document resume he 019 146 - ericdocument resume he 019 146 garland, peter h. serving more than...

ED 267 678

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYREPORT NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 019 146

Garland, Peter H.Serving More Than Students: A Critical Need forCollege Student Personnel Services. ASHE-ERIC HigherEducation Report No. 7, 1985,Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERICClearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington,D.C.National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.ISBN-0-913317-26-88540082-0011156p.Association for the Study of Higher Education, OneDupont Circle, Suite 630, department PR-4,Washington, DC 20036 ($7.50, nonmembers; $6.00,members).Information Analyses ERIC Information AnalysisProducts (071) -- Information Analyses (070)

MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.Change Strategies; College Administration; CollegePlanning; *College Students; Economic Change; HigherEducation; *Leadership Res7zisibility; MoneyManagement; Nontraditiona.J. Students; PoliticalInfluences; Professional Development; Social Change;*Staff Role; *Student Development; Student Needs;*Student Personnel Services; *Student PersonnelWorkers

ABSTRACTInternal and external changes affecting higher

education and responses that student personnel workers can take arediscussed. Societal changes that influence colleges include adeclining birth rate, changing sex roles, and shifts to aninformation-based society. Notable political trends that affectcolleges include accountability requirements, concern for quality,and financial 1.:oblems. In addition, student services have respondedto the needs of nontraditional students (women, minorities,foreigners, older people, the disabled, part-time students, andacademically underprepared students). To deal with the variouschanges, colleges have employed a variety of strategies that haveimplications for student affairs organizations. New strategiesconcern: comprehensive planning, enrollment management, preventivelaw, resource management, and changing relationships of business andco.leges. The student affairs worker can help to integrate bothstudent and institutional needs. In serving as an integrator, thestudent affairs worker needs to develop skills in management andresearch, as well as political and organizational skills. Collegepreparation programs for student personnel workers need to providetraining for these new roles. Student' development theory also faceschallenges from changes that are occurring. Thirteen pages ofreferences and an index are provided. (SW)

Serving MoreThan Students

A Critical Need forCollege Student Personnel Services

Peter H. Garland

US. SIOPAIIITRIONT OP soucmionNATIONAL INSTRUTE Of EDUCATION

7TIONAL

RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

document his been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating rt

O We, Mobiles have been made to improvereproduction ruddy.

Points nf view or opinions stated in Ma door-litsnt do not nacepearly represent otriciai MEposition or .

\,

Report 7ASHE-ER IC Higher Education Reports 1985

AsHii[kr--iier 2

Serving More Than Students:A Critical Need for College Student Personnel Services

by Peter H. Garland

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No 7, 1985

Prepared by

ERIC

Published by

sClearinghouse on 111,71iPt EducauonThe Ge9rge Washington Untverstty

ASI-Iir,Association for the Study of Higher Education

Jonathan D Fife,Series Edvor

Cite asGarland, Peter H Serving More Than Students A Critical Needfor College Student Personnel Services. ASHE-ERIC HigherEducation Report No. 7. Washington, D.C. Association for theStudy of Higher Education, 1985.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites individualsto submit proposals for writing monographs for the Higher Edu-cation Report series. Proposals must include1 A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than five pages.2 A 75-word summary to be used by several review committees

for the initial screening and rating of each proposal3. A vita.4. A writing sample.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Nurnbtr 86-070252:SSN 0884-0040ISBN 0-913317-26.8

ERIC" Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, D C. 20036

ASFIlii Association for the Study of Higher EducationOne Dupont Cue le, Suite 630Washington, D.0 20036

DtPhis publication was partially prepared with funding from theNational Institute of Education, U.S Department of Educationunder contract no. 400-82-0011 The opus: -ns exp,essed in thisreport do not necessarly reflect the positions or policies of NIEor the Deportment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Colleges and universities today are confronted with a vari-ety of changing conditions that demand attention; indeed,the formulation of appropriate and effective responses to achanging world has become increasingly important to thesurvival and viability of institutions. Changes in society. inthe higher education enterprise, and in the types and char-acteristics of students are among those issues that must beaddressed.

Increasingly, the efforts of student affairs aimed atimproving quality of life, integrating new student groups,and attracting and retaining students are becoming criticalto institutions attempting to maintain enrollments of quali-fied students, assure placement of graduates, develop sup-portive alumni, and enhance academic involvement. Insti-tutions' employment of these strategies in response tochanging conditions creates opportunities for studentaffairs professionals to become leaders within the institu-tion as they offer important contributions to institutionalvitality. This time is a significant penod in the evolution ofstudent affairs.

To What Changes Must Student AffairsOrganizations Respond?Institutions and tneir student affairs organizations are con-fronted with various changes in their contexts and clien-teles. The first group of these trends, leading to change insociety, is witnessed by a decreasing birth rate, growth ofminority subpopulations, the evolving inforination society,growing narcissism, and the legacy of the baby boom. Sec-ond, institutions and student affairs must respond tochanges in the higher education enterpiisechangingfinancial conditions, increased planning, increased judicialintervention, and the growing application of managementtechniques to higher education. Third, students are chang-ing. Minority participation is growing, vocationalism isincreasing, and students' characteristics, values, and needsare changing.

In What Ways Can Student Affairs Take Leadership inStrategies to Respond to Changing Conditions?In response to changing conditions, institutions are devot-ing efforts to managing enrollments, using institutional

Servm More Than Students iii

r-J

marketing strategies to attract new student clienteles andto retain current students; increasing private funding; plan-ning carefully and managing resources effectively; modify-ing programs and services to meet changing needs; andintroducing activities aimed at enhancing students' involve-ment in college life.

Current efforts support the increasing ccngruity betweenthe goals of student affairs and the goals of the institution;efforts by student affairs organizations aimed at the indi-vidual and group development, student integration, andstudent involvement, once regarded as peripheral to theacademic mission of the institution (McConnell 1970), havebecome increasingly important to institutions in theirefforts to enhance institutional vitality. Student affairsdepartments are enhancing the involvement of students inthe academic eAperience, engaging in preventive law, inte-grating new student groups, participating in the recruitmentand retention of students, and helping ti develop support-ive alumni (Baldridge, Kemerer, and Green 1982). As stu-dent affairs professionals achieve institutional support intheir pursuit of the traditional goals of student develop-ment, recognition of an expanded role for student affairs isdemanded.

What New Role Is Emerging for Student Affairs?The student affairs organization shares the orientations ofthe three major campus groupsfaculty, students, andadministratorsand its position on the borders of thesegroups may be its greatest strength (Silverman 1980).

Our uniqueness as student percennel workers rests onSur ability to fashion significant educational environ-ments, using the resources, values, norms, and opportu-nities of the variety of constituencies on our campuses.To tne extent that We are successful in our innovativework, we will he respected, not because of position, butas a result of the impacts we have on campus life. Truly,student iersonnel workers have the opportunities to hecentral figures for campus improvement in an era whenresources must be perceived as newly combined ratherthan as new (Silverman 1980, p. 12).

The term "Integrator- is appropriate for the student affairs

iv

6

professional who integrates student development and insti-tutional development.

"An alert, assertive response to these forces [changingconditions] will make student affairs essential to institu-tional effectiveness and therefore worthy of adequate sup-port" (Shaffer 1984, p. -.12). Recognition of the importanceof student affairs to institutional vitality is growing, andstudent affairs administrators must assume leadership informulating and managing institutional responses to chang-ing conditions.

Serving as integrators of goals within institutions, studentaffairs professionals will become more centrally involved inthe direction of the institution if they are able to build stron-ger bridges to the academic and administrative communities.The challenges are many, but student affairs professionalshave the opportunity to lead efforts that will affect the entire:ustitution. And goals, pnorities, and values will be betterintegrated as a result of those efforts.

What Implications Does This New RoleHave for Student Affairs?A new role for student affairs calls for changes in the pro-grams and services offered by student affairs, the profes-sional skills required by student affairs administrators, andthe content of the preparation and development of profes-sionals. Several programs and services stand to beenhanced by the changing role: enrollment management,programs and services designed to serve th_ needs of non-traditional students, ana activities designed to enhancecareer planning and placement.

To assume a stronger position of leadership within theinstitution, student Wails professionals must possess awider repertoire of skills. In addition to the traditionalskills in human relations, student affairs professionals mustdevelop the organizational skills demanded by an expandedrole within the institution, including those directed at gen-eral management and planning. resource management,information management, institutional politics, andresearch and evaluation.

The development of new skills for student affairs profes-sionals has deal implications for the preparation and con-tinuing t -ofesional education of individuals :,1 the profes-sion. Currently, most preparation programs and recom-

Serving Mare Than Students v

mended curricula for the preparation of new professionalsconcentrate on counseling and the human relations skillsnecessary for entry-level practitioners and pay little atten-tion to the administrative or organizational skills demandedby the emerging role of integrator. A changing role for stu-dent affairs demands different skills. Therefore, graduateprograms at both the master's and doctoral 1( vels mustembrace such topics as organizational behavior and devel-opment, management and planning in higher education,and the development of higher education. Further, continu-ing professional education must work towara the develop-ment and enhancement of these skills in an organized andcomprenensive fashion.

A new role also creates challenges for the application ofstudent development. If student development is to offer guid-ance to the profession and become more useful to the studentaffairs integrator, then several issues must be addressed:(1) the understanding and application of student developmentwithin the field to enhance the theoretical credibility of stu-dent affairs professionals; (2) the expansion of student devel-opment theory to encompass increasing numbers of nontradi-tional students; and (3) the integration of student and organi-zational development (Borland 1980).

To better serve as integrators within the institution, stu-den*_ affairs professionals must:

I. assess the environment of the institution

2. comprehend institutional issues and internal politics3 develop professional credibility with faculty4 become experts on students' expectations, needs, and

interests and be able to articulate them to others inthe institution

5. be able to explain the goals of student affairs and stu-dent development to others in the institution in termsthat are meaningful to them

6 contribute to the quality of the academic experience7 contribute to the effective and efficient management

of the institution and be prepared to take leadership inthe formulation of institutional responses to changingconditions

8 develop appropriate skills.

VI

0

Furthermore, institutions, if they are to take advantageof the real and potential contributions of student affairsstaff should:

I. recognize, enhance, and support the efforts of Etudentaffairs

2. consider student affairs full partners in the institution3. challenge student affairs professionals to make

greater contributions to the institution.

In addition, student personnel preparation programsmust be revised to develop the skills necessary for theprofession, including greater attention to management andorganizational skills. And finally, the national associationsfor student affairs must:

1. provide direction for new professional roles2. promote continuing professional education at all

leveis.

Serving More Than Students vil

ADVISORY BOARD

Roger BaldwinAssistant Professor of EducationCollege of William and Mary

Robert BirnbaumProfessor of Higher EducationTeachers College, Columbia University

Susan W. CameronAssistant Frofessor and ChairHigher/Postsecondary EducationSyracuse University

Clifton F. ConradProfessor of Higher EducationUniversity of Arizona

George D. KuhAssociate Dean for Academic AffairsSchool of EducationIndiana University

Yvonna S. LincolnAssociate Professor of Higher EducationThe University of Kansas

Robert A. ScottPresidentRamapo College of Nev, Jersey

Serving Mare Than Stud nts ix

10

CONSULTING EDITORS

Richard AlfredUsociate Professor and ChairGradua,e Program in Higher and Adult Continuing EducationUniversity of Michigan

Robert H. AtwellPresidentAmerican Council on Education

Robert BarakDeputy Executive SecretaryDirector of Academic Affairs and ResearchIowa State Board of Regents

Larry A. BraskampAssistant to the Vice Chancellor for Academic AffansUniversity of Illinois

Robert CopeProfessor of Higher EducationUniversity of Washington

John W. CreswellAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Educational AdminirationUniversity of Nebraska

Mary Frank FoxAssistant Research ScientistCenter for Research on Social OrganizationUniversity of Michigan

Timothy GallineauVice President for Student DevelopmentSaint Bonaventure Urnversit}

W. Lee HansenProfessorDepartment of EconomicsUniversity of Wisconsin

David KaserProfessorSchool of Library and Information ScienceIndiana University

.Serving More than .Students xi

n

xi'

George KellerSenior Vice PresidentBarton-Gillet Company

Da, id W. LeslieProfessor and ChairDepartment of Educational LeadershipThe Florida State University

Gerard W. McLaughlinInstitutional Research and P12 .ling AnalysisVirginia Polytechnic Institutt, and State University

Theodore J. MarcheseVice PresidentAmerican Association for Higher Education

L. Jackson NewellT.)rofessor and DeanUniversity of Utah

Harold OrionsOffice of Programs and PolicyUnited States Civil Rights Commission

Richard H. QuaySocial Science LibrarianMiami University

Patricia RueckeiExecutive DirectorNational Association for Women Deans,

Administrator, and Counselors

Charles B. Saunders, Jr.Vice President for Government RelationsAmerican Council on Education

John E. SteckleinProfessor of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Minnesota

Richard F. StevensExecutive DirectorNational Association of Student Personnel Admini,trators

.1- ;nes H. Werntz, Jr.Vice Chancellor for Academic Affair'sUniversity of North Carolina

12

CONTENTS

Foreword

Acknowledgments

The Evolving Role of Student Affairs 1

The Disciplinarian 3

The Custodian 4

The Educator 5

The Role of Student Affairs Tod- -y 7

A Changing Society 11

A Declining Birth Rate 11

Growing Minority Enrollments 12

T,egacy of the Baby Boom 13

Demographic Shifts 14

Transformation to an Information-Based Society 14

Changing Sex Roles 16

Increasing Narcissism 17

The Rapid Rate of Change 18

Summary 19

The Changing Political Terrain: Trends AffectingHigher Education 21

The Increasing Politicization of Higher Education 21

Accountability to the State 22

Federal Accountability 23

Judicial Influence 23

Cnanging Financial Conditions 25

Concern for Quality 26

Summary 27

Changing Student Clienteles 20

Changing Stuuent Types 29

Changing Student Characteristics 36

Changing Institutional Strategies 41

Comprehensive Planning 43

Effective Information Syst,mis 44

Enrollment Management 45

Recruitr.ient 47

Retention 48Preventive Law 50Increasing Private Support 51

Changing Relationship of Business and Colleges 53

Management of Resources 54

Internal Accountability 55

Summary 56

Serving More Than Students xiii

13

The Integrator: A New Role Explained 57Two Opposing Motivations 59Moving Student Affairs into the Mainstream 60Integration of Goals 62Integration of Faculty and Student Affairs Efforts 66Evolving Consumer Orientation 67Developing a Greater External Focus ". 0

Summary 71

Implications for Programs, Services, andProfessional Skills 73

New Skills for Professionals 73Implications for Programs and Services 83Summary 87

Educating Student Personnel Professionals 89Preparation Programs 89Preparation for Administration and Management 91Entry-level Competencies 93A New Model for Professional Preparation 94Continuing Professional Education 95Summary 98

The Challenges of Student Development 99A Theoretical Basis for the FI-ofessicn 99Adoption and Application of Theory 100Incorporating Diverse Clienteles 101

Integration with Administrative Practice 102A New Theory of Development 104Summary 105

Conclusions and Recommendations 107

References 113

Index 127

XIV

14

FOREWORD

Not so long ago, the role of college student personnelprofessionals was clearly defined. Their primary functionon campuses was to serve as the most tangible agent of thepolicy in loco parentis, meaning that their specific dutieswere to act as disciplinarians, moderators of studentbehavior, and upholders of moral and social values. Thisrole fell to student personnel professionals as much out ofe:sinterest by other faculty as their own initiative.

Conditions on campuses have changed. For the mostpart, the idea of in loco parentis does not exist. The func-tion of disciplinarian, then as now, obscured the obvious:the chief concern of college student professionals is theeffective development of students. Development may bedefined to include the moral, spiritual, and personal enrich-ment of the students, easing the transition from adolescentto young adult. Recent research on the outcomes of educa-tion indicate that affective development (instilling of val-ues, behavior modification. and ways of thinking) is just asimportant as cognitive development, and has a more lastingeffect on the students. This development occurs both out-side as well as within classrooms. Therefore, college stu-dent personnel administrators have the potential of havingas much impact on the students as the faculty.

The role of student affairs in the 80s, as Peter Garland,program analyst in the Office of Higher Education for thePennsylvania Department of Education, suggests, has gonebeyond the traditional role of guardian. These profession-als have moved from the periphery to the center of theinstitution, sometimes influencing ever survival. The stu-dent personnel administrator role is closely related to boththe quality of the undergraduate nonlassroom experience,and student perceptions of the institution. This is a vitalrole, for future students are more often influenced byword-of-mouth recommendations than any standardrecruiting technique. As many schoois recognize, alumniare the strongest marketing tool an institution can employ.

It is now realized that college student personnel admirns-',rators have a greater role to play in many areas of theinstitution. For example, in addition to recruitment, there

a relationship to retention. A student affairs professionalcan make a world of difference to a student struggling tocope with ambiguities of the undergraduate experience andthus help reduce the chance of a student leaving before

Serving More Than Students xv

15

graduation. Student personnel administrators are also tak-ing an active role in setting policies and procedures tomaintain the harmonious relationship between the studentand the institution, thereby minimizing possible threats oflitigation. These new practices suggest that a redefinition ofthe role of colleL-.: student personnel administrators isun.,erway, and that to a large extent, these professionalscan determine its development. How they choose to oper-atc may set the standard for future practitioners.

'.:his report, the seventh in the 1985 ASHE-ERIC HigherEi.cation Report series, serves two distinct functions.First, it offers a more accurate portrayal of the importantroll: student personnel administrators play in the everydaydynamics of successful colleges and universities. Second,it examines the specific development and effect of pro-grams on students. Besides these descriptive functions, thehook also offers recommendations for a conscious assess-ment of student personnel administrators and their staff,and for hiring personnel with specific academicbackgrounds that will insure quality staffing of an officethat has become integral to all facets of the institution.Staffing the student affairs c,ffice with personnel cognizantof and trained in multiple roles w'll result in not only amore productive office but also greater development of stu-dents. For many institutions, this will have a long-terminfluence on the future dynamics of their institutions.

Jonathan D. FifeSeries EditorProfessor and DirectorERIC Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington University

xvi16

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to many for their assistance in the prepara-tion of this report: to Bob Hendrickson, associate profes-

sor of higher education at Penn State, and Lee Uperaft,director of counseling and health services at Penn State,for their thoughtful guidance on early drafts; to Dick Ste-vens, executive director of NASPA, for his insights offeredon later drafts; to William Toombs, director of the Centerfor the Study of Higher Education at Penn State, for thesupport, direct and indirect, that he and the center pro-vided while I explored and drafted this report; to S. V.

Martorana, who has guided and shaped my development asa scholar; to Sally Kelly and Janet Shank of the center fortheir nimble fingers and critical eyes; and to a certain wordprocessing unit for being my constant and sympatheticcompanion during many long days and nights. Despite theirinvaluable assistance, the contents remain solely myresponsibility

In additivn, I must recognize the distant but Importantcontribution of Jack Morgan, now vice president for stu-dent affairs at Maryville College (St. Louis), for it was inhis class on student development at the College of Williamand Mary that the seeds of this report first toot_ root.

Serving More Than Students xvi

1 7

THE EVOLVING ROLE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS

American higher educate )11 has evolved to meet society'schanging needs. Eighteenth century society needed educated clergymen and societal leaders; thus, colonial col-leges provided a pious liberal curriculum for those few menwho would become church and political leaders (Rudolph1962). But a century later, society evolved from an agrar-ian to an industrial society ti. ded a wider variety ofsocial, political, and business leaders and expanded tech-nologies to facilitate industrialization. Institutions re-sponded by educating students for a wider range of roles insociety, most notably through land-grant institutions andstate universities that conducted pure and applied researchand sought to provide direct service to society.

The most recent period in the evolution of highereducation has occurred as a result of a postWorld War IIsociety that places a high value on education, career devel-opment, and educational opportunity for all. Society'sexpectations for research and service have been enhancedthrough increased governmental support for research, tech-nological application, and educational service programsand activities. Institutions, responding to society's needs,have Increased the diversity of students. programs ofstudy, and educational activities (Kerr 1971).

As institutions have responded to society's needs, so toohas student affairs. In colonial colleges, the student affairsfunction (performed by faculty and tutors) contributed tothe intellectual and moral development that was the goal ofthose Institutions. In expanding Institutions of the nine-teenth century, the student affairs professional coordinatedand advised a growing number of extracurricular programsand services that mirrored expanding enrollments, anincreasingly professional faculty, and greater amounts ofstudent freedom (Rudolph 1962). In this century, anincreasingly sophisticated student affairs profession hasattempted to promote individual development as an educa-tional goal.

Institutions in this decade are changing as a result of sev-eral trends. First, society is changing, including a decreas-ing birth rate (Glenny 1980), increasing minority popula-tions (Gleny 1980), the information society (Naisbitt1982), and the legacy of the baby boom (Uperaft, Finney,and Garland 1984). Second, the higher education enter-prise is changing, including increased accountability (Har-

Serving More Than Students

18

pel 1975), the application of management strategies tohigher education (Baldridge and Tierney 1979), andrenewed attention to academic quality (Study Group 1984).And, finally, students are changing, including growingminority enrollments (Cross 1981b), increasing vocational-ism, and students' changing characteristics, needs, and val-ues (Astin 1984a; Levine 1980).

In response, institutions are launching new or enhancedefforts aimed at recruiting and retaining students, institu-tional marketing private fund raising, resource manage-ment, and the like. In many of these efforts, the role ofstudent affairs is central and critical.

Growing recognition of the importance of the contribu-tions of student affairs in many of these efforts is leading toan increased recognition of the congruity between the goalsof student affairs and those of the institution. Severalsouthern California institutions, for example, concernedabout growing student attrition, launched major, institu-tionwide efforts to improve retention. Central to thoseefforts was the leadership of student affairs in areas likestudent advising and counseling, residential programs, stu-dent activities, orientation, on-campus student employ-ment, and programs for commuting students. As a result ofthe strategies formulated to curb attrition, several of theinstitutionsHarvey Mudd College, Pitzer College, AzusaPacific University, and Scripps Collegeexperienced dra-matic improvement in their retention of students, whileothersChapman College, Mount St. Mary's College, andLoyola Marymount Universityreported that if it werenot for the efforts, enrollments might have suffered (Green1983). Similarly, students were more satisfied with college,more integrated with others in the institution, and moreinvolved in student development. The complementarygoals of the institution and of student affairs were bothachieved.

Student affairs efforts employed by these institutionswere activities demonstrated to be effective in the promo-tion of student involvement --itl ultimately retention (Astin1984b). Student involvement is defined as "the amount ofphysical and psychological energy that the student devotesto the academic experience," and it is a powerful contribu-tor to increased retention, satisfaction with c-lleF,e, andachievement (p. 297). It would be hard to underestimate

19

the importance of student affairs in promoting and support-ing students' involvement.

Thus, the goals of student affairsparticularly the goalof student involvementis recognized as critically impor-tant to a growing number of institutions. Responding tochanging societal needs, student affairs has assumed anumber of important roles in ccllges and universities, andthe potential for increased importance of student affairscalls for a rethinking oc the role of student affairs. The roleof student affairs has evolved from disciplinarian to custo-dian to educator, and while each of these roles has charac-terized the major focus of the student affairs professional,each incorporates previous roles. The role of studentaffairs has grown by accretion, not substitution, toward anincreasingly complex set of duties and roles.

Student affairs professionals arc now performii, inte-grating functions within the institution, integrating stu-dents' needs and traditional student affairs goals on the onehand and the varied needs of institutions responding tochanging conditions on the other. Changes in society, inhigher education, and in students, and institutional re-sponses in light of those changes, argue for a new majorfocus for the student affairs role. The role of student affairsis ready once again to evolveinto that of institutionalintegrator. This role, which recognizes the contributions ofstudent affair to the institution in a new light, calls for anexamination of student affairs programs and services andthe skills professionals need. Perhaps most important, itplaces demands on the preparation and continuing profes-sional education of student affairs staff.

The DisciplinarianThe tutors responsible for student affairs in the colonialcolleges acted as guardians of moral development to moni-tor stud -Its' behavior. In loco parent: s, which guided therelationship between the student and the institution untilrecent years, is rooted in this concern for the moral devel-opment of young students. College officials, acting in theplace of parents, monitored students' social and moraldevelopment, which often entailed punishing students forviolations of any of hundreds of rules (Rudolph 1962). Thestudent affairs portion of their work consisted of "a perms-tent emphasis on extracurricular religion, and also a con-

The role ofstudent affairshas grown byaccretion, notsubstitution.

Seri, Ag More Than Students 3

20

siderable snooping into the personal lives of the student"(Cowley 1949, p. 20).

The goal of education in the colonial and preCivil Warperiod was to develop in the young student a disciplinedmind and soul; put another way, the goal of institutionswas the development of a proper morality befitting an edu-cated man. As a result, the academic and student affairsfunction remained complementary goals of the faculty(Rudolph 1962).

This period of student discipline, regarded as theapproach to student affairs, began to change with theincreasing numbers of students and the growing complexityof colleges. The notion that certain members of the collegecommunity would be responsible for monitoring students'behavior and student discipline would remain with studentaffairs to this day, however.

The CustodianThe rise of the American universit) acorporating the evolu-tion of the academic profession and the diversification ofinstitutional mission, led to the establishment and expansionof the student se, vices profession. Perhaps the most influen-tial of these trends was the increasing specializatior of thefaculty. Tired of his responsibilities for student discipline,enlivened by opportunities to conduct research and pursuescholarship, the academic man of the late 1800s sought to ridhimself of the more onerous responsibilities associated withstudent life. The birth of the student affairs profession is usu-ally marked by the appointment of the first personnel dean atHarvard in 1870 to handle student discipline. His appoint-ment was to take the burden of student discipline off theshoulders of the newly appointed president, Charles WilliamFliot, who sought to free his time and that of the faculty forpursuit of research and scholarship (Fenske 1980). Most uni-versities and many colleges soon adopted the appointment ofa student personnel officer.

Increasing specialization and complexity characterizedexpanding colleges and universities. Likewise, activities inthe extracurriculum proliferated in the postCivil Warperiod. Seeking more stimulation than the classroom expe-rience could provide, students became involved in Greekletter societies, intercollegiate athletics, student publica-tions. and literary and debating societies (Rudolph 1962).

21

As a response to the growing numbzr of activities in stu-dent life, institutions began to employ student servicesadministrators to oversee and advise tF a activities thatsoon came to be an important part of the collegiate ex-perience.

Through much of this period, student persnnnel staffretained custodial responsibility over students' belt,. Jiorwhile increasing their responsibility in an ever-larger num-ber of student activities In addition, a number of studem-related functions, including registration, advising, andcounv...lim;, became the province of student affairs staff(Cowley 1949).

The EducatorThe postWorld War I expansion of the student personnelmovement occurred as a result of the acceptance of mentaltesting and counseling employed on a large scale by theArmy during the vru (Brubacher and Rudy 1976). The useof counseling and testing to help the individual gained cred-ibility and was adopted on college and university cam-puses. The growth of counseling offered student affairsstaff a greater degree of professionalism. Furthermore, thedevelopment and application of new psychological andpedagov,a1 theories supported the need for the studentpersonnel function. The higher education community wascoming to accept the notion that noncognitive needs wereimportant to the development of college students. Studenthealth services, career placement, and intramural andintercollegiate athletics became part of an expanding anddiversifying student affairs function on many college anduniversity campuses ( Brubacher and Rudy 1976).

Recovenng from setbacks as a result of the depression,the student affairs profession prospered in the period pre-ceding and just following World War II, a period that hasbeen referred to as a "golden age" for the profession (Dee-gan 1981) These years saw an increase in the identity, theemphasis, and the sophistication of student affairs func-tions Publications by the American Council on Educationdescribing college student personnel work sharpened thephilosophical basis of the profession (ACE 1938; William-son 1949). These statements emphasized the underlyingspirit of the work, "the personnel point of view," and werebased on three assumptions:

Serving More Than Students 5

22

1. Individual differences are anticipated, and every stu-dent is recognized as unique.

2. Each individual 1., to be treated as a functianingwhole.

3. The individual's current drives, interests, and needsare to be accepted as the most significant factor indeveloping a personnel program appropriate for anyparticular campus (Deegan 1981, p. 2).

The 1960s and 1970s were special for the student person-nel profession. Continued expansion of higher educationresulted in increased numbers of professionals with spe-cialized abilities. Student affairs was called upon to pro-vide a wider array of services in admissions, registrationand records, C.nancial aid, housing and food services, stu-dent activities, personal and academic counseling, orienta-tion, and special services to a growing student body.

It was also a period of student unrest, however, theaftermath of which proved to be a significant philosophicalloss for the profession. In loco parentis, which institutionsemployed to guide their relations with students, was one ofthe mary casualties of the period, along with the authoritystructures it created. Student personnel staff were caughtin the awkward position of having to react to rapid changeswithout a guiding philosophy.

As a result, an increasingly diverse and complex profes-sion sought to reestablish its theoretical and operationalbase and to embrace a philosophy to guide its effortswithin the institution. Out of this concern, the Tomorrow'sHigher Education project of the American College Person-nel Association emerged as an effort to define the missionan role of student affairs; a result was the commitment tostudent development (the theories of human developmentapplied to postsecondary education) as a guiding philoso-phy, if not theory, and the continued attempt to ensure thatthe development of the whole person was an institutionalprionty.

To meet the goal of student development, a model com-prised of six major components was proposedgoal setting,assessment, instruction, consultation, management, and eval-uation. Through these components, student developmentspecialists sought to anticipate change, to better coordinateacademic and student affairs programs, and to develop a

6

23

more comprehensive educational dimension to the studentaffairs profession (Miller and Prince 1977). The student per-sonnel professional sought to become more than a discipli-narian of student conduct or a custodian of student services;he sought instead to become a human services professionalresponsible for shaping the development of students and stu-dent groups within the Institutional setting.

The Role of Student Affairs TodayThe history of student affairs has been characterized byinzreasing specialization and complexity. The studentaffairs function, once the responsibility of faculty, hasincreasingly fallen to nonacademic professionals, and it istypically viewed as an academic support function and dis-missed as peripheral (McConnell 1970). But changing con-ditions in society, students, and higher education demandnew responses from institutions, and the involvement ofstudent affairs in those responses is increasingly important.This change comes largely as a result of increasingly com-plementary institutional and student affairs goals in therecruitment and retention of students, their placement incareers after graduation, and the integration and involve-ment of diverse student clienteles. Student affairs profes-sionals have the opportunity to take the lead in achievinginstitutional goals and, in so doing, i ttegrating professionalgoals (the development of students) with institutional goals(organizational development). Some of them are doing soalready:

I. At several private institutions in California, studentaffairs leaders were instrumental in improving studentretention.

2. At the University of Maryland, a course for adult stu-dents addresses social and emotional needs in addi-tion to cognitive needs.

3. The parents' association at Pennsylvania State Uni-versity was initiated to enhance parents' involvementin student development as well as to develop fund-raising strategies designed for the group.

The Idea that student affairs professionals can serve anintegrating function within the institution is not new. In thefuture, if it is to remain vital, the student personnel field


24

must contribute to the institution as a whole and not solelyto student development:

If the developmental model emerged in part to supplya positive and less reactive approach to student life,then we must now move to the next step to incorporate apositive approach to institutional life and to respondpositively to the issues facing our institutions (Smith1982, p. 57).

The term "integrator" was suggested in 1971 as the namefor the new and potential role of student affairs (Silverman1971). The student affairs organization shares the orienta-tion of the three major campus groupsfaculty, students,and administratorsand its position on the borders ofthese groups may be its greatest strength:

Our uniqueness as student personnel workers rests onour ability to fashion significant educational environ-ments, using the resources, values, norms, anc' opportu-nities of the variety of constituencies on our campuses.To the extent that we are successful in cur innovativework, we will be respected, not because of position, butas a result of the impacts we have on campus life. Truly,student personnel workers have the opportunities to becentral figures for campus improvement in an era whenresources must he perceived as newly combined ratherthan as new (Silverman 1980, p. 12).

As Integrators, student affairs professionals will definetheir priorities and goals in terms of those of the institutionin addition tz those of the student. They will serve bothinstitution and student as advocate and advisor. The stu-dent affairs processional has typically sought to integrat:-institutional goals and the goals of the profession in servingstudents, but the importance of those efforts is increasinglyrecognized with attention to new conditions. Integratingstudent and institutional needs, the student affairs profes-sional will serve in a number of capacities not envisionedin the "traditional" student affairs role.

The student affairs professionaltoday and in thefuturemust integrate the traditio- -1 student affairs rolesof disciplinarian, custodian, and student development edu-

25

cator with the roles of environmental scanner, market ana-lyst, legal advisor, development officer, and manager. Andas an integrator, the student affairs professional must focusattention on both students' needs and the institution'sneeds and seek to match efforts to satisfy both sets ofneeds. The student affairs function as an integrating onewill be increasingly important to the identification andachievement of institutional goals.

1

.5-Y-ring More Than Students. 9

26

A CHANGING SOCIETY

Higher education is constantly evolving, but changes in thepast 15 years have been particularly noteworthy and aredemanding responses from higher education. More specifi-cally, demographic charges affecting enrollments arechanging the outlooks and goals of many institutions; finan-cial limitations as a result of leveling or decreasing enroll-ments and increasing accountability of public funds areeroding the flexibility of institutions to meet changing con-ditions; and increased participation in postsecondary edu-cation by women, blacks, Hispanics, aduits, the handi-capped, and academically underprepared students ischanging students' needs and demands to which institu-tions must respond.

Society is not static; it changes over time and the institu-tions serving society sini:!arly c ange over tune. Collegesand universities arc facing a number of significaat ,ocietalcharges that challenge their mission, curricula, the needsof students, and methods of operation. Among the changesthat society and institutions must face are a decline in thebirth rate, grown...! minority enrollments, the legacy of thebaby room, demographic shifts, an evolving informationsociety and economy, hanging sex roles, and growing evi-dence of narcissism of individuals and groups.

A Deelb.ing Birth RateAfter World War II, the number of births in the ..citedStates increased dramatically to 4.3 million at its peak in1957. Since that peak, commo.ay referred to as the babyboom, the birth rate has declined steadily, and with it hascome a similar decrease in the number of student! of tradi-tional college age (!8 to 24 years old). Desp. °Ie fact thatthe birth rate has recently begun to increase slightly, norapid increase in the birth rate is expected between nowand the end of the century (Gienny 1980).

A declining birth rate is particularly serious for hiEhereducation as it translates into a decline in the number ofstudents of tiaditional college age, the group that has beenthe historical mainstay of college enro lments. Whilenumerous institutions by design or necessity are attractingmore older students, the traditional age group remainsimportant for most institutions. A discussion c.; retrench-ment in the 1930s concluded that declining birth rates and a


2/

related decline in the number of 18-year-old student enroll-ments are major reasons for a reduction in the budget baseof many institutions (Mortimer and Tierney 1979).

Various researchers (Carnegie Council 1980; Centra 1980)have attempted to project enrollments in higher educationincorporating birth rate, college attendance trends, and socialand economic factors. Despite a recognition of the increasingenrollment of nontraditional students in colleges and univer-sities, most projections cla:in that enr,liments will decrease.Although enrollments have not declined as projected for thee 480s, much of the decline in traditional age students isstill ahead (O'Keefe 1985). As a result of concerns overenrollments, institutions have become more aggressive andcompetitive in recruiting and more active in retaining stu-dents. The development of marketing plans and retentionstrategies is becoming critical to institutions seeking toaddress possible shortfalls in enrollment. Institutionwideefforts to attract and retain students call for significantinvolvement by student affairs, involvement that willenhance the role of student affairs in institutions (Baldridge,Kemerer, and Green 1982).

Growing Minority EnrollmentsDeclining birth rates do not tell the complete story of thechanging demographics of higher education. If birth ratesare disaggregated by race or ethnic origin, a more complexpicture emerges. The birth rates among whites, blacks, andHispanics are substantially different; they are much higherfor blacks and Hispanics than for whites (Glenny 1980;Hodgkinson 1984).

While the proportional increases in minority populationsmay not be as great in the future as they have been in thepast 15 years, the effects of that period will have implica-tions for h:zher education in the near future. In 1977, forinstance, 29 percent of whites, 39 percent of blacks, and 42percent of Hispanics were under 18 (Glenny 1980). As aresult, increasing numbers of blacks and Hispanics areentering the traditional college-age cohort each year.

As these minority groups become more activelyrecruited to higher education, institutions will be underpressure to respond to the different learning styles, diversesocial and emotional needs, and educational expectations

12

28

of many of these new participants. In recognition of theseneeds and expectations, many institutions are attemptingto provide more flexible financial aid programs, appropriatepersonal and academic counseling, enhanced career plan-ning and placement activities, and effective academic sup-port services. As the provider of many of these services,student affairs organizations are called upon to modifyexisting models and practices to meet the needs of newstudent clienteles.

Legacy of the Baby BoomAdjusting to a lower birth rate is but one of the adjust-ments that society must make to the postwar baby boomgeneration. The effects on society brought about by a babyboom in the 1950s and early 1960s, followed by an equallyprecipitous decline in birth rate hi the late 1960s and early1970s, are difficult to overestimate. The increasing numberof births in the 1950s and 1960s was instrumental in foster-ing a "youth culture" in society, fueling the creation andexpansion of new industries and services directed at theneeds and wants of that age group and causing the massivemobilization of the nation to educate its youth through thecollege years (Jones 1980). But a decline in the birth ratecarries with it similarly important implications for society.As a society, we are aging. In the next 20 yearc, a middle-ard society will be emerging that will capture the atten-tionif not the policy directionsof society, suggestingthe decreasing importance of education (Rhatigan 1979).

The first wave of baby boomers (those born between1946 and 1954) has enjoyed the benefits of an expandingsociety, including ready career advancement and mobility,business opportunities, and the fulfillment of the AmericanDream (two cars, a house in th ...burbs, and so on).Those born since the mid-1959s, however, are subject to achanging economy, increased competition for careers, anddiminishes expectations (Uperaft, Finney, and Garland1984). Competition for middle-management jobs (the so-called "promotion -iueeze") may become increasinglyfierce. Entering ar .a of diminishing expectations, per-haps for the first e in recent history, the outlook andenergy of society as m z.11 as of college students is changing.

A recent article on job prospects for college graduatespaints a dreary picture for college graduates in the 1980s

me

Institution wideefforts toattract andretainstudents callfor significantinvolvementby studentaffairs.


29

(Rumberger 1984). Educational attainment will continue toincrease among workers, but, while college graduates willcontinue to hold competitive advantage in the labor mar-ket, an increasing number will accept positions not com-mensurate with their level of training.

Recognition of the legacy of the baby boom is alteringstudents' expectations of college, and career pressures aregrowing for members of the current student generation.Students' aspiratio .; may be unrealistic, and studentaffairs professionals, in counseling students, will need toaddress the adjustment to diminished expectations or findalternate routes to the fulfillment of expectations.

Demographic ShiftsCensus maps and figures prepared oy th-. Bureau of theCensus validate a comironly perceived trend: that theAmerican population is moving out of the industrial;zedNortheast and Upper Midwest to the sur. belt thatstretches from California to Florida. Industries, includingprofessional and service industries, are following a similartrend (Hodgkinson 1984).

As a result of the movement to the :,un belt, society ingeneral, individual stares, and regions have changed pro-foundly. As the population, particularly the younger popu-lation, moves south, the aging society it leaves behindplaces increased pressure on state economies damaged bya mobile job market and shrinking tax bases. Older personsand displaced workers place increased demands on statesfor social services. As a result, educational institutionsmust compete more with other state agencies and servicesfor funds, and they must increasingly justify their costs interms of benefits to society. Changing social priorities andthe resultant accountability for limited funds place pres-sures on institutions to manage resources more effectivelyand may hamper efforts made to respond to changing con-ditions. Likewise, student affairs divisions have foundthemsel%es increasingly accountable for the same or dimin-ished resources (Harpel 1975; Silverman 1980).

Transformation to an Information-Based SocietyIt is evident that we no longer dominate the world's eco-nomic order as we once did. Other nations are challengingour once unshakable position as the greatest industrialized

14

30

nation in the world. The traditional anchors of our indus-trial mightsteel, autos, and other heavy industriesaresuffering from stiff competition overseas. At a time whenour large industrial corporations are in decline and we turnto other countries for our steel, cars, and consumer prod-ucts, however, we are expanding our information-basedindustries and services. While our dependence on indus-trial production is waning, our reliance upon informationand its processing is growing. The process represents aprofound change in our economic system.

More of us than ever are working in information-relatedoccupations. In 1950, for example, only 17 percent of theworkforce was employed in jobs where information wasthe product. Today, more than 60 percent of us work ininformation-related occupations as lawyers, clerks, secre-taries, managers, programmers, teachers, technicians, andthe like, and fewer than 13 percent of us are now engagedin industrial production (Naisbitt 1982).

The symbol of time new information age, the computer, isleading to profound changes in the way we work, the waywe learn, and the ways in which we communicate andrelate to one another. Computer technology is revampingindustrial production, the education of our youth, and theforms in which we record and interpret ourselves and oursociety. Traditional jobs and careers become obsolete orredirected, while others are created overnight. The result ispressure to reeducate and ;etrain significant portions of ourworkforce each year.

Understanding this situation, one must acknowledge thedifficulty of choosing a marketable career it such a rapidlychanging environment. Pressures to become computer-literate and to prepare for high-technology careers aregrowing, but no one guarantees that career preparation willlast a lifetime. Preparing students to become fifelong learn-ers will increasingly be a challenge of most institutions.This goal is made more difficult because of immediate pres-sures for the provision of education for employment upongraduation. Opportunities and challenges arise from thisscenvio for student affairs to counsel and advise studentson careers and major choices, to interpret the changingworld of work, and to provide leadership in placement.

In reeducation and retraining activities, instigations arefacing greater challenges from other organizations and


31

industnes for Lhe provision of educational services. Stu-dent affairs programs and servicesto the extent that theydistinguish the educational efforts of colleges and universi-tieswill become increasingly important to institutions'success in meeting competition from oth:r educationalproviders.

Changing Sex RolesTraditional role expectations for men and women are chang-ing today, as are distinctions between what is expected"male" and "female" behavior. For women in particular,opportunities have increased for participation in fields andcareers not open to them even a generation ago. Labor-saving devices in the home have decreased the amount oftime necessary for family care, birth control has given wom-en control over when and whether they will bear children,and the women's movement has given focus to and supportfor women who become more involved in education andcareers once virtually closed to women (Cross 1981a).

Ircreasing numbers of women are entering such male-dominated fields as engineering, business, applied technol-ogies, and the pure sciences (Astin and others 1984).Increasingly, woman are becoming a substantial minorityin high-prestige professions such as medicine, dentistry,and the law.

As women participate more fully in society, their tradi-tional roles are changing; women in nontraditional careersview their role choices as less constrained. As women'ssex roles become less traditional, men too become able tochoose from a wider range of behaviors. Both men andwomen increasingly make alternative choices and set dif-ferent priorities for careers, marriage, and children, witheach taking a greater responsibility for the decisions(Uperaft, Finney, and Garland 1984).

The polarizations between males and females in the familyare being transcended, and a growing syr. rgy between maleand female roles is becoming apparent (Friedan 1981). Itoccurs as more men and women attempt to understand them-selves and others and the opportunities that are available toboth. Careers outside of the home increase options in sexroles, and the two-paycheck couple may be an importantvehicle for changing sex roles. While dual careers ofi--increased opportunities for both men and women in the home

16

32

and in the workplace, however, so too do they increase con-fusion about roles (Hester and Dickerson 1982).

All these trends have important implications for studentaffairs. With more women enrolled in a wider variety ofmajors, preparing to assume new and different roles, theneed for academic and personal support services hasincreased. Support services become even more importantwith the realization that, even as opportunities exist fornew roles, most women experience traditional socializationand lifestyle patterns (Hester and Dickerson 1982). Prepar-ing men and women to be able to work together is a newchallenge for student development (Abrams 1981).

Increasing NarcissismOur society is moving from a period of concern aboutsocial issues to a primary focus on personal issues. Wehave been described as living in an age of the "new narcis-sism" (Lasch 1978), typified by "me-ism" (Levine 1980),while our college students are described as the "now" or"me" gene' Aden (Suchinsky 1982). We are increasinglyself-concerned and self-directed, participating in a periodof "individual ascendancy" that emphasizes hedonism andthe primacy of duty to the self, in contrast to a period of"community ascendancy" that emphasizes asceticism andthe importance of duty to others (Levine 1980). Consider,for example, that 91 percent of students today hold highhopes for themselves, while only 41 percent are similarlyoptimistic about society (Levine 1980).

Examples of societal narcissism abound (Suchinsky1982). We are obsessively concerned about our appear-ance, our success, and our possessions. Our interpersonalrelationships are often transitory and trivial, and we aremore willing to sacrifice relationships with others in com-peting for financial security and professional advancement(Uperaft, Finney, and Garland 1984). Growing narcissismmeans we are less willing to sacrifice personal fulfillmentfor the benefit of our spouse, our children, and our friends(Levine 1980).

In light of these societal trends, it is perhaps understand-able that students have become more concerned aboutthemselves, their success, and other personal issues. Nar-cissistic students have important implications for institu-tions and student affairs organizations. Students often view


33

extracurricular activities as an opportunity to add depthinstead of breadth to their academic program. Narcissisticstudents may be more interested in healtl, and fitness andmore willing to assert their personal rights. Student affairsprofessionals must therefore reorganize efforts to respondto the needs and problems of self-concerned students(Suchinsky 1982).

The Rapid Rate of ChangeAlthough change is inevitable, it may be occurring so fastthat it is beyond our comprehension. Change is occurringso rapidly that often little timc is available to understand itor even to react before things have changed again. Thisrapid rate of change affects our society in several ways.First, the rate of change is getting faster. The delaybetween a technological idea and its application is rapidlydecreasing, allowing us less time to adjust to technologicalchange (Naisbitt 1982). This increasing rate of change andgrowing technological complexity place increased stress onsociety and individuals (Chickering and associates 1981;Taller 1970).

Second, rapid change calls for more insightful, adaptablegeneralists who can understand a complex world ratherthan narrowly trained specialists. Third, rapid changedemands that we rethink the notion of a discrete educa-tional period followed by the pursuit of a ^areer. Educationand work should o longer be viewed as ;near relation-ship, as opportunities and demands for bo , become moreblended (Cross 1981a, 1981b). A changing economic basedemands new skills and careers, and the route to them isoften through education and training.

Fourth, rapid change demands that we look to the futurefor guidance rather than to the past in our efforts to under-stand and anticipate u. Our time focus and the focus ofunderstanding it implies must change from the past to thefuture (Naisbitt 1982).

Fifth, rapid change challenges our values. At a timewhen we must look to the future, our values are rooted inthe past. The development of values is typically one of theeducational objectives of most institutions, even thoughcolleges and universities often do very little to promote theexploration and development of values (Bok 1976).

Finally, a rapidly changing world is also a more interde-

18

3 4

pendent world. Global issues like famine, energy, nuclearwar, and terrorism bring events closer to home each year,and dealing with them adds to our stress.

The changes in society that place pressures on institu-tions to respond are each enhanced by the rapid rate ofchange. As a result, responses are demanded of institutionsand student affairs organizations. Among the effects onstudent affairs organizations are pressures to help studentsdevelop and adapt value systems that accommodate futurechanges, to develop intellectual and emotional skills tocope with the explosion of knowledge, and to prepare forlifelong learning.

SummarySocietal change is constant and varied, and it directly andindirectly places pressure on institutions to adapt. Demo-graphic trends, economic evolution, evolving sex roles,narcissism, and even the increasing rate of change itselfdemand timely and dynamic responses by institutions.

Among the responses that institutions are making arethose in which student affairs has the potential for leader-ship or sign ficant participation. They include the provisionof new or enhanced support services for diverse studentclienteles, participation in the management of enrollments,attention to students' changing expectations and the devel-opment of values, enhanced career planning and placementactivities, and attention to changing sex roles and theirimplications for students. To the extent that student affairsprofessionals are able to take leadership in these areas andcontribute meaningfully to students and to the institutionitself, their role within the institution will be enhanced andstrengthened. Their role will be to ensure that the goals ofthe student affairs profession will become more integratedwith those of the institution.


35

THE CHANGING POLITICAL TERRAIN:Trends Affecting Higher Education

In addition to changes demanded by societal forces, othermore direct forces place pressure on higher education toreexamine its relationship with society, its mission andpurpose, and its efforts in relation to them. Chief amongthese trends is the changing political terrain for higher edu-cation, including accountability to state legislatures, stateand federal agencies, and state and federal courts; chang-ing relationships with business and industry; and increasedcompetition for funds and students. Thesc changes affectinstitutions' missions, priorities, programs, and services,and they call for responses by student affairs.

That institutions of higher education are facing increaseddemands from external sources is a fact most educatorsknow all too well. Increasingly, institutions are subject tothe demands of Congress, legislatures, state and federalagencies, and the courts. Once largely neglected by theseauthorities, colleges and universities are finding their day-to-day relationships with external sources increasinglycomplex. This phenomenon is a result of the increasingpoliticization of higher education, increasing oversight bylegislatures and state and federal agencies, and increasedattention by courts at all levels.

The Increasing Politicization of Higher EducationIncreased accountability to state and federal governmentsis just one factor in the increasing politicization of highereducation. The notions that education and politics do notmix and that educational decisions should be separate frompolitical decisions have been carefully nurtured but failingmyths. While educators cultivated the notion that educa-tion functioned as a nonpartisan, closed system apart fromthe larger political system (Iannaccone 1967), externalpressures for change were reduced and even eliminated insome cases (Blocker, Bender, and Martorana 1975).

Today, however, educators increasingly recognize thepolitics of education policy, largely because cf theincreased competition for less state and federal money(Rosenthal and Fuhrman 1981). Education policy makinghas evolved from a closed system with few participants toone in which decision making has become more open, plu-ralistic, and politicized (Murphy 1980). At the same time,policy making for education at all levels has become morecentralized at the state level (Millard 1976). Few decisions


3621

within the institution are made without attention to theirpolitical implications.

Accountability to the StateDespite the existence of public policies affecting highereducation, state agencies and legislatures were generallyunconcerned about accountability until recently. Stateinvolvement with private institutions was even less exten-sive. But such is not the case in the 1980s.

State governing and coordinating structures for highereducation have grown in size and power in recent years(Berdahi 1971; Millard 1976). The formulation of federallysponsored planning commissions in most states in the1970s brought private institutions into state planning andcoordinating activities (Millard 1976). Similarly, theamount of legislation in recent years affecting higher edu-cation has increased considerably; higher education is sub-ject to policies intended for all state agencies as well aslegislation targeted solely for higher education (Martoranaand Corbett 1983).

States are increasingly concerned that monies for highereducation are expended with state policy priorities in mind.As a result, it is not unusual today to find that a publiccollege or university will be acc' able, to varyingdegrees, to the state coordinatinL governing board, tothe departments of purchasing, personnel, computer andmanagement information systems, finance, and occupa-tional safety, and to the civil rights commission. In addi-tion, an institution typically has general and special respon-sibilities to the state legislature. The picture for privateinstitutions is different, but a similar trend emerges if theinstitution receives state funds.

Accountability affects all of an institution's programsand activities, including student affairs. Increased attentionto compliance with state statutes and rules affects both theadministration of student affairs and the programs and ser-vices offered. Student affairs organizations in public insti-tutions are accountable to various state agencies for theiradministration and programs, but more important, account-ability typically translates into infcimation about costs andoutcome for various efforts. It is in this area that studentaffairs is most vulnerable. Support for student affairs pro-grams has long been justified on humanitarian grounds

22

37

rather than on tangible measures of cost and outcome, andas a result, principles of accountability and current re-source management models like those developed by theNational Center for Higher Education Management Sys-tems should be translated into useful models for the profes-sion (Harpel 1975).

Federal AccountabilityAccountability to the federal government occurs as a resultof federal legislation, regulations issued by federal agenciesand commissions, and attention by the courts. Federal leg-islation and regulations governing the activities of institu-tions have increased at an alarming rate, according to mostuniversity administrators; for most institutions, complianceis a major activity. In general, institutions are held ac-countable for the guarantee of equal opportunity andaccess, affirmative action, administrative due process, andconstitutional rights. By accepting federal funds, directlythrough sponsored research and other federal programsand indirectly as a result of enrolling students receivingfederal financial aid, both public and private institutionsare required to comply with federal policies and reportingrequirements. Compliance with federal regulations coststime and money, but perhaps most important, it shapesinstitutional policy and practice.

Attention to federal policy directed at affirmative action,equal opportunity, and due process shapes admissions andfinancial aid policies and student discipline. As a result,student affairs organizations are increasingly concernedwith the interpretation of federal policies, making practicesmore formal, regularized, and expensive. Similarly, stu-dent affairs leaders must participate in the institutional pro-cess that integrates institutional priorities, rights, and stu-dents' responsibilities in their efforts.

Judicial InfluenceJust as the influence of Congress, state legislatures, andvarious federal and state agencies has grown, so too hasthe influence of the courts on higher education. Histori-cally, American courts nave exercised academic deferencein matters where academic judgments have been deemedmost important. The result in most cases was little judicialinfluence over academic institutions. Academic deference,

States areincreasinglyconcernedthat moniesfor highereducation areexpended withstate policypriorities inmind.


38

despite its pervasiveness, was largely an informal practice(Edwards and Nordin 1979).

Court intervention in academic issues, however, hasincreased in recent years for a number of reasons, amongthem increasing familiarity with the legal process, growingconcern for civil rights, increased governmental regula-tions, and increased reliance on the courts for redress ofgrievances by individuals and groups (Brubacher 1971;Edwards and Nordin 1979). The volume of litigation andthe amount of effort expended by institutional administra-tors on legal matters has increased greatly in the past fewyears (Kaplan 1978).

While court intervention has increased in recent years, ithas been selective. Courts have been most concerned withthe constitutional rights of individuals and contractual obli-gations between individuals and institutions. As a result,judicial activity in the areas of discrimination, due process,and contracts has increased. On the other hand, in areaswhere academic judgment is best left alonein determin-ing admission standards, curricula, and faculty tenure, forexampleacademic deference is still exercised so long asindividual rights and fairness are ensured (Kaplan 1978).

Judicial decisions affect all areas of the institution, butthey are most likely to affect student affairs in the areas ofconstitutional and contractual rights that shape the student/institutional relationship. In a number of recent cases,jurists have sought to define the relationship between thestudent and the institution and the rights of each in thatrelationship. Much of the increased caseload involvinghigher education in the 1960s was brought by studentschallenging in loco parentis and lack of due process ininstitutional actions. In addition, the federal governmenthas been active in seeking judicial redress for discrimina-tion by institutions. Today, students are turning to litiga-tion to ensure their rights as consumers in the educationalenterprise (Levine 1980; Stark and associates 1977) in addi-tion to securing their civil rights.

Cases of interest to student affairs professionals tend tocenter in four areas:

1. The infringement of individual rights in the admis-sions process, in academic evaluation, and in other

24 3'd

actions taken by the institution where administrativedue process is not adhered to

2. Contractual rights between students and institutionsin cases involving the awarding of credits and de-grees, admissions policy, financial aid, and an institu-tion's auxiliary operations

3. Student discipline systems4. Numerous cases concerning student organizations

(Kaplan 1978).

Issues in these cases typically focus on the rights of students to organize and to have access to institutional fundsand facilities, as well as on nondiscrimination in member-ship. In addition, institutions' and administrators' liabilityfor the actions of organizations sanctioned by the institu-tion has become the focus in recent cases (Kaplan 1978).

For these reasons, institutions are increasingly con-cerned about their legal position. Student affairs organiza-tions, because of their many functions, are becomingincreasingly aware of legal issues in their relationships withstudents and organizations vis-a-vis due process, discrimi-nation, contractual rights and obligations, and liability instudent activities. Student affairs professionals are becom-ing more aware of the legal ramifications of their actions.Knowledge of legal issues in these matters must be furtherintegrated with institutional practice and students' needs informulating responses.

Changing Financial ConditionsThe dire financial condition of colleges and universities hasbeen discussed often in the past 15 years. The "goldenage" of the 1960s has been replaced by the "new depres-sion" of the 1970s, 1980s, and beyond. Despite the factthat projected enrollment declines have been offset byincreased enrollments of nontraditional students and thatfinancial support for most institutions has been increasing(according to the annual reports on funding submitted byM. M. Chambers), most institutions remain concernedabout enrollments and the public accountability of funds.

Recent years have seen an increase in the accountabibtythat state and federal governments have retained overmuch of their funds, and increased accountability has


40

caused a loss of discretionary authority over funds (Kra-mer 1980). Most institutions will likely face e-r:reasing dis-cretionary funds, which will severely hamper in3tite.3ns'efforts to meet changing conditions (Carnegie Council1980; Kramer 1980).

Iratrnal reallocations and red-^tions are typically part oftht: budget and planr'-., process as institutions seek toreduce or control ext...ulitures (Mortimer and Tierney1979), and changing financial conditions are often felt mostsharply in student affairs divisions (Deegan 1981; Harpel1975). With reduced budgets and demands for new efforts,student affairs organizations, much like the institutions ofwhich they are a part, must more carefully manage thPirre sources.

Concern for QuoiiityNot all of the forces bearing on higher education dt-al withlegal and financial relationships; lately growing attentionhas been focused on the improvement of quality in highereducation (Bennett 1984; National Commission 1983;Study Group 1984). Each report suggests ways that institu-tions can improve the quality of education they offer. Oner'mmon theme is the importance placed on students'involvement in the academic --iperience. While recommen-dations are specified for the range and types of skills to b,acquired and the content areas to be mastered, the involv:.-ment of faculty, students, and administrators in the learn-ing experience is emphasized as the critical factor in theachievement of quality.

The recommendations of these reports represent a chal-lenge to American higher education just as important aslegal and financial challenges. Perhaps more than othertrends, concern for the imprc vement of academic qualityprovides special opportunities for the student affairsprofession. Involvement in Learning (Study Group 1984)suggests a strong role for student affairs in the enhance-ment of involvement and, ultimately, the imorovement ofquality in the undergraduate experience. Several of thereport's recommendations cal; directly for a response byst, dent affairs:

0 All colleges should offer a systematic program of guid-ance and advisement that involves students frommatriculion through graduation. Student affairs per-

26

41

sonnel, peer counselors, faculty, and administratcHsshould all participate in this system on a continuingbasis (p. 31).Every institution of higner education should strive tocreate learning communities organized around specificintellectual themes or tasks (p. 33).Academic and student service administrators sh, uldprovide adequate fiscal support, space, and recogni-tion to existing cocurricular programs and activities tomake the most of students' involvement. Everyattempt should be made to include part-time and com-muter students in such programs and activities (p. 35).

SummaryWhile institutions are under pressure to adapt to societalchange, changes in higher education are demandingresponses by institutions. The world of postsecondary edu-cation has changed: Institutions have become moreaccount -ble to a variety of state, federal, and local agen-cies; state and federal courts are selectively eroding aca-demic discretion in relationships between students andinstitutions; and a degree of financial uncertainty charac-terizes the future of many institutions. These changes aredemanding institutional responses that in turn alter thegoals and priorities of institutions.

In large measure, these changes lead to changes in thegoals, priorities, programs, and services of student affairsorganizations, and these changes have implications for stu-dent affairs: (1) increased attention to the political implica-tions of policies and programs; (2) increased accountabilityto the state in administrative practices and in the allocationand expenditure of funds; (3) increased accountability tothe federal government in practices concerning studentrights; (4) increased attention to the rights of students andthe legal process; (5) changing financial conQitions that areeroding funds and flexibility for all institutional units; and(6) new opportunities to contribute to the quality of theeducational experience. These implications suggest a newrole for student affairs that is at once both expanded andmore central, a role in which student affairs serves of juststudents, but faculty and the institution at large. It i a rolethat calls for the integration of student, faculty, and institu-tional needs in a way not previousiy envisioned.

Serval(' More Than Students

4227

CHANGING STUDENT CLIENTELES

Another area of significant change affecting the role of stu-dent affairs is that of the college student. Attention to theneeds of the traditional college student-18 to 24 years old,middle-class, whitethat has guided student affairs effortsmust be expanded as a result of changes in the studentbody. Today more women, minority, older, part-time, dis-abled, and underprepared students attend college. Andthese nontraditional students differ from traditional stu-dents: They generally have multiple commitments, are notcampus-focused, and prefer informal learning situations(Hughes 1983). They bring with them different values,learning styles, expectations for career and lifestyle, edu-cational expectations and motivations, and personal devel-opmental needs. Furthermore, the goals and values of tra-ditional students are different from those of their predeces-sors (Astin and others 1984).

The diversity of today's students and their needs is chal-lenging institutional traditions and student affairs profes-sionals, who must address these changing student typesand characteristics and their integration with the institu-tion's priorities. That integration holds great promise forthe student affairs profession.

Changing Student TypesThe traditional student has typically been defined as white,

'ddle-class, 18 to 24 years old, and adequately preparedior college -level academic work. With growing numbers ofstudents not fitting this description, however, the "tradi-tional" student is fast becoming a minority in higher educa-tion. Several different trends in enrollment suggest that themakeup of college students is changing.

WomenWomen are no longer a minority in postsecondary educa-tion. Since 1979, women have outnumbered men in thetotal enrollment of colleges and universities. More impor-tant, more young women are interested in higher paying,higher prestige careers that demand a college education(Carnegie Council 1980). Yet only recently have institu-tions begun to address the special needs of women.

Increased participation by women in higher education,however, has created new problems. Women often lackrole models in male-dominated fields and are often the tar-


43

gets of discrimination anu sexual harassment. While expec-tations about sex roles are changing, women (particularlythose in nontraditional fields) find it difficult to resolvedemands made by their chosen careers and traditionalsocialization (Hester and Dickerson 1982).

In addition to the increasing number of women in thetraditional college age group, significant numbers of olderwomen are returning to college. Because the reasons forreturning are varied, the special needs of older women aresimilarly diverse. These older women differ from tradi-tional students in their needs for flexible scheduling, day-care services, lifestyle and vocational counseling, assert-iveness training, assistance when discriminated against andharassed, flexible financial aid, and opportunities for rolemodels, support groups, and family counseling (Wheatonand Robinson 1983). Despite the high motivation that char-acterizes returning women, these women often feel inade-quate and threatened upon reentering the academic setting,particularly in the possession of specific competencies(Vasquez and Chavez 1980). The learning styles ofreturning women differ from those of traditional stu-dents, and institutions must address those differences(Cross 1981a).

MinoritiesAn increasing number of minorities, including blacks, His-panics, and native Americans, are participating in highereducation. The college-going rate of 18- to 24-year-oldblacks will soon equal that of whites (Carnegie Council1980. '1 For black students. equal opputunity policies, affir-mative action programs, and active iecniitment contributeto increasing attendance. Further, Mack students recognizethat opportunities and increased income are significantlyimproved by college attendance (Rumberger 1984). Recentreports, however, suggest that participation by black stu-dents has not increased a,. expected as a result of changingfederal aid policies (Gstar :985), which does not diminishthe importance of bla 'ts and other minority students onmost campuses.

Hispanic students are likewise beginning to increasetheir participation in postsecondary education, despite alower high school completion rate than either blacks orwhites (Glenny 1980). And in several states, increasing

30

44

numbers of native Americans are participating in postsec-

ondary education.While minority student groups differ, it can be general-

ized that they bring to higher education certain similar non-traditional characteristics. Minority students possess aworld view, a frame of reference, and culture-specificlearning needs different from those of traditional students.

Minority students:

come from diverse cultural backgroundsexperienced systematic oppression as a minoritygroup memberhave closer family and community tiesface pressures as first family members to attend col-

lege (Wright 1984).

Minority students may be handicapped by poor high school

preparation, greater financial needs, higher adjustmentneeds, and higher levels of expressed academic anxiety(Vasquez and Chavez 1980). As a result, attrition sates forminority students are higher than those for traditional stu-dents. Most development theories guiding student affairs

are based upon Western itotions of human behavior and somay not be appropriate for minority students until theyencompass broader cultural, historical, and religious tradi-

tions (Wright 1984).

International studentsForeign students are an increasingly significant segment ofenrollments in higher education. In 1960, approximately50,000 foreign students attended colleges or universities;that number increased t" 250,000 in 1976-77 (CarnegieCouncil 1980). It is projected that foreign enrollments will

soon top 350,000 ("Foreign Students" 1984). Internationalstudents are in a special legal situation and must learn to

adapt to a different social, cultural, and administrative situ-ation. Practical needs stemming from living in a foreigncountry mu.it be addressed, in addition to other needs. Dif-

ficulty in academic adjustment, particularly centered onproblems with English but also dealing with American edu-cational traditions, characterizes international students.Because of cultural differences, tension often arisesbetween international and American students.


45

Student affairs workers _re often unaware of the culturalstress that international students suffer and miss opportuni-ties to respond to those needs. A study of international stu-dents at North Carolina State University found that the topfive adjustment problems of those students included home-sickness, obtaining housing, social relations with the oppo-site sex, difficulties with the English language, and finan-cial problems (Stafford, Marion, and Salter 1980). Recogni-tion of these needs suggests directions for student affairsprofessionals.

Part-time students*Nith the expansion of flexible curricula and scheduling,wider use of instructional media, and increasing numbersof nonresidential institutions, more students are choosingto attend college part time. Many nontraditional groupsmake up a significant portion of the part-time studentsattending institutions of higher education. For many ofthem, because of other commitments and responsibilities,participation 'tt further education would not be possible iffull-time residential study were the only option. In addi-tion, students with good job opportunities and the desire toobtain a college degree may increasingly mix work andeducation in the future (Carnegie Council 1980). With moreadult students attending college at all levels on a part-timebasis, discrete periods of education and work may becomemore blended in the future as lifelong learning becomesmore desirable, necessary, and attractive to students(Cross 1981a).

r y in the design of academic programs and thedei student services characterizes the needs ofpart-time students. Elements of this flexibility include thevariable scheduling of classes, independent study, flexiblefinancial aid, and provision of support services during eve-ning and weekend hours. Furthermore, support servicesneeded by part-time students differ from those of full-timestudents. Efforts that address the stress of family and jobpressures and seek to integrate the student with others inthe campus community are important to part-time stu-dents. The integration of the various needs of part-timestudents with institutional priorities and goals is increas-ingly important to the management of enrollments at many

32 4 6

institutions, creating opportunities for the stuaent affairsprofessional.

Academically underprepared studentsPoorly prepared students are one of the largest, fastestgrowing subgroups in higher education (Astin 1984a), evi-

denced by the decline in recent years in SAT and ACTscores. But it is not solely nontraditional students who aredeficient in basic skills; increasing numbers of traditionalstudents have also been found to i-eed remedial programs(Astin 1984a).

Many students, recently attracted to higher educationhave experienced poor preparation in high school, andinstitutions are responding by developing remedial pro-grams, enhancing academic advising, and establishinglearning skills centers for such basic skills as writing andmath. These efforts are often part of a larger retentioneffort (Baldridge, Kemerer, and Green 1Q82).

Despite sharp declines in academic skills, more studentsare aspiring to advanced study beyond the bachelor'sdegree, most prominantly in high-level professional fieldslike medicine, law, dentistry, and business. A disparitybetween ability and aspiration is often created, and it mustbe resolved early in the student's college career.

Poorly prepared students need career and educationalcounseling that seeks to match ability and aspiration inaddition to remedial programs addressed to basic skills andstudy skills. To identify the needs of such students, theUniversity Counseling Service of the University of Iowaconducts needs assessment studies on this special popula-tion. The information gathered can help to integrate thespecial needs of underprepared students with studentaffairs programs and services and to provide essential stu-dent information to other campus programs.

Disabled studentsStudents with physical or learning disabilities are anIncreasingly visible and vocal minority group on campusestoday. The passage of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilita-tion Act mandating equal opportunity for qualified handi-capped people in education programs and activities hasstimulated the enrollment of disabled students ;.tid requiredinstitutions to make necessary accommodations (McBee

Studentaffairsworkers areoften unawareof the culturalstress thatinternationalstudentssuffer.


4'1

33

1982). In addition, early intervention efforts are resulting in*ilex educational aspirations for disabled students(Hameister 1984).

Disabled students bring various needs to institutions,including transportation to and around campus, learningassistance that includes interpreters and recorders,removal of architectural barriers in classrooms, residencehalls, and other campus facilities, and support services.Preadmission and orientation programs are particularlyimportant for the adjustment of disabled students (Hameis-ter 1984; McBee 1982). Disabled students enrolling inhigher education often need support in developing socialskills, leadership skills, and a positive self-concept(Hameister 1984). In each of these areas, the studentaffairs professional may be instrumental in assisting theinstitution to assimilate this population by overcomingthe architectural, institutional, and student servicesbarriers facing these students (Demetrulias, Sattler, andGraham 1982).

Older studentsThe aspirations, expectations, and needs of older under-graduate students are significantly different from those of18 to 24 year olds, and that fact, coupled with growingnumbers of such students, is affecting the efforts of institu-tions and student affairs organizations. Already, studentsover 25 make up over one-third of college students. Manyadults seek postsecondary education during a period oftransition, and the events that precipitated the transition(divorce, children leaving home, job obsolescence, jobcompetition, and so on) give rise to varying personal, edu-cational, intellectual, and career needs (Greenfeig andGoldberg 1984). The moti,,ations, psychological develop-ment, academic readiness, and life/time commitments ofolder students represent a special collegiate subculture(Kasworm 1980), and the value priorities of adults are sig-nificantly different from those of younger students (Pirnotand Dunn 1983).

While adults are choosing to participate in higher educa-tion in increasing numbers, .echnological changes aredemanding the reeducation and retraining of significantparts of the population each year. As a result, adults aremore actively participati4 in degree programs and con-

34

48

tinuing education and are being actively recruited by manyinstitutions (Cross 1981a).

Adults traditionally enter higher education with a high

level of motivation and specific educational and vocationalgoals. But for many, the transition to the collegeenviron-ment can be difficult. Adults exhibit different learningstyles, academic and social concerns, and family role obli-

gaions (Cross 1<,81a). A recent study on emerging clientpopulations identified several counseling needs for adultstudents: adult career development, life span/life cycle rolemanagement, reentry in an institution ofhigher education,and family and market role (Parker and Eliason 1980). In

addition, adult students express different practical needs in

financial aid, class scheduling, counseling and advising ser-vices, and access to learning services.

In response to these varied needs, student affairs profes-sionals are increasingly called upon to accommodate them

and to modify their programs and services. Student affairsprofessionals may be instrumental in integrating the needsof this group with the goals and priorities of the institution.At the University of Maryland, for example, one courseemphasizes the important skills and resources needed tohelp i tudents succeed in college, and it includes assistancein choosing a major and ac'.demic advising, career planningand vocational test:ng, reading and study skills, opportuni-ties to share common experiences, campus resources, and

time management.

SummaryThe vaned needs of nontraditional students have severalimplications for student services:

Greater attention to the particular needs of women ofall ages as they enter careers and define roles in newways, which might incluik the development of wom-en's centers, guidelines to combat harassment, assert-iveness training, and day care.Attention to the adjustment problems and anxieties ofmilionty students, which might focus on the individualbut is also important to institutional efforts aimed atrecruitment and retention.Attention to the legal, financial, administrative, andadjustment needs of international students, which


4J

might result in international student centers, staff, andprograms.Flexibility in the delivery of student services to part-time students and t'e incorporation of issues impor-tant to non-campus-based students with multiple com-mitments in the design of programs.The provision of learning assistance to underpreparedstudents, including counseling and advising to helpstudents match expectations and abilities.Attention to the physical needs of disabled students,including the development of social and leadershipskills and a positive self-concept, which might includean advocate position for disabled students

Attending to the needs of subpopulations increasinglyimportant to institutions is an important challenge for stu-dent affairs, and integrating their needs with the institu-tion's goals and priorities will remain a challenge.

Changing Student CharacteristicsIn a changing world, even traditional students are lot thesame as they used to be. Although students of 'he 1980sresemble their predecessors in many waysthey are con-cerned about doing well academically, establishing auton-omy, seeking supportive interpersonal relationships, and"fitting in" at the institu'ion of their choicemany of theirneeds, expectations, values, and outlooks are differentfrun those of students of 20 years ago, when many studentaffairs professionals were trained. Students mirror a chang-ing society through the characteristics they bring to theinstitution, and among the changing characteristics institu-tions and student affairs organizations must address arein: -asing vocationalism, concern for personal success,narcissism, and consumerism, many of which centeraround growing concerns for success in a chosen career.

VocationalismFacing an uncertain future, students are selecting fieldsthey believe will lead to good careers and secure futures.Coupled with a recognition of an evolving information soci-ety, this concern is leading to the selection of information-intensive, well-paying professional fields, such as business,law, and engineering (Uperaft, Finney, and Gai land 1984).

36

5 0

And while information-intensive professional fields areattracting more students, people-oriented careers and tradi-tional fields in the arts, humanities, and the pure sciences

are attracting fewer students (Astin 1984a; Astin and others1984). According to the Cooperative Institutional ResearchProject, an ongoing study of the characteristics of enteringstudents, the greatest increase in popularity offields since

1966 has been in business, computer science, f....ngineering,

agriculture, and forestry, with large increases notable in

the number of women (Astin and others 1984). On theother hand, participation in the humanities, the fine and

performing arts, and the social sciences has declinedsharply, accounting for about one-third of all freshmen in

1966 but only one-ninth in 1982.Career plans parallel these major interests. The increas-

ingly popular fields typically do not require educationbeyond the bachelor's degree and are relatively high pay-

ing (Astin and others 1984). Conversely, those careersrequiring advanced training and/or that are relatively low

paying (such as the human and social service professions)have demonstrated decreasing popularity. Student voca-tionalism suggests that students may be interested only in

those activities that support or enhance their vocationalinterests (Levine 1980). As a result, student affairs profes-

sionals will have to redouble their efforts to develop the

whole person.

Personal successAlthough today's students recognize that it will be difficult

to achieve success in a competitive world, they are opti-mistic that as individuals they will be able to achieve it(Astin 1984a). What they may choose to sacrifice or post-pone in pursuit of career successa family, quality of life,personal interestsis very much on the minds of today'sstudents, for diminishing expectations may place theAmencan Dream beyond their grasp (Uperaft, Finney, andGarland 1984). Increased competition further magnifies thecurrent wave of vocationalism (Levine 1980).

Concern for success is reflected in changing student val-ues and life goals; the strongest upward trend is reported inhe goal of "being very well off financially" (Astin and oth-

ers 1984). During the past 10 years, endorsement of thisgoat has increased from 40 percent of respondents to 70

Serving More Than Students3'

51

38

percent. By contrast, "developing a meaningful philosophyof life" has declined from the most popular goal 15 yearsago to the eighth most popular in 1982. Similarly, a recentstudy of student perceptions of the collegiate experienceconcluded that most college students still pursue personaldevelopment as a part of the collegiate experience butchoose to ignore those social and political issues they per-ceive as having little direct bearing on their personal lives(De Coster and Mable 1981).

The drive for personal success may be leading to anincrease in academic dishonesty (Lamont 1979); reportsdocument the increasing cases of plagiarism, cheating onexams, falsifying lab results, and sabotaging fellow stu-dents' projects. Increased academic dishonesty, coupledwith little remorse, is a manifestation of the growing nar-cissistic behavior of students (Suchinsky 1982).

NarcissismThe rise in narcissistic behaviors among students presentsnew al L; different kinds of problems to student affairs profes-sionels. Coupled with increasing voc.anonalism and concernfor personal success, student narcissism suggests that stu-dents .ill be most interested in those activities in which theysee direct personal benefit, which might include career plan-ning and placement, extracurricular activities that comple-ment career goals, and the like. Further, those administrativeand counseling efforts aimed at fostering interpersonal rela-tions and appropriate student conduct will be challenged by..1f-concerned students (Suchinsky 1982).

Student consumerismConsumerism has been described as

a philosophy of governance (concern for student rightsversus college rights) . . . that . . . is premised on ahuyer-seller relationship between the student and thecollege; that . . . seeks rights and remedies off campusas well as on campus; and that . . . is concerned withthe rights and remedies of individuals as well as those ofthe majority (Levine 1980, pp. 78-79).

While the consumer movement is not new to campuses,several trends explain its recent evolution: the educational

52

marketplace that favors the buyer (the student), the rise inthe number of student lobbies, the growing numbers ofnontraditional students with special needs, the evidence ofmore self-interested students, the increased costs of highereducation, and the abandonment of in loco parentis onmost campuses (Davis 1980; Levine 1980).

Student consumerism is related to a greater concern forpersonal success as well as to narcissistic tendencies. Itsuggests that students are more active in seeking redress,not through the forms of activism that characterized the1960s but through more traditional means, such as litiga-tion. And student consumerism is supported indirectly byinstitutions' concern for maintaining enrollments. Oneobserver predicts that student consumerism will peak in1990, when demographic conditions will be worst for col-leges and best for students (Levine 1980).

Just as student consumerism presents new chAenges tothe administration of institutions, so too will it affect stu-dent affairs organizations. Consumers are more likely toassert individual rights and contractual rights, challengefairness and due process in administrative action, and seekto receive what they are paying for. As a result, studentaffairs organizations will need to become more consistentin the development and application of policies and prac-tices. And to the exteat that consumers demand programsand services, student affairs staff will need to respond.

SummaryEven as institutions attempt to assimilate new subpopula-tions, the "traditional" student clienteles to which studentaffairs organizations addressed much of their efforts in thepast are changing. The new "traditional" students are exhib-iting different goals and values, educational and careerexpectations, and interests. They exhibit more vocational-ism, greater concern for personal success, growing narcis-sism, and increasing consumerism than previous generationsof students. In their academic life, changing characteristicsare reflected in choice of majors and careers.

While these changes have important implications for aca-demic programs, they suggest that student affairs organiza-tions should rethink their programs and services to reflectthe changing goals and values of the so-called traditionalstudent. Addressing the needs of nontraditional students


53

while ignoring the evolution of traditional students willresult in only a partial response to changing students.

In addition to addressing the needs of new traditionalstudents, student affairs organizations must also translatetheir needs and goals to faculty and administrators so thatthey might be more fully reflected in institutional goals.This point is particularly important, as the needs, motiva-tions, and expectations of the "traditional" student aremuch different from what they were 10 or 20 years ago. Tothe extent that student affairs professionals are able tointerpret these changes to faculty and administrators, theywill be able to take the leadership in formilating institu-tional responses to changing student clienteles. Moreover,cooperative efforts between faculty and student affairs toidentify evolving student needs and expectations and todevelop strategies to address them will result in moreeffective academic and student affairs programs.

For the student affairs organization, changing studentinterests and values have several implications:

Increased efforts in career planning and placementIncreased counseling related to helping students toestablish reasonable life and career expectationsFocused attention on developing fair and consistentpolicies and practices in student discipline i.......1 studentbehavior codes and preparation to address the specialbehavior problems of narcissistic studentsincreased attention to anxiety caused by changing sexroles and to the development of men and women whomay be able to work effectively togetherIncreased attention to students' changing preferencesfor extracurricular activities from community service,politics, and self-governance to career-related, selfinterest, and health/fitness activities.

5 4

CHANGING INSTITUTIONAL STRATEGIES

Much attention in the mid- to late-1970s was focused onthe projected results of demographic and financial trends,changing 'udent clienteles, and changing institutional con-ditions in tllgher education, including the management ofdecline (Goulding 1975), the corr ing depression in highereducation (Cheit 1971), and the imminent "reduction, real-location, and retrenchment" (Mortimer and Tierney (1979).Others attempted to suggest ways to maintain and improveinstitutional vitality (Carnegie Council 1975; Mi4le andNorris 1981), recommending ways in which state, federal,and institutional leaders could improve the lot of highereducation, even as they projected institutional closings,widespread termination of programs, and a lamentable lossof institutional vitality. While the reality has not been asdire as the predictions, institutions have become more cau-tious and careful in their ou'looks. And the lessons learnedin the transition from expansion to maintenance andenhancement have not been forgotten.

The past decade was not the only period in which institu-tions faced uncertain futures. Over the years, higher e6u-cation has found strategies to preserve or resume growthwhen faced with conditions that would limit that prospect(Leslie and Miller 1974). Institutions have sought innova-tive ways to improve proauctivity, much like business andindustry, attempting to revitalize themselves through thefollowing strategie-

1 The introduction of a n,'w good or grade of goodalready in use. The amount of time and the types ofdegrees have changed to meet new market forcesover the years. Examples in the past have been theawarding of baccalaureate degrees for teachers, asso-ciate degrees, and external degrees. More recently,institutions have structured programs for part-timf.,students, continuing professional education. and theawarding o: associate and baccalaureate degrees as acredential in wider range of fields.

2. The introduction of a new method of production, forexample, a new type of iabor saving machinery. Overthe years, classes have gotte- larger, more graduateteaching assistants have beet used, and the mediahave been more extensively used in higher education.


R

Credit for previous experience and weekend pro-grams are more recent examples.

3. The opening of new rn, rkets. This innovation hasprobably been the most used in higher education. Wehave a long histr-, of becoming more egalitarian inthe types of programs offered a,.d students attracted.Various new student clienteles have become increas-ingly important to institutions.

4. The employment of a new source of supply produc-tion factors. Since their Harvard beginnings, institu-tions have sought financial resources from a variety ofsources, including churches, federal, state, and localgovernments, and auxiliary enterprises. Mostrecently, institutions have sought voluntary givingfrom friends, alumni, corporations, and foundations.Similarly, increased management of funds and inter-nal accountability for the use of funds have beensought to get the most out of resources available.

5. The reorganization of an industry, several industries,or part of an industry, for example, monopolization ofsome industry. Higher education institutions havesought to form consortia. joint research institutes,and collaborative efforts with business and industryand with other organizations (Leslie and Miller 1974,pp. 24--25).

To the extent that these efforts have been successful, thebleaker doomsday projections have not been realized; thepresent condition of higher education in general is betterthan many in the early 1970s would have predicted. 1.'stitu-tions have adapted by responding to changing conditionsmuch as they have in the past--but the widespread clos-ings and general erosion Lave not occurred as predicted.Institutions have changed or redirected their efforts inmany ways:

comprehensive planning (including reduction and real-location)the development of effective information ,,ystemsincreased focus on enrollment managemc at (includ igmarketing efforts, retention, and the attraction of non-traditional students)employment of preventive lawactive pursuit of private funds

A,

56

d4 promotion of business/college partnershipseffective management of resources and increasedinternal accountability.

Comprehensive PlanningPlanning in higher education has been described as haphaz-ard and ineffective, but growth in the past has been toler-ant of mistakes (Bender 1974); current conditions, how-ever, are less tolerant of ineffective planning (Kramer1980). As a result, colleges and universities are increas-ingly concerned with planning mote effective use ofresources to meet the challenges of the future. Institutionscould learn much from poor planning and planning mis-takes experienced during growth and, from that under-standing, plan more effectively for the steady state (Bender1974). Strategic planning"an institutionwide, future-examining, participative process resulting in statements ofinstitutional intention that synergistically match programstrengths with opportunities to serve society" (Cope 1981,p. 8)is a planning method particularly suited to collegesand universities (Kellts 1983). It is much different fromother planning in the past that focused on internal analysisrather than on more external, open, systems analysis

Planning in student affairs has been uneven. A recentsurvey found little organized planning by most studentaffairs organizations (Priest, Alphenaar, and Boer 1980),and other observers suggest that student affairs organiza-tions have not responded to chang'ag conditions with com-prehensive efforts but with often cosmetic changes in pro-grams and services (Biggs and Skinner 1979). More effec-tive planning is needed in the field if it is to meet currentand future conditions.

Long-range planning is the key to effective managementin student affairs when responding to the changing environ-ment of higher education and stadent affairs.

No task in the management of student affairs is lessattended to than long-range planning. Yet the hard truthis that if we do not plan our future, someone else willplan it for us. The implication is clear: student affairsleaders must find better ways to identify future neecand prepare to meet those needs (Pillinger and Kraack1981, p. 8).


.1.

Student affairs leaders are apparently devoting moretime and effort to planning. At the Community College ofAllegheny County (Pennsylvania), the student activitiesdivision uses a data-based management system to assessstudents' needs, evaluate programs, and record students'participation. This system bas led to improvements iii deci-sion making and in meeting the needs of part-time stu-dents, adult students, a -.1 others. Information stored in thedata base is also used to monitor progress toward long-term objectives in the student activities master plan. Simi-larly, comprehensive strategies for planning, setting goals,and evaluating prog ,ms in student affairs have been devel-oped at Stetson University and at Furman University.

Effective Information SystemsRelated to institutional planning, and a precondition toeffective and insightful planning, is an effective informationsystem. Information systems are important for internaldecision making as well as for providing information toexternal agencies (Balderston 197S), and managementinformation systems aid in decision makii.g and planningfunctions for both units and institutions as a whole (Bald-ridge and Tierney 1979).

The application of information technologies holds greatpromise for student affairs in two ways. First, through thecollection and analysis of student and program data, stu-dent affairs professionals are able to learn more about stu-dents' needs, characteristics, program use and effective-ness, and so on. Student affairs professionals have accessto all kinds of information about students, staff, programs,curricular elements, facilities, equipment, and finances(Racippo and Fox ley 1980); put in the right form, suchinformation can be used for creative solutions to problemsor to capitalize on opportunities fir new efforts, to docu-ment the need for the development of a new program orthe continuation of existing one:,. Perhaps most important,it can assist student affairs organizations in the manage-ment of existing resources to most effectively meet theneeds of students and programs.

Second, information systems assist labor-intensive work,such as the student affairs function. Automated office sys-tems in admiss:Jirs, financial aid, room assignments, andplacement offices, to name a few, are reducing the amount

58

of time spent by professional and support staff on routineactivities. Further, computer-assisted guidance systemscan help student affairs professionals reach more studentswith limited staff resources (Sampson 1982).

Student affairs professionals can match a student's needswith programs and services through the increased use ofcomputers, and the goals of recruitment, retention, andreferral can be better achieved through the employment ofcomputer technologies. Such surveys as the StudentDescriptive Questionnaire or the Student DevelopmentTask Inventory can be used to assess the environment andto evaluate students' needs to better develop studentaffairs (Erwin and Miller 1985).

Data-based management information systems can beused to assist in advising and retaining students. Fo..instance. Miami-Dade Community College uses a computermonitoring system to track students' grades, to warn stu-dents of potential problems, to provide feedback on stu-dents' performance, and to match career goals and abili-ties. It has meant more personalized help for students fromfaculty members who, as a result, possess accurate and up-to-date information for advising students.

Enrollment ManagementEnrollment management includes "a host of functions thatcross divisional lines, including clarification of institutionalpurpose, program development, marketing and recruit-ment, financial aid, orientation, and retention" (Baldridge,Kemerer, and Green 1982, p. 27). In many ways it is simi-lar to and part of a larger institutional planning effort; thetwo are often complementary. As a set of strategies, enroll-ment management implies an a-sertive and informedapproach to ensure the number and quality of new studentsneeded by the institution.

AS a process, enrollmqnt management helps institutions:(1) develop a tic. ner awareness of their purpose andcharacter in relation to the student marketplace; (2)improve ties to prospective client groups; and (3) attractstudents into and through the institution (Baldridge,Kemerer, and Green 1982, p. 27).

S:xty percent of presidents responding to a :urvey onenrollment problems agreed that enrollment was a major

. . . Apreconditionto effectiveand insightfulplanning is aneffectiveinformationsystem.


5

45

concern for their institution, and 75 percent reportedincreased competition for students. Only 16 percent antici-pated declining enrollment in the future, however. Thus,despite concern over enrollments, few institutions }lavedeveloped or implemented comprehensive new studentmarketing plans or systematic programs for reducing stu-dent attrition. Institutions that are serious about retention,however, should take certain steps: (1) develop an "earlywarning system" to signal advisors and counselors when astudent is showing signs of dropping out; (2) develop astrong residence life program and other activities that pro-mote social integration; (3) strengthen academic programsand carefully integrate the academic program with stu-dents' needs; (4) focus advising; (5) focus efforts on com-muter students; and (6) link recruitment and retention(Baldridge, Kemerer, and Green 1982).

A similar study found recruitment and retention of stu-(Lints to be critical issues for the future (Kinnick and Bol-heimer 1984). Marketing and recruiting by higher educationare not new in most institutions, and recently, institutionshave become increasingly concerned about their attractive-ness to a wide range of clienteles and supporters.

Most ifistitutions, however, engage in marketing in a dis-jointed and haphazard way, falling short of a comprehen-sive effort (Litten 1980). Interest is increasing, however, inmore formal and comprehensive marketing plans as institu-tions attempt to resr ond to a number of changing LA-.r.di-tions. The "how to" manuals and books, survey reseatthfirms offering services to admissions offices to help thembetter define and reach their markets, and workshops, con-ferences, and consultant services attest to the growinginterest in marketing higher education (Litten 1980).

A comprehensive marketing approach should be formu-lated for most effective results (Grabowski 1981). In addi-tion, the marketing plan should be developed with theinput and support of the entire campus community, not justthe offices and functions m,,st directly affected. Before thedevelopment of a plan, the market position should bedetermined. based upon several factors: the institutionalmission statement, the institutional image as perceived byits various clienteles and supporters, tl,e types of studentsattending the institution, and academic programs. Afterassessing the current market position, the institution might

60

look at the possibility of broadening its market based on acareful assessment of its current position and the potentialfor an enhanced position. Finally,

Any marketing effort must he student-oriented, assess-ing and serving the needs and interests of students.However, no institution of higher education should relysolely upon student desires; instead, a school must con-sider student preferences in the context of its missionand goals . to preserve the integrity of its programs(Grabowski 1981, p. 1).

As the division within the institution most responsiblefor the qu,..,,ty of student life, student affairs is essential indeveloping a strong marketing posture for the institution.In attempting to market itself, an institution must meet stu-dents' needs and, where appropriate, students' desires topresent the best possible and most attractive picture. Inte-grating students' needs with institutional goals is essentialin the market posture of any institution. As integrators,student affairs professionals are in a position to addressstudents' needs while supporting the institution's market-ing goals and, using its special understanding of students,to modify institutional practices to meet the needs of itsprospective clients. The chief student affairs officer has animportant role in this effort (Kinnick and Bolheimer 1984;Shay 1984).

RecruitmentRecruitment of students is one element of the enrollmentmanagement process that calls for the involvement of stu-dent affairs in many ways. Wiih decreasing numbers of tra-ditional students and increasing competition for all stu-dents, recruitment on most campuses has increased inrecent years. The preparation of new promotional materi-als to be sent to likely students is the most popular newstrategy (Baldridge, Kemerer. and Green 1982). Neverthe-less, traditional recruiting methods, such as high schoolvisitations, direct mail, and attendance at college nightsand fairs, are the strategies institutions use most frequently(College Entrance Examination Board 1980).

The implications of increased recruitment for studentaffairs are numerous. Generally, student affairs seeks to


61

develop and enhance student life and promote social inte-gration, both important "selling points" for many institu-tions. While admissions and financial aid professionalsremain central recruitment staff at institutions activelyseeking to recruit students, however, many institutions areemploying faculty members, alumni, and other administra-tors in recruitment efforts (Baldridge, Kemerer, and Green1982). A recent study of college presidents found that theJie of chief student affairs officer is critical to reci-uitment

(Kinnick and Bolheimer 1984). In addition to generalefforts to support recruitment, student affairs staff are cre-ating weekend and outreach programs that involve faculty,students, and administrators and are designed to recruithighly attractive students to the campus.

RetentionRelated to marketing strategies and increased attention torecruitment are efforts to improve the retention of matricu-lated students. As an enrollment strategy, retention hasreceived considerable attention in recent years. A highattrition rate experienced by an institution may be its singlegreatest enro: went problem (Stadtman 1980).

The costs of attrition to an institution are numerous, andthey multiply over time. Most directly, dropouts or trans-fers cause a direct loss of tuitions, fees, ana auxiliary reve-nues. Second, a high rate of attrition may affect recruit-ment efforts by increasing the numbers of students whomust be recruited each year and by damaging the oftencarefully nurtured institutional image. Third, high attritionmay undermine the diversity, richness, and cohesivenesswithin the student body.

Institutions are not the only ones who may lose in stu-dent attrition; the individual who, under different circum-stances, might have completed his or her education alsoloses, and the loss to the individual is compounded by theloss of potential contributions to society.

Many institutional strategies have been recommended toreduce attrition, including improved academic advising,personal counseling, skill development for underpreparedstudents, curricular developments and options, and careerplanning (Baldridge, Kemerer, and Green 1982; Beal andNoe: 1980; Stadtman 1980).

Only a small number of retention activities have been

48

64

employed by a substantial number of institutions, and fewstrategies have been judged to be effective (see table 1).Many student affairs efforts are important to institutionalretention strategies, however. While recent studies (Bald-ridge, Kemerer, and Green 1982; Beal and Noei 1980;Stadtman 1980) suggest that few of these activities havegreat impact on retention, a recent project suggests other-wise. In a demonstration project conducted by Baldridge,eight underenrolled institutions enhanced student serviceson their campuses and experienced reduced attrition; insome cases, those efforts increased retention by as muchas 35 percent (Green 1983).

Developing social integration, an area that traditionallyhas been the responsibility of student affairs, is an essential

TABLE 1CAMPUS RETENTION STRATEGIES:

RESULTS OF THREE NATIONAL SURVEYS

Percent of CollegesAttempting the Activity

Stadtman Beal and Noel

Percent Reporting4 ,11vity Has Great

ImpactBaldridge, Kemerer,

Activity (1980) (1980) and Green (1982)

Orientation, counseling, and advising 55 34 18

Career planning 9 6 6Learning centers/academic support 36 24 29Exit interviews 9 3 2

Cumcular developments 13 2 - 6New policies/grading options 11 4 1

Improved fac.!ities 5 -More financial aid 4 - 6

More student/faculty contac. 6 -More service to nontraditioi al

students 3 - 8

Improved student activities andservices -

Early warning systems 12

Peer programs 4 -Faculty /staff development 3 3

Multiple action programs - 1 -Cocumcular activities i- -D-opout studies 2 -Improved dorm life 10

Source Baldndge. Kemerer, ana Green 1982, p 39


63

element in retention efforts (Astin 1975). It is increasinglybecoming the concern of the entire institution because ofits effects on retention (Lenning, Sauer, and Beal 1980),which suggests that the role of student affairs in institu-tional enrollment management is more central than manyrealize. When enrollments decline, it is often the studentaffairs budget that is reduced (Deegan 1981). but this trendmay be suicidal, given the potential for enrollment crisis inmany institutions (Baldridge, Kemerer, and Green 1982).The student life component may determine the very sur-vival of some institutions.

Creating an environment attractive to students is impor-tant to retention (Baldridge, Kemerer, and Green 1982).Strong cooperation among student services, faculty, andother administrators focused on enrollment managementcan have an enormous influence on the institution's educa-tional and financial viability, and a "renewed emphasis on'student life' is mandatory for a campus that anticipatesenrollment shortfalls" ip. 59). Chief student affairs officersshould lead the effort to understand why students leave,where they go, and what efforts lead to their retention(Shay 1984).

Student affairs professionals thus have the potential toserve as ''team leaders" in the development and imple-mentation of strategies to manage enrollments. Recentexamples demonstrate where student affairs staff, often inconjunction with faculty and other administrators, have putprograms aimed at retention into place. For example, Proj-ect RETAIN at Carson-Newman College (Tennessee)seeks to provide an opportunity for students and counsel -ing center staff to explore the factors serrounding initialdecisions to transfer or drop out. In a similar vein, mem-bers of the counseling staff of John Jay College of CriminalJustice developed a course for students on academic pro-bation that seeks to remedy deficiencies in reading andstudy skills, to assess academic ability, and to help stu-dents take responsibility for their academic performance.In each of these cases, student affairs efr -ts are comple-mented by faculty efforts to improve retention.

Preventive LawA student affairs organization that is fully integrated withthe goals of the institution will find that it must support

50

64

other institutional efforts aimed at responding to changingconditions. A growing reliance on legal staffs and growinglegalistic relationships inside and outside the institution areevident (Gouldner 1980; Pap ler 1977). The growth in thesize of legal staffs in the past few years serves as a crudeindex of the amounts of legal assistance required by col-leges and universities.

The practice of preventive law as a strategy is an attemptto comply with legal norms to prevent judicial interference.While it may be regarded as a defensive reaction by col-leges and universities to the increasing influence of thecourts on higher education, preventive law might also beviewed as active administrative practice to prevent unduecourt influence on internal affairs. As an approach to deal-ing with external influences, preventive law ranges fromengaging counsel to put institutional policies and proce-dures in proper legal order to forestall litigation, to judgingthe impact and interpretation of laws in advance to assistin lobbying.

While studeLts' increased assertiveness in their civil andcontractual rights requires the institution in general torespond with an increased understanding of the legal ramsfications of its actions, it places particular pressure on thestudent affairs organization to respond. These responsesinclude a codification of rules, procedures, and policiesthat ensure due process in disciplinary actions; formalizedagreements for housing, food service, and other studentservices: and formalized procedures and policies for thedelivery of student services in all areas. In addition, con-cer is evident over the institutica's liability in its relation-ship with student groups. In each of these areas, studentaffairs professionals have felt pressures to modify and for-malize r )cesses and to consider future litigation in theirpolicies and practices.

Increasing Private SupportRevenues from private voluntary sources for education andgeneral purposes for institutions have increased dramati-cally in the past 10 years as a result of efforts by institu-tions to m-tintain or increase funding. Recently, The Coun-cil for Financial Aid to Education reported that total volun-tary support for higher education for 1983-84 reached arecord $5.6 billion (Desruisseaux 1985). It should come as


65

no surprise that private support for institutions, public andprivate, has become increasingly important. In 1976, giftsand endowments accounted for 3.2 percent of revenues forpublic institutions and 14.6 percent of revenues for privateinstitutions, but their importance to institutions goesbeyond what these figures might indicate (Carnegie Council1980). These funds are typically the discretionary fundsavailable to support new efforts (Kramer 1980). Increas-ingly, all parts of the institution are becoming involved ininstitutional development activities, particularly at smallprivate institutions. Of particular interest to student affairsorganizations are efforts to involve student affairs profes-sionals and student volunteers in annual giving and capitalcampaign efforts.

Today's students make tomorrow's alumni, and interestis growing in fostering a desire for continuing support aftergraduation while students are still enrolled. Those activi-ties include the creation of student alumni corps, theinvolvement of senior students in class fund raising, andthe involvement of students in alumni activities. In each ofthese efforts, student affairs organizations often providedirect and indirect support; in many institutions, the chiefstudent affairs officer is integrally involved in fund raisingand alumni support. Tht., chief student affairs officermay infact be instrumental in identifying and organizing studentsto cultivate and solicit support among alumni (Shay 1984).

Student affairs organizations may also be involved inparents associations, with the dual purpose of enhancingthe parent/student/campus relationship and encouragingannual support from interested and able parents. Researchconducted on students at Pennsylvania State Universitydemonstrated the importance of the parent/student rela-tionship in both the academic and social/emotional devel-opment of students during the college years (Uperaft,Peterson, and Moore 1981). As a result, the student affairsorganization there was instrumental in establishing a par-ents association to keep parents better informed and toinvolve them where appropriate in the development of stu-dents. In conjunction with the university developmentoffice, parallel efforts are made to increase private givingon behalf of the organization.

Likewise, many student affairs organizations are work-mg with and managing private funds that have been made

52

66

available to support student services. These tunds mightinclude named and general scholarship funds, funds to sup-port cultural activities managed by student activitiesoffices, and endowment funds used to support the improve-ment and renovation of residence halls.

Thus, the involvement of student affairs staff in theattraction of gifts and the management of endowment fundsis growing. Efforts to increase these funds is an institu-tional response in which student affairs staffs are increas-ingly engaged.

Changing Relationship of Business and CollegesFor the past 100 years or so, colleges and universities havenurtured informal relationships with business and industryand vice versa. These relationships have recently becomemore frequent and more formal. They too have importantimplications for student affairs.

As business has become more complex, so too has itsrelationship with colleges and universities. In this century,a k.. _fie education has become a necessary credential withwhich to pursue many careers in business and industry.Beginn1.ig with the research demands created by a nationat war, research universities and ale industrial communityincreasingly joined to expand technological frontiers.Recently, business and industry and educational institu-tions have seen that collaboration is becoming increasinglyimportant to the future vitality of both.

Events of the last decade have shaken the confidence ofthe educational and industrial communities, both ofwhich are recognizing that isolation from the other hascontributed to their present predicament. In turn, eachperceives increased collaboration as a way of improvingthe health of higher education and the competitive posi-tion of American business. . . . Higher education andindustry are, as a consequence, becoming increasinglyaware of their underlying interdependence (Matthewsand Norgaard 1984, pp. 1-2).

Examples of coop-rative efforts include research activi-ties, grants of equipment, sharing of facilities and person-nel, and general and prop ammatic support As a result,


6 7

many units within the institution are increasingly involvedin supporting partnerships. For student affairs, businessand college partnerships provide increased opportunitiesfor student internships and practicums, summer placement,cooperative education programs, networks for careerexploration and placement, and the involvement of busi-ness men and women in helping students bridge the worldsof academe and business. In addition to involvement inprograms, business and industry can provide direct supportfor career planning and placement; for instance, fundssolicited from businesses typically recruiting students atPenn State were used to construct a new interviewing cen-ter. Finally, mutually supportive relations between collegesand businesses provide additional opportunities for corpo-rate scholarships and training programs, important to theattraction of career-c Anscious students.

Management of ResourcesDeclining enrollment a,.d funding, in addition to increasedaccountability to state and .,..deral agencies and courts,argue for more effective management in higher education.As a result of these !rends, management theories, prac-tices, and strategies have been increasingly applied in andrecommended for higher education. The number of booksfocu-iing on management strategies in higher education andthe number of management institutes for educational lead-ers and consulting firms have increased in recent years.

Several handbooks attest to the growing :Aterest in man-agement applications in student affairs; they include a man-ual on planning, budgeting, and evaluation for studentaffairs organizations (Harpel 1976), a volume dedicated tothe application of management techniques in student affairsthat covers such topics as management by cbjective, man-agement information systems, budgeting, and performanceappraisal systems (Fox ley 1980a), and a handbook on stu-dent services that offers chapters on management tools forstudent affairs staff (Delworth, Hanson, and associates1980). A new, more central role for student affairs is callingfor greater expertise in management, and although studentaffairs professionals have only slowly responded todemands for more effective management (Meabon et al.1981), some evidence indicates that the application of man-agement strategies is growing in many institutions.

54

65s

Internal AccountabilityAs a result of constant or decreasing dollars, demands fornew programs and services while maintaining existing pro-grams, and increased accountability to state, federal, andaccrediting agencies, internal accountability is growing.1.....:partmental and divisional budgets as well as programsand activities in many institutions are scrutinized carefully;budgets are increasingly lean and requests for additionalfunding must be accompanied by careful and reasoned jus-tifications.

A study of accountability demands on student affairsprograms undertaken by the NASPA Division of Researchand Program Development found that institutions facemore demands for program information from state agenciesand governirg boards (Harpel 1975). These demands mostfrequently in.:Jude requests for data on program outcomesand impact and for documentation of needs or certain ser-vices. Unfortunately, as a consequence of these requests,20.2 percent of all institutions report a reduction in studentaffairs staff and 32.6 percent report reductions in overallfunding or funding for specific services.

Even though funding for student affairs has not lost asmuch ground as feared, interest in accountability remains(Barnes, Morton, and Austin 1984), although the desigrand implementation of accountability systems for studentaffairs appears to be minimal. A model of accountabilityfor student affairs can thus be based on four general ele-ments: (1) identification of educational goals and perfor-mance objectives; (2) development of alLernative strategiesfor achieving goals and performance objectives; (3) peri-odic evaluation of personnel and program performance;and (4) inclusion of nonpractitioners in educational deci-sion making (Barnes, Morton, and Austin 1984).

Critical to ary 2'01(Int91-1!;t,, c-voem lc the

information J.,,,;,fliag,Information in this area is growing, particularly as a resultof increasing use of computers. To respond to questions ofac,-Juntability, stodent 2 fairs research and evaluationmust be increased to proviLt evidence of Pffective s s

(Brow- '985a).


69

SummaryThe responses to changing conditions employed by institutions typically have important implications for studentaffairs organizations. As institems expanded in the 1950sand 1960s, student and academic affass often pursued sep-arate but parallel goals in serving increasing numbers ofstudents. Although this approach was tolerated curing peri-ods of expansion (in some cases it may have proved benefi-cial to the institution), current conditions argue for a morecoordinated and integrated approach to promote institu-tional viability and vitality. Responding to changes in stu-dents, in society, and in higher educa ion, institutions andstudent affairs organizations stand ready to work togetherto improve enrollment management, promote partnershipsbetween business and college, increase private support,engage in preventive law, develop information systems,and attempt more effective planning. The involvement ofstudent affairs in these activities is reshaping its role to onethat is more central to and integrated with institutionalgels and priorities, a role that moves student affairsbeyond the internal management of student life to a part-nership with faculty and administrators that is concernedwith the whole institution and its responses to changingconditions. In that role, the student affairs professionalmay be seen increasingly as one who seeks to integrate thegoals of individual development with institutional develop-ment (Borland 1980). To meet the demands of a new role,however, the student affairs professional must have asound understanding of the role, the skills it calls for, andthe programs and services i' demands.

70

THE INTEGRATOR: A New Role Explained

Since the late 1800s, faculty have transferred much of theirresponsibility for the social, affective, and moral develop-ment of students to student personnel professionals, whileretaining responsibility for the cognitive development ofstudents. Likewise, the central mission of institutionsonce both moral and academichas become more purelyacademic, and as a result attention to the moral and affec-tive development of students has been reduced to a sup-portive role. In this century, growing numbers of studentaffairs staff have assumed responsibility for the student'sout-of-class experiences, even as the student affairs func-tion settled into its support role.

A s the profession grew, it sought to define itself as aspecial profession within the 1. igher edu. ation community.Engaging in this pursuit, hov« zver, may have unwittinglyencouraged the belief that the student affairs function issignificantly less critical than that performed by faculty. Byestablishing the affective domain as its provincethat is, adomain supportive of cognitive developmentstudentaffairs positioned itself away from the intellectual heart ofthe institution. In 1970. McConnell questioned whetherstudent affairs was peripheral or central to the institution.Concluding that it was peripheral, he offered strategies forbecoming more central. Today, the same question israised, and some indications exist that, at least when itcomes to budgetary decisions, student affairs is often con-sidered more expendable than other functions believed tobe more critical (Deegan 1981; Nelson and Murphy 1980).

Recognition is growing, however, that in serving stu-dents, student affairs leaders are serving the institution inways that are increasingly important to institutional vitalityand viability. That is, efforts to integrate diverse studentgroups, serve students' needs and interests, and improvethe management of the institution are resulting in importantbenefits for institutionsthe ability to attract and retainstudents, to foster supportive alumni, and t manage itselfmore effectively. Furthermore, those student affairs effortsdesigned to involve studentson-campus employment,enhanced residential experiences, and appropriate studentactivitiesenhance the educational experience of studentsand contribute to the quality of education. Indeed, involve-ment in education has become a matter of national concern

Byestablishingthe affectivedomain as itsprovince . . .

student affairspositioneditself awayfrom theintellectualheart of theinstitution.

Servtn,,, More Than Students 57

71

and attentit ."...at recognizes the significance of studentaffairs (Stuciy Group 1984).

Participation in coordinated efforts aimed at respondingto changing conditions suggests an integrating role for stu-dent affairs. Student affairs is able to take the lead in for-mulating and implementing responses by integrating stu-dents' needs and traditional student affairs goals on onehand and institutional goals and priorities on the other(Shaffer 1973; Silverman 1971, 1980). Assuming leadershipfor institutional responses that result in benefits to bothstudents and institutionsto realize the potential of therole of integratoris a natural evolution of the studentaffairs role that offers the potential to place student affairsin a pivotal role within the institution.

While institutional leaders may be more able to see thedirect contribution of student affairs in achieving institu-tional goals, the contribution of student affairs to facultyefforts may be more difficult to see. Foi it to occur, stu-dent affairs professionals will need to gain greater credibil-ity and respectability within the institution by becomingmore involved and visible throughout the institution. Forinstance, involvement andl,eadership in enrollment man-agement, retention, advising and counseling nontraditionalstudents, and academic support will increase opportunitiesfor interaction between faculty and student affairs staffs.Likewise, efforts to articulate and address needs of nontra-ditional and changing traditional students offer opportuni-ties for student affairs staff to be seen in an expert profes-sional role.

Integration may also occur through the attempts of stu-dent affair s to become more "facultylike" by teaching,conducting research, and presenting findingsinside andoutside the institutionso that the profession gains credi-bility and respectability within the academic community.Similarly, the involvement of faculty in student affairscocurricular activities such as academic interest housesand orientationoffers increased opportunities for inter-action, uncle' standing, and appreciation.

Before discussing the elements of this new role of stu-den' affairs staff as integrators within the institution, twoopposing motivations within the profession must bereviewedthe first because it mitigates against this new

S3

role and must therefore be modified in light a' it and thesecond because it supports that new role.

Two Opposing MotivationsTwo opposing motivations have characterized the studentaffairs profession during most of this century. On the onehand, the field of student affairs has attempted to establishitself t. s a profession distinct from the academic profession(Muelltr 196') through the adoption of theories to guidepractice, by du. development of a philosophy to guide itsefforts, by the establishment of a body of literature for thefield, and by the specialized preparation of professionals.As ;nigher education has grown more complex, the studentaffairs specialist has further specialized into discrete func-tional roles. In pursuit of professional status, however, stu-dent affairs has focused on its own issues while neglectingissues of importance to the institution and the relationshipof student affairs to the remainder of the institution. Con-vinced of its own importance, the student affairs organiza-tion can be faulted for not translating that importance toother campus constituencies faculty, students, andadministratorsand in so doing has become alienated fromthe academic heart of the institution (McConnell 1970).The importance of student affairs has rarely been convinc-ingly argued outside of the profession, which does notdiminish its role but rather reminds us that outside Constit-uencies do not necessarily accept the contribution of stu-dent affairs on faith

On the other hand, one of the major goals of studentaffairs has been to foster the integration of academic andstudent life. The expansion of student affairs in the latenineteenth and early twentieth centuries was, in large part.ti., result of attempts to bridge the curriculum and theextracurnculum. providing adult advice and support forthose activities neglected by faculty and demanded by stu-dents. But what started out as a bridge has evolved into aseparate J tructure and profession within the institution.

The perpetuation of separate administrative structuresand goals for academic and student affairs has obvious lim-itations for effective and imaginative use of talent andresources (Rickard 1972). Student affairs and academicunits have often pursued different goals, but changing con-ditions are calling for coordinated institutioaal responses


73

involving faculty, administrators, and student affairsprofessionals (Baldridge, Kemerer, and Crcen 1982). Theefforts made by student affairs, in a time of limited finan-cial and personnel resources, must parallel and supportsimilar institutional efforts (Kinnick and Bolheimer 1984;Shay 1984). Hence, the student affairs professional mustintegrate the traditional student affairs role with a new,more central role within the institution.

Moving Student Affairs into the MainstreamTimes are no longer prosperous for higher education. Insti-tutions are facing declining enrollments, financial uncer-tainty, and greater accountability. Students are changing,and increasing numbers of nontraditional students arecarolling. The reality of changing financial conditions andstudent clienteles leads many institutions to seek areas forbudget cuts, which in some institutions leads to questionsabout the role of student affairs and its importance to theinstitution. Evidence suggests that student affairs has beencut back as much or more as other departments in manyinstitutions, and in some cases it has been eliminated orradically altered (Deegan 1981; Nelson and Murphy 1980).Because of the functional and philosophical separation ofstudent affairs from the central goals and priorities of manyinstitutions, its inability to justify programs in terms tl.atinstitutional managers are able to understand, and aninability to articulate the goals of student affairs in termsmeaningful to others in the institution, student affairs isquestioned on many campuses (Deegan 1981). Thesethreats, however, should not dictate an unchallengedretreat: Institutional respoases to changing conditions pro-vide opportunities for the involvement and leadership ofstudent affairs.

Institutions can use four techniques to resist decline:retention, improving student life and the campus climate,tightening standards to attract bright students, and attract-ing new sources of revenue (Mingle and Norris 1981).Clearly, student affairs is central to the accomplishment ofthe first two and supportive of the last two. Responses tochanging conditions offer opportunities for student affairs!o maintain its professional goals while building strongerbridges within the institutional community, which can beaccomplished most notably through cooperative efforts

7 4

aimed at .esisting decline. It will call for a redirection ofstudent affairs and ics role, however. Threats to studentaffairs ate very real today, but so too are the opportunities.

The student services sector has been primarily a reactivegroup. I suggest that it must become proactive if it is tosurvive the next ten years as an effective and integralpart of the higher education community. It must learn toanticipate and control its environment. If it doesn't, Isuggest, it will become extinct. Not in the sense that itwill disappear totally, but in the sense that the form andsubstance of student services will be so altered that theywilt be hardly recognizable as having any relationship tothose . . . we have known in the past. For just as otherelements within higher education and society at largehave disappeared . . . so will student services disappearas a functional element within higher education if we do

not carefully plan and anticipate ourfuture course(Brodzinski 1978, p. 3).

Others have warned that, a'e Efudt. it affairs has beenhandling the day-to-day it...eds of students and institutions,it has failed to plan adequately for the future (Priest,Alphenaar, and Boer 1980).

Student affairs divisions have many chances to capitalizeon the opportunities suggested by changing conditions. It isa matter of proactively changing to meet conditions.

[By] anticipating the changes, trends, and developments[that] will affect higher education and the student popu-lation, we can reconceptualize our approach to studentservices. . . . We must recognize that the need for manyof the services that we traditionally provided has beenirrevocably changed or nullified by circumstances totallybeyond our control and that our techniques fcr providingsuch services have, in many instances. been rendered

obsolete by technological and managerial developments(Brodzinski 1978, p. 5).

Never before has the student affairs profession stood onthe threshold of such great opportunity (Hurst 1980 Butto capitalize on opportunities presented in responding tochanging conditions, student affairs professionals mustassess their contributions to the institution and its stu-


dents, now and in the future; work cooperatively with oth-ers in the institution to integrate those activities more com-pletely with the mission of the institution and its responsesto changing conditions; and become, even more than is thecase now, experts on students and their need, and moreactive in communicating that knowledge to the rest of thecollege community.

In doing so, student affairs leaders create opportunities tomove from the periphery of the institution to its center,allowing student affairs to weather the storm of current con-ditions and to emerge with an enhanced role in the institu-'inn. During financial austerity, "by initiating bold, informed,and creative policies and practices, it may be possible toincrease the institutional influence of student affairs" (Kuh1_981, p. 36). And "an alert, assertive response to theseforces [changing conditions] will make student affairs essen-tial to institutional effectiveness and therefore worthy of ade-quate support" (Shaffer 1984, p. 112).

The potential of student affairs has been equated to thatof integrators within industrial firms (Silverman 1980). Bysharing orientations with students, faculty, and administra-torsbut bordering on all of these subsystemsthe stu-dent affairs professional stands in a pnsition to integratethe orientations and goals of the various subsystems. Thus,integrators in student affairs are facilitators who work forthe achievement of the goals of the institution and its manysubsystems while still retaining professional and studentloyalties. They integrate their traditional roles of educator,advisor, anu advocate with an institutional outlook promot-ing organizational development (Borland 1980).

New opportunities for leadership by student affairs indi-cate that student affairs efforts are evo!ving from effortsmeaningful to the goals of student affairs to efforts mean-ingfu. to high-priority, institutional goals; becoming moreIntegrated with faculty efforts; and integrating consumerorientation with theoretical orientations. These trends areoccurring as student affairs professionals respond to chang-ing conditions i.i society, in their institutions, and in thestudents they serve.

Iategration of Gi.alsThe mission of student affairs has always, in the broadestsense, reflected that of the institution and vice versa. The

62

76

particular goals, objectives, and efforts of the institution andstudent affairs have not always been coordinated, however.This situation is not necessarily unproductive for Cle institu-tion, but with financial uncertainty and the need to respondto changing conditions, pressure increases for the responsesof the institution and those of its student affairs staff to beIntegrated. Institutions are seeking to meet the various needsof students and those of new student clienteles in activitieslike academic advising and personal counseling, career plan-ning, study skills, and learning assistance. These activities'un,e ea.sieigly in..lude the efforts of many within the institution,but especially the student affairs staff. Similarly, studentaffairs staff are encouraging students to become involved inalumni and development efforts while enrolled, in anticipa-tion of increased support later. It is, however, in the area ofattraction and retention of students that the integration ofstudent affairs and the institution is presently most arnarent.

Recruitment and marketingSeveral recent sources have discussed the potential contri-bution of student affairs to the attraction and retention ofstudents. With the increasing competition for students, therole of student affairs in creating a supportive, develop-mental, and chalk -iging campus life will be important tothe attraction and retention of potential students (Brodzin-ski 1978). The quality of student life will become increas-ingly important in marketing aimed at traditional as well asnontraditional students. "The future belongs to those col-leges that make the quality of student life their primarymission" (Lewis, Leach, and Lutz 1983), and the ability ofthe institution and its student affairs organization to dem-onstrate programs, services, and methods of deliveryattractive to students, especially nontraditional students,will be increasingly important.

Evidence suggests strongly that images and perceptionsabout an institution influence an individual's decision toenroll in a particular college:, and the decision to attend aparticular college is prompted by a decision to spend fouryears in a pleasant and rewarding environment and to seekan education that will lead to career and social success(Grabowski 1981). The extent to which the efforts of stu-dem affairs contributes to that environment and supportsthose educational goals will determine the importance of


77

student affairs to institutional marketing. Everyone, fromthe president down to the students, should be involved ininstitutional marketing (Grabowski 1981); therefore, all stu-dent services staff will need to develop increased expertisein recruitment and retention (Davis 1980).

Involvement in recruiting provides a special opportunityfor student affairs to gain visibility, demonstrate its abili-ties, and use its understanding of students to become morecentrally involved in the direction of the institution. Stu-dent affairs is in a position to conduct and disseminateresearch on students' needs and wants and the extent towhich the institution provides for them. Engaging in retzn-tion studies, student affairs professionals are able to pro-vide information on what attracts and retains students andincrease its importance to institutional decision makers(Shay 1984).

Retention

Related to the marketing of the institution and the attrac-tion of students is the retention of matriculated students.Among other features that distinguish the persister fromthe nont-F:Tsister are the following:

high levels of involvement with the collegereceipt of scholarships, grants, and/or part-timeemployment on czimpusliving in college residence hallshigh :ivality and use of student -,upps_rt servicvs, espe-ci4lly opportunities for learning assistance, advising,end both academic and nonacademic involvement(Lenning, Sauer, and Beal 1980, pp. 2-3).

In addition, several strategies have been identified as effec-tive in improving student retention:

1 Admissions and recruiting. When students receiveadequate and accura:e information from a college,they will be more likely to choose the institution thatbest meets their needs, which, in turn, will increasetheir chances of persisting.

2. Advising. Improved academic advising . . . in mostcases is found to contribute to retention.

3. Counseling. Counseling has served as foun2ationfor numerous retention programs with positiveresults.

78

4. Early warning and prediction. Predic.ion of potentialdropouts can be productive and when combined withone or several early warning strategies can reduce

attrition.5. Exit interviews. Even though their observed impact

on retention is lower than most other interventionstrategies, exit interviews can gather significantinformation on why students leave -nd how the insti-tution might change to improve the retention forother students. In addition, a few individuals mayremain in the institution as a result of assistancegained through an exit interview.

6. Extracurricular activities. The literature indicates thatmore often than not meaningful participation in

extracurricular activities contributes to studentretention.

7. Faculty, staff, and curricular development. The fre-quency and quality of faculty and student interac-tions can contribute positively to student retention,and inservice faculty /staff development efforts cancontribute mor' favorable student /faculty interac-tion. Changes in curricular design and emphasisalso can be productive.

8. Financial aid. Assisting students to cope with theirfinancial problems can contribute to retention, ascan specific types of aid given to students, includingscholarships, grants, and on-campus patttimeemployment.

9. Housing. Many studies have demonstrated that on-campus housing, including residence halls [andfra-ternity and sorority houses], improve students'chances of retention.

10. Learning and academic support. Learning and aca-demic support services . . . clearly . . . have a posi-tive effect on student retention.

11. Orientation. Institutions that focus on orientation asa retention strategy [show significantly improvedretention rates].

12. Policy change. Colleges th= redesign policies andprocedures for the purpose of improving studentretention show significant improvement in theirretention rates (Lennu,g, Sauer, and Beal 1980, op.3-4).


79

As can be surmised from this list, most of the. retentionstrategies outlined call for extensive involvement, if notleadership, by student affairs professionals. Moreover, byparticipating in these retention efforts, student affairsstands to gain from increased partnerships between studentaffairs staff and faculty.

Integration of Faculty and Student Affairs EffortsThe integration of student development concepts and theacademic community has been a goal of most studentdevelopment educators. Indeed, the integration of aca-demic and student affairs goals is a precondition to the suc-cess of student development (Benezet 1979, Brown 1972;Wier and Prince 1977; Smith 1982). Now more than ever,conditions argue for a greater integration or academic andstudent life. Concern for academic quality, attention to theneeds of diverse student groups, and efforts to manageenrollments all argue for coordinated responses. Further-more, growing concern for the quality of the academicexperience argues for coordinated responses. The coordi-nation of all campus professionals to address these con-cerns and conditions provides significant motivation forgreater campus integration.

New efforts in response to changing conditions may blurthe traditional roles of faculty, student affairs, and adminis-tration. Working together to meet changing conditions willincrease the opportunities for greater understanding and in-tegration between faculty and student affairs staff. Severalopportunities for joint efforts exist: (1) the recruitment ofand provision of programs for high-ability students; (2) aca-demic and career advising; (3) attention to the cognitiveand affective needs of new student clienteles; and (4) insti-tutionwide enrollment management. Furthermore,expanded roles for student affairs professionals thatincrease their credibility and respectability in the institu-tion (teaching, research, and evaluation, for example) willmake student affairs professionals more equal partners inthe educational enterprise.

Several strategies have been suggested for integratingstudent personnel work with academic programs (Jones1978, p. 6). First, student personnel professionals can par-ticipate in activities by which students plan their academicprograms and monitor their progress toward academic

80

goals This strategy would mean involvement by studentpersonnel administrators as well as faculty in admissions,orientation, program planning, and program review. Sec-ond, student affairs professionals and faculty can collabo-rate in the areas of teaching, curriculum, and non-class-related field experiences, which might include the involve-ment of student affairs staff in learning assistance and fac-ulty involvement in cocurricular int "rest houses. Third,3hort-term structured educational experiences planned andimplemented jointly by faculty and student affairs caninvolve both groups in the student's total educational pro-cess. Academic credibility should be an important goal ofprofessional development for student affairs professionals(Cox and Ivy 1984).

Ilarious strategies employed at the University of Maineat l7armington, for example, integrate the efforts of facultyand student affairs staffusing consulting faculty asexperts, recognizing faculty efforts, welcoming new facultyand explaining the role of student affairs, keeping facultyinformed of student affairs efforts through newsletters, andengaging in one-on-one liaisons. At the university, not onesingle effort but a combination of efforts leads to a morepositive, mutually supportive relationship (Geller 1982).

Collaboration in the area of student research is anotherarea that holds promise for the integration of efforts (Bene-zet 1979). Faculty, in conjunction with student affairsworkers, could assemble the requisite expertise and per-sonnel power to learn information beyond what is currentlyknown about students. Involving institutional researchersin student research can fui ...ler enhance the collaborationof faculty and student affirs staff. Studies of factors lead-ing to retention or student achievement can offer one areafor joint research. A greater research effort is necessary ifthe status of the profession is to approach that of the aca-demic profession (Hurst 1980).

Evolving Consumer OrientationStudent affairs p-ofessionals have al .ys been concernedwith the needs of student clienteles. The programs and seevices that arise to address those needs, however, mayevolve from the expressed desires of students or from the-oretical or conceptual notions of the needs of students andthe interests and expertise of staff. In most case-, ,tudent


S I

affairs organizations provide efforts based on both. Recentattention in the literature to student development theoriesmight suggest a more widespread acceptance of the studentdevelopment concept as the basis for the development ofstudent affairs programs and services than is perhaps thecase. Knowledge of student development theory within theprofession and the applications of pretice to theory is notwidespread, however (Kuh et al. 1971). Instead, many stu-dent affairs staff use informal "theories in action" to guidetheir work with students (Kuh 1981). Student affairs thus isa profession in search of a philosophy (Stamatakos andRogers 1984).

While the profession continues to develop and assert itsconceptual base, changing conditions may argue for a stron-ger consumer orientation or attention to expressed anddirectly observable student needs, which may or may notparallel theoretically derived needs. It will be the challenge ofthe student affairs integrator to address those needs withinthe context of institutional goals and priorities.

Beyond "theories in action," student personnel profes-sionals are guided in their attempts to assist and developstudents with institutional demands for the provision ofcertain services and with students' demands for services.Responding to the needs of the institution in addition tothose of the various student populations, the student affairsstaff may 1--e able to enhance their position within the insti-tution. In institutions where the attraction and retention ofstudents is critical to survival and vitality of the institution,the desires of the consumer become more important. Pro-viding those services deemed important by the institutionand the student may work to enhance the position of stu-dent affairs.

The theoretical base of the profession can be describedas inconsistent. Entering student personnel professionals,usually exposed to student development concepts, do notpossess a sound theoretical grounding in student developme at theory or other related theories (Strange and Conto-=not's 1983). Moreover, those theories have been chal-lenged, even in their nascent state, as being inappropriatet,-) most nontraditional students (Wlight 1984). Work con-tinues in the application of human development theory tothe college and university setting, but practitioners stillrely on experience or expressed student demands to guide

S2

theii efforts. It is not unreasonab, to say thr , while stu-dent affairs moved toward establishing a theoretical basisfor the profession in the 1960s and 1970s, recent challengestc those theoriel and changing conditions suggest that itstheoretical base will coexist with a consumer orientation.

That conclusion is drawn on the basis of several notions.First, no established theory or philosophy generally ridesthe profession at this point. Strides have been made in the)ast 20 years (including the Torsorrow's Higher EducationProject and recent work by Krefeikamp (1978) and Stama-takos and Rogers (1984), among others), but without awell-developed, generey understood theory to guide theprofession, other factors, such as corsumer needs, may beimportant in guiding efforts.

Second, as dollars become tight, those activities thatsucceed in fulfilling students' expressed needs and are con-sonant with institutional goals (such as retention) wit! beattractive to institutional leaders. Proziams designed tomeet students' expressed needs be more justifiable todecision makers than, progran. uesi, red to meet nee:isthat are not self-reported. And those programs thatenhance institutional efforts in recruitment, retention,placement, and eventual alumni support will be moreattractive to the instit,:fon, regardless of theoretical sup-po.l. With more astute and demanding educational con-sumers, tudent affairs may be in a position where con-sumer demands must be met. But providing effectiveresponses may. it the long run, enhance the position ofstudent affairs.

Third, different groups are demanding different servicesand programs. New programs and services fc r these spe-cial clienteles are already expanding on many campuses,including centers for returning adults, women, and mino--ity students and student affairs officers (admissions recruit-ers, financial aid administrators, and career and personalcounselors) employed to deal with the special needs of var-ict:,. nontraditional student groups. Visible, organizationalresponses to the needs of nontradition.-1 students may benecessary to justify the student affair effort generally andto increase the attractiveness of th it stitution to these stu-dent groups

These observations do not preclude or repl2ze well-reasoned, theoretically baseu efforts in response 'o chang-

Serving More Than Su. rents 69

83

ing conditions. In fact, the3 would arguably be among thestrongest efforts. They do, nowever, imply a primaryresponse to students and institutional consumers of theservices and programs of student affairs.

Developing a Greater External FocusAttention to professional issues and students' needs hasnever been the solitary focus of t1-1 profe,.s:on, but theyhave characterized student affairs organizations. A chang-ing world, however, demands attention, and the focus ofthe new student affairs professional will be broader andmore external. The effective student personnel profes-sional must be able to step back from the operationalissues and analyze how he or she can help the presidentand the institution handle external, it.ture oriented issues(Shay 1)8A).

As student oersonnel developed as a profession in the1960s, its view remained internal, to itself as a professionand to the students it sought to serve. As institutions them-selves have become more externally focused, pressures areplaced on student affairs to likewise gain a greater externalfocus. Changing conditions call upon student affairs tobecome more integrally involved in the goals and prioritiesof the institution; it must look beyond itsa to the institu-tion and to society. To this end, student affairs profession-als should continuously assess the institutional environ-ment (Shaffer 1984).

An external fc ,us is exhibiting it ;n several ways oncampuses and in the profession. Fit.,, the understanding ofstudent demographics critical to a more informed participa-tion in recruitment, retention, academic achievement, andplacement efforts is emphasized more.

Second, student affairs organizations are involved inefforts to establish bridges to the outside community thatbring students into the institution and that place them inappropriate careers and vocations. Involvement in theseactivities increasingly involves student affairs in the exter-nal environment of the institution.

Third, a greater understanding of different studentgroups and their special needs, educational expectations,and life experiences allows student affairs professionals toshare their knowledge of students within and without theinstitution.

70

8 1

Fourth, involvement with faculty and administration onmatters of central concern to the institution provides stu-dent personnel administrators with the opportunities andchallenges of articulating students' needs and institutionalresponses. Student affairs professionals who promote stu-dent development must also seek to promote organiza-tional development (Borland 1980).

Fifth, providing programs and sell/ices for special popu-lations involves student personnel workers in the class-room, the home, the community, and the workplace morethan in the past. Similarly, meeting the changing needs oftraditional populations moves student affairs workersaround the campus and the community.

Sixth, increasing legalism, institutional accountability,and planning and management call for the involvement ofstudent affairs with institutional leaders and faculty. As aresult, the implications of these activities are being incor-porated into the efforts of student affairs organizations.

Seventh, professional activities like research. evaluation,and teaching bring student affairs staff out of oganizationand into faculty settings, and they have the potential toincrease the credibility and respectability of the profession.

SummaryChanging conditions argue for a new role for studentaffairs, one that integrates student, faculty, and institu-tional goals :n the educational enterprise. Bridging theinstitution's and the students' needs and integrating aca-demic and student affairs will serve to expand andstrengthen the role of student affa'rs within the institution.

In short, . . . a 'Lumber of forces and trends . . . arechanging the nature and effectiveness of student affairs.The complex nature of the problems facing society is re-flected in the problems of :olleges and universities andamply demonstrates the difficulties of :he profession.The challenge is not merely to work harder or longer butto perform duties and funitions creatively aria visibly sothat there can be no institutional doubt as to the essen-tial nature of student development oriented programsand services (Shaffer 1984, p. 114).

To serve an integrating role within the institution calls on


S5

student affairs professionals to develop a new outlook, newskills, and new and enhanced programs and services. Itfurther calls on them to engage in continuing professionaleducation to assist in their evolution into this new role andto take a serious and critical look at the adequacy of cur-rent models of graduate pieparation for the demand. of thenew role.

7286

IMPLICATIONS FOR PROGRAMS, SERVICES,AND PROFESSIONAL SKILLS

Responses to changing conditions and changing studentC.. ,iteles and the evolving role as integrator argue for newstudent affairs efforts and a variety of new skills for stu-dent affairs professionals. The challenge of student .ffairsfor the P. ire will be our ability to design and impLmentnew or expanded services and to develop skills suitable toa new role within the institution.

New Skills for PrcfessionalsJust as responses to changing conditions offer the role ofstudent affairs both threats and opportunities, so too doesreconceptualizing that role create challenges and opportu-nities for student affairs professionals. Student affairsprofessionals as integrators find themselves in different set-tings demanding new and enhanced skills.

The student affairs professional has been described as anadministrator, a counselor/consultant, a student develop-ment educator, an environmental designer, and a studentadvocate (Mendenhall, Miller, and Winston 1982), andthese roles are not likely to change in the future. Integrat-ing these roles and the goals they seek to achieve withchanging institutional goals, however, is an emerging chal-lenge for student affairs professionals. Meeting this chal-lenge will requ.re new skills.

The acquisition of these skills will to a large extent deter-mine the effectiveness of the student affairs professional inmeeting the challenges of a stronger and more central rolein institutional responses to changing conditions. His orher ability to integrate human relations skills (the tradi-tional student affairs skills) and organizational skills (thenew skills) will to a large extent determine the future ofstudent affairs.

Among the skills the integrator mus, possess in a newrole are management skills, political skill ,, research sitiliand organizational skills.

Management skillsAmong the most important skills *hat leaders in studentaffairs need to become integrators are management skills.As a result of efforts to manage institutions more effec-tively, student affairs administrators are "expected to befamiliar w',h management ponciples and techniques demonFtrating that their offices nd programs accomplish what

Serving More Than Student,

His or herability tointegratehumanrelations skillsandorganizationalskills will to alarge extentdetermine thefuture ofstudentaffairs.

8 7

73

they set out to accomplish" (Fox ley 1980a, p. vii). Whilethe movement to employ management skills in studentaffairs continues to gain momentum on many campuses,few administrators are trained in management techniques,little emphasis is given to management problems in profes-sional preparation programs, and the literature applyingmanagement concepts to student affairs is almost nonexis-tent (Fox ley 1980a). Not all student a."2irs professionalswill necessarily become managers and administratorsonecould argue that direct service providers like counselors donot need management skillsthe field and those whoaspire to management positions will need to possess theseskills in greater depth.

Student affairs organizations must employ managementtechniques to a greater degree if they are to effectivelyrespond to changing conditions (Aery and Moore 1976).But few institutions consistently attempt to employ man-agement tools like the formulation of mission statements,the formulation of goals related to institutional goals, thedevelopment of job descriptions, and the implementatic.,of formal evaluations (Meabon et al. 1981).

Management skills should be in addition to, not replace-ments for, the traditional skills of student affairs profes-sionals; however, more attention must be directed towa-dthem if student affairs is to capitalize on the opportunitiesthat have been presented to it. Management skills may bemore important to effective student affairs organizationsthan knowledge of human development theories (Kuh1981). The areas in which student affairs leaders must de-velop improved skills are planning, information processing,financial management, and human resource management.

Planning. Many writers have emphasized the necessity ofeffective planning for student affairs (c. e, for example,Biggs and Simnel 1979; Priest, Alphenaar, and Boer 1980;and Saurman and Nash 1975). This attention no:withstand-ing, ver, little systematic, organized planning is reportedto occur in most student affairs organizations.

In some instances, in fact. it appear( sl that student ier-vices may become ends in themselves rather than ser-vices designed to support th.-2 prim it missions of the

74

86

campus. At such institutions, it may become increas-ingly difficult to justify, in terms of budgetary support,man,, of the student services functions (Priest, Alphe-naar, and Boer i980, p. 3).

Student affairs administrators have responded to changingconditions with a variety of hastily made, often cosmetic,changes in programs and services and in administrativestructures (Biggs and Skinner 1979). Even though studentpersonnel workers are often consumed with day-to-dayissues, with little time left for effective planning, studentaffairs leaders must be able to accommodate both pre-dicted and unpredicted changes. In short, student affairsplanning often suffers from being reactive when it shouldbe proactive (Biggs anti Skinner 1979).

Evidence is growing, however, that planning in studentaffairs is becoming more systematic and comprehensive.At Stetson University (Florida), an integrated planning andevaluation modelPOWS (for "problems, objectives, andworkshops")was developed, and Furman University(South Carolina) employs the SWOTS approach (for"strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) toassess program status and emphasis.

Many of the new planning efforts rely heavily on improvedinformation processing. Acquisition of Data for Accountabil-ity and Management (ADAM) at Frostburg State College(Maryland) allows cou...;eling center staff to better planefforts to meet clients' needs because they hay,. more andmore usable information. Similarly, the Stuck._ Affairs Pro-gram Evaluation Process at the University of Nebraska -Lincoln provides student . `fairs leaders with betterinformation on which to make decisions for the future.

Planning is critical to student affairs organizations seekingto address changing needs and to take advantage of opportu-nities to exert leadership in devuring institutional responsesto changing conditions. Without appropriate planning skills,student affairs may be unable to redirect its efforts to meetchanges effectively and to actively determine its future. Var-ious planning models and strategies have been suggested(Biggs and Skinner 1979; Priest, Alphenaar, and Boer 1980;Saurman and Nash 1975), but few have been widely adopted.Yet those student affairs organizations that plan effectivelyare axle to defuse efforts to reduce their funding (Deepn


89

1981). "'Ire concerted planning in student affairs is neces-sary if it is to be proactive.

A model for comprehensive planning suggested bySchroeder (1975) is the basis of a ,lanning model for thestudent affairs unit developed by Biggs and Skinner (1979),Schroeder outlines a three-track planning system in whichthe tracks are interreiated and demand simultaneuas devel-opment. The first of these tracks is the definition ofa plan-ning processone that defines how planning will be under-ialcen, assigns responsibility for planning, and outlines aplanning calendar. The second track is the development ofplans for the division and its units. This track involves theassessment of the current situation, clarification of goalstatements, and the means for achievement. The thirdtrack is she development of a planning information systemto support the planning process.

Long-range planning in student affairs is the manage-ment of change and is a method that enables student per-sonnel administrators to prepare foi the fut'xe.

Long-range planning is not difficult, but [it) demands agood deal of thought as well as innovation; it is a pro-cess [that) does not necessarily provide solutions tc allproblems, but when applied, can aid administrators inmaking rational decisions from among available choices(Priest, AlphPnaar, and Boer 1980, p. 7).

While experts do no agree as to which planning modelor process is most appropnate for the student affairs orga-nization, it remains a critical skill area, for through effec-tive planning, student affairs will be able to meet the cial-l-mges of its future.

,friancgement information systems. To plan and manage mereeffectively and to become more knowledgeable about stud,:nt;rends, student affairs organizations need more usable infor-mation about students, staff, and their programs and Sdrvicesin the form of a management information system S _ch a sys-tem performs several important tasksplan:Ling, programevaluation, budgeting and budgetary control, organizing andstoring large amounts of :nformation, providing up-to-dateinformation on the condition of the organization, and provid-ing a mechanism for modeling ar ! siinulatirg (Racippo and

76

0

I

t

Fox ley i)80). Most student affairs organizations collect oruse too little information the collection and dissemination ofinformation is rarely consistent and systematic, often gath-ered in response to specific, ad hoc requests (Benezet 1979).If student affairs organizations are to plan more effectively,to translate students' needs into programs and services, andto be truly knowledgeable when communicating with otherdivisions of the institution, the effective management ofinformation is imperative (University of Minnesota 1981).Student affairs management information systems must com-bine both quantitative and qualitative information about pro-grams, students, and staff (Casper ark.' Morey 1976).

Student affairs organizations have access to varioussources of information about students, staff, f ;ilities,financing, and curricula with which they can design, jus-tify, or reorganize programs and services for increasedeffectiveness and efficiency (Racippo and Foxley 1980, p.69). A management information system should be designedto allow student affairs organizations to take advantage ofthose information sources and, by doing so, plan and man-age more effectively.

Related to skills in the development and application ofmanagement information systems are computer andinformation-processing skills. Increasingly, opportunitiesare available for the employment of computers in studentaffairs for purposes ranging from monitoring students'achievement to computerized career guidance systems.Personal computers and ak-k-css to car puscomputers allow student affairs professionals to computer-ize and analyze student records, admission records, finan-cial aid information, housing assignments, and, as a result,opportunities for research are increasing. The managementof computer resources is an emerging issue for studentaffairs (Sampson 1982).

Financial management skills. As with mary other skills,student personnel preparation programs rarely devotemuch effort to the development of resource managementskills at the master's degree level, yet student affairsadministrators at all levels are increasingly asked tobecome familial with the budgeting process. Much of thischange occws as a result of the increasing application ofplanning and management models to higher education A


91

study of four institutions facing retrenchment concludedthat stu t..nt affairs aaministrators need greater budgetingskills as a result of the loss of budget flexibility and theincrease in budget controls and that more training shouldbe given in budget techniques, procedures, and politics(Deegan 1981).

Effective resource management depends upon more thantechnical competency and political skills; it also dependson finding answers to pertinent questions about costs andprograms: (1) What do programs cost in terms of funds andpersonnel? (2) What is their purpose, intended clientele,and frequency of use? (3) How effective are they? (4) Whatother delivery mechanisms could be employed? (5) What isthe best configuration for the use of staff and resources tomeet the goals of the division and the institution? Suchquestions are essential to efforts designed to result in themore effective use of staff.

Human re 7Jurc e management. Student affairs staffs, in thebroadest sense, are comprised of full- and part-time profes-sionalF. full- and part-time paraprofessionals, and faculty andadministrators contributing on a part-time basis. Managingthese resources which are the strengths of student affairsis increasingly important. The efficiency of the use of staff,training and supervision, professional development, and theidentification and assignment of responsibility for tasks artall issues in the management of human resources. With atten-tion to human development skills in preparation programs.many student affairs professionals possess the underlyingskills, but their further development is often needed flr theprofessionals to become more effective at human resourcemanagement (Johnson and Foxley 1980).

Related management skills. Administrators in studentaffairs should also possess skills in goal setting and timemanagement (Johnson and Foxley 1980). Time manage-ment skids are essential to planning activities, and they are,_ssential if student affairs professionals are to be able tocapture the time to become more centrally involved in theinstitution (Abel 1978). To that end, leaders must act or.targets that yield the greatest educational output and termi-nate unneeded functions, delegating and redesigning fobsto use and expand the talents of others (Abel 1978).

78

Political skillsAn uncertain situation, largely caused by sed-^e resourcesand new student clienteles, heightens competition amongvested interests seeking to protect their positions in theinstitution. Rational planning models to the contrary, insti-tutional politics are involved in establishing priorities,developing budgets, and formulating strategies to respondto changing corAitions. To participate in that atmosphereand to promote the position of student affairs in providingleadership within the institution, the student affairs admin-istrator must possess political and diplomatic skills to bring

about chenge and to gain power and influence (Abel 1978;Shaffer 1973). These skills are particularly important if stu-dent affairs professionals are to be effective advocates forstudents and their profession.

While management skills allow administrators to assumeauthority based on managerial position, political skillsallow them to extend their influence beyond their formalauthority. This involves the ability to influence col-leagues, mobilize support, and remove barriers (Abel1978, p. 239).

Student affairs leaders should become more aware ofit -.titutional politics to promote student affairs efforts intimes of reduction (Deegan 1981). Through an understand-ing of the institution and employment of political skillswithin that setting, student affairs leaders might be able toassist in developing the potential of the institution to meetchanging conditions.

As "leading edge" adm;nistrators, student affairs pro zs-sionals can be instrumental in integrating the goals of var-ious interest groups within the institution (faculty, stu-dents, administrators) and help forge policy decisionsreflecting that integration (Silverman 1980). The relation-ship between the chief student affairs officer and the presi-dent Is critical to the political position of student affairs: tothe extent that the president and the student affairs officershare goals and an understanding of the institution, themore politically secure will oe the student affairs organiza-tion (Shay 1984).

To that end, student personnel professionals shoulddevelop power networks as a base for developing support

Serving More Than Students79

9

on specific issues, become aware of manipulative strate-gies, and use their human relations skills to build a collabo-rative environment for negotiation and bargaining (Abel1978). To do so will require the application of the studentaffairs p-..,i-essional's human relations skills coupled with agreater understanding of the institution and the peoplewitlan it.

Research and evaluation skillsIf student affairs administrators are to become effectiveand knowledgeable leaders in this period of change, theywill have to develop and apply research and evaluationskills. Research on students is necessary to develop stu-dent affairs programs, to modify existing programs, and tojustify the efforts of student affairs if student affairs profes-sionals are to solidify their position within the institutions.Effective handling of complex issues requires usable infor-mation from a variety of sources (Shaffer 1)73).

Research is costly in terms of time and money, evenmore so in a period when both are so precious. In someinstitutions facing retrenchment, however, t;-;,. tudentaffairs organization with an established research unit hasbeen able to justify its programs and serve as a resourcefor other university decision makers (Deegan 1981). Arecent study of research activities in student affairs organi-zations found that 85 percent of institutions surveyed con-ducted research at least occasionally, ;argely focusing onprogram evaluation, needs assessment, and characteristicsof students (Johnson and Steele 1984). While this, ;searchwas valuable to decision makers in student affairs, how-ever, few efforts were made to put the findings of researchto use in imfitutional decisions (Johnson and Steele 1984).

Research could be useful to student ..:;airs administra-tors in several areas:

Longitudinal studie, of studentstheir decision-makingprocessPs, values, ;nterests, needs, changes over time,and the impacts of college on their developmeta.More research on high school c'Pidents, . . . includingstudies of academic ability values, interests, needs,and expectations cliic,' ,olle-

9 ,1

ANIM1111.1=11111.11.111111.M1

Studies to assist counselors, such as research onchanging job markets or career counseling tech-niques.Studies on factors that attract students to the collegeand on factors that increase retention rates at the col-lege (including those student affairs efforts [that] con-tribute to retention).Periodic studies of student[s7 interests, preferences,needs, and opinions about life at the college and sug-gestions for change.Management studies for program evaluation. . . (Dee-

gan 1981, pp. 219-20).

In collaboration with faculty and institutional researchers,student affairs leaders will be able to become more knowl-edgeable and influential within the campus community.

Organizational skillsIf student affairs administrators are going to serve as in-

tegratz,. s within institutions, they must possess a well-developed understanding of the institution and society inaddition to their own organization. They will, quite simply,need to develop a broad perspective and understanding ofstudent affairs and its relationship to the institution.

Several authors have recently discussed the importanceof organizational understanding to the future of studentaffairs. Kuh (1983, 1984) proposes a perspective on studentaffairs organizations based on an integration of traditionalperspectives (including the collegial, political, and bureau-cratic). More broadly, student affairs organizations mustmore clearly understand and address institutional goals indeveloping their goals: "Student affairs, if it is to be effec-tive and successful, must see itself as part of an institutionand supportive of institutional mission" (Smith 1982, p.56). Student affairs professionals in larger institutionscould learn much from their colleagues in smaller institu-tions (Palm 1984). There, student affairs staff are moreconnected with other professionals and possess a broaderand more complete understanding of the institution. If stu-dent development is going to truly become an institutionalgoal, then student affairs professionals must expand theirknowledge of the institutional environment and develop

Serving More Than Students81

95

skills for working within that environment (Borland andThomas 197.

Unders al-Kling the institution of which student affairs isa part is very important (Smith 1982). The nature of mostacademic programs is content-bound and cognitivelybased, emphasizing the mind. Most student affairs pro-grams, on the other hand, define development more holisti-cally by also emphasizing social, emotional, and physicaldevelopment. To capture the interest and attention of fac-ulty, however, student affairs philosophies must be statedin terms that academic leaders are able to understand andjustify. Communicating that philosophy to academic lead-ers entails the use of highly developed skills, of which anenlightened understanding of the institution and its envi-ronment is an essential part.

To better understand the institution in which they seek tobecome full partners, student affairs professionals shouldincorporate the following elements in their approach (Smith1982, p. 59). First, they must identify with their colleaguesoutside of student affairs to better understand them and theirpriorities; they must develop credibility and respectability inthe eyes of their academic partners. Second, if it is assumedthat members of an organization should share goals, studentaffairs professionals must be sensitive to the relationship oftheir programs to the rest of the institution. Third, studentaffairs must understand the environment in which it operatesthe organizational culture, decision-making patterns, and for-mal and informal organizational structure. To do so, it mustassess the organizations of which it is part. An organizationalassessment should encompass the following elements: (1) anevaluation of job descnptions and of roles related to others inthe organization; (2) a determination of role expectations bythine affecting the positions of student affairs; (3) a determi-nation of powef 19 decision rr.alung; and (4) goals for studentaffairs as defined by others (Borland and Thomas 1976).

To those who would say that student affairs profession-als are novices in understanding the 'nstitutions of whichtiley are part and in the game of institutional politics, thatmarginality and naiveté may be h'lden strengths; studentaffairs professionals are in a desirable position to createand nurture significant links in loosely coupled systems

82

96

(Silverman 1980). That improved position will come, how-ever, only as student affairs better understands the institu-tions and society of which it is a part.

Implications for Programs and ServicesA changing role for student affairs and similar changes inthe role of the chief student affairs officer have implica-tions for the programs and activities conducted by studentaffairs organizations. Students' demands will argue for cer-tain programs to be developed or enhanced or deempha-sized; similarly, changing institutional emphases willenhance some efforts and question the need for others.Among those efforts likely to be emphasized in the 1980sare recruitment and retention, the integration of nontradi-tional student clienteles, and career planning and place-ment and services for students; those likely to be deem-phasized include student activities in which studentsexpress little interest and the development of values. Andfinally, certain programs and services deemed essential bystudent affairs staff, but no longer popular with institu-tional leaders or students, will need to be repackaged tom ke them attractive to changed or to different studentgroups

These changes have implications for the various tradi-tional functional areas of student affairs (residence halls,financial aid, stud,nt activities, for example); more impor-tant, they will create oppoi-tunitie. for general responsesfrom student affairs, including advising, counseling, andretention. Moreover, the potential exists within theseactivities for team efforts, including other administratorsand faculty

Recruitment and retentionEfforts in recruitment and retention include advising, coun-seling, developing and maintaining a supportive campusenvironment, orientation pogroms, and timely and ade-quate financial aid programs, and they involve preadmis-sion programs, academic and social orientation programs,visible and well-advei tised campus services, faculty out-reach and advising, student activities and housing. Gener-ally, they are the support services that enhance the reten-tion of students through social integration. They call on the

Sewing Afore Than Students 83

9r

traditional expertise of student affairs staff mixed with aspecial insight into the needs of today's students.

A study of the projected effects of enrollment and budgetreductions on student personnel programs found that fundsfor recruitment and retention programs and servicesincluding financial aid, support services for nontraditionalstudents, and minority recruitmentwere projected toremain unchanged (Nelson and Murphy 980). Similarly,enrollment/retention efforts and recruitment prcgramswould be established and expanded.

The expanded use of enrollment management involvingfaculty and student affairs is also important to recruitmentand retention. Faculty and student affairs professionalsmust work together to integrate students' social and emo-tional needs, academic expectations and achievement, andInstitutional goals, with the ultimate goal being to improvethe recruitment and retention of students (Baldridge, Kern-erer, and Green 1982).

Nontraditional studentsIncreasing participation in higher education by a variety ofgroups exhibiting different ethnic and racial backgrounds,levels of preparation. age, motivation, and interest in attend-ing college has placed and will continue to place demands onstudent affairs staff. The ability to provide new services or tomodify existing services to meet these new demands will beessential if student affairs and institutions are to promoteindividual development as a professional goal and to maintainenrollments as an institutional goal.

Programs and services for special populationsreturn-ing adults, women, commuting/part-time, minority, anddisabled studentsmight include support centers for spe-cial populations, special orientation programs, academicand personal counseling, and learning assistance for basicskills. The potential of faculty and student affairs staffworking together in these areas creates a significant oppor-tunity for the expansion of joint efforts.

Institutions are likely to continue funding such programsand services as special services for handicapped students,facilities for older or married students, academic advising,learning assistance centers, and special services for inter-national students and women (Nelson and Murphy 1980).In ea ''. of these areas, the potential exists for teams of

96

student affairs professionals. faculty, administrators, andother professionals to be increasingly involved in coordi-nated, comprehensive efforts aimed at the needs of nontra-ditional students

Career-oriented activitiesIncreasing vocationalism among students suggests anenlarged role for career planning and placement and relatedactivities throughout the institution. Students are increas-ingly concerned about selecting careers, invo. r them-selves in those courses and activities that will e,their attractiveness to prospective employers. Ascareer planning and placement will be priorities for rooststudent affairs organizations. With placement in positionsafter graduation being an important element in the attrac-tion of students, career planning and placement efforts areimportant to institutional goals.

Reflecting this trend, academic enhancement programs,career planning and placement activities, and career-oriented student activities are among programs gaining vis-ibility in institutions. It should come as no surprise, then,when career counseling and placement offices, programs,and services receive priority in institutional and depart-mental bLdgets (Nelson and Murphy 1980). At MontanaState University, for example, several new programs wereinitiated, including a liberal arts career internship program,alumni career networks, and career planning workshopsfor freshmen and sophomores.

Computerized systemsComputerized financial accounting systems and computer-based career planning and placement services are serviceslikely to be established in light of changing conditions (Nel-son and Murphy 1980). Similarly, the role of computerizedmanagement and guidance systems will grow in studentaffa,rs, partially as a result of new technologies and partlyas a result of decreased funds for personnel. Examplesabound of the reliance on electronic data processing in stu-dent affairsmonitoring the progress of underpreparedstudents at the University of Georgia, evaluating studentaffairs programs at the University of Nebraska, and evalu-ating student activities at the Community College of Alle-gheny County.

vow More Than Student% 85

Student activities in troubleThe study by Nelson and Murphy (1980) does not project abright future for student activities. Of the 22 services, pro-grams, and functions projected to be reduced, 12 were inthe realm of student activities, including Greek affairs, stu-dent government, academic clubs, student media, and stu-dent entertainment programs. This result should beexpected, given observations about students' decreasinginterest in community service activities and political issuesand an increase in personal activities and career and inter-est groups (Levine 1980). Those activities most directlyassociated with a successful career are likely to be mostpopular (Astin 1984a).

Participation in student activities contributes to a stu-dent's involvement in college life and is a powerful predic-tor of student retention and satisfaction with college (Astin1984b). But it is important to note that many student activi-ties are directed to\ iard the traditional college student,now a minority of those att'nding colleges and universities.The importance of student activities, coupled with stu-dents' decreasing interest, suggests that student activitiesas they are currently offered must be repackaged to retainstudents' interest.

The development of valuesThe development of values is inextricably ', ound to thedevelopment of a student, and commitment to one presup-poses commitment to the other (Thomas, Murrell, andChickering 1982) The student affairs professional is in aunique position to shape students' moral or value develop-ment. Efforts at values education, built on a firm theoreti-cal foundation, can provide guidance to student affairsprofessionals who would seek to develop values in stu-dents (Kohlberg 1969; Perry 1976).

While professional interest in the development of valuesremains, students are less actively interested in developinga personal philosophy, exploring values, and engaging inactivities that express social concern (political parties andcommunity service activities, for example) (Astin and oth-ers 1964, Levine 1980). Thus, students may not seek toavail themselves of opportunities to challenge and developvalues, and student affairs efforts aimed at moral education

86

11;

or the development of values will need to be more aggres-sive to engage students. Student affairs professionalsshould seek to maximize those areasresidence halls, stu-dent groups, and student activitieswhere the develop-ment of values typically occurs (Thomas, Murrell, andChickering 1982). Further, programs aimed at the develop-ment of values may need to directly address students' cur-rent interests and expressed needs. For instance, valuesmay have to be explored as an element of educational andcareer expectations (that is, with a goal of integratingcareer goals and personal values).

SummaryChanging conditions have several implications for studentaffairs (Nelson and Murphy 1980). First, long-range plan-ning is necessary to deal effectively with changing condi-tions and students Second, programs that aid in studentretention should be developed and emphasized. Third,administrators should examine each student affairs pro-gram to determine whether it is operating at the best cost/benefit ratio; such an examination may lead to theimprovement of services without increased expenditures.Fourth, and perhaps most important, student affairsprofessionals should routinely survey the needs of theirstudents to determine the relative importance of each stu-dent service program or function.

Greater attention must be paid to the needs of educa-tional consumers (Aiken 1982). A routine analysis of needswould permit administrators to retain, consolidate, orcurtail programs on the basis of their contribution to stu-dents' needs.

This review of probable changes in student affairs suggeststhat many of those efforts that cut across the traditional stu-dent affairs functional areasfor example. ret,mtion andattention to the needs of nontraditional studentswillreceive increased attention because of their importance asinstitutional priorities In addition, these student affairsefforts are encouraging others in the institution, an importantoutcome in itself. To the extent that those activities in whichstudent affairs engages support institutional goals, greatpotential exists for student affairs professionals to lead other

Serving More Dian Aliments

101

87

administrators and faculty in the development of efforts lead-ing to individual development and efforts supporting institu-tional or organizational developmen:. Integrating the institu-tion's and students' nee.ls suggests an enhanced, more cen-tral role for student affairs professionals

88

1 ( ,,

, 4.,

EDUCATING STUDENT PERSONNEL PROFESSIONALS

Iii addition to the traditional interpersonal skills of studentaffairs professionals, the new role demands new organiza-

tional skillsplanning and management, resource manage-ment, research and evaluation, and political skills. Like-wise, to the extent that student development pi ovides atheoretical basis for the profession, a greater awareness ofthe organizational context for student development and theskills necessary for working effectively within that contextare need:.d. These new skills are critical if student affairsprofessionals are to be able to integrate students' and insti-tutions' needs meaningfully.

Preparation programs for student personnel profession-als, however, devote little effort to organizational skills(Amer et al. 1977; Delworth, Hanson, and associates 1980;

Knock 1977). They tend to focus on counseling skills andoften neglect attention to the needs of n'w student groups(Wright 1984). A more visible, central role for studentaffairs does not diminish the need for counseling skills, butit demands skills in dealing with people and situations out-side the student affairs office. A significant redirection ofpreparation programs for student personnel professionals,supplemented by ongoing professional development, iscritical to the new role for student affairs and its future.

Preparation ProgramsToday, a number of issues in the preparation of studentpersonnel professionals are heightened by changing condi-tions and students. Among these issues at., attention toorganizational skills and add.essing new student subpopu-lations, an understanding and commitment to studentdevelopment, and expected entry-level competencies.

The curriculum of a professional preparation programhas several aims: ( 1 ) 1 0 set professional standards; (2) toassess curt en( status and facilitate change in the profes-sion; (3) to select and manage staff; and (4) to establishacademic legitimacy (Delworth, Hanson, and associates1980) A curriculum that prepares people to enter the field,

in short, 's one important way that a profession definesitself. Little agreement is evident in the literature, how-ever, over the appropriate goals, competencies, and formthat a -iirriculum for the preparation of student personnelprofessionals should take, partly the result of the diversefunctions performed by student affairs professionals. More

A curriculumthat preparespeople toenter thefield, in shcrt,is oneimportant waythat aprofessiondefines itself.

Servtng More Than .Students 89

103

important, it is the applied nature of the &Id, which bor-rows from many other disciplines, theones, and philoso-phies, that contributes to the confusion. The field is stillsearching for a guiding philoophy that would in part helpIt to define the general skills and competencies appropriatefor entry into the field (Stamatakos and Rogers 1984)

Although the content of programs in studen* personnel hasreceived much attention, many of the models seek only tobetter prepare counselors (Amer et al. 1977; Knock 1977;Pruitt 1979; Spooner 1979). Delworth, Hanson. and associ-ates (1980) provide an example of a well-de,noped curricu-lum that focuses on preparing entry-level student affairsprofessionals. Their improved curriculum for the trainingof student affairs professionals consists of several corecomponents:

I. History and philosophy of the field and of highcr edu-cation.

2 Theoryone course concerned with theories ofhuman development and one course concerned withtheories of person/environment interaction

3. Models of practice and role orientation, covered inone course concerned with patterns of organizationand specialized functions in student services.

4. Core competenciesone course covering each area(assessment and evaluation, consultation, instruction.and counseling).

s Specialized competenciesat least one course in thisarea, covering program development, environmentalassessment, and paraprofessional training.

6. Administration and managementa basic coursefocused on the management tools needed by theentry-level professional.

7 Practicum or field worka one-year practicum in atleast two student service areas

8 Additional theory and tool courses (pp. 481-82)

While attention to theory in the model woulu serve toinLrease the credit.ility of the profession and furtherencourage the application of student development, littleattention is given to the development of organizationalskills Much confusion surrounds the topic because littleattempt is made to distinguish between professional roles,

104

target or clientele groups to be addressed, and the compe-tencies needed to carry out these roles (Morrill 1980).Training the student development specialist for the roles ofdiagnostician, consultant, programmer, technologist, pro-fessor, behavioral scientist, and administrator is important(Brown 1972), just as is training in group processes, organi-zation and administration, measurement and evaluation,and counseling theory (Pruitt 1979).

Preparation programs that take into consideration thechanges in the student body should be included in thedesign of curricula (Pruitt 1979). These clientelerzapproaches for training include women (including the psy-chology and sociology of women's development, elimina-tion of stereotyping, and the like), nonwhite persons(including the history and culture of this segment of thepopulation and professional and institutional racism), anddisabled students (including the psychology and sociologyof their development). In addition to infusing courseworkw'th content in the areas of sex equity, nonwhite concerns,and mainstreaming of the handicapped, disabled andminority group members should be recruited into theprofession (Pruitt 1979).

While attention to organizational skills is infrequentlyoffered, the development of skills that add credibility to theprofession, promote academic respectability, and enhanceworking relationships between faculty and student affairs iseven more rarely addressed. These skills include research,teaching, and scholarship. Student affairs does not have astrong tradition of preparing researchers, scholars, andteachers (in the traditional sense), but if, as professionals,their goals are to be accepted by faculty, they mustdevelop and use those skills

Preparation for Administration and ManagementDespite the fact that many leaders in student affairs haveadvocated increased management skills (see, for example.Aei y and Moore 1976; Biggs and Skinner 1979; Dugan1c81; Kuh 1981; Priest, Alphenaar, and Boer 1980,Racippo and Foxley 1980), research and evaluation skills(Deegan 1981), political skills (Abel 1978, Deegan 1981),and organizational understanding (Borland 180) to meetthe challenge of changing conditions, models for educatingstudent personnel professional, rarely attend to these skills

ServIng More lhun Students 91

105

in preparation programs. For instance, the program pro-posed by Delworth, Hanson, and associates (1980) includesonly one course on basic management skills appropriate forthe entry-level worker, even thcugh management skillsmay be more important to the professional than humandevelopment skills (Kuh 1981).

It can be argued that management, organizational, andpolitical skills are most necessary for chief student person-nel officers and that, for those who provide primary ser-vice, increased attention to management skills might evenprove counterproductive. The numbers of administratorsand managers in student affairs as well as the numbers ofthose who aspire to the higher levels of the profession,however, suggest that greater attention should be given tomanagement and organizational skills for professionals atall levels. It is of some concern where and when theseskills are to be developed. Perhaps it is the role of doctoralprograms in which student affairs professionals are trainedto enter institutions as academic leaders (Bloland 1979),but a recent study of chief student affai:s officers foundthat only half possessed doctorates and of that group, 20percent held degrees in higher education administrationI Ostroth, Efird, and Lerman 1984). This finding perhapsindicates that student affairs leaders desire greater atten-tion to the development of administrative and organiza-tional skills.

Further, if it is assumed that the graduate curriculumreflects the needs of he profession and its concerns, cur-rent curricula suggest that the profession remains moreinterested in human relations skills and student develop-ment competencies than in the organizational skills neces-sary for the institutionalization of the changes studentdevelopment advocates. The lack of attention to manage-ment and organizational skills is most surprising when onerealizes that a guiding student development model for thefield (Miller and Prince 1977) is predicated on the fact thatstudent development professionals will be able to modifyinstitutional goals and practices to conform with the goalsof student development, yet little effort is made to addressthe development of skills necessary for the accomplish-ment of that goal A changing role argues for studentaffairs professionals with the specialized skills in the area

1 0 tj

of human development enhanced by those skills demandedby v orking in complex organizations and systems.

Entry-level CompetenciesA survey of student personnel administrators who hiredentry-level staff found several specific skill areas particu-larly important in the selection of staff: (1) competency inassessing students' needs and interests; (2) competency inmediating conflicts between individuals and groups; (3)competency in group advisement and in recognition ofgroup dynamics; and (4) competency in programming(Ostroth 1981). Among the least important competenciesreported in the survey were familiarity with professionalliterature, the ability to articulate and interpret the goals ofstudent personnel work to the wider population, an under-standing of the financing of higher education, the ability toformulate and monitor budgets, and the ability to recognizeand analyze political processes in higher education. Inshort, the skill areas required to work directly with stu-dents were rated most important, those necessary tounderstand and work with the remainder of the institutionleast important.

Seventy-three percent of chief student affairs officersbelieve preparation programs to be good or excellent (Sandeen 1982). A paradox is thereby suggested by these stud-ies of expected competencies for the professiontl-e train-ing priorities and curricula discussed in the literature onthe one hand, and the skills outlined by leaders in the fieldas necessary for effective student affairs professionals andfor the enhanLement of the student affairs profession onthe other The former argues for skills relevant to workingwith students, the latter for skills necessary for workingwithin organizations. It can be argued that it is the chiefpersonnel officer who interacts most frequently with otheruniversity administrators and faculty and that these organi-zational skills are therefore not necessary for entry-levelworkers But this situation raises two questions. First, if allstudent personnel professional-, are presumed to be work-ing with others in the institutional setting, should they notpossess, to some degree, organizational skills`' Second,presumnig that most entrv-level workers aspire to advance-ment within the profession, at what point do they learn


10793

those organizational skills that allow them to become effec-tive administrators')

A New Medel for Professional PreparationA recently proposed content and process model seeks toprepare student development educators with a greaterunderstanding of the system of whicli they are a part(Brown 1985b). That model is a significant departure fromprevious models, and as such .i provides a model for grad-uate education that recognize, and is compatibkt with thechanging role of student affairs.

In lieu of focusing almost exclusively on students, themodel would have student affairs professionals also focuson themselves and on the institutional system, the latter ofwhich is most critical to the preparation of those who willbe institutional intew ators. Program developmela does nottake place in a vacuum.

MI occurs [rather] within a 'ugnly interactive system. Newprofessionals need to understand the history and philoso-phy of that system, possess knowledge of how organiza-tions function and change, and understand the effects ofindividual interaction with the organizatic al environmentIn practice, this means understanding the essentials ofmanagement theory, budgeting, organizational and stiffdevelopment, environmewal assessment, and programevaluation. Internships and practicums should provide stu-dents with the opportunity to plan, implement, and evalu-ate programs (Blown 1985h, p. 39).

Brown's model is based on several guiding principles:

I The goal of higher education is to foster total studentdevelopment, including . intellectual, aesthetic,physical, spiritual, interpersonal . . , and culturalawareness.

2 Nonintellectual dimensions of development need tohe integrated with traditional academic intellectualdimensions.

3. The scientist/prat titioner role provides a useful goalfor program deve:opment for graduate program con-tent and process

94

lob

4. The following areas of knowledg2 form core cognatesfor the student development educator: learning the-ory, ethics, human development theory, researchdesign, theories of organizational behavior, and man-agement theory.

5. The program should pt2pa..e generalists throughcourse work. Training related :o specify studentaffairs agencies and functions can be providedthrough p~acticum[s] and internship[s]. . . .

6. The program should emulate the ideals [of] highereducation in general through its . . . focus on totaldevelopment of [the] student with emphasis onprofessional development and . . . [its] inclusion of aprocess that involves students in planning their per-sonal and professional growth. . . (Brown 1985b, pp.40-41).

The model, though it does not specify courses, d)es spec-ify areas for attention in the preparation of programs (seetable 2, p. 96). And it is those areas, already outlined, thatare demanded by a changing role for student affairs.

Continuing Professional EducationGraduate education, while critical to the preparation ofprofessionals for the changing role of student affairs, is notthe only route by which professionEls can become moreprepared to meet the challenges of their new role. Anotherroute is continuing professional education.

Professional development, staff development, and in-service educationthe ongoing activities that seek toenhance or improve the skills and competencies of profes-sionals to meet the challenges of their position in an asser-tive, productive fashion (Cox and Ivy 1984)-1re not newto student affairs. They are still in their infancy, however(Hall 19,1). Professional development activities untilrecently tended to be sporadic, reactive, and aimed atpractical solutions to immediate concerns, but they havebecome more formal iri-service programs at some institu-tions (Canon 1984; Hall 1981). Despite the importance ofprofessiclal levelopment c.,r the future of the profession,professional development in student affairs often lacks acoherent plan (Shaffer 1984)


109

Self

TABLE 2GRADUATE EDUCATION PROGRAM MODEL FOR STUDENT

DEN ELOPMENT EDUCATORS

Students systems

Learning Level 1 Basic Knowledge

Self-assessment StrategiesTutal Development

intellectual, academic,laterpersonal, aesthetic,physical, spiritual

Learning TheoryDevelopmental TheoryVocational Theory

Organizational BehaviorHistory and Philosophy of

Higher EducationHistory and Philosophy ofStudent Affairs

Person/Environment Theory

Learning Level II Program Prescription Blended with Self-assessment and Negotiation

Personal Goal Swing Counseling Practices (one-Strategies for Personal to-one consulting group)Change Instructional Strategies

Management/BudgetingConsultingOrganizational DevelopmentProgram EvaluationResearch DesignStaff Development

Learning Les el III Experiential Learning (ssnthesis and evaluation)

Mentoring Relationship with Teaching Internship in Consulting,Advisor CounselingiConsulting Evaluation, Research

Program PlanningMentonngGroup Work

SoulLe Ri sssn 19hch 2 41

The reasons for offering a professional development pro-gram are varied (I) the i-emediation of marginally trainedor skilled professionals; (2) the enhancement of accountahilit' *o institutions for the ^ 'student affairs profes-sionals; ar (3) ensuring pri growth (Canon I9S4).Efforts aimed at the remeL staff are made .nresponse to the diverse backgrounds, professional prepara-tions, and outlooks new or entering professionals bringwith them. New roles within institutions and attention to

96

110

diverse student clienteles argue for professioral develop-ment on a wide variety of topics, including awareness ofvarious minority populations and management skills. And,finally, professional growth includes training to ensure thedevelopment of professional organizations as well as indi-viduals (Carpenter and Miller 1981).

A recent study of the professional development needs ofstudent affairs professionals revealed that the top fiveneeds were for organizational skills and that they includedcommunicating program goals to the larger academic com-munity, collaborating with faculty and other administra-tors, and obtaining the respect of academicians (Cox andIvy 1984). Interestingly, respondents indicated little needto improve skills required in working with students, suchas general counseling and communications. Thus, specialemphasis in professional development programs is neededto impart strategies for enhancing the relationship betweenstudent affairs and academic affairs: (1) using facultyexpertise in student affairs professional development; (2)becoming more visible and recognized; and (3) developingexperiencessuch as seminar serieson which to collabo-rate (Cox and Ivy 1984). This study suggests that studentaffairs professionals desire enhanced skills in working withother adminL,trators and faculty in addition to a greaterunderstanding of their environm-mt.

Professional development activities are typically part-time, campus-based responses to the educational needs ofstudent affairs statf. Continuing professional educationencompasses far more, however. Individual and group par-ticipation in courses, degree and nondegree programs, andnational, regional, and state associations and conferencesall allow student affairs staff to continue their professionaldevelopment beyond the campus.

For student affairs leaders, another route to the develop-ment of skills appropriate to an enhanced role is the grow-ing number of higher education management programs,including Harvard's Institute for Educational Managementand Bryn Mawr's summer program for women in highereducai ion. These programs provide leaders with a varietyor backgrounds the opportunity to develop greater manage-ment and organizational skills.

Regardless of the structure or method, Z.Jntinuingprofessional education is increasingly important for student


111

98

affairs professionals, and national student affairs associa-tions and institutions should develop comprehensive plansthat seek to develop skills appropriate for new roles

SummaryA new role for affairs demands new and enhancedskills for professiorials. As such, it places special demandson graduate education for the profession. Existing prepara-tion programs need to be revised in light of the expandingrole fur student affairs. Similarly, continuing professionaleducation must address the ongoing needs fcr new andenhanced skills. New efforts it graduate preparation andcontinuing professional education are critical, not only tothe fulfillment of a challenging new role but also to thefuture vitality of the profession.

In light of new roles for student affairs, the: efore, effortsmust be made to restructure preparation programs and todevelop continuing professional education to:

1. Attend more to management skills, research and eval-uation skills, and a 'titter understanding of organiza-tional behavior and cevelopment;

2. Address the needs of dive e student populations;3 Create a greater awareness among professionals of

societal trends, higher education issues, and institu-tional responses that demand enlightened responsesfrom student affairs; and

4 Develop those skills- -research, teaching, and schol-arshipthrough which the profession will be able toincrease its credibility witlyin the institution.

112

THE CHALLENGES OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT

Student development in its many formsguiding philoso-

phy, formal theory, and model for actionhas served to

give meaning and direction to the student affairs function(American Council on Education 1938; Brown 1972; Coun-

cil of Student Personnel Associations 1975; Williamson

1949). At tit,: same time, student development, in a generalsense, typically is cited as one of the goals of most institu-tions; as a priority, however, student development hasrarely received the attention that has been given to cogni-tive development nor the amount of attention that studentaffairs professionals would desire (Miller and Prince 1977).While many forces are at work to drive institutions to agreater acceptance of student development (Harvey 1976),institutional budgets suggest that the student developmentfunction has eroded on many campuses (Deegan 1981; Har-

pel 1975). Furthermore, as the theoretical basis of theprofession, student development is being challenged onmany fronts.

All of which is to say that if student development is toremain an integrating concept for the profession and is to

serve to undergird the efforts of student affairs profession-als as they become institutional integrators, then severalissues must be addressed. First, for student developmentto succeed, a greater ur derstanding and acceptance of stu-dent development theory must be gained within the profes-sion. Second, student development theory must beexpanded to embrace what we know about the needs of

chap- ig student clienteles. And third, student develop-

ment and adminorative practice must be integrated, andboth must serve the goal of organizational development.

A Theoretical Basis for the ProfessionThe adoption and application of theory is important to aprofessional field. A theoretical basis for the student affairsprofession allows us to accomplish several important tasks(Delworth, Hanson, and associates 1980). First, It helpsstudent affairs professionals to organize information. Sec-

ond, It helps them explain to others what they do. Third, itaids professional decisions. And, fourth, it helps studentaffairs staff to guide future efforts as much as presentefforts. Further, basing student affairs practice on a sys-tematic body of knowledge in the form of theory helps thefield to define itself as a profession.

. . . As thetheoreticalbasis of theprofession,studentdevelopmentis beingchallenged onmany fronts.


113

Stu( ent development has been defined as "the applicationof human development concepts in postsecondary settings sothat everyone can master increasingly complex developmen-tal tasks, achieve self-direction, and become interdependent"(Miller and Prince 1977, p. 3). As such, student developmentis not a single theory but a collection of theories and con-cepts con,. with human development.

Adoption and Application of TheoryRecent studies indicate that developmental theory is notwell understood by many in the profession, and studentdevelopment programming does not appear to reflect theo-nes promoted by various student personnel professionalorganizations (Kuh et al. 1977). Furthermore, the knowl-edge of student development theory within the professionand its application in practice are not widespread (Strangeand Contomanolis 1983).

In place of formal theory, many student affairs staff "prob-ably use informal, internally consistent but, for the most part,unexamined 'theories in action' to guide their work with stu-dents" (Kuh 1981, p. 30). Similarly, informal theories tend toguide efforts more than formal theories perhaps because stu-dent personnel profess,onals are practical service providers(Widick, Knefelkamp, and Parket 1980).

Professionals typically possess some informal studentdevelopment theory that guides their actions, even it theirknowledge and application of formal theories is less wide-spread. Three strategies would help promote the use andapplication of formal theory in practice:

I Using formal theory in working with broad concep-tual issues at the level of the college.

2 Combining elements of formal and informal theory inworking with groups of relatively homogenous stu-dents.

3 Using informal theories to understand and apply thecesearch findings from formal theories (Widick, Kne-felkamp, and Parker 1980, pp. 112-13).

The practicality of applying theory in the practice of stu-dent development has been demonstrated.

When the theory is mace actual with real peopleinvolved, a data base is generated that provides a con-

100

1 1 4

crete base for defining and understanding the problem inthe reai setting, and provides a basis for defining appro-priate content and developmental goals and objectives.Finally, theories also provide criteria for designingdevelopmentally appropriate interventions and for defin-ing and measuring outcomes (Rodgers 1982, p. 140).

For numerous reasons, continued efforts to organize anddisseminate knowledge about student development areessential to the future of student _ffairs. Fast, if studentaffairs professionals are to continue in efforts to developstudents as well as their own professionalism, they shouldaccomplish those goals through efforts grounded in devel-opmental theory, not solely through the trial and error ofprevious experience. Second, in a practical sense, a theo-ret:cal justification coupled with expressed consumer inter-est can establish a stionger argument for the support ofstudent affairs. And, third, a well-understood theoreticalbase is important to the establishment of credibility andrespectability as a profession in the eyes of faculty. Thislast point is particularly important if student affairs profes-sionals are to be able to integrate student and academic lifeas well as institutional and student goals.

Incorporating Diverse ClientelesAnother challenge of student development suggests broad-ening student development theory to encompass the needsof increasing minority subpopulations enrolling in collegesand universities. Although these students face differentdevelopmental issues because of their age. sex, level ofpreparation, or cultural backgrounds, much of the cut-rentstudent development theory emerged from studies of tradi-tional white male college students at small residential insti-tutions, and one cannot be assured of their appropriatenessfor different students. Student affairs professionals mustcontinue to identify appropriate applications and discoverthe limitations of theories and models currently in practiceIn some cases, a return to human developm,-..t theory andthe exploration of issues of development for older studentsand women students is warranted (Cross 1981a; Erikson1963, Weathersby and Tarule 1980), while in other cases,different cultural contexts for human development must heexamined (Vasquer and Chaver 1980) Current student

Serving ,11ore lhcn Students 101

116

A

development theories should not be discarded but must becarefully reviewed and tested for applicability with the var-ious subgroups that make up increasing minority studentsubpopulations.

For instance, what comprises student development inthe future should incorporate an understanding A adultdevelopment. While some traditional student developmentissues are important for adults, different issues emerge foradult. students as a result of different life stages (Greenfeigand Goldberg 1984). The various life-cycle stages throughwhich adults pass offer challenges and opportunities (Lev-inson and others 1978). Adults are characterized by lifephases with a variety of development issues characterizingeach, and institutions should be aware of them and seek toaddress tnem in programs and services (Weathersby and'ramie 1980).

Inkgratioa with Administrative PracticePerhaps the clearest challenge for student developmenttheory is its integration with administrative practice in col-leges and universities. Student development theory impliesthe development of students as the guiding principle forstudent affairs organizations, but these organizations arealso units of institutions that have related but usually dif-ferent goals and priorities. Formulating responses tochanging conditions, student affairs organizations must beattentive to both students' and institutions' needs; theymust be responsive to students and to systems. If studentaffairs professionals are to be integrators, then they mustattempt to foster institutional or organizational develop-ment as well as student development (Borland 1980).

To the extent that the profession has become foct'sed onstudent development and neglected institutional goals, ithas become increasingly peripheral. Others in the institu-tion have rarely embraced student development practices.The goals of institutions and student affairs are often notintegrated, and student development has not been incorpo-rated into administrative or academic practice.

Very seldom is institutional mission or identification withmission referred to in the literature on student develop-ment (Smith 1982) Even Miller and Prince's model (1977),which discusses environmental strategies, concentrates on

102

116

the goals of the model and their applicability to the institu-tion, neglecting the importance of institutional goals. Fur-thermore, the barriers to organizational change are consid-erable (Borland 1980; Strange 1981). As a result, for stu-dent development to be viable as a cornerstone of studentaffairs. more attention must be given "to the supportiveproperties of institutions that support innovations orchanges in practice such as student development pro-grams'. (Kuh 1981. p. 29).

Current financial and enrollment problems argue for thepreservation of the institution, but not necessarily for stu-dent affairs (Strange 1981). That is, unless a convincingargument for the importance of student development to theinstitution is made, the student affairs profession may bethreatened. Put simply, student development must becomemore institutional and the institution must become mores.udent developmental if both are to remain viable

A view of student affairs that is to have legitima' andcredibility today must demonstrate an understand of of the

goals of the Institution, its intellectual and academic mis-sions, and its needs for organizptional development. Aview incorporating these elements holds great promise forstudents, institutions, and the profession (Borland 1980;Shaffer 1973; Smith 1982).

In short, changing conditions may create an environmentwhen.. an active student affairs organization can use itsexpertise to promote the development of both students andinstitutions, different but parallel goals. If student affairsprofessionals are to capitalize on opportunities to becomeinstitutional integrators, then student and organizationaldevelopment should become similarly integrated. Organi-zational development is a conscious effort to improve theinternal capabilities of an organization to cope with thedemands of external environments; as such, it shares manycomponents with student development.

Organizati3n development is a theoretical and a practi-cal concept for improving the effectit eness and effi-ciency of an institution. Student development is a con-cept within the student affairs profession that promotesan institutional environment conducive to and facilita-tive o f the human development o f students. . . (Metwo concepts are inseparable (Borland 1980, p. 223)_


A New Theory cr DevelopmentResponding to what he sees as chaos in the literature,Astir (1984b) prop( ses a theory of student involvement asa developmental theory for higher education. Studentinvolvement refers to the amount of physical and psycho-logical energy that a student devotes to the academic expe-rience. The theory readily ackntoivledges that psychic andphysical energy are finite and that educators are competingwith other forces demanding a student's time and energy.

Astin's involvement theory has five postulates:

I. Involvement refers to the investment of physical andpsychological ene4 JUS objects. ne objectsmay be highly genet. ,ed (the student experience) orhighly specific (preparing for a chemistry exam).

2 Regardless of its object, involvement occurs along acontinuum; that is, different students manifest differ-ent degrees of involvement in different objects at dif-ferent times.

3. Involvement has both quantitative and qualitativefeatures. The extent of a student's involvement inacademic work, for instance, can be measured quan-titatr'ely (how many hours the student spends study-ing) and qualitatively (whether the student reviewsand comprehends reading assignments or simplyMares at the textbook and daydreams).

4. The at tount of student learning grid personal devel-opment associated with any educational program isdire( tly proportional to the quality id quantity ofstudent involvement in that program.

5 The effectiveness of any educational policy or prac-tice is directly related to the capacity of that policyor practice to increase student involvement (1984b,p 298).

The simplicity of the theory makes it attractive to bothresearchers and practitioners. A theory based on involve-ment has important implications for the style and form ofteaching as well as for the programs and services of stu-dent affairs. Moreover, attention to students' involvement"provides a unifying construct that can help to focus theenergies of all institutional personnel on a common objec-tive" (Actin 1984b, p. 305). Supported by the recent report

104

on the quality of higher education (Study Group 1984), thistheory suggests a promising new student development the-ory for student affairs professionals performing as integra-

tors within the institution.

SummaryStudent development concepts and theories have beenimportant to the direction of the student affairs professionfor some time, but as a new role for student affairsemerges, several issues in student development must beaddressed. First, studies reveal that practitioners do notgenerally understand or apply theories of student develop-ment. The us,:. of student development theories is impor-tant to student affairs integrators who seek justification forprograms and services, howevu, and who need the profes-sional credibility necessary for a more central institutionalrole. Second, with increasing numbers of nontraditionalstudents, theories and concepts in student developmentmust be expanded to address differences in age, sex, andculture if student affairs professionals are to be able todevelop programs and services that address those differentneeds and have the goal of social integration. Third, to pro-mote student development and to achieve a greater integra-tion of student and system needs, student and academiclife, then the integration of student and organizationaldeeloprnent must be attempted. Fourth, a new develop-mental theorythat of student involvementmay inte-grate other theories and provide a theoretical basis for theprofession that complements current educational goals

While student development theory faces a number ofchallenges, it remains important to the profession as allintegrating concept :or the role of the student affairsprofessional. The ability of the profession to redefine andapply !ts developmental orientation in a number of con-texts and clienteles will in large part determine its future.


11J

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The world of higher education is rarely static, and thatstatement is particularly true today. As a result of the widearray of changes and in response to them, the role of stu-dent affairs is evolving to one that is more central and criti-cal to the achievement of other institutional goals, to onethat seeks a greater integration of efforts by all within theinstitution, to one that is concerned about organizationaldevelopment as a necessary complement to student devel-opment. Integrating many different needs and goals in thedelivery of services calls on student affairs professionals todevelop a wider range of skills, to exert leadership in newcontexts, and to think of themselves in new ways. The newrole that has been suggestedthat of integratoris inmany ways not a new role, but an extension and realizationof previous roles and a recognition of new student affairsefforts in a variety of areas.

A new role for student affairs demands responses by thtprofession. Similarly, a new role calls for responses byprofessional associations, by graduate programs preparingstudent affairs professionals, and by institutions seekingmaximum effectiveness and vitality. The individual profes-sional should not be alone in arguing his or her case for anexpanded voice; growing recognition of this new role mustbe offered by graduate programs, by institutions, and byprofessional associations.

From this new role and from the example of recent stu-dent affairs efforts, a number of rP:ommendations emerge.First, student affairs professionals must be prepared totake several steps:

1. Assess the institutional environment. Student affairsprofessionals must scan the environment to identifyand interpret trends and events that have implicationsfor their institution and the student affairs function.These trends include, but are not limited to, demo-graphic changes, societal changes, economic trends,and politics surrounding the institution. Studentaffairs leaders, in the 1980s and beyond, can nolonger afford to be isolationists.

2. Comprehend Institutional issues. Student affairs lead-ers must be able to understand the important issueswithin their institution and be prepared to interprettheir implications for student affairs, to suggest ways

Studentaffairs leadersmust be ableto understandthe importantisssues withintheirinstitutionand beprepared tointerpret theirimplicationsfor studentaffairs.


120

in which student affairs can take leadership, and toalert others to important issues the institution mustaddress. Perhaps more important, student affairsprofessionals must be able to assess and navigate thepolitical waters surrounding often controversial insti-tutional issues. To do so calls for enhanced analyticand political skills.

3 Develop professional credibility with faculty. To gaincredibility with faculty, student affairs professionalsmust contribute in meaningful and significant ways tothe academic experience, which must be articulatedto faculty. Involvement in this area can be accom-plished through more extensive research and evalua-tion, the presentation of findings through seminars,publications, and local and national professionalactivities, and teaching. Perhaps more important, stu-dent affairs can define for itself a role in academicquality. Student affairs leaders should capitalize onstudent involvement as a professional opportunity tcbuild relationships with faculty.

4. Become experts on students, their expectations,needs, interests, and abilities. Despite being "studentexperts" in the institution, student affairs profession.als often make little attempt to share their expertisewith others. They must, however, more actively artic-ulate that expertise to others in the institution interms they find meaningful. But to be truly viewed asexperts, the often anecdotal understanding of studentaffairs professionals must become grounded in sys-tematic studies, assessments, and evaluations.

5. Translate student affairs goals to others in the institu-tion in meaningful terms. While institutions tend toshare a culture, different divisions within even thesmallest of institutions share different personal andprofessional values. It is essential to understand thoseunderlying values and to be able to translate studentaffairs goals in terms that are meaningful to otherswho possess a different set of values. To financialofficers, for example, efforts designed to improveretention might be explained in terms of financial ben-efits to the institution; similarly, those efforts shouldbe explained to faculty in terms of academic achieve-ment

1 2 i

6 Contribute to the quality of the academic experience.Just as student affairs has served other overridingheeds within institutions, now is the time for it to alsoserve the goals of quality and the enhancement of theacademic experience, which will come as a result ofsuch efforts as intel:ectual theme programming andinterest houses, counseling and advising, and partici-pation in academic programs.

7. Contribute to the effective and efficient managementof institutions. Student affairs leaders must under-stand and manage their organizations effectively tocontribute to the overall managerial effectiveness ofthe institution. implying effective management ofhuman and financial resources, program administra-tion and evaluation, and planning. To do so willrequire more information than most student affairsdivisions typically possess about students, costs, pro-gram effectiveness, and the like and so will requireconsiderable effort to develop them.

8. Develop appropriate skills. Student affairs profession-als, to meet the challenges of a new role, must availthemselves of opportunities to develop new skillscredit and noncredit courses and programs, campus-based programs, and programs and activities ofnational associations or higher education managerentinstitutes.

To accomplish these goals, student affairs professionalsmust be supported by their institutions. Therefore, institu-tions should seek to.

1. Recognize, enhance, and support the efforts of stu-dent affairs. Effective student affairs programs areessential to institutional survival and vitality (Bald-ridge, Kemerer, and Green 1982), and student affairshas a substantial role 1n the pursuit of academic qual-ity and the retention of students (Study Group 1984).This evidence should be brought to the attention ofinstitutional leaders as th-v seek to creatively addresspresent and future challenges.

2. Consider student affairs full i irtners in the imt,tic-tion Along with a recognit;on of the real and poten-tial accomplishments of student affairs must come a


122

recognition that a stronger role for student affairs inthe institution will contribute to institutional vitalityand effectiveness in new ways. Student affairs profes-sionals can take leadership in areas beyond their typi-cal roles.

3. Challenge student affairs professior .ls to makegreater contributions. Institutional leaders shouldexpect student affairs staff to become more than dis-ciplinarians, custodians, and educ' -s; they shouldexpect them to integrate students' .., the institu-tion's needs and to contribute meaningfully to institu-tional vitality. Institutional leaders should challengethm to develop the outlook, skills, and vision to lookbeyond their present roles.

To fulfill an expanded role, student affairs professionalsneed to develop a wider array of skills, and building skillsmust begin in the preparation of professionals. Therefore,graduate programs must:

1. Develop present and future skills for the profession.To be an effective student affairs professional takesmore than counseling and human relations skills; itcalls for management and planning skills, researchand evaluation skills, political skills, the ability tounderstand and interpr organizations, and sensitiv-ity to the many environments of higher education.Student affairs professionals are now engaged in awider range of activities than ever before, and theywill continue to broaden their activities in the future.These new activities demand a wider range of skillsthan most graduate.. eparation programs attempt toaddress, and they must be included at all levels ofgraduate preparation.

And, finally, the general national associations for studentaffairs professionals, the National Association of StudentPersonnel Administrators (NASPA), the American CollegePersonnel Association (ACPA), and the National Associa-tion of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors(NAWDAC), should continue to provide leadership for theprofession as it evolves to meet new roles. Specifically, thenational associations must:

110

123

1. Provide direction for the profession. The nationalassociations should define and emphasize the chang-

ing role of student affairs and recognize those effortswhere student affairs staff am contributing in signifi-

cant ways to the development of the profession andthe vitality of the institution.

2. Promote continuing professional education at all lev-els If student affairs is to meet the challenges of the

present and the future, it must promote professional

development to -ater extent than before. Skills

appropriate to a new role and strategies to capita-Le

on new opportunities must be developed. Activitiesshould be promoted at the individual, institutional,state, regional, and national levels. National associa-tions for student affairs professionals must take lead-ership in designing efforts to meet the continuingprofessional development needs of a profession in

transition.

If all components join forces, a new future for the

profession can be realized, one with meaningful benefits to

students. institutions, the student affairs profession, andthe future of higher education. To do so will require signifi-cant efforts, particularly on the part of student affairsprofessionals, but while the efforts may be great, so too

will be the benefits.

Serving More Than Students 124Ill

REFERENCES

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education abstracts andindexes the current literature on higher education for the National

Institute of Education's monthly bibliographic journal, Resourcesin Education. Most of these publications are available through theERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). For publicationscited in this bibliography that are available from EDRS, orderingnumber and price are included. Readers who wish to order a pub-

lication should write to the ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-vice, 3900 Wheeler Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304. When

ordering, please specify the document number. Documents areavailable as noted in microfiche (MF) and paper copy (PC).

Because prices are subject to change, it is advisable to check thelatest issue of Resources in Education for current cost based on

the number of pages in the publication.

Abel, Janice. May 1978. "Gaining Power and Influence in theUniversity: A Viewpoint." Journal of College Student Person-

nel 19: 238-41.Abrams, Marjorie. Summer 1981. "Preparing Men and Women

Students to Work Together: A New Student DevelopmentChallenge." Journal of NAWDAC 41: 3-8.

Aery, Shaila, and Moore, Norman. 1976. "Affecting Change inStudent Services." Paper presented at the annual convention of

the American Personnel and Guidance Association, March,Dallas, Texas. ED 128 693. 15 pp. MF$0.97; PC-4,2.54.

Aiken, James. Winter 1962. "Shifting Priorities: College Counsel-

ing Centers in the Eighties." NASPA Journal 19: 15-22.

American Council on Education. 1938. The Student PersonnelPoint of View. A Report of a Conference. Washington, D.C.:

ACE.Amer, T. D.; Peterson, W. D.; Arner, C. A.; Hawkins, L. T.;

and Spooner, S. E 1977. "Student "Prsonnel Education: AProcess-Outcome Model." Journ, oj'College StudentPersod-

nel 17: 334-41.Astin, Alexander W. 1975 Prel.rnting Students from Dropping

Out. San 7rancisco: Jossey-Bass.. Winter 1984a. "A Look at Pluralism in the ContemporaryStudent Population." NASPA Journal 21: 2-11.

. July 1984b. " ..dent Involvement: A DevelopmentalTheory for Higile Jucation." Journal of College StudentPersonnel 24. 29 /-306

Astin, Alexander W., and others. 1984. The AmericanFreshmanNational Norms for Fall 1983. Los Angeles: University of Cali-

fornia Cooperative Institutional Research Program.


125

113

Balderston, Frederick E. 1978. Managing Today's University.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rakindge, J. Victor; Kemerer, Frank R.; and Green, Kenneth C.1982. The Enrollment Crisis: Factors, Actors, and Impacts.AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 3. Wash-ington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Baldridge, J. Victor, and Tierney, Michael. 1979. NewApproaches to Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barnes, Stephen F.; ..vlorton, W. Edward; and Austin, Alvin 0.Spring 1984. "The Call for Accountability: The Struggle forProgram Definition in Student Alai s." NASPA Journal 20:10-20.

Beal, Philip E., and Noel, Lee. 1980. What Works in StudentRetention. Boulder, Colo.: National Center for Higher Educa-tion Management Systems and the . lerican College TestingProgram.

Bender, Louis W. 974. "Planning after the Golden Age." InImproving Statewide Planning, edited by James L. Wattenbar-ger and Louis Bender. New Directions for Higher EducationNo. 8. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

--. 1977. Federal Regulation and Higher Education. AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 1. Washington,D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Benezet, Louis T. 1979. "Future College Students and the Roleof Student Affairs." In The Student Affairs Dean and the Pres-ident: Trends in Higher Education, edited by David C. Tilleyand others. Ann Arbor, Mich.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Coun-seling and Personnel Services. ED 169 459. 90 pp. MF$0.97;PC not available EDRS.

Bennett, Willia:n J. 1984. To Reclaim a Legacy A Report on theHumanities it Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: NationalEndowment for the Humanities.

Berdahl, Robert 0. 1971. Statewide Coordination of Higher Edu-cation. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Biggs, D. A., and Skinner, K. A. May 1979. "A Decision-makingApproach to Planning in Student Personnel." Journal ofCol-lege Student Personnel 20: 258-64.

Blocker, C E.; Bender, L.; and Martorana, S. V. 1975. ThePolitical Terrain: American Postsecondary Education. FortLauderdale. 1Tova University Press.

Blolane, P. Summer 1979. "Student Personnel Training for theChief Student Affairs Officer. Essential or Unnecessary?"NASPA Journal 17. 57-62

Bok, Derek C. 1976. "Can Ethics Be Taught`)" Change 8: 8 +.

114

12 6

Borland, David T. 1980. "Organizational Development: A Profes-sional Imperative." In Student Development in Higher Educa-tion, edited by Don G. Creamer. Cincinnati: Amencan CollegePersonnel Association.

Borland, David T., and Thomas, R. E. March 1976. "StuaentDevelopment Implementation through Expanded ProfessionalSkills." Journal of College Student Personnel 17: 145-49.

Boulding, Kenneth E. 1975. "The Management of Decline."Change 7: 5 +.

Brodzinski, Fredenck R. 1978. "The Future of Student Services:Parameters, Resources, and Consumer Interests." Paper pre-sented at the First National Conference on Student Services,October, Madison, Wisconsin. ED 175 327. 30 pp. MF$0.97;PC$5.34.

. Summer 1979. "Campus 1999: A Scenario." NASPAJournal 17: 52-56.

Brown, R. D. 1972. Student Development in Tomorrow's HigherEducation: A Return to the Academy. Student Personnel SenesNo. 16. Washington, D C.: Amencan College Personnel Asso-ciation.

. May 1985a. "Accountability and Student Development."Journal of College Student Personnel 26: 195 -96.

Winter 1985b. "Graduate Education for the StudentDevelopment Educator. A Content and Process ModelNASPA Journal 22: 38-43.

Brown, Suzanne. Spring 1981. "An Evaluation Process for Stu-dent Affairs Agencies." NASPA Journal 18: 2-13.

Brubacher, John S. 1971 The Courts and Higher Education.Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, W. 1976. Higher Education inTransition. New York: Harper & Row.

Canon, Harry J. 1980. "Developing Staff Potential." In StudentServices, edited by U. Delworth and G. Hanson. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.. March 1984. "Developmental Tasks for the ProfessionThe Next 25 Years." Journal of College Student Personnel 25.105-11.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1971 The Capitoland the Campus New Yolk. McGraw-Hill.

Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. 1975More Than Survival. Prospects for Higher Education in aPeri9d of Uncertainty San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

1980. Three Thousand Futures San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.


127

Carpenter, D. Stanley, and Miller, Theo..ore K. Summer 1981.An Analysis of Professional Development in Student Affairs

Work." NASPA Journal 19: 2-11.Casper, Irene G., and Morey, Ruth A. 1976. "Management Infor-

mation Systems and the Role of Student .1ffairs." Paper pre-sented at the annual convention of the National Association ofStudent Personnel Administrators, April, Chicago, Illinois. ED138 909. 19 pp. MF$0.97; PC not available EDRS.

Centra, John A. 1980. "College Enrollments in the 1980s: Projec-tions and Possibilities." Journal of Higher Education 51: 19-38.

Chen, Earl F. 1971. The New Depression in Higher Education.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chickering, Arthur W. 1969. Education and Identity. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

--. 1974. Comm ...fig versus Resident Students: OvercomingEducational Inequities of Living Off Campus. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, Arthur W., and associates. 1981. The Modern Ameri-can College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Stu-dents and a Changing Society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

College Entrance Examination Board. 1980. UndergraduateAdmissions: The Realities of Institutional Policies, Practices,and Procedures. New York: CEEB. ED 1% 351. 86 pp. MF$0.97; PC not available EDRS.

Cope, Robert G. 1981. Strategic Planning, Management, andDec:sic::: Waking. AAHE-ERIC Higher Education ResearchReport No. 9. Washington, D.C.: American Association forHigher Education.

Council of Student Personnel Associations. November 1975."Student Development Services in Postsecondary Education."Journal of College Student Personnel 16: 524-28.

Cowley, W. H. 1949. "Some History and a Venture in Proph-ecy In Trends in Student Personnel Work, edited by E. G.Williamson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cox, David W , and Ivy, William A. Summer 1984. "Staff Devel-opment Needs of Student Affairs Professionals." NASPA Jour-nal 22. 26-33.

Creamer, Don G., ed. 1980. Student Development in Higher Edu-cation Theories, Practices, and Future Directions. Wasning-ton, D.C.: American College Personnel Association.

Cross, K Patricia. 1981a. Adults as Learners. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

-- March 1981b. "Planning for the Future of the StudentPersonnel Profession " Journal of College Student Personnel22 99-104

116

126

Davis, James R. Summer 1980. "Students in the 1980s: GetReady for tne Calculating Consumers." NASPA Journal 1815-20.

De Coster, David A., and Mable, Phyllis, eds. 1981. Understand-ing Today's Students. New Directions for Student Services No.16. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deegan, William L. 1981. Managing Student Affairs ProgramsMethods, Models, and Muddles. Palm Spnngs, Calif.. ETCPublications.

Delworth, Ursa la; Hanson, Gary; and associates 1980. StudentServices: A Handbook for the Profession. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Demetruhas, Diana A. M.; Sattler, Joan L.; and Graham, LeslieP. Summer 1982. "How Do You Know When You Are Hun-gry?: Disabled Students in University Settings." Journal ofNAWDAC 45: 8-13.

Desniisseaux, Paul. July 1985. "Gifts to Higher Education ReachRecord $5.6 Billion; Businesses, Foundations, Individuals AlIncrease Aid." Chronicle of Higher Education 30: 1 +.

Dewey, Mary Fvelyn. Winter 1972. "The Studer', PersonnelWorker of :980 " journal of NAWDAC 35: 59-64.

Edwards, H. 1., and Nordin, V. D. 1979. Highet Education andthe Law. Cambndge: Harvara University, Institute for Educa-tional Management

Erikson, Enk. 1963. Identity Youth and Crisis. New York W.W. Norton.

Erwin, T. Daryl, and Miller, Stephen. Spring 1985. "Technologyand the Three R's NASPA Journal 22: 47-51

Eulau, Heinz, and Quinley, Harold 1970. State Officials and..ligher Education. New York McGraw-Hill.

Fenske, Robert H. 1980. "Histoncal Foundations." In StudentServices A Handbook for the Profession, edited by UrsalaDelworth, Gary Hanson, and associates. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass

"Foreign Students in U S. Institutions, 1983-84." 5 September1984. Chronicle of Higher Education 29: 21

Foxley, Cecelia H ed. 1980a Applying Managemeni Tech-niques. New Directions for Student Services No 9. San Fran-cisco. Jossey-Bass.

. 1980b "Determinants of Managenal Effectiveness InApplying Management Techniques, edited by Cecelia H. Fox-Ley New Directions for Student Services No 9 San FranciscoJossey-Bass

Fnedan, Betty 1981 The ,Second Stage New York SummitBooks


1 2 y

Geller, William W. July 1982. "Strengthening the AcademicStudent Affairs Relationship." Journal of College Student Per-sonnel 23: 355-57.

Glenny, Lyman A. July/August 1980. "Demographic and RelatedIssues for Higher Education in the 1980s." Journal of HigherEducation 51: 363-80.

Gouldner, H. May/June 1980. "The Social Implications of Cam-pus Litigation." Journal of Higher Education 51: 328-36.

Grabowski, Stanley M. 1981. Marketing in Higher Education.AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 5. Wash-ington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Green, Kenneth C. April 1983. "Retention: An Old SolutionFinds a New Problem." AAdE Bulletin 35: 3.-6.

Greenfeig, Beverly R., and Goldberg, Barbara J. March 1984."Orienting Returning Adult Students." In Orienting Studentsto College, edited by M. Lee Uperaft. New Directions for Stu-dent Services No. 25. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Hall, Charles W. L. May 1981. Professional Development withinthe Division of Student Affairs. Hattiesburg: University ofScuthern Mississippi. ED 226 300. 29 pp. MF$0.97; PC notavailable EDRS.

Hameister, Brenda. March 1984. "Orienting Disabled Students."In Orienting Students to College, edited by M. Lee Uperaft.New Directions for Student Services No. 25. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Hamel, Richard L. Winter 1975. "Accountability: CurrentDemands on Student Personnel Programs." NASPA Journal12. 144-57.

. Summer 376. "Planning, Budgeting ad Evaluation inStudent Affairs Programs: A Manual for ALannistrators."NASPA Journal 14: i xx.

Harvey, Thomas R. March 1976. "Student Development and theFuture of Higher Education: A Force Analysis." Journal ofCollege Student Personnel 17: 90-94.

Heath, Douglas. 1968. Growing Up in College. Liberal Educationand Maturity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hencley, S. P., and Yates, J R. eds. 1974. Futurism in Educa-tion. Methodologies. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan.

Hester. Susan B., and Dickerson, Kitty G November 1982. "TheEmerging Dual Career Lifestyle: Are Your Students Preparedfor It''" Journal of College Student Personnel 23: 514-19.

Hodgkinson Harold L. 1984. "Students in the 1980s: Demogra-phy and Values " Paper presented at the National Conferencein Higher Education, American Association for Higher Educa-tion, March, Chicago, Illinois.

118

130

Hughes, Rees. Winter 1983. "The Nontraditional Student inHigher Education. A Synthesis of the Literature." NASPAJournal 20: 51 -64.

Hurst, J. C. 1980. "Challenges for the Future." In Dimensions ofIntervention for Student Development, edited by W. H. Mor-n11, J. C. Hurst, and E. R. Oettings. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

lannaccone, L. 1967. Politics in Education. New York: Centerfor Applied Research in Education.

Johnson, Cynthia S. Spring 1984. "Special Technology." NASPAJournal 21: 17-23.

Johnson, Cynthia S., and Foxley, Cecelia H. 1980. "DevisingTools for Middle Managers." In Student Services: A Handbookfor the Profession, edited by Ursala Delworth, Gary Hanson,and associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, Cynthia S., and Pyle, Richard K., eds. 1984. EnhancingStudent Development with Computers. New Directions for Stu-dent Services No. 26. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, Debra Hazel, and Steele, Brenton H. May 1984. "ANational Survey of Research Activity in Student Affairs Divi-sions." Journal of College Student Personnel 25: 200-205.

Jones, John D. Spring 1978. "Student Personnel Work: CurrentState and Future Directions." NASPA Journal 15' 2-11

Jones, Landon Y. 1980 Great Expectations. New York: Coward,McCann, Geoghegan.

Kaplan, W. A. 1978 The Law of Higher Education San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kasworm, C E. March 1980. "Student Services for the OlderUndergraduate Student." Journal of College Student Personnel21: 163-69.

Keller, George C. 1983. Academic Strategy The ManagementRevolution in American Higher Education. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Kerr, Clark. 1971. The Uses of the University Cambndge Har-vard University Press

Kirna, Bernard C., and Bolheimer, R L. Fall 1984 "CollegePresidents' Perceptions of Student Affairs Issues and Develop-ment Needs of Chief Student Affairs Officers NASPA Jour-nal 22: 2-9.

Knefelkamp. 1 .e,, L 1978. Applying New Developmental Find-ings New Directions for Student Services No. 4. San Fran-cisco Jossey-Bass

Knock, G. H., ed. 1977 Perspectives on the Preparation of Stu-dent Affairs Professionals Student Personnei Senes No. 22Washington, D C Amencan College Personnel Association


131

Kohlberg, L. 1969. "Stage and Sequence in the Cognitive Devel-opmental Approach to Socialization." In Handbook of Sociali-zation Theory and Research, edited by D. Goslin Chicago:Rand-McNally.

Kramer, Martin M. 1980. The Venture Capital of Higher Educa-tion. Berkeley, Calif.: Carnegie Council on Polic: Studies inHigher Education.

Kuh, George D. Spring 1981. "Beyond Student Development:Contemporary Priorities for Student Affairs." NASPA Journal18: 29-36.

, ed 1983 Understanding Student Affairs Organizations.New Directions for Student Services No. 23. Sari Francisco:Jossey -Bass.

. January 1984. "A Framework for Understanding StudentAffairs Organizations." Journal of College Student Personnel25: 25-31.

Kuh, George D.; Donnells, M.; Doherty, P.; and Gamshaw, P. 7.1977. "Student Development Theory in Practice... NASPAJournal 16: 48-52.

Lamont, Lansing. 1979. Campus Shock. New York: E. P. Dutton.Lasch, Christopher. 1978. Culture of Narcissism. New York: W.

W. Norton & Co.Lensing, Oscar T.; Beal, Philip E.; and Sauer, Ken 1980. Reten-

tion and Attrition Evidence for Actions and Research. Boul-der, Colo.: NCHEMS.

Lenning, Oscar T.; Sauer, Ken; and Beal, Philip E. 1980. StudentRetention Strategies. AAHE-ERIC Higher Education ResearchReport No 8 Wash igton, D.0 . American Ass( ciation forHigher Education.

Leslie, Larry L. January/February "380. "The Financial Pros-pects for Higher Education in the 1980s." Journal of HigherEducation 15. 1-17.

Leslie, Larry L , and Miller, H. F., Jr 1974. Higher Educationand the Steady State. AAHE-ERIC Higher EducationResearch Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: American Associa-tion for Higher Education.

Levine, Arthur. 1980. When Dreams and Heroes Died. San Fran-cisco Jossey-Bass

Levinson, Daniel, and others 1978 The Seasons of a Man's Life.New York: Ballantine

Lewis, C. T , Leach, E R.; and Lutz, L. L. 1983 "A MarketingModel for Student Retention." NASPA Journal '._,3: 15-19.

Litten, Larry, January/February 1980. "Marketing Higher Educa-tion Journal of Higher Education 51. 40-59

120

132

McBee, Mary Luise. Summer 1982. "Helping Handicapped Stu-dents Succeed in College." Journal of NAWDAC 45: 3-7.

McConnell, T. R. July 1970. "Student Personnel Services: Cen-tral or Penpheral9" NASPA Journal 8. 55-63.

Martorana, S. V., and Corbett, Patricia C. 1983. State LegislationAffecting Community, Junior, and Two-Year Technical Col-leges, 1982. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State Univer-sity, Center for the Study of Hig.ier Education.

Matthews, Jana B., and Norgaard, Roif. 1984. Managing thePartnership between Higher Education and Industry. Boulder,Colo.: NCHEMS.

Meabon, David L.; Suddick, David E.; Owens, Hilda F.; andKlein, Anna C. Spring 1981. "A Reexamination of the NationalTrends of Management Techniques in Student Affairs." Jour-nal of College Student Personnel 18: 14-2L

Meneenhall, W. R.; Miller, T. K.; and Winston, R. B., eds. 1982.Administration and Leadership in Student Affairs. Muncie,Ind.: Accelerated Development.

Millard, R. M. 1976. State Boards of Higher Education. AAHE-ERIC higher Education Research Report No 4. Washington,D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Miller, T. K , and Prince, Judith 1977. The Future of StudentAffairs San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mingle, James R., and Noms, Donald M. 1981. "InstitutionalStrategies for Responding to Decline." In ChallengesRetrenchment, by James R. Mingle and associates. Si, In-

cisco: Jossey-Bass.Moos, Rudolph H. 1979. Evaluating Educational Environments.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Morrill, W. H. 1980. "Training Student Affairs Professionals." In

Dimensions of Intervention for Student Development, edited byW H. Momll, J. C. Hurst, and E. R Oettings. New York:John Wiley & Sor s.

Momll, W. H., and Banning, J. 1973. "Dimensions of TrainingCampus Mental Health Professionals." Mimeographed. Boul-der, Colo.. WICHE Task Force on Training

Momll, W. H.; Hurst, J. C : and Oettings, E. R., eds. 1980.Dimensions of Intervention for Student Development. NewYork John Wiley & Sons.

Mortimer, K. P., and `Laney, M L. 1979 The Three "R's" ofthe Eighties. Reduction, Retrenchment, and ReallocationAAHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 4 Wash-ington, D.0 . Amencan Association for Higher Education.

Mueller, Kate H. 1961. Student Personnel Work in Higher Edu-cation. Boston Houghton-Mifflin


133

Murphy, J. T. 1980. The State Role in Education: Past Researchand Future Directions. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University,Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Gover-nance. ED 193 798. 36 pp. MF$0.97; PC$.

Meyers-Briggs, I. 1962. Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton,N J.: Educational Testing Service.

Naisbitt, John. 1982. Megatrends. New York: Warner Books.National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A

Nation at Risk. Washington. D.C.: National Institute ofEducation.

Nelson, J., and Murphy, H. 1980. The Projected Effects ofEnrollment and Budget Reductions on Student Personnel Ser-vices." NASPA Journal 17: 2-10.

Newton, Fred B., and Richardson, Robert L. September 1976."Expected Entry-level Competencies of Student PersonnelWorkers." Journal of College Student Personnel 17: 426-30.

O'Keefe, Michael. May/June 1985. "Whatever Happened to theCrash of '80, '81, '82, '83, '84, '85?" Change 17: 37-41.

Ostar, Allen W. 1 July 1985. "Quality and Equality in HigherEducation." Higher Education and National Affairs 34: 7.

Ostroth, D. David. January 1981. "Competencies for Entry-levelProfessionals: What Do Employers Look for When Hiring NewStaff?" Journal of College Student Nrsainel 22: 5-11.

Ostroth, D. David; Efird, Frances D.; and Lerman, Lewis S. Sep-tember 1984. "Career Patterns of Chief Student Affairs Offi-cers." Journal of College Student Personnel 25: 443-47.

Palm, Richard L. Fall 1984. "Student Personnel Administrationat the Small College." NASPA Journal 22: 48-55.

Palmer, Stacy E. 11 July 1984. "Mull Enrollments." Chronicleof Higher Education 28: 13.

Papier, D. R. 1977 "Is There a Lawyer in the House?" Change9 14-16.

Parker, Dolores, and Eliason, Carol. July 1980. Adult Counselingfor Sex Equity in Postsecondary Education. Washington, D.C.:Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Edu-cation, Women's Educational Equity Act Program. ED 192176. 57 pp. MF$0.97; PC$7.14.

Perry, W , Jr 1970. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Develop-ment in the College Years A Scheme New York: Holt, Rine-hart & Winston.

Pillinger, B. B , and Kraack, T. A. Winter 1981. "Long-rangePl; nning: A Key to Effective Management." NASPA Journal18 8-17.

Pirnot, Karen A., and Dunn, Wendy L. Summer 1983. "ValuePriorities of Adult Students." Journal of NAWDAC 46: 22-25.

122

134

Priest, Douglas M.; Alphenaar, W. J.; and Boer, W. J. Summer1980. "Long-range Planning: Implications and Applications forthe Chief Student Personnel Administrator." NASPA Journal18: 2-7.

Pruitt, Anne S. March 1979. "Preparation of Student Develop-ment Specialists during the 1980s." Counselor Education andSupervision 18: 190-98

Racippo, Vincent C., and Fox ley, Cecelia H. 1980. "MIS: A Toolfor Planning and Eva lution." In Applying Management Tech-niques, edited by Cecelia H. Fox ley. New Directions for Stu-dent Services No. 9. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rhatigan, James J. Fall 1979. "Looking Forward to the 1980s."NASPA Journal 17: 2-10.

Rickard, S. January 1972. "The Role of the Chief Student Per-sonnel Administrator Revisited." NASPA Journal 9: 219-26

Rodgers, Robert F. 1982. "Using Theory in Practice." In Admin.istra:ion and Leadership in Student Affairs, edited by W. R.Mendenhall, T. K. Miller, and R. B. Winston. Muncie, Ind.:Accelerated Development.

Rosenthal, A., and Fuhrman, S. 1981. Legislative EducationLeadership in the States. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Edu-cational Leadership.

Rudolph, Frederick. 1962. The American College and UniversityNew York: Vintage Books.

Rumberger, Russel W. July/August 1984. "The Job Market forCollege Graduates, 1960-90." Journal of Higher Education 55:433-54.

Sampson, James P., Jr. Winter 1982. "Effective ComputerResource Management: Keeping the Tail from Wagging theDog." NASPA Journal 19: 38-46

Sandeen, Arthur. Fall 1982. "Profzssional Preparation Programsin Student Personnel Services in Higher Education: A NationalAssessment by Chief Student Affairs Officers." NASPA Jour-nal 20: 51-58.

Sanford, Nevitt. 1962. The American College. New York. JohnWiley & Sons.

Saiirman, K., and Nash, R 1975 "MBO, Student Development,and Accountability." NASPA Journal 13. 179-89.

Schroeder, R. G. 1975 An Approach for Improved Planning inColleges Paper presented at Institute of Management Scienceand Operations Research Society of America, May, Chicago,Illinois

Schumpeter, Joseph. 1934 The Theory of Economic Develop-ment. Cambridge Harvard University Press.


135

Shaffer, R. H. 1973. "An Emerging Role of Student Personnel:Contributing to Organizational Effectiveness." Journal of Col-lege Student Personnel 14: 386-91.

. March 1984. "Critical Dimensions of Student Affairs inthe Decades Ahead." Journal of College Student Personnel 25:

112-14.Shay, John E., Jr. Fall 1984 "Point of View: The Chief Student

Affairs Officer and the President: Revisiting an Old Issue."NASPA Journal 22: 55-58.

Silverman, Robert J. January 1971. "The Student PersonnelWorker on the Boundary." Journal of College Student Person-nel 12: 3-6.

. Fall 1980. "The Student Personnel Administrator as aLeading Edge Leader." NASPA Journal 18: 10-15.

Smith, Daryl G. Spring 1982. "The Next Step beyond StudentDevelopment: Becoming Partners within Our Institutions."NASPA Journal 19: 53-62.

Spooner, Susan E. January 1979. "Preparing the Student Devel-opment Specialist: The Process-Outcome Model Applied."Journal of College Student Personnel 20: 45-53.

Stadtman, Verne A. 1980. Academic Adaptations: Higher Educa-tion Prepares for the 1980s and 1990s. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stafford, Thomas H., Jr.; Marion, Paul B.; and Salter, M. Lee.Summer 1980. "Adjustment of International Students."NASPA Journal 18: 40-45.

Stamatakos, Louis C., and Rogers, Russell B. September 1984."Student Affairs: A Profession in Need of a Philosophy."Journal of College Student Personnel 25: 400-411.

Stark, Joan S., and associates. 1977. The Many Faces of Zduca-nano! Consumerism. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Strange, C. 1981. "Organizational Barriers to Student Develop-ment." NASPA Journal 19: 12-20.

Strange, C., and Contomanolis, E. 1983. "Knowledge Percep-tions of Human Development Theory among Student AffairsMasters Students." Journal of College Student Personnel 24.

197-201."Student Services Key in Retention Project." 25 June 1984.

National On-Campus Report 25: 1.

Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American HigherEducation. 1984. Involvement in Learning. Realizing thePotential of American Higher Education. Wasuington, D.C.:National Institute of Education

124

136

Suchinsky, Richard T. Spring 1982. "Psychological Characteris-tics of the 1980s College Student: An Exploration of the Psy-chologic Processes Involved in the Development of the Narcis-sistic Character Pattern." NASPA Journal 19: 13-22.

Thomas, Russell E.; Murrell, Patricia; and Chickering, Artnur W.Summer 1982. "Critical Ftc.le of Value Development in StudentDevelopment." NASPA Journal 20: 3-13.

Toff ler, Alvin. 1970. Futur? Shock. New York antam Books.

Truitt, J. W., and Gross, R. F. 1970. "In-Service Education forCollege Student Personnel." In New Dimensions it, StudentPersonnel Administration, edited by 0. R. Herron, Jr. Scran-ton, Pa.: International Textbook Co.

University of Minnesota. 1981. "..anning and Evaluation Infor-mation in the Office of Student Affairs: Review and Recom-mendations." Office of Student Affairs Research Fulleaa 22

(3). Minneapolis: Author. ED 214 473. 96 pp. MF-$11.97;PC$9.36.

Uperaft, M. L.; Finney, J. E.; and Garland, Peter. 1984. "Orien-tation: A Context." In Orienting Students to College,edited byM. Lee Uperaft. New Directions for Student Services No. 25.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Uperaft, M. L.; Peterson, P. C.; and Moore, B. L. 1981. TheAcademic and Personal De 'elopment of Penn late F-eshmen.University Park, Pa 'ennsylvania State University.

Vasquez, M. J., and Chavez, E. L. 1980. "Unique Stu nt Popu-

lations." In Dimensions of Intervention for Student Develop-ment, edited by W. H. Morrill, J. C. Hurst, and E. R. Oettings.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Weathersby, R. P., and Tarule, J. M. 1980. Adult Development.Imphiations for Higher Education. AAHE-ERIC Higher Edu-cation Research Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation for Higher Education.

Wheaton, Janilee B., and Robinson, Daniel C. Fall 1983."Responding to the Needs of Reentry Women: A a mprehen-sive Campus Model." NASPA Journal 21: 44-51.

Widick, Carole; Knefelkamp, Lee; and Parker, Clyde A. 1980"Student Development." In Student Services: A Handbook forthe " -lession, edited by Ursala Delworth. Gary Hanson, andassociates. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Williamson, E. G., ed. 1949. Trends in Student Personnel Work.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wright, Doris J 1984. "Orienting Minority Students In Orient-ing Students to College edited by M. Lee Uperaft. New Direc-tions for Student Services No. 25 San Francisco Jossey-Bass


1 3 I

INDEX

A

Ability 's. aspiration, 33Academic advising

adult student needs, 35faculty/student affairs role, 66growth of, 5need for, 46, 63, 84role in retention, 48-49, 64, 83

Academic affairs, 56Academic deference from courts, 23Academic dishonesty, 38Academic probation: counseling, 50Academic support function, 7, 13, 65Academically underprepared, 11, 33, 36, 48, 85Access to education, 11, 30-31, 33Access to learning services, 35Accountability

funds, 25higher education, 1, 14, 21-23information processing model, 75student affairs programs, 55

ACPA (see American College Personnel Association)ACT score decline, 33ADAM (Acquisition of Data for Accountability and M'nagement)

model, 75Adjustment

cultural: foreign students, 31-32disabled students, 34

Administrative skills, 91-93Admissions (see also Preadmission), 6, 23, 64, 67Adult development 101-102Adult students, 11, 30, 34-35, 101Affirmative action, 23Aging society, 14Agncultural majors, 37Alumni

activities, 52career networks, 85support, 69

American Council on Education, 5American College Persoimr1 Association lACPA). 6. 110Architectural barriers, 34Army: use of testing/counseling, 5Aspiration vs. ability, 33Assertiveness training, 30Athletics, 4, 5

Sen ng "91-e Than Students 127

13d

Attrition rates/costs (se also Retention), 31, 48Azusa Pacific University: student retention, 2

B

Baby boom, 1, 11, 13-14Bachelor's as terminal degree, 37Basic skills, 33, 84Behavior codes, 40Biggs and Skinner planning model, 76Birth rate, 1, 11-12Black students, 11, 30Bryn Mawr College: summer program for women, 97Budget reductions, 26Budgeting skills, 77-78Business majors, 36, 37Business/industry relationships, 21, 53-54

C

California: retention efforts, 2, 7Career choice, 36-37Career planning, 5, 13, 15, 35, 38, 40, 48, 63, 66. 85Career planning networks, 54, 85Career pressures, 14Carson-Newman College: Project RETAIN, 50Change rate, 18Chapman College: student retention, 2Cheating, 38Civil rights, 23, 24Cocurricular interest houses, 67Collaboration

business and colleges, 53-54faculty and student affairs workers, 66-67

College atiendance: recognition of benefits, 30College choice, 63Community College of Allegheny County

student activities management system, 44, 85Commuter students, 27, 46, 84Competencies entry level student affairs, 93-94Competition

funds, 14, 21, 79jobs, 13students, 21, 46, 63

Comnliance with state/federal statutes, 22. 2?Computer-assisted systems, 44, 45, 77, SsComputer science majors, 37Constitutional nghts, 23, 24

128

133

Consumer onentationstudent affairs, 67-70student attitudes, 24, 38-39

Continuing professional education, 72, 95-98, 111Contractual obligations, 24, 25, 39Cooperative education, 54Cooperative Institutional Research Project, 37Cost information needs, 22Council for Financial Aid to Education, 51Counseling

development of. 5, 6need for, 13, 30, 35, 40, 63, 84role in retention, 48, 50, 64, 83

Court litigation, 23-25, 39, 51Credibility: student affairs, 71, 82, 91, 101, 103, 108

Cultural activity funds, 53Cultural differences, 31-32, 101Curriculum development

student, 65student personnel professionals, 89-91

Custodian role, 4-5

D

Day care services, 30Dean of personnel. first, 4Debating societies, 4Decision-making: student affairs, 44Degrees: expansion of, 41Demographic changes, 11-14, 70Development activities, 52Developmental theory (see Student developmemiDisabled, 11, 33-34, 36, 84. 91Disciphnanan role, 3-4Discipline of students, 4, 23, 40Discretionary funds, 26Discnmination, 24, 30Dishonesty, 38Doctoral programs student personnel, 92Dropout prevention, 46, 50, 6SDue process, 23, 24, 39

E"Early warning system" retention, 46, 65Education pol:cy, 21-23Education-work relationship. 18Educator role, 5-7


14o

130

Fliot, Char'es William, 4Endowment funds, 53Engineering majors, 35, 57English proficiency, 32Enrollment management, 45-47, 50, 66, 84Enrollment projections, 12Equal opportunity, 23, 33Evaluation skills, 80-81Evaluations: formal, 74Exit interviews, 65Extracurricular activities

development of, 4, 27narcissistic attitude, 18, 38, 40relationship to retention, 65

F

Faculty development, 65Faculty relationships, 58, 62, 66, 108Family counseling. 30Family influence, 31, 32, 35Federal accountability, 23Federal aid (see Student financial aid)Federal regulations, 23Financial condo ins, 25-26Financial aid (see Private financial support, Student financial aid)Financial management skills, 77-78, 85Financial problems, 32, 75, 103Fine arts majors, 37Food services, 6Foreign students, 31-32, 35Forestry majors, 37Fraternities, 4Frostburg State College. information processing, 75Fund-raising, 42, 52Furmi University

student affairs planning. 44SWOTS program assessment. 75

G

Generalists need for, 18Global issues, 19Goal integration, 62-66. 108Goal-setting

institutional, 74student affairs, 44. 78

Grade tracking, 45

1 4 i

Graduate programs: student personnel, 89-96, 98, .10Greek letter societies, 4, 86

HHandbooks: management strategies, 54Handicapped (see Disabled)Harvard University

first personnel dean, 4Institute for Educational Management. 97

Harvey Mudd College: student retention, 2Health and fitness focus, 18Health services, 5High school complet'on rate: Hispanics, 30High school prepara.ion, 33High school students: research on, 80Higher education

as a state agency, 22changes, 1-2, 41-43"golden age," 25"new depression," 25political trends, 21-27

Hispanic students, 11, 12, 30History of student affairs, 1-7Homesickness, 32Housing, 6, 32, 65, 83Human development theory, 101-102Human relations skills, 92-93Human resource management, 78Humanities majors, 37

IIn loco oarerais. 3, 6, 24,10Independent study, 3.Indastnal change, 14-Information age. I, 14-16, 36Information sources. 77Information systems, 44-45, 75-77Inservice education, 95Institute for Educational Management, 97Institutional Image, 46, 48, 63"Institutional integrator" rcle, 3, 7, 47, 57-72, 103Institutional mission, 19, 46, 81, 102Institutional relationship, 2, 40, 48, 56-58. 62-66, 81-82, 97,

107-110Institutional researchers, 67Institutional vitality, 4 I 4 2

Serving More Than St..dent8 131

142

Instructional techniques, 41International students, 31-32, 35Internships, 54, 85Interpreters for disabled, 34Interviewing center, 54Involvement in Learning, 26

JJob descriptions, 74John Jay College of Criminal Justice retention strategy, 56Judicial influence, 23

L

Law majors, 36Leadership role. 58, 62Learning disabilities (see Disabled)Learning skills centers, 33Learning styles, 12, 30Legal issues, 23-25, 50-51Legislation increases, 22, 23Liability, 25, 51Liberal arts career internships. 85Life goals, 37Life stages, 102Lifelong learning, 15, 19Lifestyle counseling, 30Literary societies, 4Litigation (see Court litigation)Long-range planning, 43, 76, 87Longitudinal studies, 80Loyola Marymount University student retention, 2

M

Mainstreaming student affairs, 60-62Majors, 37Management information systems. 76-77Management skills, 73-78, 91-93, 97Management strategies, 54Management system: student activities. 44Marketing, 46-47, 63-64Math skills, 33"Me-ism," 17Miami-Dade Community College grade tracking. 45Middle-aged society, 13Minority students. 1, 12-13, 30-31 35 44 91.97Mission statements, 46, 74

143

Modelsaccountability, 5:ADAM information processing, 75Biggs and Skinner planning, 76POWS pianning/evaluation, 75-esource management, 23Schroeder planning, 76Student Affairs Program Evaluation Process, 75student development, 6student personnel curriculum, 90, 94-96SWOTS program assessment, 75

Monitoring student progress, 85Montana State University: career planning, 85Mount St. Mary's College: student retention, 2

N

Narcissism, 17-18, 38, 39National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

(NASPA), 55, 110National Asso-iation of Women Deans, Administrator,, and

Counselors (NAWDAC), 1National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 23National surveys: retention strategies, 49Native Americans, 30-31NAWDAC (see National Association of Women Deans,

Administrators, and Counselors)Networks: career placement. 54, 85Nontraditional careers, 16 37Nontraditional students, 11, 29-36, 42, 69, 84-85North Carolina State University foreign students, 32"Now" generation, 17

0Older students. 30, 34-35Opportunity as a profession, 60-62Organizational change. 103Organizational skills. 81-82, 89, 93, 97Orientation, 6, 34, 65, 67, 83, 84Outcome information needs, 22Outreach programs. 48

PParents association, 7, 52Part-time students, 27, 32-33, 36, 84


144

Pennsylvania State Universityfunds for interviewing center, 54parents association, 7,52

Performing arts majors, 37Persister characteristics, 64Personal success motivation, 37-38Physical disabilities (see Disabled)Pitzer College: student reternion, 2Plagiarism, 38Planning

commissions, 22comprehensive, 43-44need for, 61,87skills/models, 74-76

Policy change: retention effect, 65Political skills, 79-80Political trends, 21-27Politicization of higher education, 21 ??POWS (problems, objectives, workshops) model, 75Practicums, 54Preadmission

for disabled, 34role in recruitment/retention, 83

Preventive law, 50-51Private colleges

priv.te financial support, c2student retention, 7state involvement, 22

Pnvate financial support, 51-53Productivity improvement, 41Professional associations, 97,98,110-111Professional development, 95-98Program evaluation- student affairs, 44,75, 85Program planning/review, 67Project RETAIN, 50"Promotion squeeze," 13Public colleges

accoun.,,13:lity, 22pnvate financial support. 52

QQuality recommendations for, 26-27Quality of student life, 63Questionnaires

Student Descnptive Questionnaire, 4'Student Development Task Inventory. 45

134

140

RRecorders for disabled, 34Recordkeeping, 76-77Recruitment (see Student recruitment)Reeducation, 15-16, 34Reentry students, 30, 35, 84Registration, 5, 6Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 33Religious traditions, 31Remedial training need, 33Research and evaluation skills, 80-81, 108Research projects, 67Residence life program development, 46Resource management, 23, 54RETAIN Project, 50Retention

Califorr'a efforts, 2, 7planning, 46, 48-50strategies, 64-66student affairs role, 69, 83-84

Retraining, 15-16, 34Retrenchment: student affairs role, 78-80Role expectations, 16. 82Role models, 29-30Role perception. student affairs. 59(-0

S

SAT score decline, 7,3Scheduling flextbilit, , 30, 32, 35Scholarship funds, 53Schroeder planning model, 76Scnpps College: student retention, 2Section 504, Rehabilitation Act, 33Sex roles, 16-17, 40Sexual harassment, :,.Skill development (see also Study skills)

budgeting, 77-78human resource management, 78management, 73-78need for, 109-110organizational, 81 82, 89political, 79-80research and evaluation, 80-81

Social changes, 1, 11-19Social science majors, 37


146

Socializationforeign students, 32relationship to retention, 49-50women, 17, 30

Sponsored research, 23Staff development, 65, 95State actiorJaccountability, 22-23State coordinating/governing board, 22Stetson University

POWS model, 75student affairs planning, 44

Strategic planning, 43Stress

cultural, 32family/job. 32social change, 18, 19, 40

Student activities: repackaging, 86Student affairs

accountability model, 55changing role, 83, 87-88, 98consumer orientation, 67-70external focus, 70-71funding problems, 55, 60goals, 82, 108history, 1, 57Implications of social change, 15-19, 27institutional influence, 61-62legal issues, 24-25, 50-51management strategies, 54need for codification of rules, 51opposing motivations, 59-60philosophical basis, 5-6, 59, 68planning models, 75-76recommendations for student involvement, 26-27relationship to development/fund-raising, 52-53relationship to faculty, 58, 66-67, 71, 91relationship to institution, 2, 40, 48, 56-58, 62-66, 81-82,

97, 107-110relationship to retention, 49-50research areas, 80-81response tc consumerism, 39, 51response to nontraditional students, 35-36. 39-40, 84-85response to vocationalism, 37services, 5-7

Student affairs personneladvocate/advisor role, 8

136

1 4

contemporary role, 7-9credentials, 92credibility, 67, 71, 82, 91, 101, 103, 108custodian role, 4-5disciplinanan role, 3-4educator role, 5-7entry-level competencies, 93-94evaluation skills, 80-81financial management skills, 77-78institutional integrator role, 3, 8-9, 27, 47, 57-72, 103management skills, 73-78, 97organizational skills, 81-81political skills, 79-80relationship to president, 79research and evaluation skills, 80-81skill development, 73-83, 96-97training, 89-93, 98

Student Affairs Program Evaluation Process, 75Student-college relationship, 50Student data collection, 44, 77Student Descriptive Que- .ionnairc, 45Student development

commitment to/ nodel, b-7definition, 100function, 99integration with administrative practice, 102-103involvement theory, 104-105sex role changes, 17success factor, 66theones, 68-69, 82, 99-101

Student Development Task Inventory, 45Student financial aid

accountability, 23flexibility, 13, 30, 32, 35provided by student affairs, 6role in retention, 65, 83

Student government, 86Student involvement. developmental theory, 104-105Student life emphasis, 50Student media, 86Student organizations, 25, 86Student publications, 4Student recruitment, 12. 47-48, 63-64, 66, 69, 83-84Strident research, 67Student 1:..tention (see Retention)Student rights, 24 -25, 38


14d

Student services (see Student affairs)Students

academically underprepared, 11, 33, 36, 85changes, 2, 29-40characteristics, 36-40commuter, 27, 46, 84demand for services, 68-69disabled, 11, 33-34, 36, 84diversity: developmental issues, 101-102expectations, 12, 14international, 31-32, 35involvement in the institution, 2-3, 26-27, 104minorities, 30-31, 35, 84narcissism. 17-18, 38needs assessment, 45, 64older, 30, 34-35part-time, 27, 32-33, 36, 84persister vs. nonpersister, 64personal success motivation, 37-38research on, 80-81traditional vs. nontraditional age, 11-12, 29vocationalism, 36-37women, 29-30, 35, 84

Study skills, 48, 63Success motivation, 37-38Summer jobs, 54Sun 1)elt, 14Support groups, 30Support services

evening/weekend 32nontraditional students, 84role in retention, 83

SWOTS program assessment model, 75

T

Time management, 78Tomorrow's Higher Education Project, 6, 69

ining. student personnel professionals, 89-93, 110-111Trrisfer prevention, 50Transportation needs: disabled, 14Tutr,rs (,:oloniall, 3

U

UnderpreparL. students, 11, 33, 36, 48, 85University of Georgia underprepared students, 85University of Iowa underprepared students, 33

138

14J

University of Maryland: adult students, 7, 35University of Maine at Farmivon: faculty/student affairs

relationship, 67University of Nebraska: student affairs evaluat.on, 75, 85

V

Valueschallenges to, 18changing, 37, 40development of, 86-87older students, 34relationship to student activities, 83student affairs vs. institutional, 108

Vocationalism, 36-37, 85

WWeekend programs, 48Western theory of human behavior, 31Women

as student population, 11, 29-30, 35, 37, 84human development theory, 101inclusion in curricula, 91nmtraditional careers, 16summer management program, 97

Workforce changes, 15Workshops: career planning 85Writing skills, 33

V

"Youth culture," 13


150

ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTS

Starting in 1983, the Ass,..iciation for the Study of Higher Educationassumed cosponsorship of the Higher Education Reports with the ERICClearinghous, ri Higher Education. For the previco.., I I years, ERIC andthe Amencan A ociation for Higher Education prepared and publishedthe reports.

Each report is the definitive analysis of a tough higher education prob-lem, based on a thorough research of pertinent literature and institutionalexpenences Report topics, identified by a national survey, are written bynoted practitioners and scholars with prepublication manuscript reviewsby experts.

Eight monographs (10 monographs before 1985) in the ASHE-ERICHigher Education Repoli senes are published each year, available inai-vidually or by subscription. Subscription to eight issues is $55 regular; $40for members of AERA, AAHE and AIR: $35 for members of ASHE.(Add $7 50 outside the United States.)

Prices for single copies, including 4th class postage and handling, are$' 50 regular and $6.00 for members of AERA, AAHE, AIR, and ASHE($6 0 regular and $5 00 t members for reports published before 1933).If faster 1st class postage is desired for U.S. and Canadian orders, add$ 75 for each publication ordered: overseas, add $4.50. For VISA andMasterCard payments, include card number, expiration date, and signa-ture. Orders under $25 must be prepaid. Bulk discounts are available onorders of 15 or more reports (not applicable to s-oscnptions). Order filmthe Piibl'cations Department, Association for I e Study of Higher Educa-tion, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, D C. 2J036, 202/296-2597 Write for a publication list of al, tn.. Higher Education Reportsavailable

1985 Higher Education P.erts

1 Flexibility in Ai -um.. Staffing Effective Policies and PracticesKenneth P Mortimer, Marque Ragshaw, and Andrew T Masland

2. Associations in Action. Th, Washington, D C , HigherEducation Community

Harland G. Bloland

3 And on the Seventh Day Faculty C -nsulting andSuppleme nal Income

Carol M Boyer and Darrell R Lewis

4 FLculty Research Performance Lessons from the Sciences andSocial Sciences

John W Crewe.'

5 Academic Program R views. Institutional Amu oches, Expectations,and Ccraroversies

Clifton F Conrad and Richard F Wilson

6 Students in Urban Settings A- nieving th,. Baccalaureate DegreeRichard C Richardson. Jr , and Louis / Bender

7. Serving More Than Students A Critical Need for College StudentPersonnel Services

Peter H. Garland


151

1984 Higher Education Reports

1 Adult Learning: State Pohcie.. Ind Institutional PracticesK Patricia Cross and Anne-Marie MeCartan

2 Student Stress: Effects and SolutionsNeal A Whitman, David C Spendlove and Claire H. Clark

3 Part-time Faculty Higher Education at a CrossroadsJudith M. Gappa

4 Sex Discnnunation Law in Higher Education The Lessons of thePast Decade

J. Ralph Lindgren, Patti T Ota, Perry A. Zirkel, andNan Van Gieson

5 Faculty Freedoms and Institutional Accountabdity Interactions andConflicts

Steven G Olswang and Barbara A Lee

6 The High-Technology Connection. Academic Industrial CooperationFor Economic Growth

Lynn G. Johnson

7 Employee Educational Progr tms. Implications for Industry andHigher Education

Suzanne W Morse

8 Academic Libraries. The Changir, Knowledge Centers of Collegesand Universiaes

Barbara B Moran

9 l'utures Research and the Strategic Planning Process Implications forHigher Education

James L Morris m, William L Renfrc, and Wayne I Boucher10 Faculty Workload. Research, Theory, and Interpretation

Harold E Yuker

1983 Higher E lucadon Reports

1 The Path to Excellence Quality Assurance in Higher EducatiblLaurence R Marcus, Anita 0 Leone, and Edward D Goldberg

2 Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Fair Employment. Obligationsand Opportunities

John S Waggaman

3 Meeting the Challenges Developing Faculty CareersMichael C. T. Brookes and Katherine L German

4 Raising Academic Standards. A Guide to Learning ImprovementRuth Talbott Keimig

5 Serving Learners at a Distance A Guide to Program PracticesCharles E Feasley

6 Competence, Admissions, and Articulation Returning to the Basics.n Higher Education

Jean L Preer7 hiblic Service in H gher Education Practices and Priorities

Patricia H Crosson

.42

152

8 A ademic Employment and Retrenchment Judicial Review andAdministrative Action

Robert M Hendrickson and Barbara A Lee

9 Burnout The New kcademic DiseaseWinifred Albizu Melendez and Rafael M de Guzman

10 Academic Workplace. New Demands, Heightened TensionsAnn E. Austin and Zelda F Gamson


153

Baas

41111111IMMIli

Yes, I want to receive the other 7reports in the 1985 ASHE-ERICHigher Education Report series atthe special discount price I have .ustbought Report No at S7 50Please deduct this amount from theprice of my subscription

ORDER FORM

Association for the Study ofHigher Education

One %pont Circle, Suite 630Washington. D.C. 20036Phone. (202) 296-2597

Name

Position

Inst AddressType Subscription This issue TOTALRegular SSC. 00 S7 50 547 50

AERA, AtRAAHE memberemer 540 00 57 50 S32 50 Day Phone

SignatureASHE member 535 00 $1 50 527 50

A valuable series, especially for reviewing andrevising academic programs These reports can saveus all from pitfalls and frustrations

Mark H Curtis former PresidentAssociation of American Colleges

Check enclosed (payable to ASHE)

Purchase order attached

Charge my VISA account

Exp date

Charge my Mas'erCard account

Exp date

Dear Librarian,I have lust finished reading one of the 1985ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports (ISSN0884-0040) I found it outstanding and stronglyrecommend that our institution subscra tothe series At 555 00 for 8 issues it is a bargain

Signed,

Name

Title

ASUfkrrk-Oicl®Association for the Study of Higher Educationv.' I George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Dept. 51Washington, D.0 20036Phone. (202) 296-2597

1 5

ORDER FORM

No

1985 Series S55 00

1986Series S55 00

Plea., place a

standing order(si for this

institution S55 00 yr

TOTAL

Amount

Name

Position

inst Address

Day °hone

Signature

:2, Check enclosed (payable to ASHE)

Purchase order attached

FROM

FROM:

Place

Stamp

Here

Association for the Study of Higher EducationAttent;on Subscription DepartmentOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washington, DC 20036

ATTN: Serial Acquisitions Dept.The Library

155

place

Stamp

Here

PETER H. GARLAND currently serves as program analyst inthe Office of Higher Education, Pennsylvania Departmentof Education, and is completing the Ph.D. in higher educa-tion at Pennsylvania State University. At Penn State,where he received his M.A., he served as research assis-tant in the Cent-r for the Study of Higher Education midassistant director of Residence Hall Programs. His recentpublications include articles on the changing context forstudent affairs, students' changing interests and outlooks,and public policy in higher education.

ISBN 0-913317-26-8>->*750

156