Higher Education’s Enduring Questions

 

As a first generation college student, I often thought about the other students on campus. While I was working at the dining hall to make enough to pay my bills, what did they do with their time? Did they go to class, study, and then call it a day? My story isn't new, of course. In fact, it's quite old.

 

According to Thelin, low-income alumni from the early nineteenth century spoke of "exclusion within the campus culture, [but they] still encountered experiences, friendships, learning, and associations they would have been unlikely to find elsewhere" (Thelin, 2011, pp.67). By 1910, little had changed in terms of access to college. "Often as not, the selective-admissions machinery was used to increase the social homogeneity of a campus by rejecting applicants from religious or ethnic minority groups (Thelin, 2011, pp.197). Regardless of the outcome, accessing a higher education has been a concern for low-income and minority students for as long as colleges have existed. This is evident on my higher education timeline as well as in my paper about the barriers faced by several specific identities (women, people of color, etc). I wanted to understand how the culture and events of different time periods contributed to students’ access of higher education. After all, how could I have the same problems as someone from the early nineteenth century?

​

Academic & Student Affairs Collaboration

 

While finances and identity have persisted as barriers to getting a higher education degree, another long-standing concern for higher education is the academic affairs/ student affairs debate. Higher education strives to support the whole students’ development including their learning both inside and outside of class (American Council on Education, 1937). With the creation of the Student Army Training Corps in 1917, leadership and national service became more recognized sources of learning (Thelin, 2011). However, this created service learning opportunities pose an ongoing challenge in this way,This is a continued challenge for today’s institutions. Despite the value of a campus ethos that encourages active involvement in learning (Arcelus, 2011), divisions unintentionally dichotomize academic vs. non-academic approaches. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory cautions against this divided approach because “norms within an academic discipline can become exclusionary, and one learning style may be favored” (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010, pp. 143). This result is problematic because learning style is a major determinant of personal development. 

 

While academic affairs, student affairs, and faculty have different responsibilities, the best outcome for students’ learning and development derives from partnership between them. This can be achieved by developing resources that include both groups' information to establish more congruence. For this reason, the following quote resonates with me and guides my approach to cross-divisional collaboration:  “partnership is not about developing a program together; partnership is exhibiting mutual understanding and together developing an ethos where people value integrative learning” (Arcelus, 2011, pp.69).