I
keep receiving reports that students seem more irritated,less patient,
quicker to anger and less tolerant these days. That makes it tougher to
work with them and help them. Though we may all realize that a student’s
anger and even insults are not personal, they sure feel personal. This
is especially so since students keep using that second person pronoun
“you” since they believe you are the school when they speak or even may
curse at you.
They
see you as the representative of that cold, impersonal money grubbing
abstract “’the college” that has caused some disaster in their otherwise
imperfect life. They have not learned how to separate the particulars
from the universal. And when they are talking to you, you are a true
representative of the college. As such, you equal the entire collection
of bricks, mortar, people, rules and offices that is the university.
So, at that moment, in that encounter, the student believes you are
responsible for any wrong done; especially is the wrong may have been
committee by the office that underpays you.
Thus
when he or she is snide, nasty or even shouts and curses at you, that
action is not really at you but as you as a symbol of the college -
unless you have done something to call for it. Yes it is irrational and
even misplaced but it is real because the student is feeling some hurt
or harm.
(The following is excerpted from The Power of Retention) Social
critics and we in higher education have found the general lack of
civility in our culture also exists on our campuses. This should be no
surprise. The people who live in our Happy Bunny
“It’s all about me” culture are our students and even some of our
employees. They are our faculty, administrators and lo and behold, they
are also us.
As Walt Kelly had his cartoon character Pogo put it so well back in the 60’s We have met the enemy and they are us.
The people who attend and work at our schools are the exact same people
in the exact same culture we think we have left behind when we enter
the retreat for intellectual and academic pursuit we know as a college
campus. But what we find is that what attitudes apply in the so-called
real world outside of academia also apply on a college campus.
This
reality can also explain differences in the ways we perceive and act
toward one another. Our students come from a cultural group that has
been immersed in a cynical, smart mouth me first attitude which has
eliminated most of what older America grew up knowing as social civilities and courtesies. The Captain Kangaroo/Mister Rogers
world of please, thank you and general polite regard for one another
has been replaced by a hip-hop attitude that revels and condones a
general rude incivility toward one another. Radio shock jocks use
language and casually discuss topics on the radio some of our generation
may well be taken aback by and even find anti-intellectual or uncivil.
Language that might have been thought of as anti-social and rebellious
is now everyday colloquial use in casual discussion even in classrooms
and offices. Attitudes that would have been unacceptable and considered
rude such as taking a phone call in class or napping during lectures
have become the norm according to many faculty members.
Our
parents and their parents and theirs all the way back to Young Socrates
in the Platonic dialogues had difficulty understanding and accepting
the current younger generation’s music, hair, language, attitudes,
mores, actions. Each generation knew the student group was more out of
control than the last.
I don’t know what’s wrong with these kids today!Kids!Who can understand anything they say?Kids!They are so ridiculous and immature!I don’t see why anybody wants ‘em!... Kids! They are just impossible to control!.... Why can’t they be like we were, perfect in every way way? Oh,what’s the matter with kids today?
Actually,
there is a difference in kids today. More than in the past perhaps and
that is causing some service clashes on campus. We, the boomer and
yuppie generations taught them too well. We encouraged them to take the
next step in being more rebellious, more anti-authority, discourteous,
disrespectful and become self-centered, demanding.
In
a large sense, we created the college students we encounter. Our
generations rebelled against authority and carried that forward by
replacing much of the processes of etiquette with a sense of privilege
for the next generations. They were taught that they are
as good as anyone else. You can be anything they wish to be. Don’t let
anyone tell you no. Age is not necessarily an indicator that a person
warrants politeness or respect.
On the one hand, students were inculcated with a media and marketing
liturgy of their importance in the quest for class-free equality. The
motto of “don’t trust anyone over thirty” has continued though the age
threshold has dropped to anyone older than oneself. We also turned them
into cultural and consumer cynics as we taught them not to trust
advertising, marketing or promotional media. Unfortunately for colleges
that cynicism does extend to the marketing they do. As a result, we
created the consumer mentality we not find so offensive when a student
tells us “hey, I’m paying for your salary.”
Additionally,
technology has allowed the members of the current college student
generation to isolate themselves from the larger community thereby
greatly reducing the many social and face-to-face interactions one needs
to learn social and cultural mores, codes and folkways. The Educause Center for Applied Research
reported in 2008 that 80.3 percent of college students report using
social networking sites regularly, up from 72.3% in 2006. The social
networking sites are also the most used of all sites on the web
attracting the largest amount of the average 16 hours of web browsing
and usage per week. The social networks of YouTube, My Space, Hi5, Facebook, Friendster, chat rooms, download pirating networks like The Pirate Bay and Mininova allow students to be in a community without
any need to ever be with someone physically. These communities have
different mores, traditions, codes as well as greater tolerance for
negative or boorish behavior than the analog world of higher education
found on the campuses of colleges, universities or even career colleges
where behavioral codes can be a bit more lenient. Emails also permit
the student generation to communicate with others without ever having to
deal with in live, face-to-face interaction.
As a result, they learn social codes that can tolerate anti-social behavior such as flaming. Wikipedia defines flaming as
…the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat
(IRC) or even through e-mail. An Internet user typically generates a
flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a
response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and
does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their
authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users.
Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she
carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree.
Flaming
is not always tolerated on all websites or networks but it is common
enough to be found on most interactive or participatory sites. Moreover,
people can feel quite at ease with full freedom to flame without
concern for retaliation since they can hide behind a user name or the
oft used moniker anonymous that
does not directly identify them in analog life. As a result of this
anonymity flaming, bullying and an assertive nastiness that would not be
well tolerated in a real face-to-face social interaction can be common.
Furthermore, a communication problem can arise for student
communicators when after either participating in or reading enough
flaming messages the aggressive and mostly anonymous communication
behavior transfers into real life interactions. Students do not
necessarily learn or acquire the socialization needed to learn in person
inter-personal skills. This lack of social communication skill
development certainly limits them with the normative variations in
successful inter-generational interactions. This can account for some of
the clashes found in working with uneducated communicators and even
trying to assist them on campus. Students with weak communication skills
just may not know how to communicate appropriately with campus
community members of a different age and role.
Technology is only one contributing factor that has blurred the distinctions between what the sociologist Erving Goffman described so well as front and backstage performances in his classic book Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. (1967)
Goffman describes the social world of communication events as happening
as if they were on a performance stage of a society. He divides the
stage into its two major locations of front stage and back stage. As in a
play, front stage is where the actors perform their formal roles. They
are aware they are being observed and judged by the audience so they
play the proscribed part. In society, front stage performers are aware
they are being observed and thus perform using socially and culturally
proscribed roles and language acceptable to the role they are playing
and to the audience listening to it. For example, when a faculty member
steps before a class to lecture, he or she does so using tone,
language, gestures and the such that would be far different than when he
or she is explaining how the day went to a spouse. He or she would use
a very different tone, language and performance values when telling a
child the same information just told to the spouse. The performance
would be appropriate to the role and audience.
Backstage
communications occur when the actors are off stage, behind the curtains
so they cannot be seen by the audience. They can be more of their
so-called natural selves as opposed to playing a specific part in the
play. Their language does not have to be that used in front of the
audience for example. Granted they are as Goffman notes, playing the
role of a person in a play but not on stage at the moment. As a result,
they are under less pressure to perform in a particular approved manner
or speak specific lines appropriate to their formal performance role.
Behind the curtains, they can be more relaxed and speak and act in a
more relaxed manner if they wish.
Front
stage social roles place pressure on the people involved to perform
their roles appropriate to the interaction of the situation, the
audience and social norms. If a young person is talking with a priest
for example, there are normally restraints placed on the use of
language, tone and attitude. If the actors realize they are involved in a
front stage performance. The interaction is one that most academics
have come to believe should be similar to that of a student interacting
with them. But if a person does not realize that he or she is in a
front stage performance or has not learned normative social interaction
behaviors called upon for the role, there will be a resultant clash
between the expected and the actual.
For
many students today, the separation between front and backstage has
eroded. Students have not been taught the front stage social roles that
many academics desire and expect. Whereas academics expect some level
of respect for their positions and/or titles, students do not show much
deference to either. For instance, just because someone has the
designation of Doctor attached to the front of his or her name does not
impress students much. Being a PhD does not place much front stage
pressure to conform to behavioral models including an automatic show of
respect for our educational labels. This is a learned indifference that
we have some responsibility for by the way.
When
educational attire went from suits, shirts and ties for men and dresses
for female teachers, this shift in costume signaled a change in the way
students were top address educators. The formal attire was a sign that
the teachers were playing a formal role. It stated that we are dressed
this way to signal to you that we are in our official front stage roles
and you should be too. Just as a costume change in a play lets the
audience knows that the character is in a different mood or role so the
shift from formal to informal attire sent a message to the audience –
students.
The
change to more informal, more relaxed dress how one might away from the
classroom backstage type of attire was a clear statement that the roles
had shifted. The attempt to forge a less formal and more relaxed
atmosphere worked. Perhaps too well because it also took away the
pressures to perform in socially prescribed front stage roles and
behaviors. That carried over to higher education in which the dress can
be even more backstage than in K-12. Over time, the informal roles
helped erase the academic lines between front and back stage roles. As a
result, many of their communications with faculty and others on a
campus are backstage behaviors which are similar to those they might use
with friends. The college personnel might be using more front stage
communication modes so there will inevitably be a clash which will be
interpreted by the college member as a lack of respect when it is a lack
of communication alignment.
If
one realizes that what is occurring is a clash of front stage backstage
expectations. It may become easier to deal with the clash. If one can
understand the clash of communicating modes not as a statement of
disrespect but what it really is - the variance in communication styles
between generations. It should also be easier to predict the clash and
it is hoped, not be taken aback by it nor simply believe the student is
not being respectful and not deserving of one’s attention and help.
IF
THIS ARTICLE MAKES SENSE TO YOU, YOU WILL WANT TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE
BEST-SELLING NEW BOOK ON RETENTION AND ACADEMIC CUSTOMER SERVICE
AcademicMAPS
is the leader in increasing student retention, enrollment and revenue
through research training and academic customer service solutions for
colleges, universities and career colleges in the US, Canada, and Europe
as well as businesses that seek to work with them
We increase your success
Contact Us Today
“We had hoped we’d improve our retention by 3% but with the help of Dr. Raisman, we increased it by 5%.”Rachel Albert, Provost, University of Maine-Farmington
“Neal led a retreat that initiated customer service and retention as a real focus for us and gave us a clear plan. Then he followed up with presentations and workshops that kicked us all into high gear. We recommend with no reservations; just success.” Susan Mesheau, Executive Director U First: Integrated Recruitment & Retention University of New Brunswick
“Thank
you so much for the wonderful workshop at Lincoln Technical Institute.
It served to re-center ideas in a great way. I perceived it to be a
morale booster, breath of fresh air, and a burst of passion.” Shelly S, Lincoln Technical Institute
No comments:
Post a Comment