‘Quality’ and the Abolition of Standards: arguments against some American prescriptions for the improvement of higher education

Abstract

This article takes issue with the recommendations of Daniel T. Seymour, writer and consultant on the topic of quality in higher education. The arguments contesting Seymour claim that: ideas are injudiciously transferred from business to the realm of education; the term ‘quality’ is used without proper precision; the notion of customer‐defined quality is adopted without regard to its implications; principles essential to education are wrongly and summarily discounted; and the political overtones of the term ‘Total Quality’ are overlooked, which leads to dangers of inhumane administration.