Should a college adopt business practices? - Controversy: point/counterpoint

University Business, Feb, 2003 by Gregory Wirth, Bob Topor

I JUST READ YOUR OP-ED PIECE [EDITOR'S NOTE] IN THE DECEMBER 2002 issue, "We Don't Talk the Talk," and I didn't much care for it. Oh? You didn't think I would? Well, go figure, because I usually do enjoy your insights into this rather beleaguered "business" in which we both work. This particular view that you have on college and university presidents sidling up to the marketing and big business concerns, seems at once shallow and one-dimensional. Worse, you seem to derive a certain amount of glee out of reporting it. Oh say, I remember, the name of your publication IS University Business, isn't it? We have a Business Office at our college. They pay the bills. Right now, that's a really hard job for them, but I haven't heard anyone there suggest getting into bed with Enron quite yet.

In your short piece you say that college administrators are jumping on the business model bandwagon "after ... centuries of distancing the academy from the baser instincts of corporate America ..." without really exploring why that was, or what it means. Why have colleges historically not run their affairs according to what worked for the oil magnates, transportation moguls, or for that matter, Indian-reservation-run gambling casinos? Is the point in higher education to plop in a student at one end, squirt him/her out the other, and make a dollar? If so, how do we justify something as seemingly useless as a Philosophy department? I'm afraid that we both know that a college's output is pretty nearly as intangible an object as the concept of well-being: You can't actually buy it (although many try), but you sure know when someone is without it. What I do know is that you can't raise a trout in a sewer, and that if, somehow, the trout could adapt to a life surrounded by sewage, I wouldn't want to eat it.

There are greater challenges to administering a college than you give credit for in your article, and welcoming the college and university presidents over to the business-model side of the house with a nod and a smirk turns a cold, blind eye to the real needs of these institutions. If you really do not think that running a college from a business standpoint will not diminish the value of the education, then please, please, please do not invite me over to your place for Trout Almondine. [sic] The opinions reflected here are my own, and do not in any way represent the position or opinions of St. Charles Community College.

Gregory Wirth is the IT network manager at St. Charles County Community College in St. Peters, MO.

I READ, WITH GREAT AMUSEMENT, YOUR ARTICLE [EDITOR'S NOTE, "We Don't talk the Talk"] in the December issue. I was amused to find higher education officials still reluctant to embrace the fact that they are involved in a business, flat out, with no reservations or apologies. I wrote, in the early '70s, one of the first "revolutionary" books on the subject, Marketing Higher Education: A Practical Guide, published by CASE (the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, Washington, D.C.). It was, for years, their bestseller. However, even then, I had suggested users mask aggressive marketing ideas with euphemistic labels (i.e., "marketing" as "institutional advancement"; "market research" as "fact finding") in order to make these "far out" ideas palatable on campus.

So, the battle continues, many decades later. Someone described an institution of higher education as a big ship. It can turn, but it takes a long time and many miles to accomplish. I've also called applying these marketing ideas at an institution of higher education, "trying to turn an elephant around in a bathtub." It ain't easy, but it can be done. It takes perseverance and zeal.

I recall once at Cornell University for Cooperative Extension, talking to an audience of New York State farmers about marketing. During my talk, I noticed a man, seated in the back, arms folded, scowling, and chomping at the bit to attack me. When I asked if there were questions, his arm shot up. Snickering to all his fellow farmers, he said, "Let me ask you a simple question: What if you had a product you did not have to market (suggesting that Cooperative Extension was so good it just needed to exist to find favor). I innocently asked, "What would that be?" He replied, "Toilet paper!" The audience broke up with endorsing laughter. At first, I was stunned, but I took advantage of the opportunity during the next 20 minutes to describe, in rapid succession, how toilet paper was manufactured, designed, positioned, researched, brand identified, advertised, distributed, and marketed. And how marketing ensured its financial success and acceptance in the competitive marketplace. The audience sat stunned. I had made my point.

Over the years, I have been interested to note that community colleges are often much quicker to accept these "radical" marketing ideas. Most universities lag far behind. I ask myself, "Why is that?"

A rose IS a rose!

Bob Topor is the retired Stanford University director of publications, and president, Topor Consulting Group International.