90507Phil

Student Affairs Philosophy Through my experience in student affairs, I have been informed of various theories and studies that have paved the way for higher education today. I keep abreast of current literature which presents new challenges and advancements for the field as well. Experience has provided me with a personal insight as well as an arena to apply the information I’ve acquired. And through all of this, I have been able to develop my personal philosophy of what student affairs should be about. My philosophy relates to the framework and theory of higher education whose mission is to develop the student. I also relate my philosophy to my style of leadership. Without leaders, an institution would continue in anarchy without any sense of organization. However, despite the anarchy that occurs, there is leadership within higher education. Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998) discussed many of the theories that founded and have provided a framework for the student affairs fields. However, only one of these ideas truly completed the idea and way in which I function as a professional. The Student Personnel Point of View (SPPV) highlighted the idea of whole student development (Evans, et. al, 1998). This idea captures the nature of my overall philosophy. Developing the whole student is done by meeting all aspects that a student will need in which to mature. Therefore, each piece should be providing their own necessary function (i.e. academics, student services, residence life, etc.), but they should also be collaborating and fostering relationships between. The rationale I offer for this is that if we expect a student to function as a citizen with all the qualities, then we need to show how these pieces work together. This then leads to accountability of departments and services on campus as well as a system of assessment and evaluation. The student is then a well rounded student if the process is well rounded rather than pieces. There is yet another way that the Student Personnel Point of View (SPPV) of whole student development can be brought into my philosophy (Evans, et.al, 1998). Life skills development is also a way of developing the whole student. Teaching the student to live on their own in is critical for their future within the world. Many pieces come into play here. First, the decision making process is a big component. I believe that in any area within higher education we can use teachable moments to shape a student with the necessary skills to make informed decisions within their life. Second, basic abilities are another area that I feel is necessary for development. This relates to basic understanding of home economics, computer skills, encouraging diversity and communication skills. These are all necessary for a successful future as a citizen. All of the above, I believe, will develop a well rounded student. Leadership is also an integral part of my philosophy. Personally, I feel that contingency theory works best. Contingency theory, according to Kezar, Carducci, and McGavin-Contreras (1998), is leadership that is situational. Therefore, a leader will only need when necessary and lead in different ways based on the situation (Kezar, et. al, 1998). This model best fits the way I view higher education. This is because I think that group processes should be used because there are often many people who have different roles in the same group. Also, I feel that different roles and dynamics within higher education call for different levels of leadership. This approach to leadership is the most well rounded style. If want our students to develop in a way in which they have a broad view and skills, we need to lead them in such a way as well. References Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). //Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice.// San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Kezar, A.A., Carducci, R., & McGavin-Contreras, M. (2006). //Rethinking the “L” word in higher education: The revolution of research on leadership//. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.