Education Barriers: Access Limitations - Part IV
CONTINUATION OF THE “IN LOCO PARENTIS” MODALITY
Institutions have long practiced some “in loco parentis” modality over the years. Unfortunately, the approach is often employed in an extremely confusing manner. The parental modality of the institution may apply in some areas but not in others. My thinking is that this mediocre approach to the parental modality (mentality?) causes more problems than benefits. If the institution were to implement a complete and totalitarian approach to “in loco parentis,” it might be productive, but it also impacts profoundly on academic freedom, motivation for learning, and the end-product of the education process. The other side of the coin in this matter is to abandon the role of pseudo-parent and adopt a professional mentor approach.
Institutions need to stop worrying about how students feel about the process and start making the process work through merit, genuine achievement, and honest acknowledgement. Genuine self-esteem is something that comes from conquering adversity and gaining expertise from that process. This is not to say that we abandon students that learn differently, just that we adopt the same standards for the process, but stop limiting how the process can occur.
Institutions also need to stop trying to be a “pseudo-parent” and let adults deal with the realities of life in the “fast lane.” However, the institutions of higher learning in our society understand that if they maintain the role of “pseudo-parent” and apply “in loco parentis” in just the right manner, there are significant benefits. Parents sending their ADULT children to college are comforted by the institution promising to supervise and direct the activities of their offspring. When parents are happy, they pay the bills—no matter how high they seem to climb—and are likely to look fondly upon the institution after attending graduation ceremonies. But the fundamental problem is that the institutions pick and choose when they apply the “in loco parentis” principle, and it always seems to be to the advantage of the institution. The practice is not about education, it is about money, prestige, controlling public image, and creating opportunities for what is commonly called “development.” Oddly, there is a correlation between the status of the institution and the amount of “pseudo-parental control” in place.
While in attendance at St. Louis University as a graduate student, I felt the hand of the institution on my shoulder to make sure that I, as an adult in his late twenties, was well cared for by the programmatic rules that allowed the institution to “care” for me. The institution required that I demonstrate health insurance coverage. When I offered proof of my status as a veteran with eligibility for VA health care, they rejected its adequacy, even though its medical school was affiliated with the downtown VA hospital. Then, for my protection, I had to prove that I either had primary immunity to, or vaccination from, the measles because so many college students were contracting measles while in attendance at college. When I questioned the validity of the institution prying into my health status, they cited laws that the colleges were influential in getting passed that required such disclosures. When I asked if the state or institution were going to provide me with extended medical care and reimbursement for any problems directly related to undergoing a vaccination of this sort, they flatly refused that this was even reasonable.
The refusal of the institution to take responsibility for the potential harm that they do by playing out the role of the “pseudo-parent,” they expose people to risks while reaping benefits and bearing none of the risk. The institutions of higher learning want the cake and the opportunity to eat it as well. They want disclosures of medical information, the right to dictate certain aspects of medical care, but no responsibility for any consequences. Medical care is not the only area where this is the modus operandi.
The institutions want the ability to dictate the curriculum in fine detail, extract a huge sum of money from the student and related stakeholders—parents, grant makers, scholarship providers, as well as state and federal governments—without having any requirements, assurances or guarantees of the quality of the educational process. If a student graduates from the institution and does not possess the skills, knowledge or ability to actually compete in the field for which the institution provided instruction, then that is the fault of the student. If an athlete has received a scholarship; played for the institution; generated interest, revenues and donations; but did not achieve a working ability in the chosen field of study, that is not the fault of the institution. If that same student is injured, any medical costs beyond the immediate and short-term care are the burdens of the student. If a student athlete seeks compensation commensurate to the amounts of income and good will generated by athletic performance, the institution will deny any obligations and resist vehemently all efforts to share the wealth.
Institutions of higher learning want it both ways. There is an institutionalized desire to direct the student and control students in ways that suit—and benefit—the college, university or training center, but deny any real obligation to assure the student is competent upon graduation, or even safe while in attendance. Colleges and universities have a history of hiding less-than-favorable information regarding crime on campus, graduation rates, success in the post-graduation populations, or any other area of import unless there is a legal requirement to do so. The reporting of crime statistics is a good example of this issue. It wasn’t until there was federal law and regulation compelling the release of crime statistics and the development of crime prevention programs that many schools allowed such things to come under public scrutiny. Once a public light was turned on to these matters, the schools started to address problems that exposed the failure of the “in loco parentis” principle.
The premise of “in loco parentis” is that the institution is taking the place of the parent. Unfortunately, the institution fails to realize that the vast majority of students enrolled in higher education are over the age of majority. But keeping “in loco parentis” in place allows the institution to continue to woo the parents of students, control student behaviors, maintain an always-increasing stream of revenue, and not have to answer or account for anything it does. There is no genuine reciprocity in the deal.
Consider the room and board costs of attending most colleges. At St. Louis University there was a charge of almost $1800 for a semester for a shared room (approximately 18 x 20) and the meals program. Students had to share their rooms with 1-3 other students. That meant the institution was generating $1800 to $3600 per room, per semester, three to four semesters per year. Multiply that by several hundred students per dormitory, consider that the management of the dorms is done by highly underpaid and under-trained students and graduate resident assistants, and one can see that there is considerable gold in them dorms. A student, regardless of status, usually has to bug out of the dorms during the breaks. Often, the institution will find ways to generate additional revenue by renting out these same dorms for short-term interim activities during the standard semester breaks.
The food programs are usually farmed-out to Sodexho, Marriott, or other vendors. While students are charged in excess of $900 per semester for food service, the food vendor is often only paid for the exact number of meals that it serves. So, if a student does not use the mess facilities associated with the dorms, the institution retains a portion of the fees charged without having any expenditure. There is no equity in for the student in the deal, and the idea of the institution acting in the best interest of its charges under the “in loco parentis” doctrine is abandoned completely. Any that has eaten in a college cafeteria can understand why this is a profit center for most colleges and universities: students will often seek food that tastes better than what is being served in the college dorm environment. If each student missed three meals a week, and there are 1000 students, the institution will have received $27,600 per semester without having had to provide anything. I do not know many parents that would see that as a positive. But, by maintaining the long-standing practice of “in loco parentis,” the institution generates revenues.
Our institutions are not only failing to provide a full and fair amount of equity in the relationship between student and institution, they are using an out-dated doctrine to control the playing field to a distinct advantage. The institution is in control and remains largely unaccountable. The de-emphasizing of what goes on in the classroom, while over-emphasizing that which generates revenue, prestige or influence, allows the institution to dictate uneven contractual terms which are endorsed by the legal and political systems.
If an institution were required to re-pay a large portion of monies spent by federal and state loans/grants for each student that attended a program but was not able to apply the skills, knowledge or abilities within that particular field of knowledge, there might be some different approaches. But the mere mention of any such accountability actions raises cries of foul from the institutions. The claim is that no one can predict the success of a student in this regard or manner. There is a referral to the accreditation process as proof of efforts to assure educational quality, all the while knowing that the accreditation process is also riddled with inadequacies and inequities.
Then there are claims that it is the role of the institution to offer a liberal arts education approach that empowers the student to explore different areas of education and potential career paths. It is further claimed that the liberal arts approach does more than merely train the student for success along a career path. The full weight of the “in loco parentis” doctrine is brought to bear… but only to the extent that is paints the institution in a positive manner. The fact that the institution sets the curriculum standards and expectations, designs degree programs that may not meet the needs of the academic discipline, and completely disregards classroom experiences in its evaluation process goes unnoticed because of “in loco parentis.” The dictates of the institution are held in place and innovations in education are held to a minimum. Students bear the burden of supporting an institution that does not support them and, contrary to the pre-supposed tenets of the “in loco parentis” doctrine, does not seek the best interests of the student.
Indeed, the entire concept of taking the place of a parent is merely a means to maintain the failed practices of an institution’s educational practices while maximizing revenues and prestige. There is no equity of value for the student. Given that the number of so-called “non-traditional students” enrolling in colleges over the past three decades, there might be some assumption that these issues would have been addressed by now. But there is no incentive for the institutions to change, no requirement to improve the classroom experience, and all the incentive possible to maintain the status quo. After all, it pays the bills.
November 25, 2005
Institutions have long practiced some “in loco parentis” modality over the years. Unfortunately, the approach is often employed in an extremely confusing manner. The parental modality of the institution may apply in some areas but not in others. My thinking is that this mediocre approach to the parental modality (mentality?) causes more problems than benefits. If the institution were to implement a complete and totalitarian approach to “in loco parentis,” it might be productive, but it also impacts profoundly on academic freedom, motivation for learning, and the end-product of the education process. The other side of the coin in this matter is to abandon the role of pseudo-parent and adopt a professional mentor approach.
Institutions need to stop worrying about how students feel about the process and start making the process work through merit, genuine achievement, and honest acknowledgement. Genuine self-esteem is something that comes from conquering adversity and gaining expertise from that process. This is not to say that we abandon students that learn differently, just that we adopt the same standards for the process, but stop limiting how the process can occur.
Institutions also need to stop trying to be a “pseudo-parent” and let adults deal with the realities of life in the “fast lane.” However, the institutions of higher learning in our society understand that if they maintain the role of “pseudo-parent” and apply “in loco parentis” in just the right manner, there are significant benefits. Parents sending their ADULT children to college are comforted by the institution promising to supervise and direct the activities of their offspring. When parents are happy, they pay the bills—no matter how high they seem to climb—and are likely to look fondly upon the institution after attending graduation ceremonies. But the fundamental problem is that the institutions pick and choose when they apply the “in loco parentis” principle, and it always seems to be to the advantage of the institution. The practice is not about education, it is about money, prestige, controlling public image, and creating opportunities for what is commonly called “development.” Oddly, there is a correlation between the status of the institution and the amount of “pseudo-parental control” in place.
While in attendance at St. Louis University as a graduate student, I felt the hand of the institution on my shoulder to make sure that I, as an adult in his late twenties, was well cared for by the programmatic rules that allowed the institution to “care” for me. The institution required that I demonstrate health insurance coverage. When I offered proof of my status as a veteran with eligibility for VA health care, they rejected its adequacy, even though its medical school was affiliated with the downtown VA hospital. Then, for my protection, I had to prove that I either had primary immunity to, or vaccination from, the measles because so many college students were contracting measles while in attendance at college. When I questioned the validity of the institution prying into my health status, they cited laws that the colleges were influential in getting passed that required such disclosures. When I asked if the state or institution were going to provide me with extended medical care and reimbursement for any problems directly related to undergoing a vaccination of this sort, they flatly refused that this was even reasonable.
The refusal of the institution to take responsibility for the potential harm that they do by playing out the role of the “pseudo-parent,” they expose people to risks while reaping benefits and bearing none of the risk. The institutions of higher learning want the cake and the opportunity to eat it as well. They want disclosures of medical information, the right to dictate certain aspects of medical care, but no responsibility for any consequences. Medical care is not the only area where this is the modus operandi.
The institutions want the ability to dictate the curriculum in fine detail, extract a huge sum of money from the student and related stakeholders—parents, grant makers, scholarship providers, as well as state and federal governments—without having any requirements, assurances or guarantees of the quality of the educational process. If a student graduates from the institution and does not possess the skills, knowledge or ability to actually compete in the field for which the institution provided instruction, then that is the fault of the student. If an athlete has received a scholarship; played for the institution; generated interest, revenues and donations; but did not achieve a working ability in the chosen field of study, that is not the fault of the institution. If that same student is injured, any medical costs beyond the immediate and short-term care are the burdens of the student. If a student athlete seeks compensation commensurate to the amounts of income and good will generated by athletic performance, the institution will deny any obligations and resist vehemently all efforts to share the wealth.
Institutions of higher learning want it both ways. There is an institutionalized desire to direct the student and control students in ways that suit—and benefit—the college, university or training center, but deny any real obligation to assure the student is competent upon graduation, or even safe while in attendance. Colleges and universities have a history of hiding less-than-favorable information regarding crime on campus, graduation rates, success in the post-graduation populations, or any other area of import unless there is a legal requirement to do so. The reporting of crime statistics is a good example of this issue. It wasn’t until there was federal law and regulation compelling the release of crime statistics and the development of crime prevention programs that many schools allowed such things to come under public scrutiny. Once a public light was turned on to these matters, the schools started to address problems that exposed the failure of the “in loco parentis” principle.
The premise of “in loco parentis” is that the institution is taking the place of the parent. Unfortunately, the institution fails to realize that the vast majority of students enrolled in higher education are over the age of majority. But keeping “in loco parentis” in place allows the institution to continue to woo the parents of students, control student behaviors, maintain an always-increasing stream of revenue, and not have to answer or account for anything it does. There is no genuine reciprocity in the deal.
Consider the room and board costs of attending most colleges. At St. Louis University there was a charge of almost $1800 for a semester for a shared room (approximately 18 x 20) and the meals program. Students had to share their rooms with 1-3 other students. That meant the institution was generating $1800 to $3600 per room, per semester, three to four semesters per year. Multiply that by several hundred students per dormitory, consider that the management of the dorms is done by highly underpaid and under-trained students and graduate resident assistants, and one can see that there is considerable gold in them dorms. A student, regardless of status, usually has to bug out of the dorms during the breaks. Often, the institution will find ways to generate additional revenue by renting out these same dorms for short-term interim activities during the standard semester breaks.
The food programs are usually farmed-out to Sodexho, Marriott, or other vendors. While students are charged in excess of $900 per semester for food service, the food vendor is often only paid for the exact number of meals that it serves. So, if a student does not use the mess facilities associated with the dorms, the institution retains a portion of the fees charged without having any expenditure. There is no equity in for the student in the deal, and the idea of the institution acting in the best interest of its charges under the “in loco parentis” doctrine is abandoned completely. Any that has eaten in a college cafeteria can understand why this is a profit center for most colleges and universities: students will often seek food that tastes better than what is being served in the college dorm environment. If each student missed three meals a week, and there are 1000 students, the institution will have received $27,600 per semester without having had to provide anything. I do not know many parents that would see that as a positive. But, by maintaining the long-standing practice of “in loco parentis,” the institution generates revenues.
Our institutions are not only failing to provide a full and fair amount of equity in the relationship between student and institution, they are using an out-dated doctrine to control the playing field to a distinct advantage. The institution is in control and remains largely unaccountable. The de-emphasizing of what goes on in the classroom, while over-emphasizing that which generates revenue, prestige or influence, allows the institution to dictate uneven contractual terms which are endorsed by the legal and political systems.
If an institution were required to re-pay a large portion of monies spent by federal and state loans/grants for each student that attended a program but was not able to apply the skills, knowledge or abilities within that particular field of knowledge, there might be some different approaches. But the mere mention of any such accountability actions raises cries of foul from the institutions. The claim is that no one can predict the success of a student in this regard or manner. There is a referral to the accreditation process as proof of efforts to assure educational quality, all the while knowing that the accreditation process is also riddled with inadequacies and inequities.
Then there are claims that it is the role of the institution to offer a liberal arts education approach that empowers the student to explore different areas of education and potential career paths. It is further claimed that the liberal arts approach does more than merely train the student for success along a career path. The full weight of the “in loco parentis” doctrine is brought to bear… but only to the extent that is paints the institution in a positive manner. The fact that the institution sets the curriculum standards and expectations, designs degree programs that may not meet the needs of the academic discipline, and completely disregards classroom experiences in its evaluation process goes unnoticed because of “in loco parentis.” The dictates of the institution are held in place and innovations in education are held to a minimum. Students bear the burden of supporting an institution that does not support them and, contrary to the pre-supposed tenets of the “in loco parentis” doctrine, does not seek the best interests of the student.
Indeed, the entire concept of taking the place of a parent is merely a means to maintain the failed practices of an institution’s educational practices while maximizing revenues and prestige. There is no equity of value for the student. Given that the number of so-called “non-traditional students” enrolling in colleges over the past three decades, there might be some assumption that these issues would have been addressed by now. But there is no incentive for the institutions to change, no requirement to improve the classroom experience, and all the incentive possible to maintain the status quo. After all, it pays the bills.
November 25, 2005
posted by Jim Downey at 5:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home