Do colleges and universities give a better quality education than public elementary and That's what supporters of vouchers frequently claim. But where is the evidence that competition will produce quality? Student customers in colleges and universities are often glad to get as little as possible for their money as a letter in the Chemical and Engineering News (July 12, 1993) from Nenad Kostic of Iowa State University points out:
Most of them gladly accept less for their tuition money, as when a lecture is canceled Many of them complain when more is offered to them for the same price--as when a course is enriched with additional lectures or experiments. This is understandable behavior, and all of us acted that way as students. But no one acts that way when having one's car fixed by a mechanic.
Thomas Steffens, Ph.D., a former teacher at a school of pharmacy, has another angle on students as customers. He found that they were plenty demanding, but what they wanted, he says, was an easy course rather than a quality one. And, perhaps because his school needed to compete and please its customers, the students were apparently allowed to call the shots. Here's the letter Steffens sent me about his experience with market forces and educational quality:
I was assigned to teach anatomy and physiology and used the same syllabus and set of nationally standardized tests that I had used successfully at another pharmacy school. The notes were tightly organized, and the tests were tried and true having been given at the previous post.
To my surprise, over 60 percent failed the first test. I was told by a student that this course (which is fundamentally important) had been basically a "show up" course, and everyone was supposed to pass after memorizing the normal blood pressure and a few other formalities. To their surprise, they had to know why the blood pressure was the value it was and even why blood pressure is necessary. After the first test I was discreetly informed by a student that "they" wouldn't like it that so many had failed. I announced to the students that students at other pharmacy schools had passed this test and that I had even selected the easiest questions on the testing software I was using. I also held extra sessions ... [which involved] many hours of tedious spoon feeding.
The students rewarded me for this gesture by descending on the dean's office and submitting all manner of passionate, typical student complaints: The tests were too hard; the material covered on the test was not covered in class (I hand out clear outlines of all material and only test from this; I submitted to the dean the outlines and the test); also, I had called them stupid and damaged their self-esteem. I wish I had called them stupid but I didn't happen to do this, and I issued a reward for a tape of me using the word stupid. No one claimed the reward.
All this was accepted out of hand by the dean in the tradition of the customer always being right.. . .It was assumed that students were being victimized by a villainous fiend. The response was to not reappoint me the next year.
All of this is even more ironic in that the second semester students taking the course after the first semester debacle were so scared they passed with flying colors, just as students in previous schools had. I was naive enough to think that this standing of my ground and succeeding in the face of adversity and pressure would be rewarded. It was not. These students have very low SAT scores and serious reading deficiencies, and to drag them up to even a minimal level of achievement is not an insignificant task. For an administration to cynically pander to students' whims is a serious wrong. They insult the students by assuming they cannot pass a real course. And you and I might receive an IV in a hospital where one of these students will calculate the concentration of a critical component of the IV mixture.
Voucher supporters are correct in saying that competition would force schools to be sensitive to what customers want, but what most kids--and most adults--want is not to have to work very hard. In the free market of colleges and universities, students are more likely to seek easy courses than excellent ones. Why wouldn't market forces do the same thing in public elementary and secondary schools?