Just as U of T president Robert Birgeneau was questioning the validity of Maclean’s Magazine’s University Ranking system, another ranking appeared in the press. This one was far less kind to U of T.
Last week the Globe and Mail released the results of its “University Report Card.” Methodological concerns aside, U of T found itself way down in 24th place in the overall results category. The survey was based on responses from 21,000 students.
I can’t say I’m overly surprised by this dismal result. The Globe’s Allan R. Gregg pronounced: “What our findings remind us is that students are the customers of educational services.” So U of T’s customers are dissatisfied.
But do we really want university students to be characterized as customers? The customer-business relationship is far too unidirectional. I slap down the big bucks and a university dispenses a degree, and maybe a bit of knowledge if I’m lucky. What are the customers’ responsibilities? And what are the businesses’ obligations?
The customer concept makes me think U of T has one motive in providing its services: to access the customer’s wallet. If U of T’s main concern is a satisfied customer, education is no longer the key objective.
So why did U of T fare so poorly? Because this school is taking up the “customer” paradigm in its dealings with students and potential students.
Instead of the unidirectional relationship of the customer-business relationship, students need to be a part of an open and democratic community. Mutual respect is possible only in a system where we have open, fair and accessible governance. The university must be the students’ ally, as we fight to prevent tuition fees from skyrocketing. U of T needs to put its reputation and financial might behind student campaigns to reduce, and ideally eliminate, fees.
Barriers to accessibility at U of T need to be acknowledged, not shoved under the table. If students are customers, universities clearly want to target the wealthy ones. But in an equitable system, the university will see its students in terms of all of their resources, not just their financial ones.
In Gregg’s flawed evaluation the University Report Card, he writes, “When an administration sets out to be the best—be it by attracting the best faculty or creating the best bookstore—the students know it.”
But U of T aspires to be a “leading public research university.” So why aren’t the students satisfied? Perhaps because they recognize that “being the best” certainly involves high academic standards, excellent faculty and great facilities. But it must simultaneously involve respect, accessibility, democracy and equity.
