|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 FACTORS THAT IMPACT CAREER AND EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES IN GRADUATE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN A STUDENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM By THOMAS A. ROBERTSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Thomas A. Robertson
3 In memory of my parents, Bob and Mona Robertson
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are numerous individuals who were instrumental in helping me reach this Dr. David Honeyman, Dr. Michael McKenzie, and my chair, Dr Dale Campbell, for their patience and guidance throughout this process Special appreciation goes to Ms. Angela Rowe College of Education, for her countless reminders and support she provides to students express my gratitude to my cu rrent and previous supervisors, Dr. Mary Ferrill, and Dr. Joe Kloba, at Palm Beach Atlantic University, and Dr. Carol Motycka, University of Florida, for providing me the flexibility and support in my work duties to continue my education and grateful to have as a colleague, Dr. Jamie Fairclough, who provided both words of encouragement and expertise regarding my research analysis To Paula, my beloved wife, confidant, and editor extraordinaire, who throughout this process, provided me h er unconditional love, support, faith, and constant encouragement in helping me complete this monumental task also like to honor Nat Johns and my son, Jack, who like their mother, were an inspiration to me these past few years throug h their love of learning. Finally, this body of work is lifted to the glory and honor of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ my eternal teacher. teach me, for you are God my Psalms 25:4 5
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF OBJECTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 8 DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................ ................................ ................................ 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 Leadership Shortage ................................ ................................ .............................. 16 Student Affairs ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 20 0 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 21 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 22 Research Hypothesis ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 Significance of Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 24 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 24 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 24 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 26 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 27 History of Student Affairs ................................ ................................ ........................ 28 Classification of Higher Education ................................ ................................ .......... 38 The Leadership Shortage ................................ ................................ ....................... 46 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 68 3 RESEARCH METHODOLO GY ................................ ................................ ............... 70 Purpose ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 7 0 Research Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 72 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 73 Research Hypothesis ................................ ................................ .............................. 73 Research Design & Data Collection ................................ ................................ ........ 74 Research Instrument ................................ ................................ ............................... 75 Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 76
6 Population: ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 76 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 77 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 8 0 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 8 0 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 8 1 Research Question 1 ................................ ................................ ........................ 8 1 Research Question 2 ................................ ................................ ........................ 83 Research Question 3 ................................ ................................ ........................ 83 Research Question 4 ................................ ................................ ........................ 85 Research Question 5 ................................ ................................ ........................ 88 Research Question 6 ................................ ................................ ........................ 89 5 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 10 0 D emographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 102 D iscussion of the Results ................................ ................................ ...................... 10 2 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ................. 102 Research Question Two ................................ ................................ ................. 104 Resear ch Question Three ................................ ................................ .............. 104 Research Question Four ................................ ................................ ................ 106 Research Question Five ................................ ................................ ................. 108 Research Question Six ................................ ................................ ................... 110 Implic ations for Higher Education ................................ ................................ ......... 110 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 112 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 114 APPENDIX A THE STUDENT AFFAIRS GRADUATE SURVEY (2010) ................................ ..... 117 B PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS (2006 & 2010) ................................ ........................ 127 C THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND STUDENT AFFAIRS SURVEY (2006) ........ 129 D UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA DIGITAL COLLECTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC DATA STORAGE ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 133 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 134 BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 145
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Demographics for 2006 Pilot Study ................................ ................................ .... 79 4 1 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 92 4 2 Current Degree Level, Program Focus, Undergraduate Institution Type, and C urrent Degree Institution Type ................................ ................................ .......... 93 4 3 Preferred Institutional Type for Future Employment ................................ ........... 93 4 4 Current Institution Type and Employment Preference ................................ ........ 94 4 5 Importance of Factors in Selecting Employment ................................ ................ 95 4 6 Factors related to selecting next position and age ................................ .............. 96 4 7 Career Interest in Fields Related to Student Affairs ................................ ............ 97 4 8 Position Level Graduate Students Aspire To ................................ ...................... 98 4 9 Position Lev el Graduate Students Aspire To and Gender ................................ .. 98 4 10 Experiences and Employment Preference ................................ ......................... 99
8 LIST OF OBJECTS Object page D 1 The complete data collected as a result of this research is stored electronically with the University of Florida Office of Digital Collections. To access these da ta, please use the following link. ................................ ............. 133
9 DEFINITION OF TERMS The following are the definitions of the key terms used throughout this study: B ACCALAUREATE COLLEGES Defined as those institutions where the majority of degrees conferred are at the baccalaureate level. Teaching is the primary focus in these institutions. Also includes private liberal arts colleges. Examples include Rollins College, University of Tampa, and Palm Beach Atlantic University C OMMUNITY COLLEGES D efined as those institutions that primarily offer two year degrees (i.e. AA, AS) in addition to vocational certificates. Career preparation and university transfer is the primary mission of community colleges. Also includes those at Jacksonville, Daytona State College, and Palm Beach State College) and offer limited bachelor degrees, typically in high demand fields like nursing and technology D O CTORAL GRADUATING UNIVERSITIES Defined as those institutions where research and graduate education are the primary focus, though a very extensive undergraduate system is also offered. Typically larger of all other schools due to graduate enrollments. Organizationally, these universities are routinely made up of individual schools or colleges within the university structure. Most land grant universities would fall in this category. Examples include University of Florida and University of Georgia F OR PROFIT COLLEGES / UNIVERSITIES These institutions offer a variety of degrees, including associate through doctoral level. Unlike their non profit counterparts, these institutions are typically managed or operated by a larger conglomerate with shareholders, and as their name implies, ar e focused on a return of investment. One of the fastest growing segments of higher education, examples include University of Phoenix and South University
10 I NSTITUTION TYPE The classification of American universities and colleges into five categories according to their mission, size, and degree offering. purpose of limiting the number of categories. The five institutional types used for this study include community colleges, baccala ureate colleges, master s/ bachelor s colleges and universities, and doctoral graduating universities (Ace, 2008) A fifth category was added by the author to reflect the rapid growth and emergence of for profit colleges and universities M ASTER S / BACHE LOR S COLLEGES / UNIVERSITIES Typically larger in size and scope than baccalaureate colleges, these institutions are defined as those schools who offer numerous graduate programs primarily at the master s level in addition to bachelor degrees. Limite d research is conducted but teaching and service is still the primary focus. Examples include University of North Florida, University of West Florida, Fl orida International University S TUDENT AFFAIRS A profession in higher education that is committ ed to the development of the whole person by leading, serving, advising, counseling, and educating students. Administrative and functional areas often include but are not limited to academic advising, residential life, leadership programs, new student and family orientation, minority affairs, judicial affairs, career development, student clubs and organizations, student activities, Greek life, and the office of dean of students. Similar terms include student services, student development, and student pers onnel
11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education FACTORS THAT IMPACT CAREER AND EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES IN GRADUATE STUDENTS ENROLLED IN A STUDENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM By Thomas A. Robertson December 2012 Chair: Dale F. Campbell Major: Higher Education Administration Higher education in the United States is facing a potential leadership crisis. With the average age of campus presidents now surpassing 60 years, many senior level administrators will be expected to retire in the near future, creating a large wave of vaca ncies (Stripling, 2011) University and college boards are faced with the dilemma of fewer qualified replacements. Even with the current economic conditions postponing t his will only provide a temporary respit e from the impending leadership shortage (Mead Fox, 2009). To help address this shortage of qualified leaders, colleges and universities will need to look at alternative supply chains. Historically, current presidents have come from the traditional pipe line (i.e. faculty, department chair, and provost), but some Boards are recognizing the benefits of seeking those with experience in student affairs namely vice presidents of student affairs ( Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; NASPA, 2010; Bullard, 2008). As col lege enrollment patterns continue to shift, non traditional institutional types are predicted to continue to grow and expand, requiring additional leaders with
12 academic experience and skills unique to higher education. This research focused on those facto rs that might relate to the employment decisions for graduate students in student affairs programs. The research indicates th at the career preference for graduate students enrolled in student affairs programs re garding institution type were baccalaureate c olleges and doctoral graduating universities. The least selected institutional types were community colleges profit schools and other organizations outside of education (i.e. government, non profits, and business ). Over two thirds of those selecting doctoral granting institutions as their preferred place of employment currently attend a graduate program of a similar type. Sense of community with the institution, supervisor and colleagues, and salary and benefi ts were reported to be the most important factors in selecting future employment. Graduate students rated First Year Experience (FYE), leadership development, student activities, orientation programs, and academic advising as the areas of employment they are most interested in pursuing. The position level of director/coordinator level received the highest percentage of responses when asked about what level of position students most like to aspire to.
13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 will introdu ce the key points of this research including, but not limited to, the career and employment goals and aspirations of students enrolled in graduate degree programs in higher education and student affairs administration. This research attempts to address h ow these career and employment findings compare with the changing landscape of American higher education, namely the leadership needs of different institutional types due to current student enrollment patterns. The primary research problem will also be pr esented along with the purpose of the study, research questions and hypothesis, limitations, definitions, and significance of this study. Background The United States has maintained a uniqueness from most other nations by the fact that it has believed that all citizens should have the opportunity to rise to their fullest potential (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). This founding precept has been instrumental in the development and evolution of American higher education. From its beginnings more than 350 years ago to the post WWII preeminence as a world leader it is today, American higher education distinguishes itself with its wide array of educational offerings for all who choose to further their learning (Eckel & King, 2004). Higher education in the U.S. is as di verse as the students it serves, offering world class graduate and professional programs from leading research universities, workforce and career development training from colleges, and a plethora of undergraduate programs using a multitude of formats and settings. American research universities have served as a catalyst for innovation, discovery, and knowledge for the world (Cole, 2011).
14 According to a report by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, one of the greatest strengths of the higher education system in the United States is its diversity of institutions (Komives, Woodward, 2003). This diversity of institutions mirrors the uniqueness and individuality of the students who enroll. The Council for Higher Education (2008) lists ov er 7,000 accredited colleges and universities in the United States (Betts, Urias, Betts, 2009). Of this total, approximately 4,600 offer degrees at the associate level and above (Almanac of Higher Education, 2011). The 2011 Almanac of Higher Education re ports that 74% of those degree granting institutions are classified as non profit status with approximately 1,200 listed as for profit. One report projects that by 2015, 10% of all college students will be enrolled in a private for profit institution (Ke ener & Campbell, 2009). Supporting this is the fact that the top two institutions in terms of enrollment according to a 2009 report by the U.S. Department of Education (2011) are University of Phoenix and Kaplan University, both for profit institutions. The U.S. Department of Education states that enrollment for all students in 2009, the most recent year of enrollment data, exceeded 20 million students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). In contrast, there were approximately 12 million stu dents enrolled in 1980. In 2009, undergraduates accounted for 17.6 million, 2011). Projected enrollment for undergraduates is expected to exceed 19 million by 2020. A gr owing trend that has many implications for institutions is that 35% of all students attend part time (Almanac, 2011).
15 Led by the renowned educational reformer and leader, Clark Kerr, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching commissioned in 1967 the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education to tackle the leading issues and challenges facing higher education at the time. What resulted was the awareness of a lack of a system to help further clarify and define the vast number of colleges and uni versities. In 1970, a system which would become known as the Carnegie Classification was developed and later would be instrumental in institutional research, policy development, and program comparisons (Carnegie Foundation, 2011). The Carnegie Classifica tion functioned with relatively few changes over the next 35 years, until 2005, when the basic system was revised dramatically, reflecting the vastly changing landscape of American higher education (McCormich, Zhao, 2005). The development of institutional types parallels the changing diversity of the student body along with new public policy (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Technological developments enabled campuses to utilize and offer new delivery modes of instruction, which afforded more access to higher e ducation for the changing citizenry. Higher education is faced with numerous challenges in the 21 st century. Some of the challenges include changing demographics of both students and faculty, increased pressure for accountability (i.e. evidence of learning, graduation rates), and financial constraints as leaders attempt to balance diminished external funding and double digit tuition increases (Skinner, 2010). Public support and perception is lukewarm at best. On the international stage, the U.S. o nce reigned supreme in the percentage of adults with a college degree, but that was a quarter century ago, and one recent report by the
16 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows the U.S. has dropped from 12 th to 16 th in the world in the p ercent of young adults age 25 34 having earned a college degree (Washington Post, 2011). This latest report comes two years after President Obama announced his goal of adding an additional eight million new college graduates by 2020 (College Board, 2011). Another issue that has garnered much attention the past decade is the perfect storm of an aging of current presidents paired with the impending shortage of qualified leaders (Mead Fox, 2009). Leadership Shortage 78.2 million Americans comprise what is known as the baby boomer generation, those individuals born between 1946 and 1964 (Leubsdorf, 2006). The impending wave of retirement from the largest generation of the century has alarmed many segments in the American workforce (Schaefer, 2006). Althoug h the current economic downturn has temporarily delayed this expected retirement surge, many organizations representing health care, business, industry, government, non profit, and education have been diligently strategizing how to prepare for this labor s hortfall (Hassan, Dellow & Jackson, 2010 ) The Bridgespan Group conducted an extensive study of leadership requirements of non profit organizations with annual revenues greater than $250,00 0 They found that by 2016, non profit groups will need approxima tely 80,00 0 additional senior managers and leaders to lead their organizations (Tierney, 2006). This inevitable workforce shortage impacts not only the supply of entry and mid level workers but also the senior leadership of these organizations who are at risk due to the projected loss of personnel as a result of this mass retirement.
17 This leadership dilemma has also caught the attention of those in institutions of higher education, as senior level search committees see fewer qualified candidates apply for the presidency of their colleges or universit ies (Mead Fox, 2009). In its 20 th anniversary report on the c ollege p resident, The American Council on Education reported that one of their major findings is that due to an aging cohort of presidents, colle ges and universities will experience a unprecedented rate of turnover in their senior leadership (2007). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there will be an estimated 6,000 administrative positions to be filled annually between 2004 and 2014 in c olleges and universities across the United States (Leubsdorf, 2006). The American Council on Education reported in 2008 that a survey of chief academic officers showed that only 30 % aspired to be a college or university president (Jaschik, 2009). This is an alarming finding, as a vast majority of first time presidents served previously as a provost or chief academic officer of a college or university. One executive search firm consultant estimates that at minimum there will be a 50 % turnover among senio r administrators though recent economic changes have postponed the retirement plans of many senior leaders. (Hassan, Dellow, Jackson, 2010; Leubsdorf, 2006). In addition to the challenge of the impending wave of retirement among senior leadership is th e expectation of large faculty retirements as well, many who were hired in the 1960s and 1970s when there was much expansion on campuses. For those who remain and would be viable candidates, many are unwilling to assume the rigor and challenges of leading Independent Colleges found that one third of the chief academic officers did not want to
18 become president, largely due to the nature of a 24/7 high profile position (Stripling, 2011). This conc ern cuts across all institutional types, including community colleges. This issue of an emerging leadership gap has been near or at the top of critical concerns for the past ten years (Shults, 2001; Campbell, 2002; Boggs, 2002; Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002 and 2006; Duree, 2008.). A larger than normal percentage of the current senior leaders of community colleges will be and are beginning to retire in greater numbers than there are capable replacements ready to succeed them. Many o f the 1,200 plus community colleges were established in the mid to late 1960s (Lucas, 1993; AACC, 2008) and now 40 years later, many of the original faculty and administrators who helped establish these colleges are now retiring with fewer replacements ava ilable to assume these vacancies. With up to 84% of the current senior level community college administrators planning to retire by 2016, a large percentage of community college search committees will be facing a great void of qualified replacements (Weism an & Vaughn, 2007; Duree, 2008). In addition a study conducted by Iowa State also showed a decline of 78 % of graduates from 1983 1997 in community college leadership programs (Nealy, 2008). As the demand for community college leaders will far outweigh the projected supply, many community colleges will look outside the traditional leadership pipeline to hire future leaders for their campuses (Vaughn, 2004; Kelly, 2002; Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002). For more than a century, higher education in the Unite d States has been internationally recognized for being a model leader in providing education for all whom so desire (Wingspread Group, 1993). Although the current American university system
19 evolved from Western European influences, primarily the German R esearch University and residential colleges like Oxford and Cambridge, one unique aspect of American higher education is the creation and development of the community college (Eckel & King, 2004; Lucas, 2004). In addition to increasing the potential candid ate pool and narrowing the leadership gap, there are numerous benefits of going outside the traditional academic pipeline. One distinctive advantage to this strategy of recruiting outside the academy is to bring in fresh new perspectives to how institution s of higher education are led (Eckel & Hartley, 2011). Additionally, by looking externally, this approach could potentially help increase the diversity of the current senior leadership profile at American colleges and universities both in terms of demogr aphics in addition to new approaches to organizational leadership not typically practiced within the academy Many four year colleges, in particularly public state universities, have taken this approach over the past 5 10 years by hiring their presidents f rom the fields of banking, commerce, and government. Broadening the skills and experiences within the senior ranks would be widely applauded, primarily due to the fact that the demographics of the campus student body are becoming more widely diverse. In 2008, the American Council on Education coordinated a group of the leading associations in higher education to address this wave of college presidents retiring, with the specific goal of broadening and diversifying the executive leadership talent in higher campus leadership development, mentoring opportunities, and successions planning.
20 As the demand for qualified campus leader s will far outweigh the projected supply, many Boards are developing succession plans for their perspective campuses (Stripling, 2011). One strategy that has recently gained momentum is to search outside the traditional candidate pool to hire future leade rs for their campuses. Although studies have shown that most current presidents of colleges and universities have come from the traditional academic supply (i.e. faculty, department chair, provost, etc. ), some Boards are recognizing the benefits of seekin g those from the student service arena, namely vice presidents of student affairs and deans of students. Senior administrators in student affairs are a potential resource for providing qualified potential replacements (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; NASPA, 201 0; Bullard, 2008, de la Teja, Dalpes, Swett, Shenk, 2010). Student Affairs As of 2009, there were almost 3.8 million administrators, staff, and faculty serving almost 18 million students (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Supporting the academic missio n of the academy are those administrators and staff who work in the field of student services or student affairs. These professionals, many with advanced and graduate degrees in the field of higher education administration or student affairs, enhance the learning goals and objectives of their respective schools by assisting students in and outside the classroom. Student affairs personnel represent many areas of responsibility and include, but are not limited to, admissions, academic advising, counseling, disability services, intramurals, career development, residential life, orientation programs, leadership development, health services, international students, student clubs, organizations, student government, and Greek life. Like many other professions wh o in their infancy were generalists, managing multiple roles and tasks,
21 student affairs has fragmented and divided over the past half century into many specialty sub fields. In recent years, in part due to the shrinking availability of qualified replaceme nts, senior level administrators of student affairs vice presidents and deans, have been selected to assume presidencies. Though historically the majority of college presidents come from the traditional pipeline of faculty member, department chair, academic dean, provost, and then president, more Boards are looking outside of this traditional pathway and selecting student affairs leaders. Chapter 2 will go into more depth on the history and development of the student affairs profession, along with it s current role and issues. Statement of the Problem Higher education in the United States is facing a potential leadership crisis. As the average age of a campus leader is now surpassing 60 years, many presidents and other senior level administrators are preparing to retire. University and college boards are faced with the dilemma of fewer available and qualified replacements (Stripling, 2011, Skinner, 2010, Campbell 2002, Boggs 2002, Shults 2001). In addition to the dearth of senior level administr ators, there are also fewer faculty available to step in with the necessary skill sets and qualifications for administrative roles as they are also selecting retirement (King, 2008). In addition, those faculty who are qualified and remain, realize the ri stress and turmoil. To help address this shortage of qualified leaders, colleges and universities will need to look at alternative supply chains. Senior administrators in student affairs are a potential resource for providing qualified potential replacements (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; NASPA, 2010; Bullard, 2008). Many senior level student affairs
22 administrators obtain their formal education and training in graduate programs in student deve lopment, student affairs, higher education, or similar. As college enrollment patterns continue to shift, non traditional institutional types are predicted to continue to grow and expand, thus requiring leaders with academic experience and skills in highe r education. This research will focus on factors that might relate to the employment decisions for graduate students in student affairs programs, in particular as it relates to institutional type and choice of field. Purpose of the Study The purpose of t his research is to determine the employment trends and plans of current graduate students pursuing a career in higher education and/or student affairs. The results of this study may provide further insight into how future employment choice is supportive o f the changing demographics of higher education, particularly institutional types. Research Questions 1. Which institutional type is most preferred by student affairs graduate students for employment? 2. Does the institutional type where graduate students enr oll impact the type of institution where students prefer to work? 3. What factors might be related to institutional type for future employment for graduate students enrolled in student affairs programs? 4. What career fields within higher education are graduate students in student affairs programs most interested in pursuing? 5. What position levels do student affairs graduate students aspire to? 6. Which experiences are most important for student affairs graduate students when considering future employment in higher education? What experiences were least important?
23 Research Hypothesis H1: There is no difference in employment preference by institutional type for student affairs graduate students. H2: There is no difference in the type of inst itution one attends graduate school and the preferred institution type for employment. H3: There is no difference found in select factors impacting employment preference by graduate students. H4: There is no difference in career fields preferred b y student affairs graduate students regarding their future employment. H5: There is no difference in position levels that graduate students aspire to. H6: There is no difference in the importance of experiences / influences for student affairs graduate students when considering institution type for future employment. Significance of Study With much attention and resources given to the impending leadership shortage in higher education, the results of this study may provide an insight into where future leaders in higher education are aspiring to serve as it relates to institution type and spe cialty area. Depending on the results of this study, greater awareness and exposure to other opportunities within higher education for current graduate students may be beneficial in helping address the leadership gap issue. The review of the literature r evealed numerous studies and research targeting the predicted leadership gap. Some also highlighted different strategies being implemented to address this issue, from the development of in house leadership programs and succession planning, to seeking appl icants from non traditional backgrounds like business, industry, and government (Eckel & Hartley, 2011). The literature, however, did not show much in terms of career and employment plans for graduate students enrolled in student affairs related programs or similar. This study,
24 employment goals in higher education. Limitations Creswell (2005) describes limitations as potential concerns or weaknesses with the design, i mplementation, and analysis of a research study. These limitations can threaten the internal validity and skew the results of the research. One primary limitation is the survey instrument developed and administered for this study. To obtain further clar ity and reduce ambiguity of the instrument, numerous revisions of the survey instrument were completed using expert reviews, focus groups, and the administering of a preliminary pilot study. Consequently, the lack of establishing a valid and reliable inst rument is still present. Due to the method in which the instrument was administered, there is potential for inconsistency of the results due to variability in how the survey was administered and interpreted. Chapter 3 describes in further detail the meth odology used in this study. Delimitations One of the delimitations of this study involves external validity. External validity is the extent to which the findings of a particular study can be generalized to a group of people other than those observed in the study (Shavelson, 1995). The sample size (N = 3 47 ) was taken from a 1 5 state region of the southern United States. Conclusion This paper is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the issues and problem to be researched, a long with the research questions and hypothesis. Chapter 2 takes an in depth review of the pertinent literature that addresses the research problem and provides a framework and understanding of the
25 major issues and sub issues involved. Chapter 3 provides a clear outline of the methodology used to carry out this research, along with a description of the population and sample. A history of the development of the survey instrument is also explained in C hapter 3 Chapter 4 shares the data and research resul ts, in addition to analysis of the data obtained and any themes. Each of the research questions and hypothesis are also discussed in C hapter 4 Chapter 5 summarizes the findings and implications and suggests opportunities for further research in this are a.
26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In Ch apter 1 it was stated that one of the distinctions of American culture and our society is the long standing belief and value that everyone has a right to grow to his or her fullest potential. This is reflected in the American higher education system where everyone is provided the opportunity to pursue his or her education and training beyond high school. This is largely due to the creation and development of multiple institutional types that reflect the wide dive rsity and needs of students. For much of the twentieth century, American higher education was the global benchmark for quality, access, attainment, and graduate research. In what seems like overnight, this is no longer the case, and American higher educa tion is faced with numerous challenges, including declining funding, accountability, graduation rates, and a potential leadership shortage. The 2011 Almanac of Higher Education reported in a survey that 70 % of current presidents rated higher education in the U.S. one of the best or the best when compared to the rest of the world When the same group of presidents was asked to make the same comparison in ten years that percentage drops to 53% (2011). According to the U.S. Department of Educa tion, more than 20 million students are currently enrolled in one of the approximate 4,600 colleges and universities. Serving these students are almost 3.8 million staff, faculty, and administrators (IES, 2009). Thousands of these employees are student a ffairs professionals, whose aim and mission is to help students successfully navigate through the often overwhelming maze of higher education as they reach their educational, personal, and career goals. This chapter will provide an overview of the current literature as it relates to the career and employment preferences of graduate students enrolled in student affairs or higher
27 education programs and how this might impact the projected leadership shortages in American higher education. Chapter 2 is divid ed into the following four general headings: (a) statement of the problem (b) history of student affairs (c) classification of higher education and (d) leadership shortage. To illustrate a research rationale for this proposed study, a summary will concl ude at the end of C hapter 2 Statement of the P roblem A potential leadership crisis is facing Higher education in the United States. One part of the problem is the aging of current senior leaders. A vast majority of campus presidents along with other se nior level administrators are preparing to retire as the average age of a campus president is approximately 60 years This wave of retirement of senior leadership is presenting u niversity and college boards with the dilemma of fewer available and qualifie d replacements (Association of Governing Boards, 2011, Stripling, 2011). In addition to th is projected shortage of senior level administrators, there is also a forecast of fewer faculty who are available to step in with the necessary skill sets and qualif ications for administrative roles (King, 2008). C olleges and universities will need to look at alternative supply chains t o help address this shortage of qualified leaders, (Eckel & Hartley, 2011). One potential resource for providing qualified potential replacements can be found in s enior administrators in student affairs (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; NASPA, 2010; Bullard, 2008, de La Teja, Dalpes, Swett & Swenk, 2010). Many senior level student affairs administrators obtain their formal education and tr aining in graduate programs in student development, student affairs, higher education, or similar. N on traditional institutional types are predicted to grow and expand a s college enrollment patterns continue to shift This rapid growth amongst these inst itutional types will require additional senior leadership and offer emerging
28 leaders with academic experience and skills in higher education new opportunities. This research will focus on factors that might relate to the employment decisions for graduate students in student affairs programs, in particular as it relates to institutional type and choice of field. History of Student Affairs The profession of student affairs consists of those individuals who work in a college or university setting, tradition ally in areas that involve the development and education of students outside the classroom and curriculum. One of the leading professional organizations for those who work in student affairs, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (N ASPA), states in their Standards of Professional Practice integrity, belief in the dignity and worth of individuals, respect for individual differences and diversity, a commitment to service, and dedication to the development of individuals and the c assumptions underlying the key values and mission within the field of student affairs academic mission of the c To help gain a better understanding of the scope and role into this 200 year old profession, it is helpful to first highlight the history and beginnings of our American higher education system, as the two run parallel in their development. Heavily influenced by both the British undergraduate and German research university model, higher education is relatively young compared to other systems around the world, having begun 375 years ago with the founding of Harvard Univ ersity in 1636 (Rudolph, 1990, Eckel and King, 2004). The College of William & Mary and the
29 Collegiate School of New Haven, later renamed Yale, both followed in 1693 and 1701 respectively. Their primary purpose was to educate civic leaders and prepare a learned clergy (Lucas, 2006). The early colleges were referred to as colonial colleges, due to the time period in which they were founded, as well as the heavy influence of the English universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Komives & Woodward, 2003). It i s interesting to note that higher education during the colonial years was quite different from how we know it today. One primary difference was the fact that very few actually attended college. From 1700 to 1900, fewer than 5% of all males in the U.S. be tween the ages of 18 to 22 attended college (Komives & Woodward, 2003). According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2009, that percentage had increased to over 40 % for both male and females ages 18 to 25 (U.S. Department of Education 201 0). This also does not take into account that of the approximate 20 million students enrolled in an American college or university, eight million, or 40 % are adults 25 years of age and older, according to the U.S. Department of Education (2010). During the colonial college period (1636 1750), faculty w ere responsible for not only the instruction and learning of the students but also maintaining order and discipline outside the classroom. Heavily influenced by the residential model used at both Oxford and Cambridge in England, these early schools were designed for students, faculty, and administrators to live and learn together (Lucas, 2006). The aim intellectual
30 in terms of enforcing strict discipline of rules to help develop not only the intellect bu t the character of the individual as well. By the late 1700s to mid 1800s, referred to as the antebellum period, extracurricular programs were forming as student activities such as literary societies, debate teams, and campus publications were emerging on campus (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Many equaled the same loyalty and rivalry of intercollegiate athletics (Lucas, 2006). Fraternities and Greek societies followed soon after, much to the opposition of the leaders of the schools. By the mi d latter part of the nineteenth century, a college education was no longer viewed as a way of obtaining social and economic stability for the wealthy and elite (Komives & W oodward, 2003). Access to college was more acceptable for the common man as women and minorities were gaining admission and creating their own institutions for higher learning. The advent of land grant schools, due in large part to the passing of the Morrill Act of 1862 and the changing of the curriculum from the classics to a vocation orientation, opened the door to a broader segment of the general population. Another event serving as a catalyst in the academic landscape was the German university movement, which shifted the focus solely on student learning and had little regard for what transpired outside the classroom (Komives & Woodward, 2003). This influence was also instrumental in the evolution and development of what is now the graduate research university for which the U.S. is well known. This time period also gave rise to our current collegiate athletics, and related events were also emerging during this time period, with a new interest on health, physical well being, and life skills.
31 With the face of the college campus changing rapidly and heading into the twentieth centu ry, a need for new specialists to address the student concerns and needs of this era was apparent. Faculty and presidents no long wanted or had the time to assume both the curricular duties of the time, along with the added dimension of extracurricular re sponsibilities. Harvard appointed its first dean in 1870, who besides teaching, was to oversee all student discipline matters and would later include student counseling (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Another dramatic change in American higher education that helped serve as a by then Harvard president, Charles Eliot. This was in stark contrast to the one size fits all classical course of study that was prescribed t o all students. This new approach to scheduling gave rise to the need for academic advising and one of the first duties of the student affairs profession (Komives & Woodward, 2003). The 1900s saw the birth of a new profession in higher education, as the first dean of men was appointed at the University of Illinois. As faculty were growing more reluctant in overseeing students outside the classroom, students became more self reliant and were more involved in governance. This transition gave way to the c reation of student government and student councils on campuses. After World War I, many new services were started, such as health services, vocational guidance, testing, counseling, and the office of the registrar. The offering of services for mental h ealth and psychological services soon followed (Komives & Woodward, 2003). The structure and titles given to those in student affairs was as diverse and unique as the schools and mission they worked for. Some common
32 position titles used included dean of students, director of personnel, social director, and vocational counselor (Komives & Woodward, 2003). In the 1930s, the American Council on Education appointed a taskforce whose charge was to develop a report on the practices of those in student perso nnel related activities on college campuses. The landmark report, titled the Student Personnel Point of View (SPPV), was released in 1937 and helped define and shape the profession for many years (Komives & Woodward, 2003). The report highlighted the imp ortance of recognizing and serving the individual differences in each student. It also provided guidance as to how student affairs should be organized and structured on campuses but honoring and supporting the unique missions of each school. The SPPV als o provided 23 specific functions that should be provided in each comprehensive program (Komives & Woodward, 2003). In 1949, the SPPV was revised and to this day is instrumental in the development of the philosophical foundation and values of the student a ffairs profession. With the rapid growth and specialization of student affairs, numerous professional organizations began to appear. Early in the development of the profession, roles and titles were often divided by gender and race. It was common for c ampuses to have both a dean for men and a dean for women. Often the dean for women was the highest ranking female on campus. One of the earliest professional organizations for students affairs was the formation of the National Association for Deans of Wo men, founded in 1916 (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Later in 1956, this organization became the National Association for Women Deans and Counselors.
33 Another group called the conference of Deans and Advisors organi zed their first meeting in 1919. This g roup later evolved into what is now one of the leading national organizations in student affairs, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). Women began joining NASPA in 1926. Another organization affiliated with student affa irs emerged on the scene in the early 1900s. What is now known as The American College Personnel Association (ACPA) began in 1924. This group was initially named the National Association of Appointment Secretaries and later broadened its scope to be rena med the National Association of Placement and Personnel Officers (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Today, the two largest student affairs organizations, ACPA and NASPA, have been holding ongoing discussions that would merge the two leading professional groups i nto one student affairs organization (NASPA, 2011). As the student affairs profession began to fragment in both responsibilities and populations served, other organizations began to emerge, recognizing these specializations. New organizations like the Association of College Unions International, National Orientation Directors Associations, and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers were started and are still active today (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Today there are mor e than 50 organizations associated with the profession of student affairs. During the time after World War II and through the 1980s, American higher education experienced its greatest rate of growth to date. This rapid expansion of both student enrollmen t and campus facilities was due in large part to an increase in government funding, primarily in for the form of student aid. One of the most influential
34 Readjustment Act, m ore commonly referred to as the G.I. Bill. This served as a major catalyst for college enrollments and had a dramatic impact on the rapid growth of the student affairs profession (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Many campuses more than doubled in size due to the return of men and women who had served in the military, as they took advantage of the opportunity to earn a college diploma. With this rapid growth of students, college campuses needed additional faculty as well as student services staff to help sup port the mission of the college and the students that matriculated. Later in 1947, the Truman Commission Report was released and called for expanded access for all to higher education and provided additional financial aid, broader curriculums, and most i mportantly, stimulated the expansion of our community college system (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Another influential form of legislation, but lesser known than the previous two, was the passage of Title IV of the Housing Act of 1950. With the rapid inc rease in campus enrollments, literally overnight, the need for food and housing services was immediate. This legislation provided much needed financial resources to build and provide residential halls and dining services many of which are still in use (K omives & Woodward, 2003). As the face of the student body at American college campuses was rapidly diversifying, this also impacted student affairs. More personnel were needed and justified to serve the growing student populations and provide new service s. In addition, college campuses no longer served in loco parentis also altering the scope and role of those in student affairs.
35 Most recently, student affairs and higher education ha ve been impacted by more emphasis on accountability, student learnin g, increases in older, part time, and international students, technology, and a specialized curriculum with an emphasis on career satisfaction (Komives & Woodward, 2003). As campus enrollments expanded, a growing diverse student body required a larger variety of services and programs. The addition of new and expanding student services led to a growing need for additional qualified and trained staff. Student affairs fic undergraduate major leading directly to a graduate program and very few who work in the field were aware of this option when beginning their college education (Taub & McEwen, 2006). For the many who work in student affairs, it was not the result of a self directed career plan but more likely the result of a suggestion by a mentor or a critical incident or experience in college that set the course (Taub & McEwen, 2006). A majority of practitioners who work in administrative levels of student affairs on a college campus most likely have a graduate degree in the field or similar. Historically these programs were first developed as a response to the need for specialists in the field of student services and counseling. The first program of study was d eveloped by first Master of Arts degree was awarded in 1914 (Komizes and Woodward, 2003). Today the American College Personnel Association lists over 150 graduate progra ms, including both master s and doctoral programs, in college student personnel on their web site (ACPA, 2010). ACPA provides program recognition to those programs that
36 meet the four criteria as established by the Commission for Professional Preparation ( ACPA 2011). The four program criteria include: 1. Program has at least one full time faculty member. 2. Program has at least four content courses about student services, student affairs, or student development and the college student/environment. 3. Program has at least two academic years of duration. 4. Program has at least one student personnel practicum opportunity (internship) for students. The Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) also has a set of criteria for graduate programs in student affairs (Barra composed of representatives from other professional organizations in student affairs and higher education and its primary function is to develop and assess criteria and standards for areas within these fields. CAS also has established criteria for graduate programs, offering degrees in student affairs or similar areas of study. CAS standards require two years of full time study and state that each program must contain the following courses: foundational studies, professiona l studies, and a supervised professional practice experience. Included in these criteria are courses on student development theory, history of higher education, philosophical foundations of student affairs, leadership development, assessment, and research (ACPA, 2011). Both NASPA and ACPA offer numerous resources to help market the field of student affairs and inform future practitioners. Both associations offer job placement services at their respective national conferences. Hundreds of entry and middl e level positions are listed, in which candidates can interview on site with the hiring college or university. Other services offered to help attract potential candidates in the profession include mentoring programs, internship opportunities, and graduate school program
37 2011). ACPA recently developed a national conference, Next Generatio n, targeting undergraduates to educate and inform them about the many opportunities in student affairs. Attendees will get an opportunity to meet with current graduate students, faculty in these programs, and current practitioners in the field (ACPA, 2011 ). A majority of the research on career paths of those in student affairs has focused on senior level administrators, primarily vice president s of student affairs or deans. In one study it was reported that within seven years 40 % to 70 % of those who entered the field of student affairs will exit higher education (Ward, 1995). Several factors contribute to this high turnover, including burnout from the stress of long hours low wages and limited opportunities for advancement, particularl y at smaller institutions. Currently, it is estimated that there are more than 3,500 graduate students enrolled in student affairs or similar programs across the U.S. Many of these students will pursue careers in areas such as: academic advising, admissi ons and enrollment management, financial aid, career development, student unions, community service or service learning programs, commuter services and off campus housing, dean of students, food services, disability support services, judicial affairs, Gree k life, multicultural services, international students, campus ministry, registrar, residential life, counseling, campus recreation, student government, clubs and organizations, student activities, and
38 As the needs and demands of students continue to change, higher education will need to adapt, evolve, and implement new services, methods of delivery, and support programs in order to survive in this more complex market (Komives, and Woodward, 2003). The develo pment of new technologies, growth of on line and other alternative learning processes, the influx of for profit institutions, and the growing trend of students With the m any changes facing higher education, particularly those colleges and universities experiencing rapid growth, individuals pursuing a career in student affairs and their related services will be in great demand. The next section looks at how the American h igher education system has evolved and become more specialized with the many institutional types. Classification of Higher Education As described earlier in C hapter 2 up until the early twentieth century, American higher education was very much an elit ist institution limiting access based on gender, race, religion, and social class (Eckel, King, 2004). In response to changes in social and public policy, Americans saw higher education as the bridge to living the American dream. Due in large part to the proliferation of community colleges, the G.I. Bill of 1944, and availability of federal financial aid, American higher education began to distinguish itself as it broadened access to all (Eckel, King, 2004). As more students enrolled and sought a coll ege education, additional programs and colleges began to emerge to meet these diverse needs in the educational market place. Much like the undergraduate programs that have proliferated and fragmented into hundreds of sub specialties for students to concen trate their undergraduate studies, American colleges and universities have also evolved into many types. These schools
39 have become specialists in providing students with the area of academic studies as well as academic delivery systems that cater to their wants and needs. With almost 20 million students enrolled in some form of higher education program, colleges and universities have become as diverse as their students. As U.S. colleges and universities grew more diverse and complex, it became increasing ly difficult to govern, conduct research, and develop policy. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation states that there are over 7,000 postsecondary institutions, including almost 4,500 degree granting colleges and universities (2011). These coll eges and universities have typically been grouped in four major categories consisting of community colleges, public four year colleges and universities, private four year (non profit), and the most recent type, the for profit college. Even within the four groups, there is a great deal of diversification in each category (Eckel, King, 2004). Of the 7,000 plus institutions, 53 % are listed as non profit and 47 % as for profit. Private schools make up 60 % and there are approximately 1,200 are community colleg es, 105 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), 268 Hispanic Serving Institutions (HIS)Colleges, and 34 Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) (CHEA, 2008). In 1967 the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, an independent po licy and research center, created the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education to assess and study the issues of the day facing higher education (McCormick, Zhao, 2005). It was soon discovered that at the time there was no definitive system to classify the thousands of schools so comparisons and further research could be conducted. By 1970, the Carnegie Commission, led by Clark Kerr,
40 the former President of the University of California system and developer of the California Master Plan for Higher Education developed the now famous Carnegie Classification system and in 1973 it was published (Hardy, Katsinas, Bush, 2007, McCormick, Zhao, 2005). The primary purpose of the new classification system was to allow for fundamental research to be able to comp are and contrast universities and colleges using meaningful, analytical, and manageable categories (McCormick, Zhao, 2005, Carnegie Foundation, 2011). The Carnegie Classifications are not rankings and they do not imply quality differences among the variou s categories (Carnegie Foundation, 2011). Since its conception in 1970, updates have occurred in 1976, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2005, and most recently 2010 to keep current with the changing institutional types. The original Carnegie Classification was not inte nded to be the definitive institutional classification system, but it was quickly adopted as the default method by higher education researchers as they studied and described differences among American colleges and universities (McCormick and Zhao, 2006). There were other classification models of higher education, but the Carnegie model was the primary system used by researchers, foundations, state systems, organizations, and news media. The popular U.S. News Rankings have used the Carnegie Classifications since 1983, the first year of the rankings and will for the first time include on line colleges and programs due to their impending growth and popularity (Wiseman & Young, 2011). Although the system attempted to identify and embrace the diversification of colleges and universities, it had a reverse effect on the diversity of campuses, as many would
41 become one of the doctoral granting research institutions. It was quite co mmon to hear presidents and other academic leaders of regional, liberal arts, or other institutions describe their new mission to become the next premier research school in their region. In 2005, the Classifications introduced a new multiple classificatio n model designed to provide more flexibility and accurate measures for research and comparisons among U.S. colleges and universities. The 2010 update had minimal changes to the 2005 classification system, other than updated data. The Classifications uses data from the following resources: U.S. Office of Postsecondary Education, the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data system (IPEDS), the National Science Foundation, and The College Board (Carnegie Foundation, 20 11). The Carnegie Classification system currently categorizes more than 4,600 higher institutions. The Foundation shows in the 21 st century that most of the growth in newly classified institutions has occurred within the private for profit sector (Carl son, 2011). Compared to 2005, 77 % of the almost 500 newly classified schools were private for profit institutions. Private non profit colleges accounted for 19 % and public schools made up 4 % of the recently classified schools ( Carnegie Foundation, 2011). Chun Mei higher education landscape is shifting further away from the traditional method of the education is the fact that U. S. News & World Report will soon include on line programs in their annual rankings. Many schools who provide on line programs are private for profit (Wiseman,
42 ry that on line programs will be ranked extensively. The 2010 classification update maintains the six parallel classifications that were first introduced in the 2005 update. These sections include: Basic Classification (the traditional Carnegie Classifi cation Framework), Undergraduate and Graduate Instructional Program classifications, Enrollment Profile, Undergraduate Profile classifications, and Size and Setting classification (Carnegie foundation, 2011). The intent of these classifications is to prov ide different vantage points for comparisons for researchers who require greater flexibility and analytical options. In the period from 1999 to 2009, campus growth has impacted all types of institutions but none more than the for profit sector. This new wave of colleges built on the model of serving investors has experienced triple digit growth during this time period, with a staggering 539 % increase in undergr aduate enrollment (Almanac 2011). Public colleges and universities grew by 32 % followed by privates (non profit) at 21 % Community colleges, both public and private, experienced a 33 % increase in undergraduate enrollment. This data indicates the great need for additional faculty, staff, and administrators in all segments of higher education, but none more glaring than the for profit environment. It can be argued that community colleges are one of the most important developments in American higher education in the past one hundred years (Sandeen, 2006). Since the development of the very firs t community college in 1901, founded in Joliet, Illinois, no other segment in American higher education has responded greater to
43 (AACC, 2008). Originally, the primary pur pose of community colleges, or junior colleges more established four year colleges and universities (Lucas, 1994), though many community colleges in the beginning were mer ely extensions of the secondary school system (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Some leaders of higher education at the time opposed the new community college concept; particularly those affiliated with four year liberal arts colleges, as they felt these new communi ty colleges would siphon off some of their prospective students. Conant, were supportive of the development of community colleges, as they saw this as an effective way t public universities (Lucas, 1994). Others believed that in order for their institutions to themselv es of the responsibility of providing lower division (freshman and sophomore) classes (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). One prominent and highly vocal supporter of the development of the community college system was William Rainey Harper, the first president of th e University of Chicago. More than half a century later, Harper College, a public two year college in Illinois, was founded with his namesake in honor and tribute for his support of two year colleges. Regardless of any resentment and opposition, communit y colleges continued to flourish, even through the Great Depression, while other four year schools struggled due to lack of public funding (Lucas, 1994).
44 Soon after World War II in 1948, the Truman Commission served as a catalyst for the further developm wide network to serve all people (AACC, 2008). Later in the 1960s, the growth of community colleges rapidly exploded with the addition of over 450 new campus sites serving the educational needs campuses were created during this period, providing access to higher education to countless students and employees, many of whom would never have had an opportunity to attend college (Philli pe & Patton, 2000). Today, a community college or an affiliated branch is within proximity to virtually every resident of the United States (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). More than any other accomplishment, community colleges have been most instrumental in openi ng the doors of education to those segments of society who traditionally would never have had the opportunity to further their education (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Currently numbering more than 1200 in the United States, community colleges have evolved into a very vital component of the American higher education landscape, as they provide education to almost half of all students who are currently enrolled in an American college or university (AACC, 2008). Having served more than 100 million students since th eir beginning, community colleges have distinguished themselves with a unique purpose and mission that focuses on accessibility, affordability, and adaptability to the community of learners they serve. Their doors are open to all, providing access to more than 12 million students and workforce employees (AACC, 2008). In a critical time of reduced state and federal funding combined with
45 growing enrollments, community colleges are committed to offering quality education at an affordable cost to the American public. Besides their unmatched commitment to access, community colleges distinguish themselves from their four year counterparts in other ways as well. The American Association of Community Colleges (2008) reports that more than half of all students w ho currently attend a four year university have previously attended a community college. Community colleges are also one of the largest providers of education to the United States military. More than half of all nurses and other first time health care w orkers are educated by community colleges (AACC, 2008). In addition to providing college credit programs and degrees, community colleges have long been recognized for their workforce training programs and their relationship with business and industry. B usiness and industry continue to utilize the quick response and flexibility of the customized workforce development programs provided by community colleges to train and educate more than five million of their employees. As employee development and life lo ng learning are essential to the success of most organizations, community colleges have long been the leading provider in workforce training for corporate America (AACC, 2008). Currently, most community colleges continue to flourish, though they face num erous challenges, including dwindling state and federal resources, soaring enrollments, intense competition from the private sector, and increased scrutiny for more accountability (Phillippe & Mullin, 2011). In addition to these mounting issues, an even m ore insurmountable challenge looms on the horizon for community colleges a leadership shortage.
46 The Leadership Shortage Max Dupree (1987) (Leadership is an Art). Between the years 1946 and 1964, there were 76 million p eople born in the United States. This generation is often referred to as the Baby Boomers (Howe & Strauss, 2000). Another 46 million, labeled Generation X, were born between 1961 and 1981. I n 2010, Boomers account with an estimated 30 million skilled workers over the age of 55 and eligible for retirement. (Gallagher, 2005; Tutor, 2008). With many Baby Boomers projected to enter retirement between 2008 and 2020, millions of educated and highly trained individuals will leave the work force, causing a tremendous labor shortage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010). The impending wave of the Baby Boomer retirement has alarmed many segments in the Americ an workforce this past decade. Although the current economic downturn has temporarily delayed this expected retirement surge, many organizations representing health care, business, industry, government, non profit, and education have been diligently strat egizing how to prepare for this labor shortfall (Hassan, Dellow & Jackson, 2010; Karoly & Panis, 2004). This inevitable workforce shortage impacts not only the supply of entry and mid level workers but also the senior leadership of these organizations who are at risk due to the projected loss of personnel as a result of this mass retirement. American employers have been preparing for this anticipated shortfall of a skilled workforce due to the impending retirement of the highly trained baby boomer gene ration (Zeiss, 2004; Gallagher, 2005; U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). One estimate
47 level skills, could increase to more than 14 million by 2020 (Carnevale & De srochers, 2004). To further complicate the issue, the problem is not only replacing numbers of workers, but also a replacing a loss of knowledge, experience, and leadership (Gallagher, 2005). Another study reports that 50 % of all senior level management p ersonnel employed with a Fortune 500 company plan to retire over the next five years (Gregoire, 2006). However, another viewpoint thinks the impending labor shortage is nothing more than another Y2K scare that will never materialize. This viewpoint argu es that other variables not accounted for will offset the predicted work force shortage, including the fact that Baby Boomers will work longer than previously expected or even some will re retire. Recently one report indicated that due to economic volatil ity, 25 % of baby boomers plan to never retire (Fram, 2011). This change in work habits is due primarily to the unexpected economic downturn, along with the desire for Boomers to continue to stay active and productive (Maestas, 2004). Other factors that might counter balance the labor shortage include legislative changes affecting the Social Security retirement system, age discrimination law, and amendments to the immigration law (Levine, 2008). In addition, although the 76 million workers born between 1946 1964 cannot work forever and the group that follows, Generation X, only accounts for approximately 60% of the number of Boomers, the so many are already beginning to enter the workforce (Levine, 2008). The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that workers over the age of 55 account for 19 % of the labor force by 2012 and this same age group will continue to grow at four
48 times the rate of growth of the overall popu lation (Toosi, 2004). In the United States, 57 % of men in the early 19 60s plan to still be working for pay, as compared to 71 % in Japan, 33 % in Germany, and 15 % in France (Maestas, 2004). This shortage of a skilled workforce has also caught the attention of those in institutions of higher education who seek to fill key senior level leadership positions on their campuses (Cowen, 2008). The Bureau of Labor Statistics listed college and university administrators as one of the ten occupations most likely affec ted by the anticipated Baby Boomer retirement (Schaefer, 2006). It is estimated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that over 6,000 jobs will need to be filled in higher education administration by 2014, including at least 50 % of senior leadership who will need to be replaced (Leubsdorf, 2006). This pattern is even more significant at the community college level, with projections showing 79 % of college presidents will retire in 2012 and 84 % by 2016 ( Betts 2009). This is evident as senior level search committees are experiencing the impact of this labor shortage, as fewer qualified candidates apply for the presidency or other senior level posts at their college or university (Mead Fox, 2009; June 2007). In addition to the impact of a retiring workforce the American Council on Education reported in 2008 that a survey of chief academic officers showed that only 30 % aspired to be a college or university president (Jaschik, 2009). This is an alarming finding, as 40 % of currently sitting campus presidents had served previously as a provost or chief academic officer of a college or university (ACE 2008). American Council on Education reported that the 49 % of all current presidents were 61 years of age or older, suggesting a large number of upcoming retirements (2010). One
49 interesting trend found in the report was that the average number of years served as president, 8.6 years, had increased over 25 % from the 1986 report, which repo rted the average tenure of a college president at 6.3 years (ACE 2010). Even with the current suggests this will only provide a temporary respite from the impending lead ership shortage (Mead Fox, 2009). There are other factors besides a shrinking labor pool that are impacting the desire to balance career with personal as indi viduals now place more value on families, health, and their overall personal well being. Many who are in line to assume senior level appointments would rather just stay in their current role than assume the rigors and immense challenges provosts and pres idents endure on a daily basis (Mead Fox, 2009, McNair, Duree, Ebbers, 2011). Another factor that is affecting the ability to fill these leadership positions is the changing duties and scope of many senior level positions (Strom, Sanchez, Downey Schill ing, 2011). The role of the president has changed drastically over the past decade, focusing on external issues of the academy, like fundraising and legislative issues, and less on education and leading a campus (ACE, 2010). The aging of current preside nts, similar retirement trends for provosts and other senior chief academic officers, along with the increase in competition for top qualified candidates provide the rationale why college and university boards need to develop succession plans for their res pective campuses (AGB, 2011).
50 Because of the projected mass exodus of the Boomer generation, many of these hard to fill positions will be in key mid level and senior level management positions, as well as seasoned faculty at their respective institutions (Campbell, 2006). This is critical, as these positions typically serve as training grounds for future presidents and othe r senior leaders in academia. Community colleges appear to be even more susceptible to this issue as it relates to their senior level administration. It has been well documented (Evelyn, 2001; Campbell, 2002; Boggs, 2002; Shults, 2001; AACC, & Shenk, 2010) that community colleges are facing a leadership shortage at the executive level, as up to 80 % or more of current presidents and other senior administrators prepare to retire by 2012. Although this would appear normal in the natural cycle in the turnover process within any organization, the problem lies in the fact that there are insufficient numbers of qualified replacements waiting in the wings. More than 75 % of all current community college presidents have either served previously as a president of another two year college or had been a senior admini strator at a community college (AACC, 2001; Ross & Green, 2000; ACE, 2007). The leadership pipeline that provided the vast majority of community college presidents and senior administrators is no longer as abundant as it once was. For community college s, the issue of an emerging leadership gap has been near or at the top of critical concerns for the past ten years (Shults, 2001; Campbell, 2002; Boggs, 2002; Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002 and 2007, Jun 2007; Perrakis, Campbell, & Anto noros, 2009). Numbering over 1,100 and representing
51 almost 25 % of all American colleges and universities, community colleges are facing leadership shortages of monumental proportions. The first warning that an impending shortage in the community college leadership pipeline came in 1998 when the Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges in the Western Region created the Community College Leadership Development Initiatives (CCLDI) in Californ ia (Romero, 2004). In 2001, the American Association of Community Colleges conducted the seminal study that reported a large percentage of current presidents and senior leaders would be retiring within the next five years (Shultz, 2001). The report state that almost half of all community college presidents indicated they plan to retire within the next six years. In addition, this report also found that one third of all senior leadership (i.e. vice presidents, provosts, deans) plan to retire as well within the same period of time. This is of particular concern, as one study found that 77 % of all current presidents had previously served i n as a senior administrator at a community college prior to becoming a president (Amey & VanderLinden, 200 2 ). An Iowa State University study reported that by 2012, 79 % of current plan to retire, and this percentage increases to 84 % when the timeline is extended to 2016 (Duree 200 8 ). In addition to this report, other senior level administrators also report higher than normal rates of retirement. With more than 75 % of community college presidents having served previously as either a provost, president at another community college, or senior academic affairs officer, this scenario sets up a perfect
52 storm (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002). Other projections have placed this rate as high as 84 % over the next five years (Weisman & Vaughn 2007; Dure e, 2008). Community colleges appear to be even more susceptible to this issue as it relates to their senior level administration. In 2011, President Obama announced his plan to award degrees, certificates, and other related credentials to an additiona l 5 million students by the year 2020 (AACC, 2011). Community colleges are targeted to be the primary resource for these additional students, utilizing their expertise for providing access and quickly adapting new programs. This is most likely in respon se to the United States ranking 16 th in the world, and dropping, for the percent of adults, ages 25 to 34 years with earned college degrees (deVise, 2011). Combined with this new directive from the President, community colleges have experienced unprecede nted enrollment gains over the past eight of ten years. Community colleges have had increases during this time ranging from a low of 3% percent to as high as 17 % in annual growth. Student enrollment gains are projected to continue at many community colle ges as a result of a number of factors (Boggs, 2004, de la Teja, Dalpes, Swett, & Swenk, 2010). One factor is the increase in the percentage of high school students who plan to attend college, projected at 70 % to 80 % after completing high school or some e quivalent (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, 2005; Lingenfelter, 2007). This trend could increase student enrollments at community colleges by as much as 46 % by 2015 (Martinez, 2004). Unfortunately, huge enrollment increases often parallel diminished state fun ding (Phillippe and Mullin, 2011). In fact, 32 % of surveyed colleges indicated they were unable to enroll all students who had applied, contradicting a landmark value of
53 community colleges, which is to provide access to all. The California community coll ege system, with more than 70 % over 2.6 million enrolled students, has had to resort to the painful decision to turn away students (Douglass, 2011). In the 2009 2010 year, 140,000 students were n ot allowed to enroll, and it is estimated that this number will exceed 200,000 as state funding is depleted (Fain, 2012). No doubt this lofty challenge will be a primary issue for the future leadership of community colleges. As a result of this diminish ed candidate pool, another trend that is gaining momentum is an increasing number of new community college presidents rising from the ranks of senior or chief student affairs officers, typically holding the title of vice president of student affairs (Bulla rd, 2008; Weltsch, 2009). With up to 84 % of the current senior level community college administrators planning to retire by 2016, a large percentage of community college search committees will be facing a great void of qualified replacements (Weisman & Va ughn, 2007; Duree, 2008). As the demand for community college leaders will far outweigh the projected supply, many community colleges will look outside the traditional leadership pipeline to hire future leaders for their campuses (Vaughn, 2004; Kelly, 200 2; Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002, Perrakis, Campbell, Antonaros, 2009). As a result of this diminished candidate pool, another trend that is gaining momentum is an increasing number of new community college presidents rising from the ranks of senior or chief student affairs officers, typically holding the title of vice president of student affairs (Bullard, 2008; Weltsch, 2009).
54 From their beginning over 100 years ago, community colleges have dedicated themselves to providing educational and career training fo r all individuals. This core value on accessibility, along with a focus on responsiveness and affordability, has long been the stalwart trademarks for the American community college mission (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Lucas, 1994). As more people desire and s ee the benefit of continuing their education, community colleges have, in their relatively brief history, made a significant impact on the landscape of American higher education. Today, community colleges enroll over 11.5 million students for both credit and non credit programs (AACC, 2008). This represents almost half of all students who attend a college or university in the United States (Boggs, 2004; AACC, 2008). To illustrate the importance and uniqueness of community colleges in American higher ed ucation, consider that almost 60 % of all students enrolled at a community college are part time, the average age is 29 years, and 39 % are first generation college students (AACC, 2008). The AACC also reports that of all U.S. undergraduates, community coll eges enroll 41 % of all entering freshmen, 55 % of Native Americans, 46 % of African American, and 55 % Hispanic students. Almost half of all community students receive some form of financial aid, and over one quarter work full time while attending school ful l time (Tirrell Wysocki, 2009). The average annual tuition for attending a community college is less than one half of the average cost of attending a public four year university and one tenth of a private four year university (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). With an emphasis on access, affordability, and responsiveness, community colleges enroll a very diverse student population, reflective of the communities they strive to serve (Gonzalez, 2012). President Obama charged community colleges with
55 the goal of e ducating an additional 5 million students by 2020, furthering the need for additional and effective leadership (AACC, 2011). Another factor that impacts this leadership shortage is the fact that only 15 % of all full time faculty at four year colleges and universities and 15 % of community college faculty are under the age of 45 years (Eckel & Hartley, 2011). This is of significance as many faculty enter the senior leadership later in their career. Also contributing to the fewer number of faculty is the cu rrent trend of schools hiring more part time and non tenured track faculty (Schuster & Finklestein, 2006). This shortage of faculty, due to growing numbers of retirements and part time or non tenured track, is critical, as faculty often become deans, prov osts, and other academic senior executives that feed the presidential talent pool. The mere fact that 90 % of presidents were employed at a community college before becoming a president further emphasizes the concern with losing faculty and other senior ad ministrative staff that previously had supplied the leadership pipeline (Vaughan, 2004). Kubala and Bailey (2001) report the contrary, as their research on community college presidents during the latter 1990s showed the percentage of presidents coming from the academic ranks had decreased from 72 % to 56 % Part of this decrease is due to the fact that the role of the community college president is changing and more presidents are coming from outside fac ulty ranks in areas like development, business affairs, and student services (Strom, Sanchez, Downey Schilling, 2011). The major dilemma facing the governing boards of community colleges is that with this large number of leadership turnover, there are limi ted numbers of qualified replacements that are available (Romero, 2004). This shortfall of qualified and
56 eline shortage was not limited to only senior level administrators. Campbell (2006) reported that a similar shortage is occurring, involving many of the entry and mid level administrative and professional positions that community colleges depend on to pro vide student services, business functions, and academic support. Many of these administrative and professional positions employ personnel who possess advanced degrees and training, work in highly specialized areas of higher education, and have many years of experience in working in community colleges. Community college presidents reported that they would experience a large loss in current professional staff in the areas of academic, business, and student affairs (Campbell, 2006). To further compound th e leadership shortage facing community colleges is the misleading fact that there are approximately 1,100 community colleges in the U.S. In a white paper for the National Council of Instructional Administrators, Steve Katsinas and Ken Kempner (2005) imp ly that this often reported count of 1,100 community colleges severely underestimates the true nature of the needs of two year campuses. campus institutions where each campus site has a campus president or provost as the senior administrator. In addition, other specialty two year institutions, like tribal colleges and for profit schools, are not typically included in this estimate. They estimate that between 1,800 and 2,400 s tand alone campuses are in need of future leadership (Katsinas & Kempner, 2005). This represents a 50 % to 100 % increase in the original estimate of the leadership needs for community colleges.
57 Community college boards are thus faced with a most pressing n eed for finding qualified leadership and personnel to fill these soon to be vacated senior level positions on their campuses. Ironically, as business and industry leaders have been planning for the anticipated wave of retirement by the baby boomer generat ion by partnering with workforce development programs provided by community colleges, many of the same community colleges have done little to prepare for their own impending workforce needs. As Tony Zeiss (2004), president of Central Peidmont Community Co llege in In response to this leadership crisis, professional associations, community college boards, and other senior leaders have initiated multiple solutions in the past five years (Robinson, Sugar, & Miller, 2010). Some of these include in house leadership development programs, seminars and workshops sponsored by professional associati ons, and an increased emphasis on graduate preparation programs with a 2010). Soon after the initial report in 2001 by the American Association of Community Colleges, t he AACC implemented the first Leadership Summit, with the primary goal of ensuring quality and stability for future community college leaders (Elsner, 2001). In addition, the AACC also generated a national database of all graduate programs in community college leadership, established a Futures Leadership Institute, and developed the Leading Forward Project (Campbell, 2006). The Leading Forward Project, funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, provided community colleges with
58 exemplary practices on how to develop their own future leaders, based on existing Other short term leadership development programs include the League for Council on and the American Association of C ommunity initiatives are designed to identify, develop, and prepare future community coll ege administrators to lead their campuses. Not only are community colleges having to attract or develop competent replacements, they are also facing the reality of losing irreplaceable years of history, knowledge, and expertise along with the individual ( Shults, 2001; McClenney, 2001). Like their business and industry counterparts, having a leadership succession plan is vital to the future success of our community colleges. Like their counterparts in higher education, business leaders are also faced with the impending dilemma of a shortage of qualified senior leadership to manage their organizations. is approximately five years (Larker & Tayan, 2011). The turnover rate of corporate Unlike their higher education contemporaries, their primary purpose and objective is to ma ke their business profitable for the shareholder and sustainable (Larker & Tayan, 2011). One successful strategy that corporate America has embraced is the development and implementation of a succession plan. Defined as the systematic process of identify ing long term goals, needs of the organization, and integral leadership roles, this formal approach identifies, recruits, and prepares individuals to
59 assume the future leadership roles within the organization (Fulmer & Conger, 2004). Rothwell (2005) ident ifies three key principles in shaping and guiding a succession plan term goals, identifying workforce needs and trends, and forecasting according to they type of organiza tion. David Larker, professor in the Graduate school of Business at Stanford University proposes four models to succession planning for a CEO (2011). The four models include: 1. External candidate 2. President and/or Chief Operating Officer (COO) 3. Horse race 4. Ins ide outside model The external approach recruits and hires someone outside the organization. The positives are this individual often comes with proven senior level experience and may already have served as a CEO or president. The downside is they are new to the corporate culture and systems of their new employer. The second approach simply identifies an internal candidate who is already experienced within the organization and is well known by their colleagues and most importantly the Board of director s. internal candidates ( Parrino, 1997) two or more candidates are promoted within the organization to senior level roles and t hen they compete to see who is selected as the new CEO.
60 The last approach to succession planning in a business setting combines the first two models where the company looks at both internal and external talent and simultaneously evaluates the candidates (Larker & Tayan, 2011). As in most organizational process es, the barrios to effectively implementing a successful succession plan is lack of communication, little or no support from the top of the corporate hierarchy, and little or no involvement from employees (Luna, 2012). Similar to the business models desc ribed above, McMahan and Masias (2009 ) offer four options for leaders in higher education regarding successful succession planning. They include: 1. Use of a head hunter or other third party agency to recruit outside the academy 2. Recruit others to step in t o mid level positions with the goal of developing them into senior leaders 3. Identify and develop existing personnel within the organization 4. Use of interim leaders as a temporary solution In addition to the short term leadership and professional develo pment programs, graduate preparation programs that educate future administrators have been a popular strategy for the past three decades (Watts & Hammonds, 2002). The number of graduate degrees in community college leadership declined 78 % between 1983 and 1997 (Shults, 2001; Kelly, 2002). Graduate programs that prepare future community college leaders fall into three categories of programs are best described as traditional community college leadership progr ams and include the University of Texas at Austin, Michigan State University, University of Florida, Morgan State University, and North Carolina State University. Unfortunately, this group of schools can only admit so many candidates in their programs and fall far
61 short of the current need. Worth noting is the fact that at one time the University of California at Los Angeles boasted one of the premier community college leadership programs in the country. No graduate program focusing on community college leadership exists in the state of California today (Romero, 2004). The second group is the most prevalent and includes those graduate programs that offer graduate degrees in higher education administration or similar and include one or two courses focu programs currently graduate by far the most candidates, they are most likely the least prepared for the uniqueness and challenges of community colleges. The third category and the fastest gro wing include those programs that are completely on line. Some examples of these programs include Nova Southeastern, is available regarding the current number of degree s these graduate programs confer each year, there is no doubt that these programs that prepare future leaders have been unable to keep pace with the current demand (Romero, 2004). Although graduate preparation programs are readily available, a common co mplaint expressed is the quality of these programs, as well as whether they serve the needs of the students or are more reflective of the institutions and faculty desires. McClenney (2001) voiced this concern as many of these programs until recently did n ot accommodate those individuals, usually non traditional graduate students, who worked full time and needed flexibility with their schedules. Watts and Hammons (2002) also recommended changes in residency requirements, as well as pedagogical methods cur rently used. Unlike other graduate programs housed in colleges that benefit from
62 external funding, these programs for community college leaders are often housed in the schools of education, where funding is sorely lacking (Katsinas & Kempner, 2005). Rom ero (2004) reported that many universities who at one time offered programs in community college leadership saw the pipeline stabilize and demand wane, so they gradually dropped these programs. One other strategy that many community colleges is implem enting to address the leadership gap is the development of in your (Watts & Hammons, 2002). Tony Zeiss (2004), president at Central Peidmont retaining peak are selected, trained, and groomed for leadership positions and can include workshops, mentoring, and internship opportunities. The University of Florida has conducted research on another leadership development approach which advocates the use of customized instruction based on the style profiling and personal attributes (Campbell, Syed, Morris, 2010). Leadership strategies and sk ills, along with management techniques, are often the Innovation in the Community College offers a model program for leadership development for community colleges to adopt (Watts & Hammons, 2002). This emphasis on professional and leadership development is not new to community colleges, as some were created as a response to the rapid growth in the 1960s and 1970s of community colleges (Watts & Hammons, 2002). Katsinas and Kempne r (2005) identify leadership development in the context of community colleges
63 as personal and professional growth, expanding the capacity to sustain, grow, and transform organizations dedicated to teaching, learning, and community development. Some of the factors faced by community colleges that served as a catalyst for the development of these programs included technology advances, increased competition for state funding, and the public demand for accountability (Watts & Hammons, 2002). Some schools that have gained recognition from their own leadership development programs include Daytona State College, Central Peidmont Community College, College of the Desert in Palm Desert, and Parkland Community College (Watts & Hammons, 2002; Zeiss, 2004). Anot her more controversial and less utilized strategy, although implemented by many four year universities, involves looking outside the traditional hiring strategies and considering leaders from business, K 12 education, and government arenas (Vaughn, 2004; K elly, 2002; Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002, Appadurai, 2009; Perrakis, Campbell, Antonaros, 2009). Ironically, this method was quite commonly used by the governing boards of community colleges when they were first developed and is currently used by many four year colleges and universities (Vaughn, 2004). A majority of community college presidents and other senior leaders were selected from the ranks of public school administrators prior to the 1950s (Schultz, 1965). During most of the 1960s and 1970s, as t he number of community colleges more than doubled, a large majority of the newly appointed senior leadership had no prior experience working at a community college (Schultz, 1965). This trend is also not uncommon with four year institutions, as the Americ an Council on Education reports that 15 % of all current university presidents
64 held a position outside of higher education immediately prior to taking the office of the president (Corrigan, 2002). In 2000, Amey and VanDerLinden (2007) found that 25 % of all community college presidents had at one time worked in public schools (K 12) or the private sector, with the majority coming from public schools. This approach will not only open up alternatives to fill the leadership gap facing community colleges, it al so will increase the diversity of applicants and bring a broader set of skills and ideas that have been lacking in the traditional pipeline (Vaughan, 2004; Campbell & Associates, 2002). Although community colleges constitute the most diverse student popu lation, its leadership remains very much a homogenous group, with less than 20 % being minority presidents (Weisman & Vaughan, 2007, Perrakis, Campbell & Antonaros, 2009). Regarding gender, women currently represent less than 30 % of all community college p residents, according to the American Council on Education (2007). By looking outside the traditional leadership supply chain for qualified replacements, a more diverse candidate ore Schein (1992), a noted organizational researcher, suggests that leadership is the fundamental process in which organizations are changed. Some would suggest that the traditional mo dels of leadership are unprepared and insufficient for the types of challenges that organizations will face in the 21 st century (Campbell, 2002). Yet many organizations, including community colleges, seem to reuse the same leadership methods and approaches. Vaughan (1989) reported that as many as one third of all current community college presidents were recycles, meanin g they served as a
65 president at another community college previous to their current appointment. Corrigan (2002) later found this percentage to have decreased to 25 % but the fact still remains with many of these current presidents retiring, there will be fewer replacements in the leadership supply chain. Another factor that will influence the leadership funnel is the need for candidates to possess a broader scope of skills and abilities if they are to successfully lead our two year institutions into t he next century (Kelly, 2002). Lueddke (1999) reported that as community college leaders engage in the next century, new issues and challenges will be on the forefront, including: competition for funding, student population demographics, technology, flexi bility in teaching and delivery methods, and global networks for local institutions. Other external factors that will help shape the future community college leader is increased competition from private institutions, external regulation agencies, learning assessment, and faculty resources (Sullivan, 2001). Leadership is critical at all levels of the college to effectively communicate with all members of the organization to create a better learning environment (Shults, 2001). While there are many skills and attributes that senior level leaders of a community college need, there are specific ones that most will agree are essential for a president to be effective in leading their organization. Vaughan and Weisman (1998) state that the essential characteris tics of an effective community college leader for the 21 st century should include the ability to mediate, possess technological awareness, have a high tolerance for ambiguity, understand and appreciate multiculturalism, and have the ability to forge strong relations. Shults (2001) identified similar essential traits for the senior community college administrator as being able to maintain a unified governing process, being an
66 effective mediator, being technologically competent, and possessing the ability to solidify community partnerships and relationships. The American Association for Community Colleges (2001) found in their survey of current community college presidents that those essential skills for future leaders include a spirit of entrepreneurialism a greater command of technology, and the ability environment. Although many new presidents have experienced countless hours of both formal and informal leadership trainin g before accepting their new position, they have expressed a desire to be better trained in the areas of fundraising, budgeting, and working with governing boards (Ross & Green, 2000, Stripling, 2011). Other skills mentioned that future community college leaders need include being cognizant of a growing and diverse student population, being more creative with financial resources in the face of declining state and federal funding, and being adept at collaboration and partnership building (Kelly, 2002; Corri gan, 2002; Ashford, 2011). Besides the emphasis on fundraising and entrepreneurs, a strong foundation and commitment to the community college ideals are important, according to some. This is particularly critical when presidents are lobbying with state a nd local legislatures or potential donors and business partners (Kelly, 2002). George Boggs, former president of the American Association for Community Colleges, asserts that the new generation of community college leaders needs to be able to defend the c ore mission, beliefs, and values of community colleges (Kelly, 2002). This can be difficult to understand for those coming outside of higher education, particularly business and industry leaders who may not
67 share the same belief of open admissions for eve ryone and a shared governance model. The Leadership Summit, created in 2001 as response to the leadership crisis by the American Association for Community Colleges, developed a number of outcomes and strategies to address the leadership shortage for se nior community college administrators. These included: 1. Identifying and enticing middle level managers to become senior level administrators and presidents. 2. Recruiting new faculty to the field of community colleges 3. Creating a web based clearinghouse and career center describing open positions and individuals prepared for those positions. 4. Design and implementation of a leadership development database to be hosted on the AACC website. This would include information on the graduate programs offered on co mmunity college leadership. 5. Creation of a list of characteristics needed by community college leaders. 6. Identification of essential program content for effective leadership programs (AACC, 2001). During the 2001 Leadership Summit, sponsored by the American Association of Community Colleges, the taskforce identified a list of specific skills and characteristics that future community college leaders would need to successfully address these and other challenges in the coming years (McClenney, 2001). These ski lls included a thorough understanding of the community college mission, community and economic development, civic engagement, and a propensity for building coalitions and partnerships with other community leaders. Some of the characteristics the taskforce developed were: promoting vision, values, and mission, strong personal ethics, confidence, flexibility, and an excellent communicator (AACC, 2001).
68 As community colleges look to other sources for qualified candidates to fill their leadership positions, s ome suggest that key leaders in student affairs are admirably suited to fill these roles (Bullard, 2008; Weltsch, 2009). Summary Looking to the future, college and university leaders will no doubt need to be structured to meet and adapt to a new and conti nually changing environment (Rowley, 2001; Vaughan, 2000; AGB, 2011). Colleges will need to continue to develop new programs of study or adapt existing ones to meet the needs of the knowledge based economy in which our students will work. This also transl ates into adapting to new and flexible delivery methods of instruction and learning as demanded by current and future students. A greater emphasis on accountability and assessment is mounting from state and federal legislatures, governing boards, and tax paying citizens. Recent emphasis has been placed on graduation and retention rates along with employment and placement data. Competition will continue to increase from both the non profit and for profit organizations that will offer similar programs in new delivery formats. In addition, they must also look at reaching out beyond their traditional boundaries and addressing the impact of globalization in education (Levin, 2001). Besides the ever present issues of adequate funding, enrollment patterns, accountability, increased competition, and technology, colleges must also address the challenges of a potential shortage of qualified personnel both at the mid and senior levels. Further studies show that faculty and other mid level managers are also r etiring at greater than normal rates, thus limiting the supply of potential leaders that has
69 traditionally provided qualified candidates for these senor level vacancies (Bullard, 2008; Weltsch, 2009). Some of these new initiatives include leadership deve lopment programs and institutes, typically sponsored by professional associations, and in house programs, where individual community colleges identify, select, and cultivate future leaders. Some colleges have found new leaders from business, K 12 education, and government agencies. Vaughan and others state that by looking outside the academy, community colleges bring not only a new leadership skill set and vision for our campuses, but also help diversify the presidency that has routinely been domin ated by older white males (2006). Others suggest the potential supply of new replacements is in house serving in leadership roles in non academic departments. Senior student affairs officers, many who are deans or vice presidents, are a capable replacem ent for future campus leaders (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; NASPA, 2010; Bullard, 2010; Sanders, 2011). This research will attempt to look at specific employment patterns for current students enrolled in graduate student affairs or similar programs. Speci al interest will focus on which institutional type students plan to work for, in addition to what areas within student affairs. The analysis of the results, explained in further detail in C hapter 3 will also look at what factors are most important, as we ll as least in selecting future employment in higher education.
70 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The impending wave of the baby boomer retirement has braced many segments in the American workforce this past decade. Although the current economic downtur n has temporarily delayed this expected retirement surge, many organizations representing health care, business, industry, government, non profit, and education have been diligently strategizing how to prepare for this labor shortfall (Hassan, Dellow & Jac of a trained workforce, those workers with some college level skills, could increase to more than 14 million by 2020 (Carnevale & Desrochers, 2004). To further complicate the issue, the problem is not only replacing numbers of workers, but also replacing a loss of knowledge, experience, and leadership (Gallagher, 2005). Another study reports that 50 % of all senior level management personnel employed with a Fortune 500 company plan to retire over the next five years (Gregoire, 2006). This inevitable workforce shortage impacts not only the supply of entry and mid level workers but also the senior leadership of these organizations who are at risk due to the projected loss of per sonnel as a result of this mass retirement. Purpose This leadership dilemma has also caught the attention of those in institutions of higher education, as senior level search committees see fewer qualified candidates apply for the presidency of their c olleges or universities (Mead Fox, 2009). The American Council on Education reported in 2008 that a survey of chief academic officers showed that only 30 % aspired to be a college or university president (Jaschik, 2009). This is an alarming finding, as 40 % of first time presidents served previously as
71 a provost or chief academic officer of a college or university (Ace 2008). For community colleges, the issue of an emerging leadership gap has been near or at the top of critical concerns for the past ten ye ars (Shults, 2001; Campbell, 2002; Boggs, 2002; Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; Weisman & Vaughan, 2002 and 2006, Duree, 2008). With up to 84 % of the current senior level community college administrators planning to retire by 2016, a large percentage of commun ity college search committees will be facing a great void of qualified replacements (Weisman & Vaughn, 2007; Duree, 2008). Governing boards and other leaders have implemented numerous strategies to combat this impending shortage of qualified leadership fo r their campuses. Some have developed succession plans with in house senior leadership mentoring and development programs targeting their own personnel to be future leaders of their college or university. Many of the professional associations like the Am erican Association of Community Colleges and the American Council on Education have established senior leadership training seminars and workshops designed to help foster new senior leadership. The School of Education at Harvard University has long offered a seminar for newly appointed campus presidents to prepare them for what lies ahead in their new and challenging role. Some institutions have explored beyond the academy in business, government, and non profits for capable replacements in senior leadersh ip. Another strategy as a result of this diminished candidate pool that is gaining momentum is an increasing number of new college and university presidents rising from the ranks of senior or chief student affairs officers, typically holding the title of vice president of student affairs (Bullard, 2008; Weltsch, 2009).
72 An additional contributing force behind the predicted shortage of personnel facing search committees and human resource departments is related to the changing enrollment patterns experie nced by campuses in the past ten years. Most institutions have experienced growth in their undergraduate enrollments with the for profit sector leading the way, considerably above all other types, with an over 350 % increase during this time period. Are t here sufficient student affairs personnel to help support the growing academic mission on our college and university campuses? This research tried to address the above scenarios facing higher education by survey ing current students enrolled in student aff airs graduate programs to examine their preferences regarding career choice and institutional type as it relates to future employment. Research Problem Higher education in the United States is facing a potential leadership crisis. As the average age of a campus leader is exceeding 60 years, many presidents and other senior level administrators are preparing to retire, thus university and college boards a re faced with the dilemma of fewer available and qualified replacements (Association of Governing Boards, 2011, Stripling, 2011). In addition to the dearth of senior level administrators, there is also a similar trend of fewer available faculty who are ab le and willing to step in with the necessary skill sets and qualifications for these senior level administrative roles (King, 2008). To help address this shortage of qualified leaders, colleges and universities will need to look at alternative supply chai ns. Senior administrators in student affairs are a potential resource for providing qualified potential replacements (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; NASPA, 2010; Bullard, 2008). Many senior level student affairs administrators obtain their formal education and training in graduate programs in student development, student affairs, higher education, or similar.
73 As college enrollment patterns continue to shift, non traditional institutional types are predicted to continue to grow and expand, thus requiring add itional leaders with academic experience and skills in higher education to meet the needs of a growing student body. This research focus ed on those factors that might relate to the employment decisions for graduate students in student affairs programs, p articularly as it relates to institutional type and choice of field. With this in mind, the following research question s were explored for this study. Research Questions 1. Which institutional type is most preferred by student affairs graduate students for e mployment? 2. Does the institutional type where graduate students enroll impact the type of institution where students prefer to work? 3. What factors might be related to institutional type for future employment for graduate students enrolled in student affair s programs? 4. What career fields within higher education are graduate students in student affairs programs most interested in pursuing? 5. What position levels do student affairs graduate students aspire to? 6. What factors are most important for student affairs graduate students when considering future employment in higher education? Least important? Research Hypothesis H1: There is no difference in employment preference by institutional type for student aff airs graduate students. H2: There is no difference in the type of institution one attends for graduate school and the preferred institution type for employment. H3: There is no difference found in factors impacting employment preference by institutional type.
74 H4: There is no difference in career fields preferred by student affairs graduate students regarding their future employment. H5: There is no difference in factors towards making future career decision. H6: There is no difference in the impor tance of factors for student affairs graduate students when considering future employment. Research Design & Data Collection Representing 15 states from the southern half of the United States, 55 graduate programs offering a master s level degree in the f ield of student affairs, college student personnel, or similar, were identified using a database provided by the Southern Association for College Student Affairs (SACSA). The name of the program director or coordinator, along with their e mail and phone, was recorded. Th e survey was distributed to 55 graduate programs in the southeastern region of the United States (Appendix B). It was decided to conduct a census of the target population; hence no sampling will be used in this study. An initial e coordinator or contact person, introducing the study and its purpose, along with a request to forward the email with the link to the survey to each of their currently enrolled graduate s tudents. One additional follow up e mail was sent within ten days asking for their cooperation in this study and to increase the response rate. By November 2010, all responses had been received. A total of 352 students, representing 26 schools (47 % of th e targeted schools), completed the on line survey of which 347 were usable for this study. The survey was hosted on Survey Monkey. Because the exact number of the population surveyed is unknown, a response rate is not available.
75 Research Instrument A web the researcher for this study (Appendix A). After an initial search of both the literature and the Buros Institute of Mental Measurements at the University of Nebraska Lincoln, fo r an instrument that assessed career and employment plans and related factors for graduate students, it was decided to develop an instrument for this research. The 18 item instrument was created after multiple changes and updates from a pilot study, condu cted in 2006. Face validity was met due to the personal experience and review by the researcher in addition to reviews by other experts in survey development and research. T hree faculty members of the School of Education at the University of Florida; Dr. Dale Campbell, Dr. Walter Leite, and Dr. David Miller were asked to review the survey for further refinement. Lastly, a focus group consisting of three currently enrolled graduate students in student affairs from three different institutions was asked to provide feedback on the clarity and ease of use of the survey after first completing it. The questions used in the survey were developed to address the primary research questions. Due to the changing climate of student enrollment patterns and the grow th of non institutional types as it relates to their career and employment plans was important. These data were pertinent to research questions one and two. Additional survey questi ons that focused on factors that potentially impact employment decisions were also included. These factors were developed from responses from the earlier pilot study. The survey also sought to explore the potential impact of specific experiences graduat e students may have encountered on their career and employment decisions.
76 As a result of the pilot study, the following experiences have shown to have a potential impact; faculty advisors, course electives, previous and current work experiences, internshi ps, were included in the survey. Of primary interest was the question pertaining to what specific areas of higher education did graduate students appear attracted to as it relates to their employment. The 29 fields selected represented many areas withi n student affairs or student services (Komives & Woodward, 2003). Several questions on the survey were directed towards gathering demographic data including gender, ethnicity, and age. Other areas of interest included; estimated years of service planne d in higher education, level of aspiration, and plans to relocate out of state after completion of their graduate program. Pilot Study A pilot survey, Community Colleges and Student Affairs, was developed and administered in 2006 involving 37 universities representing 15 states from the same geographic region of the United States with 270 completing the survey (Appendix C). Twenty universities participated in the pilot study for a response r ate of 54%. None of the individuals in the previous pilot study participated in the current research. Although the initial pilot study had a different focus, this pilot study assisted in the validation and refinement of the current survey used for this r esearch. A summary of the demographics of the population used in the pilot study is at the end of C hapter 3 (Table 3 1). Population: The targeted population consists of approximately 1,500 graduate students who are currently enrolled in one of the 55 gra duate programs in student affairs that are
77 located in the southern region of the United States. This particular region was selected due to the both the size and access to the prospective programs. The 2010 Southern Association for College Student Affairs (SACSA) graduate preparation program directory was used to identify these programs. SACSA is an independent, regional professional association with a membership of practitioners, students, and faculty who are engaged in the student affairs profession. E ncompassing 15 states in the southeastern section of the U.S., (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia) SACSA was founded in 1 950 by a graduate student from the University of Auburn as an off shoot from ACPA (McClellan, 2010) Data Analysis The majority of the data collected was categorical data or nominal as the data is grouped by differences only as there is no value or rank ing differences between the groups. The Mann Whitney U test was not applicable due to the data not being ranked. Because of the type of data collected, chi square, a non parametric statistical technique, was used for the data analysis. The advantage of a non parametric technique like the chi square, is that they are safe to use when the assumptions of using parametric techniques cannot be satisfied. The chi square technique is predicated on the comparison between the expected frequencies and observed fre quencies. When using the chi square test, one important assumption is that each cell has an expected frequency of five or more. If the chi square analysis reports that 20 % or more of cells has an expected frequency of five or less, the statistical result s are
78 severely compromised. In some cases where this condition is present, the Fisher's Exact Test may be used since this technique has no such assumption and can be used regardless of how small the expected frequency is. The only limitation with using th e Exact Test was not practical for use in this study For this analysis, where appropriate, data was collapsed into one category. For example in the category tit led ethnicity, there were seven individual choices available for respondents to select which one best identifies their race. Since there were fewer than five respondents who selected three of the choices (i.e. Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and Multiracial), these were In addition, contingency tables were also used to indicate frequencies among the different variables. Results from the original pilot study are reported in C hapter 3 although cautio n should be made with any comparisons or inferences made between the two studies as the survey instrument was altered both in content and focus over the time of development. The survey instrument used for this study is different in both scope and question s from the original pilot study. The data analysis was conducted using SPSS 19.0. The data analyzed were to determine career and employment plans of graduate students enrolled in student affairs programs. In addition to preferred institution types for em ployment and career fields within student affairs, other factors were also compared.
79 Table 3 1. Demographics for 2006 Pilot Study (N=271) Gender: Frequency Percent Female 190 70.5 Male 79 29.5 Total: 269 100 .0 Ethnicity: Caucasian 212 78.8 African American 27 10 .0 Hispanic / Latino 16 5.9 Asian / Pacific Islander 8 3.0 Multiracial 4 1.5 Other 2 0.7 Total: 269 100 .0 Age: 18 25 years 126 46.5 26 30 51 18.8 31 39 52 19.2 40 49 38 14.0 50 and above 4 1.5
80 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to survey students enrolled in student affairs graduate programs and to examine their preferences regarding career choice and institutional type as it relates to future employment. Chapter 4 reports on the statistical results of the data obtained from the 34 7 participants who completed the survey. Research questions were designed to determine the potential relationship between numerous factors and career choice and institutional type as it relates to future employment. Demographics There were 347 completed usable surveys out of 352 responses Women represented 74.4 % of t he population and males 25.6 % Regarding ethnicity, 80.2 % were Caucasian, 10.3 % were African American, 3.2 % were Hispanic or Latino, 2.9 % indicated Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2.3 % were Multiracial. Less than 1% indicated they were Native American or o ther. Regarding the age of the participants 65.2 % reported their age between 18 and 25 years, 21 % were 26 to 30 years, 7.5 % were 31 39 years, 3 .2 % were 40 49 years, and 3 2 % indicated they were 50 years of age or older. Participants were asked about thei r plans to relocate to another state after completing their graduate program. 65.8 % indicated they were planning to relocate while 34.2 % were planning to remain (Table 4 1). Students were also asked to indicate the degree program in which they were currently enrolled. 94 % were in a program, 3.1 % in a Ph.D. program, 2.3 % in a Ed.D. program, and 0.3 % were in a specialist or other program.
81 Regarding the focus of the graduate programs participants were enrolled in, 72.9 % classified their pro gram as a student affairs / college student personnel program, 21.9 % higher education administration, 4.8 % were other, and 0.3 % community college leadership. Doctoral graduating universities accounted for 50.1 % of the participants while 49.9 % indicated th ey were currently enrolled at a master s/bachelor s college or university. Of the students completing the survey, 43.3 % attended a doctoral graduating university for their undergraduate degree, 33.6 % classified their undergraduate degree as coming from a baccalaureate college, 20.8 % from a master s / bachelor s college or university, 1.1 % from a community college, and 1.1 % from a for profit college or university (Table 4 2). Research Questions Six research questions were developed for this research with the primary purpose to describe the career and employment preferences for graduate students enrolled in student affairs programs. Research Question 1 As discussed previously in C hapter 2 changing enrollment patterns on college campuses is impacting the need for additional leadership on non traditional institutional types. This question asked what type of institution graduate students planned to work for after the completion of their graduate program. Which institutional type is most preferred by student affairs graduate students for employment?
82 H : There is no difference in employment preference by institutional type for student affairs graduate students. A total of 3 47 students completed this question related to institutional type. B accalaureat e colleges had 1 1 8 (33.7 % ) responses, while 114 (32.6 % ) students selected d octoral graduating universities as their preference Those institutions classified as a master s / bachelor s college or university were selected by 67 students (19.7 % ), c ommunity colleges had 26 (7.4 % ) responses and 2 3 (6.6 % ) students selected profit schools and other organizations outside of education (i.e. government, non profits, and business). A significant difference between the insti tutional types regarding employment preference was found in graduate students (X = 121.229, p < .001). The null was rejected. This finding would indicate that students overwhelmingly prefer baccalaureate colleges and doctoral granting universities over all other institutional types including community colleges and for profits. This research question also looked at other demogra phic variables to examine if there were any significant differences on the type of institution graduate students preferred for their future employment. Gender, ethnicity, and age were considered. Gender (x = 3.189, p = .527) and ethnicity (x = 9.071, p = .336) both showed no significant differences when related to institutional type for career preference Preference to work for a specific institutional type was also compared with the as t he analysis in dicated there was a significant difference between the age groups of 18 to 25 years and those 26 years of age and older (x = 9.837, p = .043). The 18 to 25 year old group selected baccalaureate colleges as their number one preference for e mployment while the 26
83 and above group gave preference to doctoral granting institutions. The least preferred institutional type for the 18 to 25 year old group was community colleges and the 26 and erred ( Table 4 3) The results would indicate that age of graduate students does have a possible relationship to the type of institution that students prefer to work for. It is possible that the older age group preferred larger doctoral granting univer sities because they currently are employed at a similar institution and secondly because they may also be enrolled in a doctoral granting institution. Chapter 5 will discuss in more detail these findings. Research Question 2 Question two examines the possibility of a relationship between the type of institution students currently attend and their preference for employment. Does the institutional type where graduate students enroll impact the type of institution where stu dents prefer to work? H : There is no difference in the type of institution one attends for graduate school and the preferred institution type for employment. Baccalaureate colleges were selected by 118 (34.2 % ) s tudents compared with 112 (32.5 % ) who selec ted doctoral granting universities. Doctoral granting institutions were the most preferred institutional type for employment for those students who currently attended a graduate program at a doctoral granting institution with 72 (41.6 % ) selecting this typ e. For students attending a master s / bachelor s granting college or university, 69 (40.1 % ) indicated their preferred type of institution for future employment w ere
84 baccalaureate colleges versus 40 (23.3 % ) who selected doctoral degree granting universities. Of those students selecting community colleges as their preferred choice for employment, 18 (5.2 % ) currently attend a master s / bachelor s level institution compared with eight (2.3 % ) who attend a d octoral granting university. The analysis of preferred institutional type for future employment and the current intuitional type in which the student is enrolled showed a significant difference (x = 19.476, p = .001). The null was rejected (Table 4 4). The results for question two would indicate that there is a relationship between where a student currently attends graduate school in terms of institutional type and the type of institution one plans to work for. Familiarity with a particular instituti onal type appears to have an impact on the preference of employment with the same institution type. Chapter 5 will discuss these results further. Research Question 3 Twelve factors that potentially impact the choice of future employment were identified. These factors include : location, opportunity to continue in a doctoral program, student body, supervisor and colle agues, professional development, promotional opportunities, salary and benefits, and sense of community with the institution. Students were asked to rate the importance of each factor as it relates to selecting their next place of employment. What facto rs are important regarding future employment for graduate students enrolled in student affairs programs?
85 H : There is no difference found in select factors impacting employment preference by graduate students. The top three factors identified as those items receiving the greatest percentage of their next position were sense of community with the institution, 354 responses (97.7 % ), supervisor and colleagues, 337 respon ses (96.8 % ), and salary and be nefits with 334 responses (95.2 % ). Those factors that were rated as least important included opportunity to continue in a doctoral program, 198 responses (56.6 % ), familiarity with the institution type, 240 responses (68.8 % ), and campus facilities with 285 responses (81.4 % ) (Table 4 5). When gender and ethnicity were accounted for, none of the twelve factors were found to be significantly different regarding employment choice. When age was integrated in to this analysis rega rding factors impacting employment, the only factor .006). Almost two thirds (64.0 % ) of the 18 to 25 year old cohort indicated that this fact was very important compar ed to 78.3 % of the 26 and up age group. This appears to show that age combined with familiarity of the type of school is importa nt in selecting a position ( Table 4 6). Older students may be more inclined to prefer the type of institution they have experi ence with as opposed to the younger age group. Research Question 4 In response to the diversification of the students they serve, the field of student affairs has splintered into dozens of specialty sub fields within the profession. This question atte mpted to identify 29 specialty areas with in student affairs and higher education and measure the level of interest of current graduate students.
86 What career fields within higher education are graduate students in student affairs programs most interested in pursuing? H : There is no difference in career fields preferred by student affairs graduate students regarding their future employment. Students were asked to rate according to their level of interest 29 areas of career fields in student affairs and higher education. Participants were to select one of the follo wing Year Experience (FYE) ranked the highest with 267 (76.3 % ) of the students indicating interest in this career option. The other leading areas ranked in order, include leadership development at 252 (72.6 % ), student activities with 237 (67.9 % ), orientation programs 227 (65.0 % ), and academic advi sing with 204 (58.5 % ) indicating an interest in this career field The fields with the least amount of interest included financial aid with 214 (61.7 % ), campus ministry 200 (57.6 % ), registrar at 191 (54.7 % ), commuter services 169 (48.8 % ) adult learner services 162 (46.6 % ), and disability services and student accommodations at 155 (44.3 %) ( Table 4 7). When gender is accounted for, the following career fields showed significant differences; assessment and research (x = 6.746, p = .034), career services(x = 11.662, p = .003), adult learner services (x = 9.161, p = .010), judicial affairs / student accountability (x = 14.010, p = .001) teaching faculty (x = 7.400, p = .025), intramurals and campus recreation (x = 33.242, p < .001), residence life / housing (x = 38.949, p < .001)
87 Ethnicity (African American, Caucasian, and other) when combined with interest in career fields showed significant differences in two areas, international student programs (x = 18.202, p = .001) and multicultural affairs (x = 44.271, p < .001). When controlled for age (18 to 25 and 26 and above), the following career fields showed a significant difference; financia l aid (x = 6.095, p = .047), assessment / research (x = 8.076, p = .018), student unions (x = 24.817, p < .001), counseling services (x = 6.307, p = .043), registrar (x = 17.998, p < .001), disability services (x = 8.675, p = .013), orientation progr ams (x = 9.024, p = .011), teaching faculty (x = 9.170, p = .010), residence life / housing (x = 6.655, p = .036), and student ac tivities (x = 9.571, p = .008). Results for gender could be explained due to the fact that some of the above areas have hi storically been associated with a particular gender. For example males have traditionally filled the roles on a majority of campuses in judicial affairs, intramurals/campus recreation, and career services. Females have traditionally been attracted to suc h fields with student affairs as and most recently residence life and career services. Regarding ethnicity, minority students selected at a higher than normal rate of Caucasian students, those services that typical ly serve students of color, for example multicultural affairs and international student programs. Some fields were preferred at a higher rate than others due to age of the graduate student. Some fields, like student activities, residence life, and orientation programs, due to the nature of their non traditional work and hours, appear to be more appealing to the 18 to 25 year old cohort. Older students te nd to have more preference
88 to those traditional student services like counseling, registrar, and financial aid. Additional discussion of these results will be addressed in C hapter 5 Research Question 5 This question examined the position level within an organization students most likely see themselves reaching as it relates to their career. What position levels do student affairs graduate students aspire to? H : There is no difference in position levels that graduate students aspire to Students were a sked to indicate which position level they most likely aspired to achieve in their career in higher education. The options included president, vice president, dean, director / coordinator, staff, and faculty. Of the 345 responses, the position level of d irector/coordinator level received the highest number of responses with 124 ( 35 .7 % ) The next highest level of aspiration was the position of dean with 99 responses ( 28 .5 % ) followed by vice president with 61 ( 17. 6 % ) The position level of staff was the lowest with nine responses (2.6 % ) The level of president was selected by 28 students (8.1 % ) and faculty by 16 ( 4. 6 % ) (Table 4 8) When level of aspiration is factored in with gender, ethnicity, and age, only gender showed a significant difference (x = 17.385, p = .008) ( T able 4 9) Males had a higher level of preference for aspiring to senior level positions, president and vice president) as compared to females. F emales showed a higher degree of preference for the director and coordinator levels. T his difference in preferences by gender could be explained by the desire of many professional women to prefer those positions which are less demanding and offer more balance with life and work roles.
89 Research Question 6 This question attempted to exami ne specific experiences that may have an Which experiences are most important when deciding the type of institution for future employment? Which experiences were least importa nt? H : There is no difference in the importance of experiences / influences for student affairs graduate students when considering institution type for future employment. Overall, 267 of the respondents ( 7 6 5 % ) indicated their undergraduate experience was most impactful in deciding on the type of institution they plan to work for upon completion of their graduate program. The n ext two experiences selected in importance was the category of current job with 265 ( 75. 7 % ) responses and internships/practicums with 245 (70.0 % ) (Table 4 10) When age was factored in, current job (x = 9.273, p = .010), undergraduate experience (x = 9.977, p = .007), and internships / practicums (x = 12.444, p = .002) showed to b e significant. Current job was significant (x = 9.602, p = .048), when controlled for ethnicity. Gender did not indicate any significant difference when compared with factors that impact institutional preference for employment Both internships and unde rgraduate experiences appear to be most important for the 18 to 25 year old cohort in selecting future employment. This could be explained due to the lack of full time professional experience for this age group in addition to the timeliness of these expe riences since they are r elatively recent in their professional lives. Older students, 26 years and above, would give a higher importance to their current job experience than their younger counterparts.
90 Summary of Chapter 4 Chapter 4 reports the fin dings from the survey research conducted focusing on graduate students in student affairs programs and their preferences regarding career choice and institutional type. The appropriate data is reported in tables at the end of Chapter 4 Question one ask ed what type of institution graduate students planned to work for after the completion of their graduate program. A significant difference between the institutional types regarding employment preference was found in graduate students and the null was rejec ted. Students prefer baccalaureate colleges and doctoral granting universities over all other institutional types including community colleges and for profits. In addition the data would indicate that age of graduate students does have a possible relationship in the type of institution in which students prefer to work. Question two examines the possibility of a relationship between the type of institution students curren tly attend and their preference for employment. The data show there is a possible relationship between where a student currently attends graduate school in terms of institutional type and the type of institution one plans to work for. Familiarity with a particular institutional type appears to have an impact on the preference of employment with the same institution type. Question three asked students to rate the importance of twelve separate factor s as it relates to selecting their next place of empl oyment. The top three factors selected were a s ense of community with the institution, supervisor and colleagues, and salary and b e nefits When a ge is accounted for, familiarity of the type of school indicated a significant difference important in selecting a position. Older students may be more
91 inclined to prefer the type of institution they have experience with as opposed to the younger age group. Question four examined 29 specialty areas within student affairs and higher education and asses sed the level of interest of current graduate students. The following fields that received the most interest were First Year Experience (FYE) leadership development student activities orientation programs, and academic advising. Gender, ethnicity, and age all showed a significant difference as it relates to level of interest in career fields. Question five examined the position level within an organization students most likely see themselves reaching as it relates to their career. T he following leve l s received the most responses : director/coordinator level dean followed by vice president level Gender did appear to impact the level of aspiration as m ales had a higher level of preference for aspiring to the senior level positions of president and vice president than female students. Question six looked at s pecific experiences that may have an impact on the U ndergraduate experience was most impactful in deciding on the type of institution they plan to work for followed by current job and internships/practicums Age and ethnicity were found to show a significant difference when compared to experiences and their impact on employment prefer ence and institutional type. Further d i scussion of the results, trends, and potential application are addressed in C hapter 5.
92 Table 4 1. Demographics Gender: Frequency Percent Female 258 74.4 Male 89 25.6 Total: 347 100 .0 Ethnicity: Caucasian 279 80.2 African American 36 10.3 Hispanic / Latino 11 3.2 Asian / Pacific Islander 10 2.9 Multiracial 8 2.3 Native American 1 0.3 Other 3 0.9 Total: 352 100 .0 Age: 18 25 years 227 65.2 26 30 73 21.0 31 39 26 7.5 40 49 11 3.2 50 and above 11 3.2 Total: 348 100 .0 Relocation Out of State: Yes 227 65.8 No 118 34.2
93 Table 4 2. Current Degree Level, Program Focus, Undergraduat e Institution Type, and C urrent Degree Institution Type Degree Level: Frequency Percent Master s 329 94.0 Ph.D. 11 3.1 Ed.D. 8 2.3 Specialist 1 0.3 Other 1 0.3 Total: 350 100 .0 Program Focus: Student Affairs / CSP 256 72.9 Higher Ed Leadership 77 21.9 Community College Leadership 1 0.3 Other 17 4.8 Total: 351 100 .0 Undergraduate Degree Institution Type: Doctoral Granting University 152 43.3 Baccalaureate College 118 33.6 Master s/Bachelor s College/University 73 20.8 Community College 4 1.1 For Profit College / University 4 1.1 Total: 351 100 .0 Current Degree Institution Type: Doctoral Granting University 174 50.1 Master s / Bachelor s College/University 173 49.9 Total: 347 100 .0 Table 4 3. Preferred Institutional Type for Future Employment Institution Type Age Total 18 25 26 Above Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Doctoral Granting University 69 30.5 44 36.7 114 32.6 Master s / Bachelor s College / University 47 20.8 20 16.7 67 19.7 Baccalaureate College 84 37.2 33 27.5 117 33.7 Community College / State College 11 4.9 15 12.5 26 7.4 Other 15 6.6 8 6.7 23 6.6 Chi Square x =121.229 df=4 p=.000 Chi Square (Age) x =9.837 df=4 p=.043
94 Table 4 4. Current Institution Type and Employment Preference Institution type currently enrolled. Total Doctoral Graduating University Master s/Bachelor s College & University Please select the institution type you plan to work for after completing your graduate program. Other (please specify) Count 15 8 23 Percent 4.3% 2.3% 6.7% Doctoral Graduating Universities Count 72 40 112 Percent 20.9% 11.6% 32.5% Master s / Bachelor s Colleges and Universities Count 29 37 66 Percent 8.4% 10.7% 19.1% Baccalaureate Colleges Count 49 69 118 Percent 14.2% 20.0% 34.2% Community Colleges or State Colleges Count 8 18 26 Percent 2.3% 5.2% 7.5% Total Count 173 172 345 Percent 50.1% 49.9% 100.0% Chi square 19.476 a df=4 p =.001
95 Table 4 5. Importance of Factors in Selecting Employment Campus Facilities Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Very Important 94 26.9 26.9 Somewhat Important 191 54.6 81.4 Neutral 47 13.4 94.9 Less Important 15 4.3 99.1 Not at all Important 3 .9 100.0 Total 350 100.0 Familiarity with S chool or I nstitution T ype Very Important 85 24.4 24.4 Somewhat Important 155 44.4 68.8 Neutral 64 18.3 87.1 Less Important 39 11.2 98.3 Not at all Important 6 1.7 100.0 Total 349 100.0 Geographical L ocation Very Important 219 62.9 62.9 Somewhat Important 99 28.4 91.4 Neutral 15 4.3 95.7 Less Important 11 3.2 98.9 Not at all Important 4 1.1 100.0 Total 348 100.0 Institution's Reputation Very Important 127 36.4 36.4 Somewhat Important 180 51.6 88.0 Neutral 33 9.5 97.4 Less Important 8 2.3 99.7 Not at all Important 1 .3 100.0 Total 349 100.0 Institution's Mission & Purpose Very Important 169 48.6 48.6 Somewhat Important 146 42.0 90.5 Neutral 23 6.6 97.1 Less Important 8 2.3 99.4 Not at all Important 2 .6 100.0 Total 348 100.0 Opportunity to Continue in a Doctoral Program Very Important 77 22.0 22.0 Somewhat Important 121 34.6 56.6 Neutral 58 16.6 73.1 Less Important 57 16.3 89.4 Not at all Important 37 10.6 100.0 Total 350 100.0 Professional D evelopment Very Important 200 57.1 57.1 Somewhat Important 130 37.1 94.3 Neutral 18 5.1 99.4 Less Important 2 .6 100.0 Total 350 100.0
96 Table 4 5. Continued Promotion Opportunities Very Important 173 49.6 49.6 Somewhat Important 145 41.5 91.1 Neutral 20 5.7 96.8 Less Important 8 2.3 99.1 Not at all Important 3 .9 100.0 Total 349 100.0 Salary and Benefits Very Important 184 52.4 52.4 Somewhat Important 150 42.7 95.2 Neutral 13 3.7 98.9 Less Important 4 1.1 100.0 Total 351 100.0 Sense of Community with the Institution 1 Very Important 243 69.0 69.0 2 Somewhat Important 101 28.7 97.7 3 Neutral 7 2.0 99.7 4 Less Important 1 .3 100.0 Total 352 100.0 Student Body Very Important 166 47.6 47.6 Somewhat Important 150 43.0 90.5 Neutral 27 7.7 98.3 Less Important 5 1.4 99.7 Not at all Important 1 .3 100.0 Total 349 100.0 Supervisor and Colleagues Very Important 251 72.1 72.1 Somewhat Important 86 24.7 96.8 Neutral 8 2.3 99.1 Less Important 3 .9 100.0 Total 348 100.0 Table 4 6. Factors related to selecting next position and age Familiarity with School or Institution Type Current Age: Total 18 25 years 26 and above 1 Very Important 144 94 238 5 Not at all Important 81 26 107 Total 225 120 345 Chi Square 7.515 a df=1 p=.006
97 Table 4 7. Career Interest in Fields Related to Student Affairs Career Field Frequency (Interest) Percent First Year Experience 267 76.3 Leadership Development 252 72.6 Student Activities 237 67.9 Orientation Programs 227 65 .0 Academic Advising 204 58.5 E nrollment Managemen t 174 49.9 Service Learning & Volunteer Programs 160 45.7 Student Union 155 44.5 Multicultural Affairs 150 42.9 Career Services 141 40.4 Residence Life & Housing 139 39.9 Judicial Affairs / Student Accountability 139 39.8 Counseling Services 122 34.9 Alumni Affairs & Development 121 34.7 International Students & Programs 120 34.3 Teaching Faculty 106 30.5 Women's Resources 106 30.5 Greek Affairs 103 29.6 Athletics 102 29.4 LGBT Services 93 26.6 Assessment / Research 90 25.7 Intramurals / Campus Recreation 87 24.9 Health, Drug, & Alcohol Programs 84 24.1 Disability Services & Student Accommodations 62 17.7 Campus Ministry 59 17 .0 Adult Learner Services 57 16.4 Registrar 55 15.8 Commuter Services 50 14.5 Financial Aid 48 13.8
98 Table 4 8. Position Level Graduate Students Aspire To Position Level Frequency Percent Other 10 2.9 President 28 8.1 Vice President 61 17.6 Dean 99 28.5 Director / Coordinator 124 35.7 Faculty 16 4.6 Staff 9 2.6 Table 4 9. Position Level Graduate Students Aspire To and Gender Gender: Total Male Female Other (please specify) Count 2 7 9 % within Gender: 2.2% 2.8% 2.6% % of Total .6% 2.0% 2.6% President Count 13 15 28 % within Gender: 14.6% 5.9% 8.2% % of Total 3.8% 4.4% 8.2% Vice President Count 20 41 61 % within Gender: 22.5% 16.1% 17.8% % of Total 5.8% 12.0% 17.8% Dean Count 24 74 98 % within Gender: 27.0% 29.1% 28.6% % of Total 7.0% 21.6% 28.6% Director / Coordinator Count 20 103 123 % within Gender: 22.5% 40.6% 35.9% % of Total 5.8% 30.0% 35.9% Faculty Count 7 8 15 % within Gender: 7.9% 3.1% 4.4% % of Total 2.0% 2.3% 4.4% Staff Count 3 6 9 % within Gender: 3.4% 2.4% 2.6% % of Total .9% 1.7% 2.6% Total Count 89 254 343 % within Please indicate the position level you aspire to in your career. 25.9% 74.1% 100.0% % within Gender: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 25.9% 74.1% 100.0% Chi Square 17.385 df=6 p=.008
99 Table 4 10. Experiences and Employment Preference Experiences Frequency Percent Undergraduate Experience 267 76.5 Current J ob 265 75.7 Internships / Practicums 245 70.0 Graduate Advisors and/or Professors 198 57.1 Former Employment 186 53.3 Professional Associations 133 38.2 Elective Graduate Courses 104 30 Note: (Age) Current job (x = 9.273, p = .010), U ndergraduate experience (x = 9.977, p = .007), and I nternships / practicums (x = 12.444, p = .002) (Ethnicity) Current job (x = 9.602, p = .048)
100 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS The purpose of this research was to examine the employment preferences and plans of current graduate students pursuing a career in higher education and/or student affairs and the potential impact of both experiences and factors on the ir future career plans The results of this study provide further insight into how future employment preferences might mirror the changing demographics of higher education, particularly those institutional types who are experiencing rapid growth Chapter 5 will discuss the results of the study and possible implications for leaders in higher education in addition to recommen dations for further research. As college enrollment patterns continue to shift, non traditional institutional types and programs, such as for profit colleges and on line learning programs, are predicted to continue to grow and expand, thus requiring additional leaders with academic experience and skills in higher education. As the demand for qualified campus leaders is expected to excee d the projected supply, many Boards are developing succession plans for their perspective campuses (Stripling, 2011). To help address this shortage of qualified leaders, colleges and universities will need to look at alternative supply chains. One strate gy that has been implemented is the use of current s enior administrators in student affairs as a potential resource for providing qualified replacements (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; NASPA, 2010; Bullard, 2008). Many senior level student affairs administra tors obtain their formal education and training in graduate programs in student development, student affairs, higher education, or similar and are proven leaders of higher education
101 This research focus ed on factors that might relate to the employment de cisions for graduate students in student affairs programs, in particular as it relates to institutional type and choic e of field. This study address ed how these career and employment findings compare with the changing landscape of American higher educatio n, namely the leadership needs of different institutional types due to current student enrollment patterns. The primary findings of the research were: 1. Regarding employment preferences, community colleges are not highly rated as are doctoral granting p rograms and baccalaureate colleges. 2. Women make up a large majority of students enrolled in student affairs programs shown in the preference for level of professional attainment. 3. Overall the findings did not support the research indicating student affairs professionals are a viable resource to combat the leadership gap facing higher education. Demographics Women represented 75 % of the population who participated in this study which is similar to the composition of most graduate programs in student affairs (Taub & McEwen, 2006) Over the past 25 years, the field of student affairs has attract ed more females than males due to the general nat ure o f the profession which has appeal ed to those individuals with a specific skill set that includes but not limited to caring, empathetic, counseling, and program developer Regarding ethnicity, studies have shown that the composition of student affairs pro grams have historically been under represented with 8 % to 35 % of the students in the programs being classified as minorities (Taub & McEwn, 2006). This has long been a concern and challenge for the profession as those in the field of student affairs, par ticularly ones who have work directly with students, serve as mentors and
102 professional role models to a student population that has a much larger minority representation. NASPA, one of the leading student affairs professional associations, has developed a number of programs specifically designed to attract ethnic minority students and under represented groups to the profession of student affairs Their NASPA Undergraduate Fellows Program is one example and is a mentoring program designed to attract poten tial students to the field as well as increase awareness to the profession (NASPA, 2012) Discussion of the Results Research Qu estion One As more students enrolled and sought a college education, additional programs and colleges began to emerge to meet these diverse needs in the educational market place. Much like the undergraduate programs that have proliferated and fragmented into hundreds of sub specialties for students to concentrate their undergraduate studies, the more than 7,000 American college s and universities have also evolved into many types. These schools have become specialists in providing students with the area of academic studies as well as academic delivery systems that cater to their wants and needs. As reported in C hapter 4 and shown in Table 4 3 the most selected institutional type preferred for employment was baccalaureate colleges and doctoral graduating universities. This is no surprise for a couple of reasons. First, a majority of the institutions who offer graduate programs in student affairs are classified as doctoral graduating universities. These results would indicate that individuals who are pursuing a career in higher education are seeking those institutions that they are most familiar
103 with, meaning where they completed their undergraduate education or where they are currently enrolled in their graduate program or where they are currently employed Although more than half of all students attend a community college at one point in their college education (2 011, AACC), community colleges ranked the second to last in employment preference, finishing in front of for profit schools. It was suggested that more graduate students would opt for working in a community college environment than the results showed due to their experience and exposure. For profit schools are a relatively newcomer to higher education but are definitely one of the fastest growing segments of enrolling students. Many programs are on line or have limited facilities that function primaril y as classrooms thus there are limited opportunities for those wanting to work in student affairs and related areas. The limited facilities and lack of support services for enrolled students most likely impacts the level of preference for graduate student s. Gender and ethnicity had no impact on institutional type preference. Age did show a significant diffe r ence with 18 to 25 years preferring to work in a baccalaureate college while older students, 26 years of age and above, showed a preference for doctoral granting institutions. One explanation for the results related to age could be the fact that larger research orientated universities tend to have a greater number of older students, versus baccalaureate institutions. Another reason for this difference in preferences is that there is a greater number of this group that are employed by doctoral degree granting universities as compared to their smaller counterpart, the baccalaureate college.
104 Research Question Two This question relates to que stion one, in seeking to determine if there is any relationship between the institution type where one currently attend graduate school and the type they prefer to seek employment upon graduation. As shown in C hapter 4 there was a significant difference and the null was rejected. From these results the type of institution the student currently attends does appear to have a relationship with the preferred type of school one wishes to seek employment. More than two thirds of those who selected doctoral g ranting institutions, currently attend a similar type of school. This would be expected as people tend to gravitate towards what they are familiar with and or comfortable. These results do not support those institutional types that are growing and are in need of skilled leaders. This reported relationship is important for leaders of other institutional types to appreciate as they need to explore, develop, and implement new strategies to expose this future work source to other career opportunities within their schools. Research Question Three This question asked students to indicate how important each of twelve factors were in choosing their next position of employment. The top three of importance as indicated were sense of community with the instituti on, supervisor and colleagues, and salary and benefits. These results were also supported in the previous pilot study conducted in 2006 as the same three factors were ranked in the top five. Sense of community in this study was not defined for the surve y participants and could be interpreted differently and mean numerous things to an individual Larger campuses and older and more established research institutions might provide this sense of community to some students through their established time honored traditions,
105 diversity of both students and staff, and size of t he division or department in which one works. In contrast, smaller baccalaureate colleges could provide a s ense of community to students who value a more personal campus culture that offers the potential for multiple departments to work and collaborate together more often than larger colleges or universities. Those campuses where a sense of community is not apparent or lacking would have appeared to be le ss appealing to potential new employees. Similar to sense of community, the quality of colleagues and supervisors is also of importance and relates to community. How the supervisor and colleagues relate and function as a team is important. Traditional ly, larger organizations tend to have more formalized rules, regulations, and structure for employees than their counterparts (Mintzberg, 1989). The smaller campus community can provide a more informal structure and clim ate for employees which can be m ore appealing for some These findings show the importance of institutions to develop and provide adequate support and training for current and future supervisors as their ability to manage and lead successfully will be pertinent to attracting and retaining quality employees. Those factors that were rated as least important included opportunity to continue in a doctoral program, familiarity with the institution type, and campus facilities. These results were also confirmed with the previous pilot study as all three were ranked the least important with regards to selecting future employment. Related to the leadership dilemma facing higher education, the low ranking and importance of pursuing a doctoral degree may have some future implications. If colleges and universities are going to look to student affairs leaders as potential candidates for senior level positions, the attainment of a terminal d egree has been and
106 will most likely continue to be a requirement. However this question did not ask specifical ly if attaining a doctoral degree was important or in future plans but if this factor was important in selecting their next position of employment. With the advent and popularity of on line and distance learning doctoral programs, particularly in ed ucation, this may not be a critical factor in attracting potential leaders Some of the twelve factors that were presented to the students to rate as to their factors, ac factor theory of motivation (Owens, 1995). Herzberg theorized that maintenance factors were those items that were important to employees and must be satisfied before employees can begin to be motivated to succeed on the job. Some examples include work environment, supervision, salary and benefits, culture of organization, and physical conditions. Th ese mainten ance factors are expected by employees and are fundamental expectations that employers need to acknowledge thei r importance as they attract new employees Research Question Four Students were asked to indicate their interest in 29 career fields related to student affairs and higher education. First Year Experience (FYE), leadership development, student activitie s, orientation programs, and academic advising ranked as the top five choices. FYE programs, designed to assist college freshmen and new students in their transition to college and university life, have been around for over thirty years. Modeled after Un popularized on larger university campuses and later migrated to other four year colleges. Most recently community colleges have realized their impact and importance to student retention and success and many have adapted FYE programs in their
107 programs. Because of this proliferation among hundreds of campuses, many graduate students have participated in and /or served as peer leaders in similar programs, thus making it one of the more popular career fields particularly for younger students In the same manner, orientation programs, leadership development, student activities, and academic advising are traditional services found on virtually every campus It is also common that these services often utilize and involve undergraduate students in leadership roles in the respective departments that provide these services These undergraduate experiences are a major reason why students select student services as a career choice (Taub & McElwen, 2006). B ecause of this exposure and the positive nature of the services provided (i.e. orientation and leadership training), these programs tend to be more popular with graduate students pursuing a career in student affairs in particular with the 18 to 25 year old group The fields with the least amount of interest included financial aid, campus ministry, registrar, commuter services, adult learner services, and disability services and student accommodations. In contrast to the areas of most interest, these servic es are highly specialized requiring a specific skill set in addition to serving a targeted group of students Because of this, fewer students have had exposure to the se programs and services hence they have less appeal. Another possible explanation is t hat many of these fields are highly regulated by federal and other institutional guidelines which are not as appealing to many in the student affairs profession. Gender differences can be attributed to those fields who traditionally are composed of one gen der over another in addition to the type of services they provide.
108 women just as judicial affairs has traditionally attracted a higher percentage of males. Some fields have chan ged dramatically in their gender preference. Career Services for example was once predominantly staffed with males who would work with employers. Today, the field of career services has many more female leaders in this area. Research Question Five This question dealt with the position level within the organization, students aspired to. Of the five options, director/coordinator ranked the highest followed by the position level of dean. Many graduate students in student affairs programs are often mentor ed by someone during their undergraduate experience (Taub & McElwen, 2006). These mentors are instrumental in influencing students to consider entering the field and continuing graduate school in similar programs. It is not surprising that these student affairs professionals, many of whom at the director, coordinator, and dean level, not only inspired future professionals but also were looked up to by these student leaders. The level of president and vice president were not as highly ranked most lik ely due to the above point where limited mentoring and interaction involved undergraduate students. Because of the lack of exposure to these positions, current graduate students is the phenomenon affecting not just education but organizations in general, is the generational shift in balancing career with family. The Center for Generational Studies (2012) ch aracteriz es generational groups according to their attitudes and behaviors in all aspects of life According to this characterization, the majority of current graduate students are termed Millennial s 1999. Though this
109 group is still relatively early in their professional career, it is expe cted that will follow a similar pattern in regards to career and family balance like their generation This perception toward work and aspiration could partially explain the reluctance to aspiring to top levels like that of president and vice president. Similar to results of question three relating to attainment of a doctoral degree, this perceived lack of interest of pursuing a senior level position could also have long term ramifications on addressing the leadershi p shortage. Similarly in a study by the American Council on Education, it reported only 30 % of current chief academic officers or provosts, aspired to be president (Jaschik, 2009). The study described the primary reason for this low level of interest had more to do with the high rate of job satisfaction the current chief academic officers were experiencing. Many indicated that they were content and enjoyed still being directly involved in academics as opposed to the roles of presidents where often many of the functions are seen as external to the academy, like fund raising, governmental affairs, and public relations (Jaschik, 2009). Gender showed a significant difference when compared with level of aspiration. Overall males made up approximately 25 % of the total study group, yet almost half of all students who selected the level of president, were male, at 46.4 % Approximately one third of respondents were male who selected vice president as their level of aspiration. The position level of staff was selected low most likely due to the fact that staff could be interpreted as a support level or entry level positions. The level of f aculty was not highly selected due to the fact that most students in their respective graduate
110 programs are trained to be administrators and not specifically for teaching, although many will combine this in their career down the road. Research Question Six Regarding experiences that most impacted the type of institution one prefers to work for undergradu ate experience rated most important. The next ranked factors were work experience and internships. All three appear to indicate that hands on directly related experience appear to have the most impact on preference for institutional type. This supports and reinforces the importance for graduate internships When age was factored, over 80 % of the 18 to 25 year old group indicated that their undergraduate experience was import ant in selecting future employment, versus 2/3 of the 26 year old and over group. These data seem logical in that the undergraduate experience is relatively fresh in the minds of this age group. African American students valued their experience in bot h professional associations and undergraduate studies greater than Caucasian and all other minority groups. Numerous professional associations like NASPA and SACSA have designed and implemented several programs and scholarships to attract minorities, part icularly African American students who often do not have mentors or other professionals from their same ethnicity. There were no significant differences in gender as it relates to experiences that were important in their preference for future employment Implications for Higher Education Throughout higher education, numerous boards, search firms, and other leaders charged with finding qualified and suitable replacements for their senior level vacancies,
111 are faced with dwindling pool of candidates (Me ads Fox, 2009). Although at first this trend was showing first among community colleges, it has impacted other institutional types as well. Combined with the growing enrollments of colleges and universities, additional staff and leaders are a necessary i f American colleges and universities want to reclaim and sustain their world ranking. With the shortage of capable and qualified leaders for their programs and campuses, schools of all types need to step up efforts to attract professionals. Doctoral gra nting institutions appear to be the preferred type currently but that can change if the others provide more experiences to attract this shrinking talent pool. Administrators need to link with graduate programs in their region and provide quality and diver se internships, part time employment, and practicums at their campus sites. Program directors of the graduate programs also should affirm that their program provides multiple opportunities and exposure through the curriculum, advising, and extra curricul ar offerings on the different institutional types. The biggest challenge in academe, according to Erroll B. Davis, Jr., Chancellor of the University System of Georgia, is to create a system where programs are actively developing leadership skills earlier For profits schools have historically put much of their emphasis into admissions and enrollment and little on support services for enrolled students. They currently are experiencing some pressure and attention from national and state legislatures on the quality of these services and need to step up their commitment. Professional associations representing the different institutional types, like the Association for Public and Land Grant Universities and the American Associati on of
112 Community Colleges, can also take the lead in preparing and providing opportunities to future candidates. Some already have developed programs specially designed to train and develop current mid level staff for future senior leadership opportunities AACC for example offers a number of leadership development programs including the Future Leaders Institute and the Future Presidents Institute (AACC, 2011). Ultimately the charge for the many hiring authorities and search committees will be to look o utside the traditional supply pipelines for qualified personnel to fill their leadership vacancies. The results of this research did not support earlier proposals stated in the literature regarding a potential solution for the leadership crisis could be t hose professionals in the student affairs field. Although future research to verify these findings should include those current students enrolled in doctoral level programs, current g raduate students enrolled in student affairs programs will not be able t o a lone fill this impending void. Some recommendations for leaders in volved in the Administration and coordination of student affairs graduate programs include: 1. Creat e additional opportunities for students to experience different institutional types (i.e. internships and practicums). 2. Enhance the current curriculum to include courses that broaden the awareness of different institutions and their unique qualities 3. Hire faculty with experience in the various college and university settings Recommendations for Future Research The scope of this research was focused on the southern region of the United States targeting 55 graduate programs. Additional research could include additional geographic regions or a national study to see if there are regional differences in employment trends among this group of graduate students. Conducting research on
113 other sub groups of colleges and universities not included in this study, like religious affiliated schools, could prove beneficial and further insight. In addition the current institutional categories used in this study could be further broken down to sub groups including public and private. The population studies for this research included those graduate students enrolled in a student affairs program i n the fall of 2010. It would be of both interest and value to conduct longitudinal research tracking participants from their time in graduate school and beyond regarding their career path. Another aspect of this study was that it limited the type of gra duate program to primarily student affairs. There are numerous other graduate programs that are preparing future leaders in American higher education. These programs should be included in future studies. In addition longitudinal and follow up studies cou ld also be beneficial in observing possible changes with this segment over time as it relates to their career pathways. Further research on specific strategies of filling the leadership gap could be useful in comparing effectiveness and sustainability of future leadership. Obtaining data on other search strategies that go outside the traditional candidate supply chain as well as internal programs, like grow your own (GYO) leaders programs and their effectiveness would be of interest (Reille, Kezar, 2010) Facing budget constraints and reduced federal and state funding, many public institutions are expanding their mission and scope by developing satellite campuses, distance programs, and on line curriculums. One projection shows that up to 15 % of all stud ents will be fully classified as on line learners (Keener & Campbell 2008). These
114 new initiatives designed to enhance enrollment and increase revenue, will need additional academic and support services for this growing student body. Research on how schoo ls attract, recruit, and retain qualified professionals in these new positions is paramount. One potential limitation is the fact that 72.9 % of those students completing the survey had indicated their program was focused on student affairs / college studen t personnel Similarly, 21.9 % stated they were enrolled in a program with a broader emphasis with a focus on higher education administration The remaining 5.0% w ere in in other types of programs or in community college leadership. This is a potential l imitation as the focus of the study was on students in graduate programs with a concentration in student affairs. Future research should also include those in doctoral programs in higher education leadership or similar. A major finding in this research reported on those areas within the career of student services that students most preferred to work. Additional research could examine is there adequate job opportunities in these popular areas as opposed to the areas that students tend to prefer the least. Conclusion Higher education is faced with numerous challenges in the 21 st century. Some of the challenges include changing demographics of both students and faculty, increased pressure for accountability (i.e. is learn ing occurring, graduation rates), and financial constraints as public funding is drastically diminished, and double digit tuition increases are less feasible (Skinner, 2010). Public support and perception is lukewarm at best. On the international stage, the U.S. once reigned supreme in the percentage of adults with a college degree, but that was a quarter century ago, and one recent report by the
115 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows the U.S. has dropped from 12 th to 16 th in the worl d in the percent of young adults age 25 to 34 having earned a college degree (Washington Post, 2011). This latest report comes two years after President Obama announced his goal of adding an additional eight million new college graduates by 2020 (College Board, 2011). Another issue that has garnered much attention the past decade is the perfect storm of an aging of current presidents paired with the impending shortage of qualified leaders. This leadership dilemma has also caught the attention of those in institutions of higher education, as senior level search committees see fewer qualified candidates apply for the presidency of their colleges or university (Mead Fox, 2009). In its 20 th anniversary report on the College President, The American Council on Education reported that one of their major findings is that due to an aging cohort of presidents, colleges and universities will experience a unprecedented rate of turnover in their senior leadership (2007). To help address this shortage of qualified le aders, colleges and universities will need to look at alternative supply chains in addition to developing new strategies for leadership development as current models are no longer sufficient for the future (Eckel & Hartley, 2011). Senior administrators in student affairs are a potential resource for providing qualified potential replacements (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; Bullard, 2008; NASPA, 2010; de la Teja, Dalpes, Switt & Swenk, 2010). Many senior level student affairs administrators obtain their formal education and training in graduate programs in student development, student affairs, higher education, or similar. Supporting the academic mission of the academy, student affairs administrators often work in
116 collaboration with their academic colleagues wi th the ultimate goal of helping students succeed. Student affairs professionals, many with advanced and graduate degrees in the field of higher education administration or student affairs, enhance the learning goals and objectives of their respective scho ols by assisting students in and outside the classroom. As college enrollment patterns continue to shift, all institutional types are predicted to continue to grow, particularly those in the non profit sector and programs focusing on professional education thus requiring leaders with academic experience and skills in higher education (Carlson, 2011; Eckel & Hartley, 2011). Although student affairs personnel are one potential solution to this challenge, schools need to implement multiple strategies in addre ssing the leadership gap. As one associatio n faced with this crisis states: The leadership shortages can be addressed through a variety of strategies such as college grow your own programs, AACC council and university programs, state system programs, resi dential institutes, coaching, mentoring, online and blended approaches. Important considerations that apply to all forms of delivery include sustaining current leaders and
117 APPENDIX A THE STUDENT AFFAIRS GRADUATE SURVEY (201 0 )
127 APPENDIX B PARTICIPATING SCHOOL S (2006 & 2010) SCHOOL INVITED (2006) RESPONDED (2006) INVITED (2010) RESPONDED (2010) Abilene Christian University X Appalachian State University X X 18 Auburn University X X 1 Arkansas State University X X Arkansas Tech University X X 28 Barry University X X Baylor University X X 12 Clemson University X 1 X College of William & Mary X X 18 Florida Atlantic University X X Florida International University X 12 X Florida State University X 22 X 1 George Mason University X George Washington University X Georgia Southern University X X Hampton University X X James Madison University X X Kennesaw State University X Louisiana State University X 5 X Lynn University X Marshall University X 1 X Mississippi State University X X Nicholls State University X North Carolina State University X X Northwestern State University of Louisiana X X Old Dominion University X X Radford University X X Southwest Texas State University X Texas A&M University X X 14 Texas State University San Marcos X Texas Tech University X 17 X University of Alabama X 23 X University of Arkansas Fayetteville X 12 X 15 University of Arkansas Little Rock X X 7
128 SCHOOL INVITED (2006) RESPONDED (2006) INVITED (2010) RESPONDED (2010) University of Central Arkansas X X 15 University of Central Florida X X 18 University of Florida X 11 X 10 University of Georgia X 19 X 21 University of Kentucky X X University of Louisville X 15 X University of Maryland College Park X 27 X 10 University of Memphis X X University of Miami X X University of Mississippi X X University of New Orleans X University of North Carolina Greensboro X 4 X 14 University of North Florida X University of North Texas X X 22 University of Oklahoma X 1 X University of Saint Thomas X University of South Carolina X 39 X 35 University of South Florida X X 18 University of Southern Mississippi X X 3 University of Tennessee Knoxville X X 6 University of Texas Austin X 10 X 20 University of Virginia X 11 X 15 University of West Florida X 7 X 5 Valdosta State University X 9 Vanderbilt University X X 0 Virginia Tech University X X 12 Western Carolina University X 4 X Western Kentucky University X 9 X West Virginia University X X TOTAL: 55 255 58 348
129 APPENDIX C THE COMMUNITY COLLEG E AND STUDENT AFFAIR S SURVEY (2006)
133 APPENDIX D UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A DIGITAL COLLECTION S FOR ELECTRONIC DAT A STORAGE Object D 1. The complete data collected as a result of this research is stored electronically with the University of Florida Office of Digital Collections. To access these data, please use the following link. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00001185/00001
134 LIST OF REFERENCES Albert, L. S. (2003). Presidents and chief academic officers of community colleges. In R. M. Diamond (Ed.), Field guide to academic leadership (pp. 413 424). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Alfred, R., & Carter, P. (2000). Contradictory c olleges: Thriving in an e ra of Continuous c hang e [Issue Paper No. 6]. New expeditions: Chartering the second century of community college. A merican A ssociation of C ommunity C olleges. (2001). American Association of Community Colleges Survey on Leadership Washington D.C. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publicati ons/Briefs/Documents/11062001leadership.p df A merican A ssociation of C ommunity C olleges (2008). Community c ollege f acts at a g lance. Retrieved from h ttp://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/default.aspx American Association of Community Colleges (2011). Report on the 21 st c entury i nitiative l istening t our Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/aboutcc/21st_century/Pages/default.aspx A merican C ouncil on E ducation (2007). The American c ollege president: 2007 edition. ACE Center for Policy Analysis. doi, 10, 2649160. Washington D.C. Amey, M. (2006). Leadership in Higher Education. Change 38(6), 55 58. Amey, M. J., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2002). Career paths for community college leaders. Washington DC: American Association of Community Col leges. Appadurai, A. (2009). The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Higher Educations Coming/26495/ Ashford, E. (2011). Being a college president has become more demanding. Community College Times. Retrieved from http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/Pages/Campus Issues/Being a college president has gotten more demanding.aspx A ssociation of Governing B oards of Colleges and Universities (201 0 ). S uccession p lanning : The time has come September/October 5(18). Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The d eclining e quity" of American h igher e ducation. The Review of Higher Education 27(3), 321 341.
135 Baker, G. A., Roueche, J. E., & Gillett Karam, R. (1990). Teaching as leading: Profiles of excellence in the open door college Washington D. C.: The Community College Press. Baker, G. A. I. (1992). Cultural leadership: Inside America's community colleges Washington D. C.: Community College Press. Barratt, W. (2011). Selecting a student affairs graduate program American College Personnel Association. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/c12/selecting.htm Betts, K., Urias, D., Chavez, J., & Betts, K. (200 9). Higher education and shifting U.S. demographics: Need for visible administrative career paths, professional development, succession planning & commitment to diversity. Academic Leadership, 7 (2). Retrieved from: http://wilsontxt.hwwilson.com/pdfhtml/096 05/aoe3r/6ft.htm Boggs, G. R. (2004). Community c olleges in a p erfect s torm. Change : The Magazine of Higher Learning 36(6), 6 11. Boggs, G. R (1993). Community colleges and the n ew p aradigm. Celebrations : An Occasional Publication Boswell, K., & Wilson, C. (2004). Keeping America's p romise: A r eport on the f uture of the c ommunity c ollege: Education Commission of the States & League for Innovation in the Community College. Bullard Jr, R. N. (2008). The preparation, search, and acceptance experien ces of college presidents with C hief S tudent A ffairs experience (doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership New York, NY: Harper & Row. Campbell, D. F. (2002). The leadership gap: Model strategies for leadership development Washington D. C.: Community College Press. Campbell, D. F. (2006). The new leadership gap: Shortages in administrative positions. Community College Journal 76 ( 4 ), 10 14. Campbell, D. F., Syed, S. & Morris, P. (2010). Minding the gap: Filling a void in community college leadership development. New Directions for Community Colleges 2010 ( 149 ), 33 39. Carlson, S. (2011). Carnegie classification update shows boom in for profit and professional education, The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Carnegie Classification Update/125982/
136 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Updated Carnegie Classifications s how i ncrease in for p rofits, c hange in traditional l andscape Retrieved from http:// www.carnegiefoundation.org Carnevale, A. P., & Desrochers, D. M. (2004). Why l earning? The v alue of h igher e ducation to s ociety and the i ndividual. the future of the community college 39 45. Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & NetLibrary Inc. (2003). The American community college (4 th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Cole, J. R., (2011). The Great American university: Maintaining our preeminence. Forum for the Future of Higher Education Cambridge, MA. Corrigan. (2002). The American college president American Council on Education. Center for Policy Analysis. Covey, S. R. (1992). Principled centered leadership New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Cowen, S. S. (2008). The Changing of the g uard American Council on Education Special Supplement. Davis, E., (2008). Colleges need to offer clear paths to leadership, Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges Need to Offer Clear/16225/ Davis, J. R. (2003). Learning to lead: a handbook for postsecondary administrators Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. de la Teja, M., Dalpes, P., Swett, D., & Shenk, E. (2010). p repare to a ddress c ontemporary n eeds of c ommunity c olleges N ational A ssociation of S tudent P ersonnel A dministrators Leadership Exchange, 1 1 13. Dembicki, M. (2006). Task force grapples with recruiting college leaders. Community College Times 8 Los Angeles Times, Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/13/opinion/la oe douglass higher ed 20110913 Duree, C. (200 8 ). The challenges of the community college president in the new millennium: Pathways, preparation, and leadership programs needed to survive. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertation Abstracts ( AAT 3289420 )
137 Dyer, W. G., Jr. (1994). Toward a t heory of e ntrepreneurial c areers. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 18(3), 7 21. Eckel, P., King, J. (2004). An overview of higher education in the United States: Diversity, access, and the role of the marketplace. American C ouncil on Education Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news room/Documents/Overview of Higher Education in the United States Diversity Access and the Role of the Marketplace 2004.pdf Eckel, P., Hartley, M. (2011). Presidential leadership in an age of transition: Dynamic responses for a turbulent time. American Council on Education Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news room/Pages/ACE Report Seeks New Definition of Dynamic Presidential Leadership.aspx Elsner, P A. (2001). Convening our p artners: AACC Summit on Workforce Development. Community College Journal (June/July) 9 23. Evelyn, J. (2001). Community colleges face a leadership crisis. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Community Colleges Face a/5250/ Fram, A. (2011). Many boomers see delayed retirement or none at all. Associated Press, April 6. The Palm Beach Post Friedel, J. N., (2010). University based community college leadership programs: where future community college leaders are prepared. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010 ( 149 ) 51 58. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a c ulture of c hange San Francisco, Jossey Bass. Fulmer, R. M., & Conger, J. A. (2004). Developing leaders with 2020 vision. Financial E xecutive, 20(5), 38 41. Impact: Monthly Diagnostic. Gallagher, J. (2005). Retirement of baby boomers may reverberate in workplace. Seattle Times Retrieved from h ttp://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002185894_boomers21.html Garza Mitchell, R. L., & Eddy, P. L. (2008). In the Middle: C areer p athways of m idlevel c ommunity c ollege l eaders. Community College Journal of Research & Practice 32(10), 793 811. Goleman, D. (1998). What m akes a l eader? Harvard Business Review 76(6), 93 102.
138 Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review 78(2), 78 90. Gonzal ez, J. (2012). Education for all? 2 year colleges to preserve their mission. The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/2 Year Colleges Fight to Save/131608/ Greene, J. (1999). Head g ames. Hospitals and h ealth n etworks 73(6), 52 54. Hassan, A., Dellow, D., and Jackson, R., (2010). The AACC l eadership c ompetencies: Parallel v iews from the t op. Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 34 ( 1 ) 180 198. Helfgot, S. R., & Culp, M. M. (2005). Community college student affairs: what really matters. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Hockaday, J., & Puyear, D. E. (2000). Community c ollege l eadership in the n ew m illennium. Washington D.C.: American Association of C ommunity Colleges. Jaschik, S. (2009). Happy but n ot l ooking to be the c hief. Inside Higher Ed Retrieved from http://insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/10cao June, A. W. (2007). Presidents: s ame l ook, d ifferent d ecade. The Chronicle of Higher Education 53(24). Kahlenberg, R. D., & Century Foundation. (2004). America's untapped re resource: low income students in higher education. New York, NY: Century Foundation Press. Katsinas, S. G., & Kempner, K. (2005). Strengthening the c apacity to l ead in the c o mmunity c ollege: The Role of University Based Leadership Programs (White Paper). Keener, B. J., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). The Times t hey are c r emodeling c ommunity c ollege e nrollment m anagement. Presentation at AACRAO. Kelly, E. (2002). The Changing of the g uard. Community College Week. 6 9. Kim, K. A. (2002). Exploring the meaning of nontraditional at the community college. Community College Review 30(1), 74 79. Kubala, T. S., & Bailey, G. (2001). A New p erspective on c ommunit y c ollege p residents: Results of a n ational s tudy. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 793 804.
139 Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Larker, D. & Tayan, B., (2011 ). Labor market for executives and CEO succession planning. Corporate Governance Research Program, Stanford Graduate School of Business. Leubsdorf, B. ( nt squeeze. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Boomers Retirement May Create/5562/ Levin, J. S. (2001). Globalizing the c ommunity c ollege: Strategies for c h ange in the t wenty f irst c entury New York: Palgrave. Levine, L., (2008). Retiring b aby b oomers = A labor shortage? CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service. Ligenfelter, P. E. (2007). How s hould s tates r espond to a t est of l eadership? Change 39(1), 3 19. Lucas, C. J. (1994). American h igher e ducation A History New York: St. Martin's Griffin. Lueddke, G. R. (1999). Toward a c onstructivist f ramework for g uiding c hange and i nnovation in h igher e ducation. Journal of Higher Education 5, 235 260. Luna, G. (2012). Planning for an American higher education leadership crisis: The succession issue for administrators. International Leadership Journal. 56 61. Manufacturers, N. A. (2003). Keeping America c ompetitive: How a t alent s hortage t hreatens U. S. m anufacturing Washington D.C. Martinez, M. (2004). High and r ising: How m uch h igher w ill c ollege e nrollments g o? Retrieved from http:// www.league.org/league/projects/promise/files/promise.pdf McClenney, K. (2001). Converting crisis to opportunity. Community College Journal (June/July) 24 27. McClenney K. M. (2004). Keeping America's p romise: Challenges for c ommunity c olleges. Education Commission of the States, League for Innovation in the Community College. Retrieved from h ttp://www. league.org/league/projects/promise/index.html McMahan, J., & Masias, M. (2009). Developing a succession plan for a library. Information O utlook 13(7), 29 32.
140 McNair, D., Duree, C., Ebbers, L., (2011). If I knew then what I know now: Using the leadership competencies developed by the American Association of Community Colleges to prepare community college presidents ., Community College Review 39 (1). Mead Fox, D. (2009). Tackling the leadership scarcity. The Chronicle of Higher Education 56(17). April 2 4, 2009. Myran, G., Baker, G. A., Simone, B., & Zeiss, T. (2003). Leadership strategies for community college executives. Washington D.C.: Community College Press. Nealy, M. (2008). Study: Impending community college leadership shortfall could be avoided through diversity efforts. Diverse Issues in Higher Education. O'Banion, T. (1991). A learning college for the 21st century Phoenix, AZ: Oryx. O'Banion, T. (1997). Creating more learning centered community colleges. Newport Beach, CA: League for Inno vation in the Community College O'Banion, T. (1999). Launching a learning centered college. Newport Beach, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College O'Banion, T. (2007). Crisis and c alamity in the c ommunity c ollege. Community College Journal (December / January), 44 47. O'Banion, T., & Milliron, M. (2001). College c onversations on l earning. Learning Abstracts League for Innovations in the Community College 4(5), 1 2. Parrino, R. (1997). CEO turnover and outside succession: A Cross section al analysis. Journal of Financial Economics Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Perrakis, A., Campbell, D.M., & Antonaros, M., (2009). Diversifying the c ommunity c ollege CEO p ipelin e. The Community College Enterprise 7 17. Phillippe, K., & Patton. (2000). National profile of community colleges: Trends & s tatistics Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/default.aspx Phillipe, K., & Mullin, C. (2011). Commun ity c ollege e stimated g rowth : Fall 2010. American Association of Community Colleges, Washington, DC.
141 Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community c olleges: Special s upplement to t he c ondition of e ducation 2008 Washington D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. Ratliff, J. L. (1989). ASHE Reader on Community Colleges Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press. Renick, J. C. (2008). The Spectrum i ni ti ative: Advancing d iversity in the American c ollege p residency American Council on Education The Presidency. Rivera, M. (2006). Leadership 2020: Recruitment, preparation, and support Washington D.C.:American Association of Community Colleges. Robinson, G., Sugar, W., & Miller, B., (201 0). Fostering c ommunity c ollege l eaders: A n e xamination of l eadership d evelopment p rograms., Community College Journal of Research and Practice 34, 8. Romero, M. (2004). Who will lead our community colleges? Change (November / December), 30 34. Ross, M., & Green, M. F. (2000). The American college president. Washington D. C.: American Council on Education Rothwell, W. J. (2005). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and building talent within. American Management Association Rowley, D. J. (2001). From strategy to change: Implementing the plan in higher education San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Sandeen, A. (1991). The chief student affairs officer: leader, manager, mediator, educator (1 st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Sandeen, A. (2000). Improving leadership in student affairs administration: a case approach. Springfield, Ill.: C.C. Thomas Publisher. Sandeen, A., & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (U.S.). (2001) Washington, D.C.: NASPA. Sanders S. (2011). Strategies for s uccession p lanning: Increasing s tudent s ervices p rofessionals in the p ipeline. Journal Insight into Student Services Retrieved from http://www. Ijournalccc.com. S chaefer, P. (2006). Baby Boomer c aused l abor s hortage: Ideological m yth or f uture r eality Retrieved from http://www.buisnessknowhow.com.
142 Schultz, R. E. (1965). Changing Profile of the Junior College College President. Junior College Journal, 36, 8 13. Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impe nding retirements on community college leadership. Research Brief Leadership Series 1, 2001 Change : The Magazine of Higher Education September October, 2010. Spelling, M. (2006). A Test of l eadership: Charting the f uture of U.S. h igher e ducation Washington D.C.: A Report of the Commission Appointed by Secretary of Education. Statisitics, U. S. B. O L. (2007). Employment p rojections: 2006 16 Summary Washington D.C. Stripling, J. (2011 ). The graying presidency. The Chronicle of H igher Education Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The Graying Presidency/129140/ Strom, S., Sanchez, A. & Downey Schilling, J., (2011). Community College Enterprise Schoolcraft Co llege, 17 ( 1 ) Sullivan, L. G. (2001). Four g enerations of c ommunity c ollege l eadership. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 25, 559 571. Taub, D., McEwen, M., (2006). Decision to enter the profession of student affairs. Journal of Colle ge Student Development 47 (2) 206 216. Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1994). Living with myths: Undergraduate education in America. Change 26(1), 5. Tinto, V. (2004). Student r etention and g raduation Facing the t ruth, Living with the c onsequences (No. #1). Washington D.C.: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Tirrell Wysocki, D. (2009). Recession sending more students to community colleges Retrieved from http://www.news. y ahoo.com Vaughan, G. B. (1989). Leadership in transition: The community college presidency New York: American Council on Education. Vaughan, G. B. (2000). The Community College Story (2d ed.). Washington D. C.: Community College Press.
143 Vaughan, G. B (2004). Di versify the p resident. The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Diversify the Presidency/18275/ Vaughan, G. B., & Weisman, I. M. (1998). The community college presidency at the millennium. Washington D.C.: Community College Press. Vineyard, E. (1993). The pragmatic presidency : effective leadership in the two year college. Bolton, MA.: Anker. Walker, S. (2003). America losing ground in college access and participation. Education Commission of the States Retrieved from http://www.accbd.org/articles/index.php/attachments/single/6 Warren, J. (1985). Renewing the American community college San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Wattenbarger, J. L. (1953). A State p lan for p ublic j unior c olleges (Special Referenc e to Florida). Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Watts, G. E., & Hammons, J. O. (2002). Professional d evelopment: Setting the c ontext. In New Directions for Community Colleges : Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Watts, G. E., & Hammons, J. O. (2002). Leadership d evelopment for the n ext g eneration In New Directions for Community Colleges: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Weisman, I. M., & Vaughan, G. B. (2006). The Community c ollege p residency: 2006 American Association of Community Colleges. Weisman, I. M. & Vaughan, G. B. (2007). The Community c ollege p resident. Washington D.C. Weltsch, M.D., (2009 ). A Study of c ommunity c ollege p residential q ualifications and c areer p aths, Pro Q uest Dissertation and The sis. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdtft/docview/304919754/13AA0091C 6749DDE412/1?accountid=10920 Wiseman, R. & Young J. (2011). U.S. News plan to rank on line colleges worries some officials. The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from ht tp://chronicle.com/article/US News Plan to Rank/128123/ Witt, A. A., Wattenbarger, J. L., Gollattsheck, J. F., & Suppiger, J. E. (1994). America's c ommunity c olleges: The first century Washington D.C.: Community College Press. Zeiss, T. (2004). Attract ing, developing, and retaining peak performers. Community College Journal (February / March), 14 17.
144 Zeiss, T. (2004 ). A New w ake u p c all for c ommunity c olleges. League for Innovation in the Community College Leadership Abstracts, 17 (9).
145 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Thomas A. Robertson is the Assistant Dean for Students in the Lloyd L. Gregory School of Pharmacy at Palm Beach Atlantic University, located in West Palm Beach Florida. He has served in numerous administrative and teaching roles in higher education, prima rily in student affairs for 28 years. He completed a Bachelor of Science in secondary education at Central Michigan University and a Master of Arts in higher education at Michigan State University. He is a member of several professional associations incl uding NASPA, SACSA, AACP, and CPFI and currently serves on the board of directors for Christian Pharmacist Fellowship International. Tom and his wife, Paula, and their son, Jack, reside in Wellington, Florida and are active members of Community of Hope c hurch in Loxahatchee Groves, Florida.