Weekly reading: Institutional mission

This week's reflection is in response to Lyons, J. W. (1997). The importance of institutional mission. In E. J. Whitt (Ed.), College student affairs administration (pp. 136-144). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

In your own words, what is the author attempting to explain?
The author provides some historical context when discussion the history of higher education. Over the centuries, the goals have informed the mission of different institutions. Traditionally, the three missions of higher ed have been teaching, research, and public service - with different emphasis placed on each area.

Institutional missions are also informed by the unique heritage, geography, social organization, culture, and organized systems - which is why no two institutional missions are identical.

In what ways do the author's ideas reflect or contradict my educational experience?
There author describes a separation between the teleological mission and the "living mission" but I don't see why they can't be the same thing. I wouldn't argue in favor of revising the written mission on a yearly basis just to coincide with the "living mission." However, if you have one mission that is pre-planned and one that is just how things go, doesn't that create a major mis-match between espoused and enacted values?

In what ways do the author's ideas inform how I think about education?
This article got me thinking more about how I define 'liberal arts' because it describes several different examples of liberal arts programs. One that is more general and inclusive, and one that appears to be explicitly anti-applied-knowledge. 

What are the implications of these ideas for higher education generally and for my own practice in student affairs? In other words, what different actions do they encourage?
This article encourages professionals to be knowledgeable about the unique setting, culture, and history of their institutions in order to inform their understanding of the university mission. Understanding the mission goes beyond reading the written words, and has a lot to do with the context and history of the institution. 

What questions remain for me?
I have more questions about the subtleties of community college missions. If the VPSA of a community college is aware that things like "getting out of the house" and "to get out of prison sooner" are important motivators of students, why are they strategically worded in the mission or omitted? Does the mission have to be glossy and lofty, or can it be more straightforward and honest?

Blogging my weekly reading reflections

I have a feeling my Educational Outcomes class and I are going to get along just fine! We are to reflect on the following questions in response to our weekly reading assignments. Why not blog about it! Seems like a perfect fit to me.

1. In your own words, what is the author attempting to explain?
2. In what ways do the author's ideas reflect or contradict my educational experience?
3. In what ways do the author's ideas inform how I think about education?
4. What are the implications of these ideas for higher education generally and for my own practice in student affairs? In other words, what different actions do they encourage?
5. What questions remain for me?

Later on in the course, we'll be creating our own I-Plans (Outcomes Implementation Plans) in the form of a website or visual brochure - again, loving it!

Here is my first stab at blogging my reflective reading notes for this week. Unfortunately, one of my books is still on its way from Amazon, and as I am looking over the syllabus I realized that this week is the only week that I will require said book (which is scheduled to arrive the day after class). Awesome. Welp, here's a reflection of the other reading:

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Preface & Chapter 1]

In your own words, what is the author attempting to explain? 
The author explains the rationale for writing the book, suggested ways to use the material, and goes into greater detail about the Documenting Effective Educational Practice (DEEP) project, and the criteria used to select the 20 schools to highlight throughout the book. The author generates a list of institutional conditions that are important to student development, which summarizes the views of several previous works by other authors.

In what ways do the author's ideas reflect or contradict my educational experience?
The author places a great deal of importance on student engagement (well, because that's the title of the chapter). He states that "[w]hat students do in college counts more for what they learn and whether they will persist in college than who they are or even where they go to college" (Kuh, 2005, p. 8). At face value, this seems to contradict the whole rationale behind selecting a handful of colleges to highlight in the book. If the college matters less than what students do, why not write a book about what students do from a hundred colleges, rather than focusing on a cohort of 20.

However, as mentioned in the preface, the DEEP schools that are selected for the book are examples of colleges that have managed to beat the odds (or at least the predicted rates) for student graduation rates - so a more thorough case-study is beneficial to understand the campus activities in context.

In what ways do the author's ideas inform how I think about education?
I love the idea that there is no "blueprint" for student success. This is a major drawback because it makes things more complicated (wouldn't it be nice to simply have a recipe to follow). But it is also a benefit, because it means that whatever infrastructure you have in place, all is not lost. Whatever culture is currently present can be adapted and shifted in the right direction. It reminds me of a stew that has been over-seasoned one way or the other. All is not lost, you can still balance the spices accordingly to reach a desirable outcome. There is no "right answer" to a good stew.

What are the implications of these ideas for higher education generally and for my own practice in student affairs? In other words, what different actions do they encourage?
They encourage me to look at possible future employers as unique individuals, and resist the urge to compare universities to each other on concrete dimensions. Really, the outcomes are the important piece, and not necessarily the formula you used (or stumbled upon) to reach them - so I should keep that in mind when interviewing.

What questions remain for me?
This entire book seems to refer to the premiss of a study about a research project on DEEP schools. I would like some more background information on Documenting Effective Educational Practice and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). I'm sure they are valid and reliable measures, but since the entire book seems to use these quantitative scores as a jumping-off point, I still have questions about how these surveys themselves were developed.