DEFINING 'QUALITY' IN HIGHER EDUCATION - IT Division

DEFINING 'QUALITY' IN HIGHER EDUCATION

BY AARON W. HUGHEY

The writer Is an aaaociBteprofessor in the department of educational leadership at Western Kentucky University.

H IGHER EDUCATION in the United States is at a crossroads. Since about 1980, col-

leges and universities in this country

have been increasingly under the mi, croscope - scrutinized more in-

tensely than at

any time in their

400-year history.

"Who should have access to

postsecondary education? What role should these

institutions play in contributing to the culture

Aaron Hughey

and quality of life of our citi-

zens? What should be the relation-

ship between the ivory tower and business and industry? How does

higher education affect the economy? What does it really mean to be an

"educated" person? These are just a few of the ques-

tions that permeate our collective

dialogue. With all this mindpower focused

so intently on academia, it seems

likely that the answers to the questions listed above must be close at

hand. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Even a cur-

sory review of the profusion of newspaper collimns, magazine articles,

and scholarly tomes devoted to the topic quickly reveals a somewhat disturbing reality. Most of the people writing about higher education obviously do not have much of a clue about what's going on there.

The only point everyone seems to

agree on is that we do, in fact, have a problem. Beyond that, the digression begins. Perhaps a good -analogy would be the economists. Several

, claim to be experts, but nobody knows for sure what the market will do in the next five minutes.

Admittedly, clarifying what's wrong with higher education and then suggesting specific remedies is

more of a daunting task than may be initially realized. Most of the conventional wisdom (or at least the rhetoric) seems to revolve around the key issues of necessity, accountability, quality, and their relationship to economic reality. True, all of these considerations are relevant when dis-

cussing academia's rightful place in the societal hierarchy.

But the notion of what actually constitutes "quality" within the higher education arena seems to be the most elusive. Without a doubt, it is

certainly the most divisive. What does it really mean when we

say that a particular institution provides a quality educational experience for its students? Are we refer-

ring to some philosophical dimension that relates to enhanced awareness

and a higher level of functioning (you have to love the way we typically phrase things in academia)? Or do we mean that the institution's graduates seem to do well once they leave

the institution; i.e., do" they receive jobs in their majors? Or do we simply' mean that the overhead projectors work, the professors tend to show up for class, and the library has more than three journal subscriptions?

It is my contention that a precise and shared definition of quality is

needed before we can make meanin~ful progress toward its realization m higher education. How we define quality ultimately determines our goals, methods and priorities in pursuing it.

It all comes down to that old Zen

proverb that you cannot take aim without a target.

Quality tends to be defined from

one end of the spectrum to the other. As a result, there is very little chahce that two people who happen to be discussing the subject are really even speaking the same language.

Once again, it must be noted that the bookshelves and magazine racks are filled with various attempts to define what constitutes quality in higher education, and, more important, how it can be initially achieved and subsequently sustained. Of course, the same could be said of just about any subject. We are a culture with an overabun-

dance of words coupled with a severe shortage of ideas.

In the mai1ufa~ and service sectors, the Total Quality Management (I'QM) approach developed by Deming, Juran, Imai, Crosby and others is having

a profound impact on the way mana~ement sees its role in the organization and in the implementation of work systems. But just how applicable is TQM to tOOay'scolleges and universities?

It would certainly be dangerous to reach a point where our colleges and universities are considered "good enough." The only way to remain re:

sponsive to the needs of a dynamic and diverse student population ISconstantly to strive to provide better programs and services without comparable increases in cost. Administrators must

stay in touch with the students they serve and offer programs and services

careful," then the statement is simply self-serving. If he gets hurt, I can always claim that I told him to "be careful," and therefore I am absolved 'from any, further responsibility.

Much of the discourse related to

quality in higher education contains the same flawed logic. It sounds won-

derful but is absolutely useless upon closer examination.

When a college or university is referred to as a "major center of learning," what kinds of things spring to mind? In most cases, we tend to assume that the institution has a large research budget, its faculty contains a lot of well-known "names," its

graduates receive preferential treatment in the job market, etc. In other words, it could mean virtually any-

that best :meet their needs at the cur- thing depending upon the fnune of

rent moment. The overriding goal of reference of the' person arguing their

continual improvement must permeate particular point.

every discussion and dominate every . Adding to the problem has been an

management decision; this is the es- increasing tendency among many

sence of the TQM doctrine.

pundits to define quality in ways that

Most higher education advocates are easily quantified. Consequently,

would no doubt be hard pressed to quality has often been interpreted in

disagree with the assertion that terms of test scores, library holdings

achievin~ and maintaining the high- and publication records. After all, we est quality standards possible is of all know that if we can assign a num-

paramount importance. The problem IS that without more specific direc-

ber to something, it is somehow more "real."

tion and elaboration, such statements

In the minds of many of ,our na-

are essentially meaningless. They tion's most influential political and

add to the confusion rather than help educational leaders, "quality" is

alleviate it.

measured almost exclusively WIthin a

Consider this. If I tell my I2-year- materialistic context. Whoever has

old to "be careful," what is he going the most must be the best. Or as Al-

to do differently than he would have exander Astin has so eloquently statdone before I made that statement? ed, "many academics seem content Probably nothing. He can do just to define educational exceUence in

about anything and still claim he was terms of what they have, rather than , "being careful." Unless I explicitly what they do."

defme for him what I mean by "be

Often, the acqttisition of resources

seems far more impertant than their allocation.

This is not to say that money is not essential to the development or maintenance of a quality educational en-

terprise. It most definitely is. The fact that academics complam so vehemently about a lack of needed funds says more about the misplaced priorities of our legislators, and to some extent our society as a whole, than perhaps anything else.

But it is very naive to assume that

quality in l1i~er education is directly proportionaf to the amount of dollars spent. If it were, institutions with the most financial resources would, by definition, have the hi~est quality,

And how do financUil resources re-

late to such important considerations as institutional commitment to foster-

ing diversity of thought, and creative problem-solving, faculty and staff

commitment to educational ~oals and ideals, and student cOmmItment to

the learning process and community service. Quality also encompasses such intangibles as undergraduate advising, student services delivery systems, and facilitation of student involvement in the total educational

process. These dimensions are critiCally related to overall quality, but they are also much harder to quantify and measure. ADd they are often not economically driven.

WIth respect to academic pro-

~, it is traditional to define qualIty in terms of rigorous adherence to a set of predetermined standards. But consider the notion that true quality may not hold every institution or every individual to the same yardstick. Although standards have their place, quality also implies the ability to respond flexibly to the individual needs of a diverse population of students. It takes into account the particUlar strengths and weaknesses of individuals in relation to their specific educational and career aspiralions.

The relative quality Of the education received at a given institution is , largely a functibn of the level of com-

mitment exhibited by the administration, faculty and staff employed there. Having millions of dollars in external funding does not insure high quality. Neither does having a distin-

guished faculty, a student population saturated with National Ment Schol-

ars, or a highly respected reputation. On the other hand, having admin-

istrators, faculty and staff who share

a common commitment to the general welfare of the students they serve

goes a lon~ way toward insuring quality within academe. For the most part, parents and other consumers are not overly concerned with wheth-

er the school their son or daughter attends has eight to nine Nobel Prize winners on the faculty. They are primarily concerned with whether the

school is treating them fairly and providing a solid education.

Those who derive their livelihoods

in the academic world should probably spend a little more time thinking about what really constitutes quality in their delivery of services; Are we

continually trying to do a better job of assisting students in the attainment of their educational goals and objectives? Are we continually looking for ways to improve our internal operations to make them more efficient

and effective? Are we continually striving to work as a team within the institution? '

- Every institution has some. room

for improvement on all fronts from the blackboard to the balance sheet.

But with all of its inherent problems

and difficulties, higher education is

still a bargain. The return on invest-

ment' both tangible and intangible, is

truly enormous. During the course of

hisiber lifetime, the average college graduate can expect to earn approxi-

mately $500,000 more than those who

do not acquire a degree (there's that fi-

nancial factot again). Yet this is rela-

tively insignificant compared with the

impact on an individual's total quality

of life. Being "educated" entails more

than the mere acquisition of technical

skills and job security. It entails.some-

thing much deeper.

"

It is high time that we acknowledge

that the benefits of higher education

extend far beyond the students who

currently sit in the classes, listen to the

lectures, participate in the labs,~ or interact with the websites. It benefits s0-

ciety as a whole - a fact that should be

foremost in any discussion of what constitutes qualIty in academe.

Special to The Courler-Jovmal

The Courier -Journal-- The Forum -- Sunday, December 7, 1997, page D4

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download