The
other day I was working with senior student services and academic
administrators at a major university when one of them said he didn’t
think
Advising,
most often by faculty, has come up as a negative at every college and
university we have audited for academic service. Students invariably
expressed a concern that advisors were not well informed on most aspects
of requirements for a major and graduation. Students also stated that
advisors did not know course sequencing or when or what semester
required courses would be offered. This has led, and could continue to
lead, to serious problems for students. And this is a growing serious
concern because schools are now offering some required courses only once
a year (a major disservice to students) in either Fall or Spring
semester. What’s more, advisors do not know this. As a result, students
often miss the course only offered in the Fall for example and have to
stay an extra year. This of course increases the cost to the student
and his or her family as they must pay tuition and fees for the
additional, unplanned for, time.
After
my original comment shot out, I realized that it might be interpreted
as possibly a bit harsh. True but harsh. I will accept that it may be
possible that I am being a bit overly cynical. But I wonder why colleges
have not done enough to correct the advisors’ lack of awareness of the
once a year course schedules? Schools should be aware of the problem of
required courses being offered only once a year. Advisors not being made
aware of this reality and thus “mis-advising” forces students to have
to stay in school at least an additional semester to take a course
missed due to the scheduling. I had to wonder if they are also aware of
the additional revenue of adding more tuition to a student’s total
bill. Could it be that schools are endorsing benign neglect? Allowing
the lack of information to increase a student’s time at the school to
increase its numbers? And revenue? Students who have to stay in school
due to incorrect advising on when classes will be offered still have to
pay.
That
would be a much too cynical motive to attribute to administrators even
though they have been accused of even more heinous deeds by the rumor
mills of some campuses. Colleges are after all not credit card, banks or
other such predatory companies that want customers to make mistakes
that add to their bottom lines.
In a Harvard Business Review article Companies and the Customers Who Hate Them
Gail McGovern and Youngme Moon write about the issues of companies that
like credit cards that benefit financially from late payment fees and
let/allow/cause customers make mistakes that benefit their bottom line.
They write that
Some companies consciously and cynically exploit customers in this way. But in our conversations with dozens of executives in various industries, we found that the majority of firms that profit from their customers’ confusion have unwittingly fallen into a trap. Without ever making a deliberate decision to do so, they have, over a period of years, taken greater advantage of their customers. In most cases, there’s no defining moment when these companies crossed the line. Rather, they found themselves on a slippery slope that led to an increasingly antagonistic strategy…Companies can profit from customers’ confusion, ignorance, and poor decision making in two related ways. The first evolves out of the legitimate attempt to create value by giving customers a broad set of offerings. The second emerges from the equally legitimate decision to use fees and penalties to cover costs and discourage undesirable customer behavior.
Colleges
are most likely in the category of those which have fallen into “a
trap”. It is unlikely that schools would knowingly create situations
that would extend the student’s stay. It is more likely that this
situation is caused by three factors
- Trying to please customers
- . the attempt to rein in costs,
- . lack of communication between campus groups and units and
- . inertia.
Trying To Please Customers
Courses
and sections are offered to meet requirements and desires. In most all
cases, needs and desires are defined by the faculty. Most decisions are
made from best intentions to deliver value to students. But, there have
been considerations that some subjects are required to maintain numbers
and enrollment in some disciplines and to maintain base income to the
institution. Some electives are offered because students express a
desire to learn about a certain area. Yet others are offered because
some faculty member has a strong interest to impart knowledge about some
current interest to share with students whether they express a need or
desire or not. And once offered, it seems to be difficult to get rid of
many required courses in particular and electives as well.
College
administrators usually stay out of curriculum decisions for two very
good reasons. First, faculty are the curricular experts; not
administrators. And second, faculty take a very dim view of
administrators tampering at all with the curriculum so administrators
keep hands-off whenever possible. They do not want to upset one of their
most important and powerful customer sectors - faculty. Administrators
recognize that they have a set of customers ranging from faculty through students.
And for most college presidents, the primary customers are the faculty
since they can vote no confidence or cause the most problems. Students
are important of course but since they approach issues as individuals
they are not as strong a force as faculty who may belong to a union and
if they don’t still have significant collective power.
So,
courses are added over the years to meet the demands determined by the
faculty for the benefit of the school’s customers. But too often as some
courses and requirements are added, others are not removed since they
represent a constituency that has its requirements to be met. This will
often lead to an increasingly broad and often confusing array of
requirements and courses to schedule and advise students about. This
curricular expansion over time has recently come in direct conflict with
the financial realities of higher education
The Attempt to Rein In Costs
As revenues decrease and the public is increasingly suspect of collegiate cries of fiscal distress and
thus not supportive, administrators have had to seek ways to reduce
expenditures. One way to cut costs has been the ever increasing
dependence on higher education’s serf class – adjuncts.
Another way has been to decrease the number of sections of courses
being offered. Fewer sections mean lower salaries even for the
indentured serfs. Too often, rather than cutting back electives to a
manageable group of offerings that could meet student needs, many
administrators left quite a few electives alone rather than upset some
faculty customers who enjoy teaching them at the expense of required
sections. Moreover, other administrators have been rebuked in their
request for full-time faculty to teach required undergraduate sections.
Others have simply run out of available, credentialed adjuncts to teach.
So, the decision has been to cut out courses and/or sections with low enrollment first followed by those that may be tough to get a teacher for, then courses with multiple sections. If this does not get the cuts to where the budget can balance, courses taught in both semesters/quarters/terms are cut back to being offered in one of the other semester/quarter or term.
It
is typical for universities to try to control costs by cutting the
number of courses and sections offered. This is a terrible customer
service error. The true cost of a course is quite low
especially when compared to the cost of lost tuition revenue for a
student who leaves because he or she cannot get courses needed to
progress or graduate in a major. Consider also that parents who pay the
bills still consider graduation to be in four years. Thus they do not
plan to have to pay for another year. This creates financial difficulty
which can and does lead to stopping out. That in turn often leads to
either dropping out if going to another college to finish.
Lack Of Communication Between Campus Groups And Units
If
required courses are to be offered only once a year, it is imperative
that all of those who advise are fully aware of this. Advisors must know
the days and times the course is being offered in the major areas they
many advise within. If they are not aware, they cannot appropriately
advise students. They also MUST be counseled to advise students they
must take the required course when offered or chance having to stay
another year.
But, as we know, colleges are actually small collectives, fiefdoms that do not interact well to share information well.
It is often the case that as long as things appear to be going okay and there are no obvious problems or calamities, those in the chain of command are busy enough themselves to not rock the boat. They leave things and people to do their work in isolation since that is easier. This leads to what are called “silos” in the business literature. In higher education, offices and people in some schools have been left alone to follow their own initiative enough that they don’t live in silos but in a castle. Many even have metaphorical or institutionalized moats made out of procedures, paperwork and technology they chose without regard for integrating it with the rest of the MIS system. The Power of Retention
This situation certainly mitigates against the sharing of information which leads to the well-known campus shuffles, or turfing
and also includes lack of sharing changes in when courses are offered.
The result is that the information does not get to advisors and not to
students until they learn the hard way.
Academic
advising is an issue that most everyone knows is important to student
success but like the weather, most usually discussed but not much done
about. In fact, students complain about weak or poor advising at most
ever campus we have audited from the very first back in 1999 to the last
one this year. Moreover, many time when we report that advising is a
very questionable academic customer service on a campus, we are greeted
with comments that boil down to “yuh, we know.” But little is done to
improve advising.
Why?
Inertia
Change
in higher education is quite often talked about but little done. We may
often realize we need to change something but the collegial process
involving committees is actually structured to make certain that most
things stay as they are. In higher education, meetings are considered to
be actual action and reports with recommendations merely another
vehicle for further committees. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the
very fiefdom structure mitigates against change since any alteration
especially by an administrator could lead to conflict. Administrators
do not wish to challenge the system since doing so can be fraught with
danger for their position. So many things and processes such as advising
even when they harm students are left alone.
But
change is needed is advising especially in reference to the situation
of providing students who should be higher education’s primary customers
poor academic customer service.
Two Questions
Among the questions McGovern and Moon make in Companies and the Customer Who Hate Them ask are:
1. Are our most profitable customers those who have the most reason to be dissatisfied with us?
Yes.
Students and the public are the ones who provide funds to the schools
so they can run. The students and their families are the ones being most
harmed by the cutting of sections and only offering required courses
once year. McGovern and Moon go on to write If
the answer is yes, the company is extracting value from customers who
do not feel they are getting a fair return and in the process exposing
themselves to a range of risks.
Remember that 84% of drops are due to poor service making the
experience not worth it. Colleges facilitate the worst customer behavior
which for them which is having their paying customers leaving the
school. The public is also losing its belief in the value and word of
higher education.
2. Do we make it difficult for customers to understand or abide by our rules, and do we actually help customers break them?
Yes.
We make it not only difficult but when we do not make sure advisors
and our customers know of course and section reductions we withhold
information students need to be able to schedule their programs and be
able to graduate in four/two years. McGovern and Moon go on to state
“Companies should also examine their product portfolios to determine
whether their diverse offerings are designed to provide value or to take
advantage of customer’s ignorance or difficulty in choosing options in
their best interest.”
Five Steps to Better Advising and Course Scheduling
1. 1.Anyone who advises must be fully conversant with all and any aspects of the curriculum.
Students during audits stated that they would have to stay at college
longer to complete their requirements because their advisors did not
provide them accurate direction or advice on their program and when
required courses were offered.
2. 2.
All advisors must know the scheduling of required courses and advise
their students to take the courses when offered and not assume the
courses will be available next semester. It is vital that
colleges realize that if a student is not advised properly or believes
the advice caused him or her to stay longer than should have been
necessary, this invokes questions of fiscal return on investment –Am I wasting money or my time?- and can lead to dropping out.
3. 3. It is necessary to hold advising up-dating workshops for all those who advise
as well as those who may ever find themselves in a position to help
students with scheduling. If people who are advising students do not go
to the up-dating workshops, they should not be allowed to advise. This
could lead to a need for more full-time advisors but this could be a
benefit in the long run.
4. 4.The workshops should also lead to a FAQ document that can be made available to the university students and employees so answers to questions on curricular changes and the such could be readily available.
5. Colleges should consider creating and implementing curricular maps.
A curricular map is a program outline that assures the appropriate
sequence is followed. They are sort of like an AAA, Mapquest or GPS set
of directions. These directions take you from point A to point B by
having you follow the exact turns in sequence. If you do as told, you
will get to your destination. If a driver decides to take a detour, he
or she has to also assume the responsibility for getting off the road,
perhaps losing direction and the time lost. Curricular Roadmaps work in
a similar way. The Roadmap says that you follow this route (group of
courses) for two semesters then take another route for the next
semester, and so on. If the route is followed as directed, the student
will move from point A to point graduation within the specified time.
If a student wishes to take a course that is not in the map that is okay
but he or she assumes responsibility for the decision to take a
possible side trip. Thus some freedom in course choices is available
with a full understanding that the decision could slow down progress to
graduation.
If this articles makes sense to you, you will want to get a copy of the new book From Admissions to Graduation: Achieving Growth Through Academic Customer Service by Neal Raisman, author oif the best seller The Power
No comments:
Post a Comment