While I do not believe faculty should be evaluated based on "customer" notions, I do think there is a middle ground between vesting control solely in the faculty and vesting total control in some outside constituency.  I think it is unrealistic for faculty to think that they should not be accountable at all to some outside forces in society, e.g., parents, other educators, employers.  

This does not mean that we should simply give in and say "okay" to everything the employers want (which tend to be more immediate kinds of skills than long-term skills, such as ability to evaluate problems.) But I think that academics have it pretty darn good - once you get tenure (especially after getting to full), there is very little accountability, except your own conscience and what you believe is the right thing to do.  In what other kind of job are you guaranteed life-time employment where it is VERY difficult to get fired?  If you are a slacker, once you get tenure you can teach your classes, do the minimum, and really not have to worry about having a job until you die. (We all know folks at our home institutions who have taken this route.) I think it is this lack of accountability that is driving some of the outside criticism.

So I think it behooves faculty members to listen to some of these outside voices and compromise a bit on this notion that only the faculty should decide what goes on inside the institution. There are abuses in both extremes - faculty only or "customer driven" only. 

>>> "Virginia Maurer (MAN)" <[log in to unmask]> 02/26/00 01:39PM >>>
Or, the communities with whom they are engaged through a lifetime -
- employers, family, friends, partners, business colleagues,
neighbors, in short the larger society that decides, in the aggregate,
whether that kind of education produces a product that warrants the
tremendous social investment in that educational institution, whether
it was worth extracting money from people who could not afford to
go to college in order to subsidize the education of people destined
for the middle and upper middle class.

Date sent:              Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:21:13 -0800
Send reply to:          "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
                <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Frank Cross <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: customer friendly?
To:                     [log in to unmask] 

Right, the proper analogy is that students are raw materials and their
parents are the suppliers.  They're the ones to be kept happy.


At 05:08 PM 2/25/2000 EST, you wrote:
>With tongue firmly lodged in cheek, I'd say the President
>misunderstands manufacturing and supply chain management. He
>or she cannot tell the customer from the raw materials or the
>finished product. Not a good sign in a Prez.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Date sent:             Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:27:33 -0800
>Send reply to:          "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
>                <[log in to unmask]>
>From:                   Keith Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:                customer friendly?
>To:                     [log in to unmask] 
>
>ALSBers,
>
>The quuestion below was aked on another list I subscribe to. (It is a list
>of mainly liberal arts professors). How do you react to this?
>
>Keith
>
>>What do you think of a university president who surveys students with the
>>following message.
>>"One of my goals as president is to make the university more customer
>>friendly. ______ University exists for the purpose of helping you succeed in
>>life. (read that as get a job). Please take the time to complete this
>>customer satisfaction survey. It is patterned after surveys done for
>>businesses interested in meeting and exceeding customer expectations.
>>Results will be used to prioritize efforts to improve the university."
>
Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712