets up customer satisfaction as the benchmark.  Even at the best institutions, it's likely that at the time of delivery, most of these "customers" want A's and degrees more than they want rigor or skills.

Pandering to student's short-term desires is a recipe for mediocrity, not success.  And even for those who focus on the job-training aspects of higher education: The first people to suffer after the faculty would be the employers.  

The author of this report has found a road to nowhere and is suggesting we build more lanes.

[jonesey]

I agree completely, which is why I asked my question. If we can't provide an alternate answer, how do we argue against the consumerist job-training model?

We can, but it's not one that fits easily into a spreadsheet or educational consultant's metrics.  Of course, neither does the consumer model (one of the sticking points is exactly how the CFP would measure "accountability") but it's easier to explain.

[mad_doctor]

The quality of education should be measured against the benefit to society.  In this regard, I believe employability and professional knowledge and skills are relevant, but they're not everything.  Businesses and industry are a part of society, and they should benefit from the quality of education, but society is larger than just business and industry, so benefits to other areas of society are also relevant.  

Democracy requires an educated citizenry, so it is not in the best interests of our democratic society for higher ed to continue down the path it's currently on - as long as it is important to remain a free and democratic society, of course.  The cynic in me believes that keeping the citizenry from getting too educated just may be the point of all the tinkering, regulation, and experimenting with our educational system.  Perhaps those who support policies that dumb down our educational system want citizens to be uneducated, vapid, and misinformed?

[mad_doctor]

...
More to the point, if we assume that we need more accountability, the question is to whom?  The problem with the student = consumer model is that it sets up customer satisfaction as the benchmark.  Even at the best institutions, it's likely that at the time of delivery, most of these "customers" want A's and degrees more than they want rigor or skills.

Pandering to student's short-term desires is a recipe for mediocrity, not success.  And even for those who focus on the job-training aspects of higher education: The first people to suffer after the faculty would be the employers.  

The author of this report has found a road to nowhere and is suggesting we build more lanes.

If we allow the students to benchmark "quality", we're going to get a definition of quality eerliy similar to what's already happening on university campuses - quality is, as one author put it, 4 or 5 years of blissful irresponsibility.  College students really aren't mature enough to determine on their own how their education should benefit society (at least modern students aren't mature enough to do that).  That is why society (businesses, communities, families, etc.) should set the benchmarks of "quality" education.

[jonesey]

The quality of education should be measured against the benefit to society.  In this regard, I believe employability and professional knowledge and skills are relevant, but they're not everything.  Businesses and industry are a part of society, and they should benefit from the quality of education, but society is larger than just business and industry, so benefits to other areas of society are also relevant.  

How to you measure those other benefits to society?  I'm not being snarky, it's a serious issue, especially in our current era of accountability.

[dr_strangelove]

The author of this report has found a road to nowhere and is suggesting we build more lanes.

I guess I think that since most state legislatures in the US (and the administrations of many private universities) are driving straight down that road it would be nice if faculty could (and would) articulate a different vision.

[mad_doctor]

The quality of education should be measured against the benefit to society.  In this regard, I believe employability and professional knowledge and skills are relevant, but they're not everything.  Businesses and industry are a part of society, and they should benefit from the quality of education, but society is larger than just business and industry, so benefits to other areas of society are also relevant.  

How to you measure those other benefits to society?  I'm not being snarky, it's a serious issue, especially in our current era of accountability.

If society wants graduates who are educated and prepared to make their own contributions to society, then we measure the quality of a university with standardized exams & measures, professional exams, performance evaluations, placement rates & quality, and so on.  If society wants graduates who are happy with themselves and blissfully ignorant, then our current system works fine - use student evaluations to measure educational quality.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I guess I think that since most state legislatures in the US (and the administrations of many private universities) are driving straight down that road it would be nice if faculty could (and would) articulate a different vision.

Land grant universities have been trying to do just that for several decades (through the NASULGC), unfortunately as with all hard-fought social programs the generations that grew up with them do not understand how important such universities have been for social mobility and how difficult they were to come by. Consequently, the public university philosophy has been falling to a relentless attack from people who should know better, and who are either intentionally or inadvertently feeding an educational caste system.  If you look at the legislatures in many states you'll find that the overwhelming majority of legislators were educated in one of that state's public 4-year universities, yet this same cohort is complicit in the dismantling of the greatest system of higher education the world has even known. - DvF

[aandsdean]

The quality of education should be measured against the benefit to society.  In this regard, I believe employability and professional knowledge and skills are relevant, but they're not everything.  Businesses and industry are a part of society, and they should benefit from the quality of education, but society is larger than just business and industry, so benefits to other areas of society are also relevant.  

Democracy requires an educated citizenry, so it is not in the best interests of our democratic society for higher ed to continue down the path it's currently on - as long as it is important to remain a free and democratic society, of course.  The cynic in me believes that keeping the citizenry from getting too educated just may be the point of all the tinkering, regulation, and experimenting with our educational system.  Perhaps those who support policies that dumb down our educational system want citizens to be uneducated, vapid, and misinformed?

The bell rings, and NCLB enters the ring.

[concordancia]

How do these people think that students are currently making their decisions about going to college? The only thing on their list not readily available is "the anticipated return on their investment." Academic quality: the mainstay of lists that have been made up in various ways. Price: Tuition rates are readily available. Convenience: measured by how close it is to home? Googlemaps. measured by how easy the classes are? party school reputation. measured by the ability to take the number of credit hours you choose? measured by the night school offerings? beginning education level - that is why SAT and ACT scores are published...

[jonesey]

How do these people think that students are currently making their decisions about going to college? The only thing on their list not readily available is "the anticipated return on their investment."

Ding!  We have a winner.

This is exactly what people want to know.  If a student pays X amount for a BA in Business he/she wants to know how much he/she will make per year upon graduation.  If that number is low, they'll opt for a different college.

The problem is that (among other things) what sort of job a student gets after college is dependent on a number of factors, including personal (and family) connections, job skills, past history, and, in some cases, the college/uni attended. 

If someone goes to an Ivy but drinks for four years he/she's not going to get a great job, even with the Ivy pedigree.

[der_gadfly]

Somehow, one part of the discussion on "student=consumer" seems to have been ignored:  the meaning of the term 'service'. I can walk into a store, and walk away without what I 'wanted', but that does not mean that I did not experience good service. Likewise, although unhappy at the time with many things about my own college education (at a small state college), I look back and say that I did get good value from it. This makes me satisfied with what I received in exchange for my (hard-earned) dollars, spent on tuition. I did not always get what I wanted, but did get what I needed.

I concede that the traditional view of academia as existing for the sole purposes of creating the next generation of academics, providing a patron-artist system by which academics can pursue intellectual curiosity, and maintaining the status quo does have some merit. Had this really been the case, then we never needed state colleges, community colleges would not exist, and never mind the whole existence of UoP-and-ilk. We would not need costly federal aid programs, student loans would be a pipe-dream, and our burgeoning manufacturing industry would never want for an available and inexpensive labor pool. We would not have these public discussions of what is or is not right, and most of us would be quite happy with our simple lives as slaves to the machine.

Since the systems we have employ far too many people to simply abolish, we should be looking at allowing for variation in what is offered, what is desired by society, and what is sustainable. "Above all, let us do no harm" (apologies to Hippocrates). I much prefer to look at it as a consumer-driven mentality that has taken hold in society ad its institutions in general. Thus, higher education is under scrutiny. It ill behooves us to allow the evil consumer society to divide and conquer us.

So, let's come up with a solution that we can all live with.