Editorial: Is the customer always right?

The classroom power dynamic has long been one-sided. Teachers teach, students learn and that’s just how it goes. Whether we like it or not, this somewhat linear transfer of information is often thought to be the foundation of education, from primary schools to beyond. 

This dynamic was brought into question this summer, however, following New York University’s decision to fire organic chemistry professor Maitland Jones Jr. after 82 of his 350 students signed a petition saying his course was “too hard.” 

In addition to the class’s challenging subject matter, students noted in the petition that the professor’s teaching methods only contributed to this difficulty, from his condescending tone to the lack of available extra credit opportunities. 

Jones defended himself against the claims, attributing much of the students’ poor academic performance to a post-pandemic decline in work ethic. 

“They weren’t coming to class, that’s for sure, because I can count the house,” Jones wrote in a grievance to NYU, noting that after remote learning, students were now receiving single-digit scores, and even zeroes, on exams. “They weren’t watching the videos, and they weren’t able to answer the questions.”

After the petition was signed, Jones, 84, was contacted by the university and bluntly notified of his termination. 

In some ways, this shifting power dynamic is reassuring.

We have all had our fair share of professors whom we consider inadequate, whether it’s due to their laziness or their rushed teaching style. 

It’s refreshing to see that students are able to have a voice in their own education, even when attending a university as prestigious as NYU. That being said, the concerns of less than 25% of Jones’ class were able to enact tangible, school-wide change. 

Students should be able, and encouraged, to air their grievances when they feel as though their learning process is at risk.

But to what extent?

It’s important to note that Jones’ organic chemistry course is intended to “weed out” students on the pre-med track who aren’t ready or qualified to enter the medical field.

Simply put, a doctor needs to know organic chemistry to perform their job, regardless of how challenging it is. While no one enjoys struggling in the classroom, these difficult courses are often necessary to ensure that only the most competent students go on to become medical professionals. 

Given the class’s intentional rigorous design, we should consider whether or not “difficulty” was reason enough for a professor to lose his job. 

This situation also brings up another crucial question: if you’re paying $75,000 for a college education, are you really a student? Or are you a customer? 

Marc A. Walters, director of undergraduate studies in the chemistry department at NYU, described the situation in an email to Dr. Jones, writing that the plan would, “extend a gentle but firm hand to the students and those who pay the tuition bills.”

It’s no secret that universities must make a profit to thrive, and a college education is inevitably expensive. To maintain high enrollment numbers, schools clearly must cater toward the needs of paying students and their parents. 

But at what point will the fundamental goal of providing a high-quality education be compromised by the urge to make money?

Sure, the customer may always be right in a restaurant setting, but should this mentality apply in the classroom, as well? 

Though we want to avoid being overly cynical, this instance does set a potential precedent in the field of higher education. 

By bending over backward to please affluent tuition-paying students, universities may grow to have more of a financial incentive than an educational one. Education may soon be thought of as a “product” that students, or customers, purchase, rather than a foundational basis for life experiences.  

If non-tenured professors are in constant fear that student backlash could impact their employment status, they may inevitably change their teaching style to cater toward the student. 

Yes, of course, this could have benefits. After all, professors should be doing whatever possible to teach students in the most effective ways possible. Despite this, high quality education may be compromised by the urge to sugarcoat material and make content “easier.” 

A professor’s job is ultimately to provide students with a thorough education, not to give them whatever grade will make them happiest. 

And if students feel as though their complaints have the ability to get an otherwise reputable professor fired with no questions asked, what’s to stop them from doing the same thing next time they face an obstacle or barrier? 

Though seeing student empowerment in higher education is encouraging, the administration’s response leaves much to be desired. As the New York Times put it, “NYU invoked the increasingly popular American response: If the goal is too hard to reach, move the goalposts.”

While being able to evoke academic change at an institutional level is inspiring for students, universities must be wary of valuing profit over the learning process. Hopefully administrations can learn from this situation in the future.