World War "V": Effectiveness vs. Efficiency

Apologies to Brad Pitt and a million or so zombies.  But something has been stirring in my gut the past few years, and I think now I know what it is.  It’s not that new, but it may be reaching a crescendo.

“V” in the case is not for “Vendetta,” but for “Values.”  Every action—especially organizational action—is decided on (whether we realize it or not) based on some value:  That idea which we believe is more important than others.  In the past couple of decades, Higher Education (at least it seems to me) has crossed a line.  We have moved from a system we believed was to be based on “effectiveness” to one who’s prime directive is “efficiency.”  Let me explain.

Efficiency has to do with production over time.  It’s about getting the most of something—like credits, students or money—in the shortest period of time.  Its primary goal is quantity.  In fact, an almost unqualified belief in efficiency has as its corollary that anything of value can be quantified.  A measure, statistic, metric or number can capture the “essence” of the thing.  And, if a digit can’t be attached to that “thing,” then those holding a strong belief in efficiency question aloud if there is really anything valuable (at least in the “real” measurable sense of the term) about that activity.  Or that if the number is “good,” it MUST be valuable.

Effectiveness, on the other hand, is about whether a thing is done with quality—if, in the execution of that thing, we get what we want with the level of results and satisfaction we desire.  Quantity is less important than quality.  But effectiveness is much more subjective and difficult to measure than efficiency.  There are more “human elements” when looking at effectiveness, because by its very definition its measurement is dependent on a goal which most of the time is not clearly or exclusively numeric.

I’m not a statistic hater—in fact, I teach statistics from time to time.  Numbers aren’t evil or bad.  But any quantitative measurement, while clarifying one thing, obscures the other characteristics of the thing we are considering.  Metrics tell part of the story, but not the whole story.  The Achilles’ heel of quantification is that it reduces whatever we are thinking about into a single term.  Of necessity,  other facets are left out.  Metrics can be useful, but they don’t measure everything—especially when it comes to determining how effective something is.

Higher education, it seems to me, is being driven more by the efficiency than effectiveness.  Numerous examples come to mind, but let me share just three.

Online Courses:  In a conversation this weekend, I was talking to a fellow faculty member who is pursuing a dcotorate. in Instructional Technology.  She used the phrase “robust negative findings” to describe the effectiveness of much online education.  Again, not all online education is inappropriate or ineffective.  One thing we can say for sure is that it is wildly efficient!  But consider this:  In the past year, we have heard from multiple student groups that they desire more face to face courses than online.  Yet, there are key courses for several of our degrees that are not even available face to face.  Students don’t have the option to take it in person even if they wanted to!  In the past few weeks, several students have expressed frustration at being “forced” to take online classes because a classroom version isn’t available.  They said things like, “I finished the class, and I got an A, but I don’t feel like I really learned what I needed to.”  If students want face to face classes, why do we refuse to offer them (or enough of them)?  The answers are legion, but none that I have heard really address “effectiveness” adequately.

Dual Enrollment:  Clearly, this is about “efficiency”—getting the most credits so I can get the credential (the degree, meaning the piece of paper) in the least amount of time.  So we “double dip” high school and college credits.  (See Curtis Kleinmans’ 9x9x25 blog last week, “A Better Learning Lifestyle… “  for an excellent firsthand account and critique of dual enrollment.)  With all we know about educational psychology, learning, social and emotional development, why do we insist that this is good pedagogy and good for students?  The answer:  It’s efficient. It makes money.  And we value efficiency, above all. 

[Please note:  Some high schoolers are ready for college, and that’s why they can concurrently enroll at YC.  But don’t confuse concurrent enrollment (college content at college level on the college campus taught by college instructors) with dual enrollment!]

Information Technology:  Computers and all our digital technology are wonderful tools—but they are only tools, UNTIL the “technological tail” starts wagging the “pedagogical dog.”  Again, we could come up with many examples, but I will select one—the limitations put on being clear about course offerings in Banner (or at least that is what we are told).  Take a look at how hybrid classes are formatted in our schedules.  Every semester, students show up (or not, because the descriptor of  the combination of “online” and “classroom” is absolutely confounding), complaining that this is NOT what they signed up for (although we who understand the “code” INSIST that it is indeed exactly what they subscribed to).  We have been told that Banner “can’t” make it any clearer, so this is what we (and more importantly, our students) are stuck with.  However, this claim is only a half truth.  Banner—AS WE HAVE PURCHASED IT—can’t do it better.  But, if we would choose to pay for some additional “programming,” we could make it say exactly what we wanted.  I know—I was part of the groups that previewed this product BEFORE we purchased it.  But, it is EFFICIENT (but absolutely ineffective) to list our courses this way (read:  it doesn’t cost any more to do it this way).   So, we “settle” for confusing students (and even blaming them for not being able to figure out technical lingo that most faculty have troubled deciphering!). 

Ah, but (you say), can’t we have both efficiency and effectiveness?  SURE, in an ideal, theoretical world that would be so nice.  Who wouldn’t want MORE of a GOOD THING?  But in the real world of human lives and values, we must prioritize one over the other, even as we strive for both.   Either efficiency or effectiveness will drive the bus.

Excuse my verbosity this week, but this issue is MUCH MORE than “academic.”  Because we value efficiency over effectiveness,  student learning gets compromised.  There, I said it.  We run “scared” of Rio Salado and Grand Canyon University, because if we don’t join the “hit parade” with more and more online courses and dual enrollment, “they” will get the numbers.  Really?  Are most of our students that driven?  Sure, a few will migrate to other institutions, but—and we need to really pay attention to this—OUR STUDENTS DO TRUST US!  They believe we have their best interests in mind; that we want to deliver an EFFECTIVE educational product.  But, what do we REALLY value?