Student discount on computer

Kudos and thanks for the editorial "Losing Power and Market" in [September] University Business. As a Proprietary School Dean, I see my Leadership rote as very much changing from what it used to be and more toward a customer-service atmosphere than anything seen in the past. We are also unusual in the higher ed community because the bottom line is not simply an abstraction for us. I force myself, my associate deans, and the faculty to view this new reality in higher education and applaud those in the media who "get it." It would be interesting to see more ink about our portion of the market in future issues.

RICHARD P. UGINO, Academic Dean

Rochester Business Institute

Rochester, NY

The purpose of administration is to protect the students from the faculty." I was astonished to hear this from my college president in the early 1970s. As a faculty member then, I though it hyperbolic and Ludicrous. Having retired a year ago from 20 years of service as a college president [Memphis College of Art 1982-1990; Minneapolis College of Art and Design 1990-2002], I now vouch for the cutting accuracy of this quote and insight. Colleges have strayed FAR away from their founding missions. Administrations have allowed "control" of the curricular impetus and mission niche to be pre-empted by faculty self-interest (financial, political and ethical) over the period since WWII. Accreditation processes which move everything toward the center, and faculty unionization of curricular development have frozen flexibility and opportunity to adapt to current situations Like a skein of yarn bathed in Liquid nitrogen. Are faculty "bad?" No. They are Learning from their own culture, The advanced-degree treadmill reinforces faculty reinforcing their beliefs--beyond knowledge--into a passionate, well-seeming environment of self-replication. Trustees? The board of trustees administers the charter of an educational non-profit in/for "the public good." Rarely do boards reach back to the charter to evaluate their evolution into contemporary operations. Presidents are being called upon to stand between fighting factions, disinterested divisions, fiscal reality and fiscal wastefulness, governmental regulatory tampering, etc. And only passing oversight attention may be paid to the pursuit of curricular excellence. As I left office, I was asked to "boil it down" so the Board might ensure future success. I am appending a portion of a departing Letter to my trustees; it may be of interest.

"Profit" for a non-profit, educational institution can be measured, year by year. After the formal audit of financials reveals balance, and we attend to en appropriate conservation of resources and establish appropriate reserves, there remain important assessments that can reveal "profit."

These are: Has the college improved, enhanced and elevated the QUALITY of its programs? Has the college extended its SERVICE to its students and, therefore, to the community? Has the college improved its facilities and the quality of its staff EFFORT? Has the college, through its efforts, ADDED PROFESSIONAL VALUE AND SPIRITUAL MEANING to the learning experience and accomplishments of its students? Answering "YES!" to any one or more of these indicates REAL PROFIT.

JOHN SLORP, Professor Emeritus

Minneapolis College of Art and Design

Minneapolis, MN

Re your August Editorial, "A Question of Balance"--good shot. I suggest that you hit on one of the reasons that the situation is so unbalanced: [It] is reflected in the unwillingness of sitting presidents to speak up, and a reluctance to stand up in the face of what can be very nasty attacks by faculty unions and others of like thinking. I would be glad to talk to you about fat cut, waste resolved, students agitated, etc. Use my name. The system is broken, in part, because the folks charged with making it work, don't.

TRAVIS KIRKLAND, President

Blue Mountain Community College

Pendleton, OR

As the CEO of a company that sells student-centered services to higher education institutions, I know first-hand how difficult it is to get schools to commit resources to students (rather than faculty or facilities). Why is it that students must buy their textbooks, personal computer, pay extra for technology, lab fees, etc? This is the clearest manifestation of who the university is for. Yes, higher education is consumed by the notion of "quality" of education, however, the only body that measures quality [is that of] accreditors. And accreditors realty only measure inputs--credentials, facilities etc. There is no measure of outputs (such as retention rates, student success, Lifetime earnings, and subjective surveys of student satisfaction) that is relevant to the accreditation process. Then too, public universities (less so with privates and for-profits), have very Little flexibility on pricing. Tuitions and fees are frequently set by the state, and two-thirds or more of budgets come from the state. Further, students Looking for moderately priced education have very little choice other than public universities. Therefore, there is very little incentive to implement cost savings that can be passed to the student. The result is a focus on quality without any discussion about cost. It's Like saying that everyone must have access to a Rolls Royce, whether they need it or not. (We will tend you money to buy it, subsidize its production from the government, and sometimes even discount it for you. However, you won't get any of these benefits if you choose a Taurus, therefore few Tauruses are produced, much Less bought.) A student should have the option to choose a Lower-quality education at a Lower cost, should the student desire it. I don't think that education will improve or costs will be reduced until accreditation focuses on outputs, and institutional funding follows the students more directly than it does now. Please keep up the harangue on this issue, almost willfully ignored by public higher education. The result is likely to be their irrelevance as budgets get slashed, tuitions continue to be raised, and alternative providers (Like tech certifying companies and for-profit providers) eat into their student base.

BURCK SMITH, CEO

Smarthinking

Washington, DC

I read your August Editor's Note with some amusement. The whole question about whom the university is for, students or faculty, is so obvious that the fact that it is the focus of debate is more indicative of the dysfunctional structure of higher education than it is of a legitimate question. I've spent my entire professional career as an educator (K-12; professor and administrator in a traditional, liberal arts college; and executive in a proprietary college system). Educators easily become confused about the nature of the business they are in, and when this happens, the educational enterprise suffers. The fact is that educators are service providers. Our institutions and our jobs exist to serve students, not ourselves. Can you imagine if the question in your editorial were: Who are hospitals for, doctors or patients? The reality is that many, many educators, particularly those in the academy, are confused about the nature of their role and of their very professional existence. The only reason we even have the debate is because traditional higher education has become so insulated from reality--i.e., market forces, revenue-expense relationships, supply and demand, etc.--that faculty (and staff) have become deluded into thinking that there is something so inherently valuable in their own professional existence it doesn't matter if what they produce actually has any value for students or the institution. Clearly, not everything in the academy is or should be about money. However, to assume that questioning whom the institution is for, faculty or students, is a Legitimate question suggests that we have utterly Lost sight of what it means to be an educator. The fact that some university CEOs won't even publicly connect their name to the question is just plain weird. It suggests that something is very, very wrong with the most fundamental relationships in higher education.

WALLACE K. POND, VP of Internet Learning

Remington Administrative Services, Inc.

Little Rock, AR