|
As a result of the growth in
on-line, for-profit and traditional colleges drive to increase enrollment and
leave no admissions unturned all competing for the
It once was that the schools has all
the power in the process. Students played by our rules and jumped over every
bar we wanted or we would not take them. The schools still have the power to
make applicants play by their basic rules but that is starting to shift as
colleges do not want to lose even one applicant to make the final numbers. One
could argue that the common application form is an example of giving away
power to make students do it our way. Now convenience for students applying
is the issue; not following our rules.
The shifting of power can also be
seen in the attempts that schools make to retain students. It once was that
the attitude was “they should be happy just to have the privilege of being
here.” That has gone by the boards for
most every school including to some extent the top brand-name schools. Now
the attitude towards pleasing students is seen in rock climbing walls, state
of the art workout facilities, dorms like apartments, cafeterias with plenty
of choice and foods that the customers will like and the like. It also,
unfortunately, includes letting students act in disruptive ways in the
classroom. To keep students happier, schools have given into the customer
power of students. This they do because not to do so would increase
attrition.
The schools have to keep up with
the realization of shifting consumer power to the students and their families
as well as the loss of power to their competitors. If a similar school has
built a new athletic facility for students, that puts the pressure on a
school to do likewise or lose students to the other school. This is a loss of
power through competition.
The area that the colleges retain
power however is in setting the processes and rules that deal with how
students will conduct business with the school. In these areas, schools often
provide horrible service to students because they have the power to do so.
These are exactly areas that the schools need to consider loosening up a bit
on; the processes they demand, the hoops they make students jump through
until they just say I am not jumping any more. Schools think that they have
to hold rigidly to this power or the students will… well, what will they do?
Be happier with the school.
For example, most schools make
students jump through numerous hoops when they try to drop a class. The
student must get the form to drop the class. He then has to take it to an
advisor who most often cannot be found so the student has to chase the
advisor down. Then the advisor has to sign off on the drop. When the advisor
is brought to ground, he or she usually just signs a name on the form without
consideration of the change in schedule. One, because the advisors do not
seem to care. And two because they are too often ill-informed on what the
program is and what the drop at that time might do to progress. After that
the faculty member in the class has to sign off on the drop. Following that
the student has to take the form to the registrar’s office for processing and
to the bursar’s office to alert the people there that a course has been
dropped.
If you check, you’d find that most
students do not do this. If they just drop by not showing up, they suffer the
consequence most often of a faculty member giving them an F for failing to
show up, do homework and take tests. If they start the process they often
quit after they cannot find the advisor so the drop by just not going to
class any more or they just sign the advisor’s name themselves. In so doing,
they shift some of the power onto themselves by subverting the process. If
they sign the name of the advisor and sometimes that of the faculty member,
they just undermine the system and in so doing “realize the whole system is a
fraud. All they want to do is make you run around and show you who is in
charge.” as one student told me recently.
So why do we do this? We can tell
ourselves that it is to make sure the student understands the consequences of
his or her action. They could lose financial aid money by dropping from full
time to part time for example. That is why they need to see an advisor but
with advisors doing such a cursory job in many, too many cases the student
does not get the counselling she needs. The real reason we make them follow
the “run around” is because we can. We have the power to do it and have
always done it that way.
This and other administrative
procedures should be areas in which we give up power. Not make students run
all over campus because we can because they won’t anyhow. What we should do
is place some of that power on the students. For example, rather than use the
power-based antiquated process of dropping a course. Just set up a page on
the website at which a student can just go and type in the course he wants to
drop, click a box saying I want to drop this course. At which time a pop up
box could come up warning the student that “dropping a course could have
consequences such as possible loss of some financial aid”. Then the student
would have to click on a box that says “I understand the dropping this course
could have consequences. I choose to drop the course anyhow”.
This shifts the power to the
student but also places the responsibility for the decision on the student.
It cuts out the run around while giving the student the power to decide. This
is a salutary shift of power. It is
also good customer service by placing the process in the hands of the
customer, the student. It will also save the college time and aggravation as
well as please the student. There are many areas in which a shift in power to
the consumer will help.
The one area in which a shift in
power back to the college would help is in classroom decorum. As I travel
around working in colleges and universities I hear more and more faculty
complaining that they do not get support from the administration for
controlling decorum in the classroom. Many faculty say that they are told not
to ban cell phone use in class. That they are to let students come in late
and disrupt the entire class. That if a student naps in class it is not okay
to wake him up. And if a student uses inappropriate language, don’t correct
or chastise them for doing so. Let it go by.
This is poor service and an
inappropriate shift of power to the customer. In this case, the rule is “the
customer can be wrong”. If students are allowed to disrupt the classroom that
student takes away from every other on in the class. If professors have to
compete with students answering cell phones for example, every other student
loses in the situation. They have come to class to learn from the professor
not to have to listen to what a student did last night.
When a student comes in late, she
interrupts the class as everyone looks at her coming in. That includes the
professor who is interrupted in what she is saying or doing. The entire class
is disrupted.
When a student uses inappropriate
language and is not corrected, he is not learning that that language is
inappropriate in some locations such as a classroom and in his future work.
Students come to school to get jobs so we must prepare them for that job and
using appropriate language is one lesson to learn.
So classroom decorum is an area in
which the power needs to be shifted back to the professor and the
administration needs to back them up.
|
If you want to increase retention at your school, call us about a workshop today 413.219.6939
IF
THIS ARTICLE MAKES SENSE TO YOU, YOU WILL WANT TO OBTAIN A COPY
OF THE BEST-SELLING BOOK ON RETENTION AND ACADEMIC CUSTOMER
SERVICE THE POWER OF RETENTION: MORE CUSTOMER SERVICE IN HIGHER EDUCATION by clicking here
N.
Raisman & Associates is the leader in increasing student
retention, enrollment and revenue through workshops,
presentations, research, training and academic customer service
solutions for colleges, universities and career colleges in the
US, Canada, and Europe as well as businesses that work with them
We increase your success
413.219.6939
We are booking
No comments:
Post a Comment