Resources Technology Workshops Services

Program Staff

TEPlist

Private Consultations

Classroom Observation

Document Feedback

Midterm Feedback

Videotaping

House Calls

Departmental Training

Teaching Portfolio

GTF Teaching Award

Search TEP site

 

 

 

...Home > Services > Newsletter > Lizard Index > 1995-1996 Issues > Attention UO Shoppers

Attention UO Shoppers . . .

We recently received the following feedback from avid reader Kenneth Robert Wright:

I am somewhat miffed at TEP for the lead article it ran in the last issue of the LIZARD. The article referred to higher education as "delivering a product," as if we are just doling out M&Ms in the classroom, instead of teaching students to continually question the grounds upon which they base their conclusions.

Wright raises an important issue about the language we use to describe what occurs in higher education. More and more, university teaching is being described with the language of "customer service." The model goes something like this: customers (students) pay for service reps (teachers) to deliver to them the product (research) of their choice (major). It seems like a useful, clear, and professional way to talk about what we do.

But it is not, because it misses the boat in its assumption of a "product." When you go to K-mart, you pay money and walk away holding a product: a basketball, some socks, a television. This is not what happens in higher education, because our customers are our product. The most important things a university can produce are women and men with knowledge of a research area and developed critical thinking abilities. In other words, individuals with broader decision-making perspectives than they had before they came here.

In academia, the tension between specialized training versus student personal development is very old. For centuries, educators have been wrestling with the issue. The "doling out M&Ms" model, as Wright puts it, lends itself toward specialization. Talking about education in this way is certainly simpler than the complicated and potentially touchy-feely concept of personal development. Furthermore, the M&M model follows -- it would seem -- a somewhat businesslike or corporate model of thought, making us sound professional and no-nonsense.

But even successful businesses do not follow a model so simple. Have you checked in on the business world lately? Diversification is taking place at very high levels. Car manufacturers and telephone companies are making coffee cups and personal computers. They are complicating themselves to accommodate market changes that occur at ever-increasing rates. Businesses are broadening their decision-making perspectives, just like a physics major in a literature class.

This is bottom-line proof of what many teachers have believed all along: student personal growth must remain a value to teachers in the classroom and to the university as a whole. We must train our students to accomplish specialized tasks and think critically about how those tasks relate to larger issues of what they value, both as individuals and as members of many greater communities.

The re-framing of higher education for the 21st Century is a vital issue, and these are definitely not the last words on the subject. The LIZARD welcomes any thoughtful contributions about the topic, for publication in later issues. Email the editor or stop by our office at 65 PLC.

Lizard 30 Fall 95

 

---