Higher education in the United States is at a crossroads. Since about 1980, colleges and universities in this country have been increasingly under the microscope--scrutinized more intensely than at any time throughout their 400-year history. Who should have access to postsecondary education? What role should these institutions play in contributing to the culture and quality of life of our citizens? What should be the relationship between the ivory tower and business and industry? How does higher education affect the economy? What does it really mean to be an 'educated' person?

These are just a few of the questions that permeate our collective dialogue.

With all this mindpower focused so intently on academia, it seems likely that the answers to the questions listed above must be close at hand. Unfortunately, nothing could be farther from the truth. Even a cursory review of the profusion of newspaper columns, magazine articles, and scholarly tomes devoted to the topic quickly reveals a somewhat disturbing reality. Most of the people writing about higher education obviously do not have much of a clue about what's going on there.

The only point everyone seems to agree on is that we do, in fact, have a problem. Beyond that, the digression begins. Perhaps a good analogy would be the economists. Several claim to be experts but nobody knows for sure what the market will do in the next five minutes.

Admittedly, clarifying what's wrong with higher education and then suggesting specific remedies is more of a daunting task than may be initially realized. Most of the conventional wisdom (or at least the rhetoric) seems to revolve around the key issues of necessity, accountability, quality, and their relationship to economic reality. True, all of these considerations are relevant when discussing academia's rightful place in the societal hierarchy.

But the notion of what actually constitutes 'quality' within the higher education arena seems to be the most elusive. Without a doubt, it is certainly the most divisive.

What does it really mean when we say that a particular institution provides a quality educational experience for its students? Are we referring to some philosophical dimension that relates to enhanced awareness and a higher level of functioning (you have to love the way we typically phrase things in academia)? Or do we mean that the institution's graduates seem to do well once they leave the institution; i.e., do they receive jobs in their majors? Or do we simply mean that the overhead projectors work, the professors tend to show up for class, and the library has more than three journal subscriptions?

It is my contention that a precise and shared definition of quality is needed before we can make meaningful progress toward its realization in higher education. How we define quality ultimately determines our goals, methods, and priorities in pursuing it.

It all comes down to that old Zen proverb that you cannot take aim without a target.

Quality tends to be defined from one end of the spectrum to the other. As a result, there is very little chance that two people who happen to be discussing the subject are really even speaking the same language.

Once again, it must be noted that the book shelves and magazine racks are literally filled with various attempts to define what constitutes quality in higher education, and, more importantly, how it can be initially achieved and subsequently sustained. Of course, the same could be said of just about any subject. We are a culture with an overabundance of words coupled with a severe shortage of ideas.

In the manufacturing and service sectors, the Total Quality Management (TQM) approach developed by Deming, Juran, Imai, Crosby, and others is having a profound impact on the way management sees its role in the organization and in the implementation of work systems. But just how applicable is TQM to today's colleges and universities?

It would certainly be dangerous to reach a point where our colleges and universities are considered "good enough." The only way to remain responsive to the needs of a dynamic and diverse student population is to constantly strive to provide better programs and services without comparable increases in cost. Administrators must stay in touch with the students they serve and offer programs and services that best meet their needs at the current moment. The overriding goal of continual improvement must permeate every discussion and dominate every management decision; this is the essence of the TQM doctrine.

Most higher education advocates would no doubt be hard pressed to disagree with the assertion that achieving and maintaining the highest quality standards possible is of paramount importance. The problem is that without more specific direction and elaboration, such statements are essentially meaningless. They add to the confusion rather than help alleviate it.

Consider this. If I tell my 12-yearold to 'be careful,' what is he going to do differently than he would have done before I made that statement? Probably nothing. He can do just about anything and still claim he was 'being careful.' Unless I explicitly define for him what I mean by 'be careful,' then the statement is simply self-serving. If he gets hurt, I can always claim that I told him to 'be careful,' and therefore I am absolved from any further responsibility.

Much of the discourse related to quality in higher education contains the same flawed logic. It sounds wonderful but is absolutely useless upon closer examination.

When a college or university is referred to as a "major center of learning," what kinds of things spring to mind? In most cases, we tend to assume that the institution has a large research budget, its faculty contains a lot of well-known "names," its graduates receive preferential treatment in the job market, etc. In other words, it could mean virtually anything depending upon the frame of reference of the person arguing their particular point.

Adding to the problem has been an increasing tendency among many pundits to define quality in ways that are easily quantified. Consequently, quality has often been interpreted in terms of test scores, library holdings, and publication records. After all, we all know that if we can assign a number to something, it is somehow more 'real.'

In the minds of many of our nation's most influential political and educational leaders, 'quality' is measured almost exclusively within a materialistic context. Whoever has the most must be the best. Or as Alexander Astin has so eloquently stated, ". . . many academics seem content to define educational excellence in terms of what they have, rather than what they do."

Often, the acquisition of resources seems far more important than their allocation.

This is not to say that money is not essential to the development or maintenance of a quality educational enterprise. It most definitely is. The fact that academics complain so vehemently about a lack of needed funds says more about the misplaced priorities of our legislators, and to some extent our society as a whole, then perhaps anything else.

But it is very naive to assume that quality in higher education is directly proportional to the amount of dollars spent. If it were, institutions with the most financial resources would, by definition, have the highest quality.

And how do financial resources relate to such important considerations as institutional commitment to fostering diversity of thought and creative problem-solving, faculty and staff commitment to educational goals and ideals, and student commitment to the learning process and community service. Quality also encompasses such intangibles as undergraduate advising, student services delivery systems, and facilitation of student involvement in the total educational process. These dimensions are critically related to overall quality but they are also much harder to quantify and measure. And they are often not economically driven.

With respect to academic programs, it is traditional to define quality in terms of rigorous adherence to a set of predetermined standards. But consider the notion that true quality may not hold every institution or every individual to the same yardstick. Although standards have their place, quality also implies the ability to respond flexibly to the individual needs of a diverse population of students. It takes into account the particular strengths and weaknesses of individuals in relation to their specific educational and career aspirations.

The relative quality of the education received at a given institution is largely a function of the level of commitment exhibited by the administration, faculty, and staff employed there. Having millions of dollars in external funding does not insure high quality. Neither does having a distinguished faculty, a student population saturated with national Merit Scholars, or a highly respected reputation.

On the other hand, having administrators, faculty, and staff who share a common commitment to the general welfare of the students they serve goes a long way toward insuring quality within academe. For the most part, parents and other consumers are not overly concerned with whether or not the school their son or daughter attends has 8-9 Nobel Prize winners on the faculty. They are primarily concerned with whether or not the school is treating them fairly and providing a solid education.

Those who derive their livelihood in the academic world should probably spend a little more time thinking about what really constitutes quality in their delivery of services. Are we continually trying to do a better job of assisting students in the attainment of their educational goals and objectives? Are we continually looking for ways to improve our internal operations to make them more efficient and effective? Are we continually striving to work as a team within the institution?

Every institution has some room for improvement on all fronts--from the blackboard to the balance sheet.

But with all of its inherent problems and difficulties, higher education is still a bargain. The return on investment, both tangible and intangible, is truly enormous. During the course of his/her lifetime, the average college graduate can expect to earn approximately $500,000 more than those who do not acquire a degree (there's that financial factor again). Yet this is relatively insignificant compared with the impact on an individual's total quality of life. Being 'educated' entails more than the mere acquisition of technical skills and job security. It entails something much deeper.

It is high time that we acknowledge that the benefits of higher education extend far beyond the students who currently sit in the classes, listen to the lectures, participate in the labs, or interact with the websites. It benefits society as a whole--a fact that should be foremost in any discussion of what constitutes quality in academe.