Who Are We Serving? Customer vs. Student

1. Who Are We Serving?Customer vs. Student Connections Collaboration Communication Ohio Association Of Student Financial Aid Administrators 2011 Spring Conference “Collaboration, Connections, Communication” Megan Moore Gardner, Ph.D. University of Akron

2. Current State of Higher Education • Increasing competition • Increasing role of market in higher education • Increased accountability and demand for outcomes

3. State Priorities Academic concerns Market Forces Accountability Triangle (Burke, 2005)

4. As a result… Students are now viewed by both internal and external stakeholders as customers.

5. Customer Service • It is often argued that student services departments could run much more efficiently and business-like a customer service approach were utilized • Small (2008) found that a growing reliance on student fees has resulted in increasingly commercial, more customer-service oriented practices and standards in student services departments. This is advantageous because the market is increasingly competitive for students, and by providing quality, uniform student services, higher education institutions can use it to their benefit • A customer service approach could may be viewed as detrimental because it might force student services professionals to more objective and business-like and less relational. • Maguad (2007), noted several reasons why students do not fit into the traditional customer mold including the following: • Students are admitted selectively and businesses do not screen customers • Students often do not pay for everything themselves and, in businesses, customers typically pay for everything with their own funds • Students must continually past tests and earn particular grades in order to continue, whereas businesses do not do that to customers.

6. Student Service Model • Student Affairs/Services was created to support institutional mission (Hamrick, Evans, and Schuh, 2002). Services were designed so the student could focus on becoming educated. • The profession of student services has traditionally focused on two main ideas: • the concept of developing the whole student • continuous commitment to supporting the diversity of academic and institutional missions (Komives, Woodard, and Associates, 2003). • Young (2003) discusses one of the values a student affairs professional should have is service. This concept refers to serving society by means of caring through providing students with support. Student affairs/services professionals should be providing a service to students through providing support services to students (Young, 2003). • Ahren (2008) found that student affairs professionals come from diverse educational backgrounds that impact professional behaviors, values and assumptions. This may result in work that is more subjective and may be a disadvantage in a time of limited resources.

7. Is there a compromise? Transactional vs. Relational

8. Students and Customers? Academic internal customer: the student has to meet certain criteria to become accepted into the institution and maintain academic requirements to stay enrolled at the institution. Administrative internal customer: operates more as an actual customer to the institution based on the services the institution provides, such as the facilities, food, and stores (Maguad, 2007).

9. “Students are also unprepared to navigate our complex systems. We are the first bureaucracy many of them have ever encountered. Foolishly, we expect students to understand our organizational structure, know what forms need to be completed and where to find them, remember a dozen deadlines, and even read the catalogue” (Black, 2003).

10. We “as service providers, have an opportunity to teach them not only the mechanics of financial aid or academic planning but also the importance of managing one’s time, establishing priorities, setting goals, organizing information, attending to details, building justifications, balancing responsibilities with consequences, and even successfully navigating a bureaucracy” (Black, 2003).

11. Questions and Discussion Megan Moore Gardner, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Higher Education Administration University of Akron mooregm@uakron.edu

12. References Ahren, C. (2008). Closing the gap with student affairs staff: From margin to mainstream. New Directions for Higher Education, (143), 83-91. doi:10.1002/he.316 Burke, J. C. & Associates (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hamrick, F, Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. H. (2002). Foundations of student affairs practice: How philosophy, theory, and research strengthen educational outcomes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Komives, S.R., Woodard, D. B., & Associates (4th ed.). (2003). Student services: A handbook for the profession. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Maguad, B. A. (2007). Identifying the needs of customers in higher education. Education, 127(3), 332-343. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004). The future of higher education: Rhetoric, reality, and the risks of the market. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Small, K. (2008). Relationships and reciprocality in student and academic services. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 30(2), 175-185. doi:10.1080/13600800801938770 Young, R.B. (2003). Philosophies and principles of guiding the student affairs professions. In Komives, S. R., Woodard, D. B., & Associates (4th ed.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (89-106). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.