Somewhere in the history of American education, the ideas seems to have emerged that college is college, and the real world is something distinctly different.
Maybe it’s this notion that accounts for our tendency to let things slide in the college atmosphere. Blame Bluto and the boys from “Animal House” if you must, but for many the idea of “college” has become synonymous with “amusement park,” weakening the institution as a whole. Post graduate degrees are now almost expected for any well-paying jobs in one’s field of study, as the system compensates for the glut of students pouring out of undergrad programs, some with little idea how or why they earned their diploma.
More than ever, economic realities are setting in, and dissolving the barrier that allows us to think of college and the “real world” as two different places. The U.S. Department of Education estimates 62 percent of public and 96 percent of private school students graduate with loan debt between $20,000 and $33,000, with fewer job prospects than in years past.
So how should we be looking at college? As job-training? Preparation for further education? A safe place to make the transition from adolescence to adulthood?
How about this: A college is a business. We, the students, are educational consumers, the degree is the product, and the university is the storefront.
This assessment might ruin some illusions and it may have some holes, but it’s a way of looking at USM that would benefit both the student body and the administration.
Thinking about their education as consumers, students might become more discerning and confident in demanding exactly what it is they want to get out of their time at USM. If you go out to for a nice meal, you wouldn’t just eat enough of your entree to appease the waiter, you enjoy the food and savor the atmosphere – the “experience.” Students who hide behind laptops during a lecture, or ignore reading assignments are essentially pushing the peas around on their plate, looking busy until they can get the hell out of there, and wasting their – or someone else’s – money.
If USM’s administration were to treat the operation and restructuring of USM more like a business venture, it might become easier to make the tough decisions and affect the change that this university needs to continue on in a sustainable way. USM has been criticized for its effort to be “everything to everyone,” acting like a well-funded university with the luxury of offering programs regardless of enrollment and interest. In these lean fiscal times, hard decisions need to be made, and I would rather see USM pared down to a realistic, sustainable institution than endanger the quality of what it already does very well.
I was impressed by the strong show of support for the German program when it was announced that it would be cut and its one professor fired, but I think that such by-the-numbers axing is ultimately necessary. The program has one person enrolled in the major, and just a handful of students taking German language classes to further their studies in history, music and philosophy.
The decision to cut a program may not be popular, but sometimes, it’s the only choice. Would you rather have USM spread itself too thin to placate everyone today, or still exist as an institution ten years from now?
USM envisions itself as a small liberal arts school, concerned with offering a well-rounded curriculum, and a wide-range of course offerings, but it simply cannot be the bastion of cloistered academia that it longs to be. The student body is too transient and incidental, the state appropriations too meager, and the economy too fragile.
In a column printed online during February break, columnist Matt Dodge took issue with the canceling of some classes on the Thursday before break so that students could attend the university-wide meetings, or “Convocations.”
The Convocations were held as a means of involving students, faculty, and staff in USM’s restructuring process. In his column, Dodge said “the decisions made by some professors to cancel classes on Thursday and Friday is a breach of the consumer’s trust that would hardly be tolerated at any other type of business.” (“Convocate Away, But Not at My Expense” Feb 8.)
As discussed in the column, a conversation about the future of the university is important, and student input is a key part of the process.
However, the simple fact is that a once-a-week class, canceled to accommodate a student body that failed to turn out more than 30 students for the first Convocation, is essentially robbing the student of their $49.50, and breaking the contract that exists between a university and its students. Such infringements do nothing to build consumer confidence, and risk the reputation of USM in the marketplace of higher education.