They point out that the standardized, consistent curriculum provided by a supplier might be an advantage to individual instructor control of academia. And, vendors can supply specialized instruction with up-to-date curriculum because they are out in the field teaching. Supporters also point out that it would be less costly than hiring full-time instructors/professors. Finally, proponents of outsourcing argue that, with their corporate networks and contacts, a vendor could help students find jobs after graduation (Bailey, et al., 2004, p. 2). Some of the hurdles seem impenetrable. Opposition of full-time faculty stands out as the most damaging to the potential wide use of educational outsourcing. Let's face it -- they are concerned for their jobs. Tenure to a professor is the holy grail. You don't mess with it!

Many of those in support of outsourcing say that contracts can take care of a good amount of the fears about quality of services, curriculum, and teaching, among other services. Management can structure the contract so that vendors bear the costs and penalties of poor service and quality. But opponents argue that outside business vendors write contracts all the time and are very familiar with the "ins and outs." The chances of a university gaining all the advantage they want would be slim and none (Phipps & Merisotis, 2005, p. 4).

The loss of community, identity and collegiality is one of the education institutions' greatest fears. Colleges and universities do things differently than corporate America does. Ultimately, a resistance to change and adapting may be a reason outsourcing does not spread widely.

Conclusions

Unlike corporate America, where there is no democracy and decisions are made, not based on unanimity and collegiality, but on whose office says "CEO," the management of academic institutions is often accomplished by consensus. This principal applies especially in a case like outsourcing where it can affect so many different functionalities of the college. The arguments state repeatedly that outsourcing must benefit "all" the factions -- teachers, staff, administrators, and students --...

Positive results from outsourcing have been proven, but so has the down side -- arrangements gone bad, the university's reputation damaged by a bad experience, contracts not negotiated properly, and money lost.
There are big arguments on both sides. But it is clear that universities and businesses are driven by two different motives, and the academic institutions fear the profit-oriented drivers that permeate business as they might reflect on the quality of the services it outsources. The fate of their employees under an outsourcing contract can become the driver for academia. In many cases, this issue must be specifically spelled out in any contract written for outsourcing, including negotiating new jobs for any employees that are laid off as a result.

Relatively few institutions of higher learning have outsourcing as part of their vision or strategy. While they recognize the advantages, there are key considerations they must satisfy in order to proceed: the benefit to all the constituencies, faculty "blessing," no harm to employees affected, either better service for the dollar or less cost for equal service, and a proposal and contract process lasting up to a year (Phipps & Merisotis, 2005, p. 14).

There is no black and white; the decision is a painful process; and the results mixed.

Bibliography

Bailey, T., Jacobs, J., & Jenkins, D. (2004). Outsourcing of instruction at community colleges. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.

Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (2005). Is outsourcing part of the solution to the higher education cost dilemma?

Polcyn, K. (2002). Outsourcing as a means to reduce costs and focus on higher education core processes. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 11-18, Vol. 15, Issue 2.

Schibik, T., & Harrington, C. (2004). The outsourcing of classroom instruction in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 393-400, Vol.26,…