Improving University

The following appeared as part of a recommendation from the financial planning office to the administration of Fern Valley University:

"In the past few years, Fern Valley University has suffered from a decline in both enrollments and admissions applications. The reason can be discovered from our students, who most often cite poor teaching and inadequate library resources as their chief sources of dissatisfaction with Fern Valley. Therefore, in order to increase the number of students attending our university, and hence to regain our position as the most prestigious university in the greater Fern Valley metropolitan area, it is necessary to initiate a fund-raising campaign among the alumni that will enable us to expand the range of subjects we teach and to increase the size of our library facilities."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The recommendation traces the cause of decline in the number of enrollments and admission applications to the feedback from students that the university has poor standards of teaching and inadequate library resource. This methodology relies on current students rather than prospective students, while the suggested solutions are meant to attract new students rather than improving the "learning" experience of the current students. Further, only one method of fund-raising has been cited;there is no reason to simply believe that it would indeed be the best method. Finally, it is not clear that how increasing the number of subjects taught may lead to better teaching.

It is clear that the Fern Valley wishes to attract more students and re-vamp its brand image. Although the existing students may be able to tell the failings that they have experienced first hand while studying, such issues may not be obvious to people seeking fresh admissions. Hence, a survey that takes account of why students did not choose Fern Valley University may give a more useful insight into the university's perceived weaknesses. Similarly, a survey about the reason why the currently enrolled students chose the university may be helpful in understanding what prospective students look for in a University. Understanding current students' grievances may also help in the long run, but it is in no way a comprehensive set of data on which the university may base its plan of action.

Further, initiating a fund-raising campaign among the alumni is the method proposed to raise funds. Although credible, the reasoning neither attempts to explore alternative ways of raising funds, nor does it specify if the proposed method would be able to generate enough money in time. Why wouldn't it be better to raise money from, say, Government funds for education, educational charities, donations from trustees or some form of financial re-structuring? I feel a proper analysis of each method should be done so as the most reliable and cheap method is recommended.

Finally, it is implied that expanding the range of subjects taught will be able to address poor teaching. The logic behind the correlation is baffling. Is it hoped that simply increasing the number of subjects would lead to a miraculous improvement in teaching standards? In order to address poor teaching the university may need to recruit better teachers, train existing staff, get better teaching equipment and use new media, like computers and videos, in order to enhance the teaching experience. How increasing the number of subjects alone will improve the teaching is not clear at all.

Concluding, the presented recommendation is flawed on many counts. It uses insufficient data to derive arguably faulty conclusions. It also fails to explore alternative ways of raising funds and hence does not logically support the suggested method. Not only that, even one of the recommendations to address the ill-founded conclusions does not correlate convincingly with the deduced problem.