>Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 10:24 CST
>From: BIRRED@dnr.state.wi.us (David E. Birren, MB/5,
>In response to Mariann Jelinek's comment, "Students ARE 'customers'",
>Bernard Girard writes:
>
>>I am sure this sentence looks obvious to a lot of people.... But is it true?
>>Can we say that students buy knowledge the way one buys a car or a record? Can
>>we even say that knowledge can be sold? As everyone knows knowledge is free,
>>it's not a property, you cannot protect it.
>
>I suggest that what students are buying is the *opportunity* to learn,
>rather than knowledge itself. Academia is nothing other than a complex
>system of learning opportunities, replete with many ways of both limiting
>access to it and providing entry. Tuition is essentially an entry fee
>that brings with it no guarantee of results, just as paying a doctor to
>diagnose and treat an illness does not guarantee a cure.
<<< some deletions here >>>
I like the notion of academia as "a complex system of learning
opportunities." What I don't understand then is why we emphasize teaching
(and pedagogy) so much? Why do we continue to think of the students as
passive recipients of knowledge, when learning is active function?
I believe that we will make a lot of progress when we put aside the
teaching approach to education, and get on the discovery approach where
students can really learn. It is amazing the amount of effort and
resources which are used to improve the lecturing format, when what we
probably need is to reinvent the whole process. I know that a few of us
have had a success story about that great professor who used to lecture
and we learn so much from him..., but for each success story how many
failures are out there? 100? 1000? 10000? Or more?
In a related message form from:
>JOE_PODOLSKY@HP-PaloAlto-om4.om.hp.com
>Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 08:58:19 -0700
>Subject: Re: Measurement in Education LO1509
Joe was replies to LO1478 (Also attached below)
>
> I have had several discussions with people in the education community
> about who their customers really are. For example, one definition of
> a customer might be the "economic buyer"; i.e., they who have the gold
> makes the rules.
>
> How does it change our decisions, then, if we look at what the people
> with the money want. Parents often pay for the higher education of
> their children. What do they see as desirable outcomes? Other
> funding sources are scholarship grants and foundations. What do they
> want? Etc.
>
The most important question is really "What do they want?" Any one who
pays for another person's tuition, room and board, books, etc., generally
wants that individual to devlop further and be an effective contributor
(to himself or to an organization, or both). Parents want to secure their
kids' future, students who are paying for themselves want to improve their
chances in life, componies want their employees or potential employees to
be better employees, and governments understand the linkage (we hope!)
between quality education and the development of the whole society... bla!
bla! bla!
In a manufacturing facility, a purchasing agent does not buy tools for his
or her own use, but for the workers to use and be productive. Logic tells
us then that this purchaser will pay a lot of attention to the final users
- the workers, and that the tool manufacturer should probably do the same
thing.
Myron Tribus told me in a conversation last year that students RENT their
knowledge and abilities to the employers. So they really need to have
something of value to rent out there, and that is a combination of
knowledge and know-how.
> And, given those thoughts, if the students aren't the customers, what
> are they? For example, are they the "product" of the schools?
>
> What about K-12 education that's usually paid for by various taxing
> structures. Who's the (paying) customer for these institutions?
>
> Joe Podolsky
> (podolsky@hpcc01.corp.hp.com)
I am one of those who think that students ARE customers and more! They do
not buy knowledge, which can't be bought. I agree in they buy the
opportunity to learn through their interaction with professors, other
students, library's personnel and materials (although is become a rare
occurrence), trips to the computer center, and many other activities
students perform in college. And I wonder whether we are providing them
with that opportunity! Are we taking their money (or the money of the
paying individual/insitution) only under the pretense that we will provide
them with that learning opportunitty but we are not really doing it?
>Subject: Re: Measurement in Education LO1478
>Date: 6/1/95 4:21 AM
>
> Meanwhile, of course, the conundrum is wound tighter yet. Students
>ARE "customers," and there is some genuine justification to listening to
>their complaints and preferences. Yet if they're customers, they're also,
>by definition, to some degree "ignorant" of the subject matter they come
>to learn. If they knew it all already, they wouldn't need the class. Thus
>profs have an obligation to craft the learning experiences, direct the
>class, etc. to some degree - at the same time that it is the STUDENTS who
>learn, not the prof (though I've never taught a class without learning
>something!). The students ultimately are responsible for their learning,
>and if they won't - especially at higher levels - it's not obviously "the
>professor's fault."
> No easy answers, alas.
>
>MXJELI@MAIL.WM.EDU
>Mariann Jelinek
I have found myself saying this so many times, but I don't mind saying it
again. Yes, students ARE customers. But they are not just customers, like
someone who comes into a store and buys a product. The role students play
in the relationship with the university is somewhat defined by Joseph
Juran ("Juran on Leadership for Quality, Free Press, 1989), where he
discusses that most every member of the iorganization plays three
different roles, as customers, transformers, and suppliers. Students play
these three roles. They are customers because they come for (paying) the
opportunity to learn. They are transformers because they are the ones who
HAVE TO LEARN. No body else can do that for the students. Teachers, even
though we might want to believe otherwise, can not process the information
for the students. They still have to that themselves. At the univerisity
level, I don't believe that we teach anything to anyone, people will learn
if they want to. We can only facilitate this process. Finally, students
are suppliers because, when allowed to do it, they can use their own
experiences (work, play, church, sports, etc), to process the information
they are exposed to in classes, and share the results of that process with
peers and teachers. This is probably what Mariann refers to as learning
something from the students.
Contrary to what Mariann says, I do fault teachers in many situations
where students fail to learn. I fault the professor because we rely too
mcuh on the lecture approach, because we teach the textbook (at least in
the U.S.) regardless of its relevancy, because we fail to "listen" to
students, because our egos are too big,... We really need to learn hoe to
learn to make our class interaction with students a true learniing
situation for everyone, including ourselves!
Ivan,
--
***************************************************************
R. IVAN BLANCO, Ph.D. Voice 305 899-3515
Assoc. Prof. & Director Fax 305 892-6412
International Business Programs
Andreas School of Business _________E-Mail Addresses________
Barry University Bitnet: Blanco%bu4090@Barryu
Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695 Internet: Blanco@bu4090.barry.edu
<<<<< ---------------- >>>>>
"Las naciones marchan hacia el termino de su grandeza, con
el mismo paso que camina su educacion." "The nations march
toward their greatness at the same pace as their educational
systems evolve." Simon Bolivar
===============================================================