Survey of Chief Student Affairs Officers Regarding Relevance of Graduate Preparation of New Professionals

Survey of Chief Student Affairs Officers Regarding Relevance of Graduate Preparation of New Professionals Richard J. Herdlein III The study examines the perceptions of chief student affairs officers at 50 colleges/ universities in order to provide insights into the extent to which preparation programs are effectively preparing new professionals for the field. The results of the study will assist faculty teaching in these programs in future decisions regarding curricula; provide a rich source of information to practitioners interested in the preparation of new professionals entering the field; and delineate specific areas of skill development, knowledge, and personal traits important for advancement in the field. Results indicate that there may be a need to consider additional course work in several content areas. Graduate preparation programs in college student personnel need to be continuously evaluated in order to ascertain the efficacy of curricula as it relates to practice in the field. Both internal and external requirements for evaluation and strategic planning necessitate such a study. It is unclear whether graduate programs in student affairs have been satisfactory in preparing student affairs administrators in the rapidly changing environment of higher education. Richard J. Herdlein III is an assistant professor in the Educational Foundations Department at the State University of New York College at Buffalo. 51

The following questions were considered in the survey of chief student officers: 1. What were the perceived learning outcomes of new professionals entering the field who are recent graduates of college student personnel programs? 2. What are the ratings of staff in terms of 12 knowledge and skill areas deemed to be important to success? 3. Is there a delineation of specific course work that should be included in current core requirements. 4. What specific areas of skill development, knowledge, and personal traits are important for advancement in the field? The purpose of this study is to carefully reflect on perceived shortcomings in graduates of college student personnel programs in order to more effectively prepare practitioners capable of fulfilling the mission of student affairs. Overview of Preparation Program Research Research dealing with the efficacy of graduate programs in student affairs has been a salient issue in the field since the initial academic preparation began at Teachers College, Columbia University in 1913. Over the past 30 years, the debate has intensified over which particular course work was most effective in transferring knowledge, developing skills, and defining characteristics essential to successful practice. Some authors have focused on specific topics that should be included as the academy evolves into a more complex set of educational centers serving a more diverse student body. Engstrom (1997) suggested that preparation programs should raise the technological competence of the profession by encouraging innovative applications to teaching, advising, and research. Young and Elfrink (1991) considered values education in undergraduates as directly tied to teaching and role modeling values on the graduate level. An approach to accomplishing the transferal of values in graduate education is provided by Estanek (1999) in a discussion of the Great Books of Student Affairs, while Strange (2001) discussed spiritual dimensions of graduate preparation. 52

Herdlein Additional suggestions for enhancing graduate curricula include addressing the developmental needs of women college students (Blackhurst & Hubbard, 1997), promoting scholarly writing in female graduate students (Engstrom, 1999), intensifying the interracial experience and multicultural awareness of graduate students through additional core competencies (Flowers & Howard-Hamilton, 2002; McEwen & Roper, 1994; and Pope & Reynolds, 1997), and discussing ways to develop leadership skills through graduate student views of leadership education (Rogers, 1992). A number of studies have considered curricula in a more holistic manner. In an earlier study, Rhatigan (1968) conducted a survey of both graduate faculty (doctoral programs) and chief student affairs officers at large, 4-year institutions. Although the results failed to provide a consensus on which themes or course work should be emphasized, the author suggested the need for identifying a list of skills and knowledge necessary for successful practice. Meabon and Owens (1984) pursued this idea when investigating the introductory course in graduate preparation programs. The authors called for serious deliberations on the content of programs through developing a consensus on essential characteristics of new professionals. In another early survey of student personnel deans and vice presidents, Ostroth (1975) found an emphasis on the need for practical, experiential learning; problem solving and decision-making; and campus politics. Sandeen (1982) completed a national survey of 219 chief student affairs officers to assess, review, and update perceptions of graduate preparation programs. The results provided more definitive conclusions than earlier studies as senior officers demonstrated concern for programs that were too oriented toward counseling and suggested a need for more internships and courses in legal issues, budgeting, and management. Preparation programs were also asked to recruit more outstanding students, increase academic rigor, and provide more training in research. Another study dealing with the curriculum included a longitudinal study of 47 doctoral, specialist, and master s programs through five directories (Keim, 1991). Results noted a retrenchment in preparation programs surveyed (1973 1987), including fewer faculty and students, fewer programs requiring the master s thesis, and lack of courses in student personnel. Reversing these trends was described as a monumental challenge. 53

It should be noted that earlier studies regarding graduate preparation programs provided some interesting and often provocative general information. More recent studies have focused on specific topics such as gender and race-specific needs. Greater consistency in program curricula has been developed through more universal acceptance of guidelines provided by the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS, 2003). Other research on curricula included a longitudinal study of graduate students and new professionals experiences (Richmond & Sherman, 1991). Internships were reported to be the primary means for training and career decision-making. A commitment to theory-driven decision-making depended on support from supervisors and mentors. Using a meta-analysis, Lovell and Kosten (2000) looked at 30 years of research in the literature of student affairs to identify the skills, knowledge, and personal traits important to successful practice. Suggestions such as administration, management, and facilitation skills; knowledge of functional areas and student development theory; and traits of integrity and cooperation were frequently mentioned. The authors pointed out the need to differentiate position levels and institutional type when conducting these studies and suggested that subject areas such as technology, assessment, campus politics, and public policy are likely to be important in the future. In a survey of employers at the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) annual conferences, Kretovics (2002) reported a number of findings relative to expectations for entry level student affairs positions. These findings varied depending on institutional type and demographic characteristics (see Table 1). Nevertheless, important trends emerged including an employer emphasis on graduate assistant and practicum experiences, demonstrated helping skills, personal commitment to diversity, and computer skills. It would appear that numerous studies have failed to reach a consensus on two critical issues for the student affairs profession: (1) a clear definition of the skills, knowledge, and characteristics needed by new professionals entering the field; and (2) the course work provided by graduate preparation programs necessary to fulfill the mission of stu- 54

Herdlein Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants in Chief Student Affairs Officer Survey dent affairs in the changing environment of higher education. An interesting point was made by Palmer (1995) in a discussion of graduate preparation for hall directors. The author suggested that so many skills and knowledge areas are needed for an effective residence life professional that it is perhaps beyond the capability of master s programs to provide them. Palmer offered the recommendation that pro- 55

gram faculty foster appreciation for life-long learning and the need to engage in reflective thinking about one s role in the profession. Finally, CAS provides general guidelines for curricula in student affairs graduate programs. The Book of Professional Standards (CAS, 2003) recommends three content areas including foundational studies, professional studies, and supervised practice. Specific course work that could be gleaned from these broad content areas might include historical and philosophical foundations of higher education and student affairs, student development theory, student characteristics and college impact studies, counseling, student affairs administration, assessment and research, and experiential learning. A review of related literature has demonstrated significant and appropriate interest in the general topic of preparing new professionals for the field of student affairs administration. Over a period of 36 years, a variety of studies have addressed issues important to changing conditions in the academy including suggestions to move preparation programs from a counseling emphasis to include a more administrative and management focus. Additional research considered specific factors including interracial experience and multicultural awareness, values education and spiritual dimensions, gender needs, and technological competence. Recent work by CAS has established three general content areas important to professional development. The survey of chief student affairs officers is intended to contribute to the literature of higher education by delineating the skills, knowledge, and personal traits important to practice while relating these categories to specific course work in graduate preparation programs. Selection of Subjects Method Subjects were selected on the basis of their status as chief student affairs officers at colleges/universities listed in ACPA s Directory of Graduate Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel (1999). A total of 81 surveys were mailed, representing all of the institutions profiled in the Directory that offered graduate preparation programs at the master s degree level. In order to provide delimitation, another 21 institutions listed in the 1994 paper or electronic version as well as 56

Herdlein other types of Carnegie-classified institutions were not included for the purpose of this study. It should be noted that nearly half (40) of the institutions used in the study also offered programs in higher education/student affairs administration at the doctoral level. The institutions included both the public and private sector of higher education and represented 36 states. It was felt that practitioners at institutions offering graduate programs in student affairs administration, involving significant numbers of graduate assistants/interns, and serving as graduate preparation program faculty would have unique opportunities to reflect on and assess the preparation and performance of new professionals as they entered the field. Chief student affairs officers are an important group to survey, in particular, those serving for many years as program faculty. Nevertheless, it is noted in the discussion of limitations that a broader spectrum of institutions and groups would need to be considered including faculty, new professionals and supervisors, and others in higher education. It was the intention of this study to review past research on the topic of professional preparation through the literature review; develop research questions focused on graduate student preparation and learning outcomes; develop a survey including both structured and openended questions to provide rich, thick description; compare the data results from various sections of the survey to ensure redundancy; and provide observations based on the results. Several studies currently in progress focus on competencies needed for successful practice. This study was intended to delineate subject areas in order to relate the survey results to specific course work in graduate preparation programs. It is important to delineate subject and topical areas that may be needed to fulfill the mission of student affairs. Development of the Questionnaire This is a qualitative study a fact-finding activity intended to gather, analyze, and interpret evidence of program effectiveness. It uses a variety of interpretative research methodologies appropriate for a phenomenological approach. The survey used qualitative methodologies with quantification, having as a fundamental goal reaching redundancy in the responses. Thus the responses to the various sections of the 57

survey would either support or dispute the findings and general conclusions. In this case, the multiple approaches demonstrated consistency in responses across the survey. Qualitative research by its very nature is an inductive process, collecting details of the data to analyze interrelationships. It is also the type of study that may be focused on a particular population and the research questions may be site or group specific (Best & Kahn, 2003). The preparation of the survey was based on information gleaned from the literature review, program descriptions in ACPA s Directory (1999), and standards and guidelines from CAS (2003). Learning outcomes were selected from the Student Learning Imperative (1993) based on their applicability and relationship to professional competencies discussed over a period of 40 years. The Student Learning Imperative is a foundational document (ACPA, 1999) in the venerable history of student affairs, and it was deemed important to pursue whether learning outcomes used extensively in the field were consistent with and complimented expected/desired characteristics of new professionals in student affairs. The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect data on perceptions of chief student affairs officers relative to the level of preparation of new professionals that had recently completed graduate preparation programs. The questionnaire included five sections related to various aspects of personal and professional development as well as questions specifically related to program curricula. Section I used a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 = Very High Level to 1 = Very Low Level) to assess the six developmental aspects of the Student Learning Imperative (ACPA, 1993) in order to measure perceptions of learning outcomes relative to new professionals. These included complex cognitive skills, knowledge acquisition, intrapersonal development, interpersonal development, practical competence, and civic responsibility. Section II asked respondents to rank order the six learning outcomes in terms of importance to professional practice. Section III used a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 = Proficient to 1 = Poorly Prepared) to measure responses to level of preparation in 12 knowledge/skill areas important to successful practice. Section IV included three open-ended questions on desirable traits of practitioners and 58

Herdlein recommendations for program revision at the master s level. Section V requested demographic information. Administration of the Questionnaire The initial step was to conduct a Pilot Study by sending the questionnaire to three chief student affairs officers serving at institutions with graduate preparation programs yet not listed in ACPA s Directory. The respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire and provide comments. The responses indicated that all of the questions on the proposed instrument were applicable to the purpose of the study, easy to understand, and manageable in terms of completion time. A questionnaire and cover letter were forwarded to 81 chief student affairs officers. This included all of the institutions listed in the Directory except those not offering the master s degree. Forty responses were received within 6 weeks of the original mailing. A second mailing was completed with a letter reminding potential participants of the importance of the study. An additional 10 responses were received within 4 weeks, thus making the aggregate number of responses 50, a 61.7% response rate. Results and Discussion In terms of demographics, a number of questions were asked as part of the questionnaire including gender, age, years in the field, years as a chief student affairs officer, number of years teaching in a graduate preparation program, years in student affairs administration, academic degrees, and race/ethnicity. The number of male respondents (32) represented 66.6% of the total, while female respondents totaled 33.4%. Of the 50 respondents, 92.5% were between the ages of 40 and 59 with the largest percentage (62.5%) in the 50 59 age group. Vice presidents serving the student affairs field for either 20 29 or 30 39 years represented 90% percent of the total. Sixty-two percent had been chief officers for less than 9 years, demonstrating the current retirement pattern of a large number of seasoned vice presidents. While 33% percent reported no experience teaching in graduate preparation programs, 67% indicated significant background in teaching, 42% with over 10 years. The mean number of years serving in student affairs was 28.1, years as a vice president was 11.4, and years 59

teaching was 12.4. In terms of graduate education, 92% of the respondents held the terminal degree of Ph.D. or Ed.D.; and 87.3% noted Caucasian as their race/ethnicity, 10.6% African American, and 2.1% Asian American. Section I in Table 2 indicates the various levels that respondents rated the learning outcomes of new professionals. Over 70% of the respondents felt that new professionals demonstrated a satisfactory to high level of the following complex cognitive skills: Reflective Thought, Critical Thinking, and Intellectual Flexibility. Thirty percent listed the Quantitative Reasoning skill level as less than satisfactory or low. In the area of Knowledge Acquisition that included Subject Matter Mastery and Knowledge Application, 96% rated new professionals at satisfactory, high levels, or very high levels. In terms of Intrapersonal Development, ratings were uniformly high: 96% at or above the satisfactory level, and nearly 50% at the high level or above. Self-esteem was rated high with a satisfactory to very high level at 98%, Maturity at 98%, Identity at 98%, Autonomy at 96%, and Values at 98%. Similarly, over 74% of new professionals were rated with high or very high levels of Interpersonal Skill Development: Relate to Others and Understanding Human Differences. In terms of Practical Competence, Managing One s Life; and Civic Responsibility, Commitment to Volunteerism; over 88% of the responses were at the satisfactory or high level. The 5-point Likert-type scale depicted in Section I in Table 2 uses measures of central tendency (means) and the standard deviation. A mean of 4.0 would indicate a high level of satisfaction with a particular learning outcome, less than 4.0 would represent a level somewhere between a satisfactory and high level. The results demonstrated a satisfactory to moderately high level of satisfaction relative to the learning outcomes of new professionals across a broad spectrum of skills and developmental areas deemed to be important to work in the field. The skills that would be cause for concern are quantitative reasoning and critical thinking. Section II in Table 3 shows the results of the respondents rank ordering the six categories of learning outcomes in terms of the perceived importance to professional development and practice. Listed in 60

Herdlein Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for Learning Outcomes of New Professionals 61

descending order from highest to lowest were Interpersonal Development (M = 4.58), Practical Competence (M = 4.14), Complex Cognitive Skills (M = 3.84), Intrapersonal Development (M = 3.54), Knowledge Acquisition (M = 3.40), and Civic Responsibility (M = 1.52). Given the high ratings for new professionals in the area of Interpersonal Skills, it could be concluded that a personal attribute and skill level that is perceived to be most essential to student personnel work is one in which most new practitioners seem to have high levels of competence. Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for Learning Outcomes Rank Ordered in Terms of Professional Practice Section III in Table 4 measured competence in 12 skill areas important to successful practice. The mean scores indicate a pattern consistent with the results of the two previous sections. Chief student affairs officers surveyed rated products of graduate preparation programs above average in the following areas: Overall Knowledge of Higher Education (M = 4.06), Student Development Theory (M = 3.9), Leadership ( M = 3.72), Technology (M = 3.64), and Counseling (M = 3.52). Below average standards were in Budgeting (M = 1.86), Campus Politics (M = 2.40), Strategic Planning (M = 2.50), Research and Assessment (M = 2.70), and Legal Knowledge (M = 2.78). The results of this survey indicate that substantial shortcomings may exist in certain areas currently recognized as having significant importance to successful practice. 62

Herdlein Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages for Chief Student Affairs Officers Ratings of Professional Staff Graduates of Student Affairs Administration Programs The results of the open-ended questions depicted in Table 5 are enlightening as well as consistent with responses in other sections of the survey. In response to the question concerning the traits that are most critical for successful practice, the participants offered a broad spectrum of suggestions. In terms of human relations skills, having interpersonal/people skills, working effectively with diverse populations, effective listening, caring, and empathy were most often mentioned. 63

Table 5 Traits Mentioned Most Frequently as Critical for Successful Practice In terms of personal attributes, having sound principals and personal values; good judgment; being bright, creative, self-confident, mature, and ethical; having a friendly personality and strong work ethic; and possessing honesty, courage, and integrity were frequently cited as essential. The list of management skills noted were oral and written communication, critical thinking and analytical reasoning, conflict management, budgeting, planning, assessment, collaboration, problem solving, and knowledge of campus politics. Many comments added to the richness of the open-ended part of the study. Respondents cited several issues including: 1. understanding that student affairs is part of the educational mission, 2. understanding and being able to navigate the political milieu within the campus community, 64

Herdlein 3. understanding the importance to collaborate across divisional boundaries to create the best learning environment for students, and 4. accepting the idea of deriving rewards from relationships rather than money and willingness to take risks and make things happen! Table 6 indicates the recommendations for specific course work that should be included in core requirements for graduate preparation programs. The subject areas most frequently mentioned included higher education law, finance and budgeting, assessment, politics of higher education, philosophy of higher education/student affairs, enrollment management, and strategic planning. This list is closely related to the results of previous sections demonstrating that the perceptions were extremely consistent throughout the questionnaire. Potential courses or topics also mentioned included CAS standards, global issues, leadership, and organizational development. A consistent theme throughout the responses was the need for vast improvements in writing skills of professional staff. One chief student affairs officer even suggested that preparation programs include a liberal arts core and writing courses as an approach to mitigate this shortcoming. Table 7 describes the general aspects that may be missing from graduate preparation programs. Once again, the responses were consistent: chief student affairs officers are searching for professional staff having knowledge and a clear understanding of legal issues, budgeting, planning, assessment, campus politics, and the philosophy of student affairs. They want individuals that can write effectively, understand the relationship of student affairs to the teaching and learning process, have the ability to work collaboratively with faculty and academic administration, and have a clear and thorough understanding of working in a bureaucracy. Recommendations for Master s Programs The results of this survey of chief student affairs officers indicated a general satisfaction with the learning outcomes of graduates of student affairs preparation programs. Two areas that need to be addressed in the curriculum are critical thinking and quantitative reasoning. The 65

Table 6 Courses to Include Beyond the Typical Core Requirements Table 7 Chief Student Affairs Officers Responses to the Question: What Do You Feel is Missing from College Student Personnel Programs? 66

Herdlein fact that interpersonal development was rated as a primary area of competence indicates that highly developed skills in human relations remain critical to successful practice in student affairs administration. Many studies in the past as well as professional standards have discussed curricula in terms of general categories. This particular survey provided an opportunity, in part, to delineate subject areas in order to facilitate a discussion of possible changes to the design of preparation programs. Chief student affairs officers, many of which are directly involved both as practitioners and faculty, provided a particularly good resource for the discussion. It was clear from the survey that leaders in student affairs at the subject institutions felt comfortable with new professionals preparation level in counseling, student development theory, leadership, technology, understanding human differences, and overall knowledge of higher education. Consistent shortcomings were noted in the areas of legal knowledge, strategic planning, finance and budgeting, campus politics, assessment and research, and proficient writing skills. It was also clear from the survey that practitioners were looking for individuals with a solid knowledge base in the traditional areas of college student personnel; carefully honed interpersonal skills including a broad understanding of diverse populations; and exceptional personal traits such as creativity, confidence and maturity, ethics and good judgment, and integrity. If these lofty expectations are to be accomplished, graduate preparation programs will need to consider a number of alternatives. First, should the number of credit hours be increased to accommodate the additional subject areas? Second, should certain topics such as critical thinking, writing, assessment and research, and campus politics be taught across the curriculum? Third, should programs offer less electives in order to accommodate additional required courses in legal issues, finance and budgeting, and strategic planning? Many of the graduate preparation programs were initiated during a period when campus environments and student populations were far different than today. Although it is clear from this study that interpersonal skills and attributes will continue to help define the profession, it is critically important for a new generation of practitioners to have higher skill levels in areas of higher education administration and research as well 67

as greater knowledge, awareness, and commitment to supporting the academic mission of the institutions and students they serve. Conclusions Research in the qualities and characteristics essential for successful practice is important to the future of student affairs administration. Studies have been pursued over a period of 36 years searching for answers to the question of how to provide the most appropriate graduate preparation for aspiring professionals entering the field. It is evident that the historic core curriculum emphasizing counseling, student affairs administration, and supervised practice has served the profession well. With the increased size and complexity of higher education institutions, rapidly changing demographics, demands for accountability, and shifting focus from a service-centered to a learning-centered cocurriculum, calls for new approaches to meet increasingly high expectations. Suggestions for Further Research Higher education includes a great diversity of institutions including community colleges, private liberal arts colleges, state colleges, and research universities. Each sector has specific needs that should be analyzed in terms of appropriate course work. Although this particular study considered a cross section of institutions geographically and several different classifications, there were obvious limitations in terms of the size of the study and the diversity of institutions including baccalaureate/liberal arts and community colleges. Future studies need to look at desirable characteristics of new professionals, mid-level managers in student affairs, as well as senior officers to delineate expected characteristics and provide suggestions as to which skills and knowledge sets can be developed over time as one matures in their career. As mentioned previously, not only chief student affairs officers but also various levels of student affairs personnel, academic administrators, program faculty, and college presidents should be included in the discussion. In terms of external validity, as a qualitative study, the findings may have limited ability to be generalized across the vast spectrum of higher education, and the need for additional research is needed and encouraged! 68

Herdlein Implications for the Profession 1. There is a need for research carefully delineating competencies needed for successful practice. Integrating these competencies with learning outcomes in graduate preparation course work would encourage a broader understanding of the mission and goals of these programs. 2. Demonstrating competencies and evaluating learning outcomes may call for additional methodologies including the use of portfolios and competency-based practicum and graduate assistantships. 3. Citing once again the ideas of Palmer (1995) concerning the difficulty of accomplishing all of these goals for graduate preparation programs in 2 years and varying circumstances (part-time attendance, lack of graduate assistantships, distance learning), it may be of particular importance to encourage or develop structures for continuing professional development over the life-time of a career. Those serving in professions including medicine and certified counselors are required to demonstrate recent clinical experience and ongoing education and professional development at regular intervals in their career. Elementary and secondary teachers are often required to continue professional development activities beyond the master s degree. Such a process would help to strengthen the perception of student affairs administration as a profession by fulfilling a major criteria used by other professional areas. 4. The need to develop knowledge and skills in administration and supervision is clearly evident in the current study as well as the historic literature in the field. 5. All of the various knowledge and skill sets perceived to be lacking in new professionals need to be addressed in curricular offerings, teaching subject matter across the curriculum, and developing ways to encourage professional development and life-long learning as an integral part of the student affairs profession. Our graduate preparation programs, professional associations, and organizations developing standards can play a major role in this regard. 69

References American College Personnel Association. (1993). The student learning imperative. Washington, DC: Author. American College Personnel Association. (1999). Directory of graduate preparation programs in college student personnel. Washington, DC: Author. Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2003). Research in education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Blackhurst, A., & Hubbard, J. (1997). The new scholarship on women: Progress toward an inclusive curriculum in student affairs preparation programs. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 453 460. Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2003). The book of professional standards for higher education. Washington, DC: Author. Engstrom, C. M. (1997). Integrating information technology into student affairsgraduate programs. New Directions for Student Services, 78, 59 69. Engstrom, C. M. (1999). Promoting the scholarly writing of female doctoral students in higher education and student affairs graduate programs. NASPA Journal, 36, 264 277. Estanek, S. M. (1999). Student affairs and truth: The reading of the great books. NASPA Journal, 36, 278 287. Flowers, L. A., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (2002). A qualitative study of graduate students perceptions of diversity issues in student affairs preparation programs. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 119 123. Keim, M. C. (1991). Student personnel preparation programs: A longitudinal study. NASPA Journal, 28, 231 242. Kretovics, M. (2002). Entry level competencies: What student affairs administrators consider when screening candidates. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 912 920. Lovell, C. D., & Kosten, L. A. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits necessary for success as a student affairs administrator: A meta-analysis of thirty years of research. NASPA Journal, 37, 353 369. McEwen, M. K., & Roper, L. D. (1994). Interracial experiences, knowledge, and skills of master s degree students in graduate programs in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 81 87. 70

Herdlein Meabon, D. L., & Owens, H. F. (1984). Graduate preparation programs in college student personnel: The introductory course. NASPA Journal, 22, 2 12. Ostroth, D. D. (1975). Master s-level preparation for student personnel work. Journal of College Student Personnel, 16, 319 322. Palmer, C. J. (1995). Graduate preparation of residence hall directors: The addition and subtraction dilemma. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 25, 5 8. Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1997). The student affairs core competencies: Integrating multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 266 277. Rhatigan, J. J. (1968). Professional preparation of student personnel administrators as perceived by practitioners and faculty. Journal of College Student Personnel, 9, 17 23. Richmond, J., & Sherman, K. J. (1991). Student development preparation and placement: A longitudinal study of graduate students and new professionals experiences. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 8 16. Rogers, J. L. (1992). Graduate student views of leadership education in college student personnel preparation programs. NASPA Journal, 29, 169 175. Sandeen, A. (1982). Professional preparation programs in student personnel services in higher education: A national assessment by chief student affairs officers. NASPA Journal, 20, 51 58. Strange, C. (2001). Spiritual dimensions of graduate preparation in student affairs. New Directions for Student Services, 95, 57 67. Young, R., & Elfrink, V. (1991). Values education in student affairs graduate programs. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 109 115. 71