My DeVry on-line instructor training

Well, apparently I am Dr. Moral Stand. I made it through the DeVry hiring process and started their training program this week. I just sent an email dropping out which I will paste in below. I also dropped out as a student from APUS because they hired faculty that took weeks to respond to emails or grade papers.

Interestingly I made it through the UOP training and start teaching my first class next month, and I have to say UOP and DeVry training was night and day. For as much grief as UOP gets, and probably deserves from past actions, their instructor training absolutely drove home their requirement to uphold high standards, require substantive participation by students, and to focus on education in their courses.

DeVry open the training telling us new instructors that the students were our customers. I believe this is the model that got UOP in trouble in the late 1990's. Here is my email (names removed):

"Sir:

First, let me say that I think you are doing a great job facilitating the instructor training on-line. You come across as very energetic and involved. You clearly love what you are doing and it shows.

I did a lot of research concerning DeVry before applying as an instructor, but I have to be honest that yesterdays webinar left me uncomfortable, too much so continue with the training. I am not sure of the qualifications of the person who was speaking (if it was you please take this with a grain of salt, as my intention is not to criticism you personally). I felt the person speaking came across as very naive and arrogant, and I am not comfortable with a university that tells its faculty that their students are Customers. If the person speaking has a terminal degree, I would be very surprised.

I personally do not believe in this model for education; I do everything I can in the courses I teach, but in the end, I am not teaching customers I am teaching people, and my role as instructor, sometimes, requires me to make decisions that are morally right concerning education, not commercially right concerning customer retention. I am, apparently, not DeVry material!

I wish the school, and certainly you the best.

Hope everything else finds you well.

DEL"

 

Wow - way to take a stand.

 

David,

We've never interacted so I apologize for making a personal request of you.

Having written that, would you be willing to offer some additional context to this story? In other words, are you talking a line in the sand over what could've just been an ill-advised slogan from a PowerPoint or are you saying that instructors were told to violate academic integrity to retain students?

There's a huge difference between implicit and explicit encouragement to do something. I'm terribly curious as to which this is.

If you don't wish to discuss further, I understand.

 

Something more in the middle, in my opinion. I can't say there was an over act to violate academic integrity, however, I would suggest that my impression of the inference, within a context that would be difficult for me to convey, was that the word "Customer" was absolutely intended to carry weight beyond "Student". There is no need to use the term Customer in academics, it conveys a very different meaning than other words. This was not an accident and I did not misinterpret its meaning, it is an attitude that I am not willing to concede given my impressions of right and wrong in this space. That being said there cannot be inferred any overt wrong doing here beyond my personal principles, and assuming such would be incorrect.

I can say that in the training and experiences I have instructing at other online schools within the last 6 months, this attitude was NEVER presented in this way.

 

I agree that you cannot refer your students as customers. So, the students have the right to ask the school to give them "A's" because they are customers? Another thing that usually the company is looking at the customers for digging money out of them; is this the main purpose of the school or provide the legimate education?

 

Perhaps everyone is misinterpreting the meaning of 'customer' in the context used by DeVry. By referring to the student as a customer the school might be trying to instill in the instructors, or would-be instructors, a sense of strong service level delivery. Do students ask for 'A' grades and receive them despite not earning such a grade? Unless there is evidence to the contrary all the jumping to conclusions does is create a gossipy old biddy gathering.

 

Devry online is for sure one of the more "customer" oriented online schools around. I agree with you that there is a conflict between this policy and providing quality education.

In my opinion, there is always a conflict of interests when providing for profit education. At the end of the day, if the academic standards are too high, that means that less students will be able to graduate and means that more students will drop out and this translates to less revenue for the school.

Although for profit education might have this problem, I must say that schools like Devry have also excellent technical programs as they can afford up to date lab equipment. So here you have, on one hand strong academic programs at state schools but with dated lab equipment due to budget cuts or less academic oriented education but with a strong hands on emphasis with top lab equipment at Devry.

I think Devry does not sell high academics but more technical training for the real world. Customers (students) at Devry tend to be adults looking to upgrade skills and sometimes this type of student is not the most academic oriented.

 

This doesn't happen at Devry, I have taught there few times and never had this issue. However, you need to keep very high evaluations in order to keep getting work. This means that you cannot upset many students with low grades but this doesn't mean you cannot fail students either, it means that you have to be very careful with your customers and keep them satisfied. This means returning voice and email messages within the same day, grading work within 48 hrs, posting answers to questions within 24 hrs and prepare them well for the final exam.

 

In other words, instructors must provide excellent customer service. There is nothing wrong with the criteria you mentioned and would be good advice for all distance education instructors at any school. Now maybe the speculation in this thread can end for those who thought DeVry might be "selling grades."

 

I guess if I apply for a job with them I shouldn't use you are a reference

 

I wouldn't

 

Well, I have to say that UOP got it right in their training. Their emphasis is on all of these things, with a focus on academics and substantial interactions. You can spin it any way you want, but an academic institution that views students as customers and faculty as the staff that is servicing them is heading in the wrong direction. I think this is what got UOP in trouble 15 years ago and they are still digging out of that hole and in many ways, they brought DL down with them. I personally think this is a dangerous approach.

All that said, and as I stated before, I am in no way suggesting that they are selling grades, I have no evidence of that.

 

Hi!

I appreciate your moral stand. I have refused a number of adjunct teaching positions that were offered to me at schools such as Strayer, Walden, UoP, DeVry, and Kaplan because of the poor compensation. In my mind poor compensation is also a moral issue perhaps not as noble sounding as your own position.

I can recommend one good school with which I have had a few years of experience for adjunct work: UMUC. Their compensation is very good and they pay for the training!

 

I agree with you to a point. Making money in support of one's family is a very noble position. Even supporting yourself and paying your bills is a highly noble position.

We (as Americans) are currently being told by the president of the US that only going into NFPs is a good thing. Not for Profits however need money. Most of that comes through donations. I have given 1000s to 100s of NFPs which is a noble thing. They need my money. But back to first point.

If I do no take care of myself, I will have no one else to do it. I guess I could live in poverty and have the taxpayers pay for me. However, that is an impingement on the taxpayers liberty. All taxes are an attack on liberty.

So to all you working to support yourself and your family by working two or three jobs AND actually paying taxes. This Buds for you!

 

I agree with Sentinel. From a quality standpoint (and from many of the management training courses I've taken) students are a school's customers.
Customer service means providing a quality education at a cost acceptable to the student. It also means that student services need to be efficient
and timely. However students must learn to live with the school's requirements and regulations.

 

I agree 100% with this. FP or NFP, a school is a business and their students are the customers.

 

I am very comfortable with the "customer orientation" referred to in this thread. Students are customers and customers expect, and should receive, the best of service. The specific length and breath of these services should be precisely described in whatever contractual agreement is signed by the student/customer. Keep it explicit, keep it clear, keep it legal. It's a no-brainer.

 

That is very interesting, but fascinating as I react very negatively to the idea that a student is a customer. NCU uses the terminology 'learner' that I think works, however it boggles my mind why we would need to change the term 'student' in the first place.

I personally find it monumentally poor form, and I think it lends itself to a mindset that moves away from the ability to appropriately challenge and provide a good education.

"We're getting ready to select the 2010 Harvard Freshman Customers we will service next year." - that just doesn't sound right in any form

"I was a customer of MIT for four years while I bought my Bachelors degree, the service was good and I would buy this degree again, but in some cases I received my grades to slowly so can only give them 4 of 5 stars."

nope.

 

In distance education the traditional teaching role has been replaced by the role of facilitator, and the role of student replaced with the role of learner since students must be actively engaged in their education (courses). So, I can understand the term 'learner' used bu NorthCentral University.

The use of customer in the context of education delivery is valid from the perspective of both the school and the learner. Why? The schools want their facilitators to deliver a quality education in each course and to take their role seriously particularly in light of criticisms, mostly unfounded, of degrees earned via distance education delivery modes. I do not view this as moving "away from the ability to appropriately challenge and provide a good education."

As a student (learner) I am expected to complete and submit assignments according to a pre-established schedule and those assignments are supposed to reflect academic proficiency. In turn I expect my teacher (facilitator) to grade those assignments in a timely manner allowing me the opportunity to improve my academic proficiency for subsequent assignments in the course. It matters not whether the assignment is a discussion board posting and follow-up responses to other students, short essays, term papers, open-book untimed examinations, or timed quizzes and/or examinations. I measure the school using two criteria: knowledge gained from the course and impression of the level of engagement by the facilitator. This is where customer service comes into play for many students, aside from any financial aid or administrative interaction with the school.

 

We are aligned in the quality necessary for good education, but are far apart on how the vocabulary in any way addresses those motives. I do not see any connection, and do not believe you have actually connected the inference of customer/quality necessary to support this view. In addition, you are downplaying the baggage that comes with these terms. I just can't figure out why..?

I'm not attacking, I just don't see this connection and how moving to a customer model is relevant (especially given how UOP used this model to incredible legitimate criticism that they are still trying to recover from), or why the change is needed for DL and not face-to-face.. I don't get it or understand the motivation behind defending this view..

And it isn't the moral high ground because the argument that only the customer model leads to a good quality education product has been proven false over and over again, and in fact the UOP 1990's experiment provides direct evidence to the contrary.