Educational Marketplace Relevancy and Corporate Collaboration

Posted on September 11, 2007 by David Gray

This post is about the whole business of whether or not it is appropriate to customize a college-level curriculum to meet corporate requirements.

The very question has a tendency to leave traditional academics disgruntled. College faculties have a treasured sense of autonomy. They rightfully want little or no interference in how to teach their courses. They are only a little less wary when attempts are mounted by outsiders to define what they teach. In fairness to skilled teachers everywhere and at all levels, there is a basis for this apprehension.

Unreasonable external corporate influence in the extreme can result in converting educational courses into mere skills training sessions. University professors believe, and I concur, that our job is to teach students how to be critical thinkers. We seek cognitive and intellectual development. When course work, for whatever reason, becomes too utilitarian, much that we value most is lost.

Educators and business people don’t have a monopoly on all aspects of this issue by the way. On some level, students care about corporate influence, too. Here at this link if you scroll to entry #1 at the top you’ll see this question being asked by a student at Penn:

I’m starting to wonder if the Penn environment is TOO corporate.

In another example, this link takes you to several assertions by some observers that it is only a matter of time before colleges and universities let their institutions be named after major corporate sponsors. Let’s hope not.

But to reach an absolute answer to the corporate collaboration issue on the basis of extreme examples of ill-conceived course modifications denies any opportunity for reasonable and valuable cooperation. It is not a black and white question. The reality is that a traditional institution like UMass that is active in the online sphere is, and must be, interested in the marketplace relevancy of its educational offerings. We are also highly motivated by additional sources of revenue. This means when an important corporation seeks a reasonable collaboration and will name us a preferred educational provider and point their employees in our direction, we need to listen and respond to their content objectives while maintaining the integrity of our overarching intellectual mission.

Does that mean we’re selling out? Not at all. Appropriate corporate collaborations leave our skilled academics in charge of the core curriculum. Our control of the core content and outcomes remains intact. Within this context, it is both possible and reasonable to consider peripheral course content that is sensitive to the marketplace realities. A flat refusal to consider any form of corporate collaboration opportunity eventually leads to a university’s disengagement from the real world and this, in turn, ultimately risks educational irrelevancy.

Lastly, for the record, for as long as I’m in this role, the “U” in UMassOnline will never stand for Unilever, United Airlines, Uniroyal, Union Carbide or for any other corporate brand. Not for any reason nor at any price.