Overview of Student Affairs
Organization and Models
Matthew Park
EDHE 6730
Dr. Jack Baier
Fall 2008
Introduction


As the student affairs field continues to
evolve, it becomes clear that different types
of institutions have different student affairs
needs.
This presentation is designed to offer a range
of approaches and models for student affairs
departments and divisions.
Established Student Affairs Models






Co-Curricular
Functional Silos
Seamless Learning
Competitive and Adversarial
Extra-Curricular
Student Services
As the models are presented, think about the organization of
student affairs at your current or previous institutions...
Co-Curricular Model


Academic affairs and student affairs are
complementary.
However, the two areas maintain distinct
missions, functions, and pedagogy about
student learning.
Functional Silos Model


Student affairs operates independently from
academic affairs with its own independent
units.
Academic affairs operates in silos
independent from student affairs.

Can observe various student affairs functions
occurring within academic silos.
Seamless Learning Model

Faculty members encourage student affairs
involvement and are committed to out of
class support opportunities.


Focus on student learning within student affairs as
extension of the classroom.
Student affairs units collaborate with
academic units on joint programs and
services.

High degree of knowledge about available
services and programs.
Competitive and Adversarial Model

Strong “Us” versus “Them” mentality.


The divisions/units prefer to exist separately.
Although limited, mutual territories are clearly
defined and understood.

Functions may move back and forth within
organizational structure depending on executive
leadership and problems/successes.
Extra-Curricular Model



Student affairs has a predominant social
focus on the development of students.
Separate missions, functions, and pedagogy
about student learning exist between student
affairs and academic affairs.
The overlap between student affairs and
academic affairs is limited, if any.
Student Services Model

Student affairs views its work from a
consumer-oriented perspective.


Strong focus on service and satisfaction.
Limited focus on student development or
student learning perspectives.


Forego the learning; make the students happy.
Embraced in times of survival and waning
enrollment.
Shortfalls of Established Methods


The models presented can lack congruency with
institutional context.
Provide incomplete contributions of student affairs in
the context of student learning.



Student learning approach sometimes absent.
Instead of collaboration and focus on the students,
staff energy can be invested in competition with
academic units and even other student affairs units.
Leads to an unfulfilled potential of student affairs.
Need for New Models…

Recent Intra-Field Developments





Standards and Founding Statements
Maturation of Field and Expanded Preparation Programs
Development of Professional Associations (NASPA, ACPA)
Increased Literature and Research Base
Recent Extra-Field Developments





Higher Tuition/Fees
Tightening Resources (less flexibility for trial and error)
Competitive Admissions
Assessment and Accountability Towards Contributing to
Institutional Goals
Growing Diversity in Types of Institutions
Principles of Good Practice for
Student Affairs
Developed by ACPA and NASPA following the Student Learning
Imperative and work of Chickering & Gamson.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Engage students in active learning.
Help students develop coherent values and ethical standards.
Set and communicate high expectations for student learning.
Use systematic inquiry to improve student and institutional
performance.
Use resources effectively to achieve institutional mission and
goals.
Forge educational partnerships that advance student learning.
Build supportive and inclusive communities.
Emerging and Research-Based
Models for Student Affairs








Student Centered Ethic of Care
Academic & Student Affairs Collaboration
Academic Centered
Directive
Student Driven
Student Agency
Extra-Curricular
Basket Weaving
As the models are presented, think about similarities and
differences between the aforementioned established
models...
Student Centered Ethic of Care
Model

Responsive to student needs.




“One Stop Shop” attitude.
Action emanates from student affairs
administrators.
Integrated services, policies, and programs.
Services are geared toward the goal of
facilitating student success.

Prevalent in institutions serving historically
underserved populations (e.g., women, students of
color, first generation).
Academic & Student Affairs
Collaboration Model



Student affairs and academic affairs are
tightly coupled in their organizational and
philosophical structures.
Collaborate to achieve mutual goals and
seamless student learning.
Competition and territoriality are absent
between academic and student affairs areas.
Academic Centered Model

Focus on rigorous academic environment with
emphasis on preparing students for advanced study.




Both academically and socially rich community with
academic experiences at the core.
Student affairs provides a role of structural support.
Policies, programs, and services are highly
responsive to academics.
Holistic sense of community with de-emphasis on
student affairs sponsored extra-curricular activities.

Student-initiated intellectual discussions and activities are
viewed as entertainment by students.
Directive Model




Intentional about increasing student success
with clear maps for programs, services, and
policies.
Intensive feedback from all institutional areas
(e.g., faculty to student, student to student,
administrator to student, student to
administrator, etc).
Focus on assessment and performance.
Can be paternalistic if overdone.
Student Driven Model

Utilizes student-centered leadership and
involvement.



Services and programs are coordinated and/or
staffed by students.
Observed in resource-limited institutions
(restricted resources for staff).
Born of necessity, but linked to institutional
philosophy (students to drive the services).
Student Agency Model




Limited to no interference or intervention from
administrators.
Focus on student initiative and
empowerment.
High expectations about student participation.
Looks disorganized to proponents of
established models.

Appearance can change from year to year.
Extra-Curricular Model




Focused on student leadership development.
Student affairs takes lead on engagement
and out-of-classroom focus.
Based on established student affairs
pedagogy and student development theories.
Student affairs and academic affairs operate
as separate entities with pockets of
collaboration.
Basket Weaving Model


Reduction of boundaries between student and academic
affairs where learning and engagement occur.
The focus of all institutional efforts is the “total” student
experience.




Everyone is interested in making a contribution to student
learning and the holistic student experience.
Institutional expectation and orientation that everyone is
involved in student learning.
Minimal delineation of responsibilities for in and out of the
classroom.
Student affairs does some weaving, academic affairs does
some weaving, and all of the weaving fits together to form the
basket. Who does the weaving does not matter so long as it
gets done.
Various Nuances and Observations
by Type of Institution

Achieved through comparison of various
organization charts and identification of
predominant functional areas within student
affairs and corresponding reporting structure.




Two Year Institutions
Liberal Arts Institutions
Private Research Institutions
Public Research Institutions
Student Affairs: Two Year Institutions

Common Functional Areas Include:







Some Structures Include:




Student Activities and Student Organizations
Leadership, Multicultural Programs, International Services
Health Services and Child Care
Seldom Found:




Career Planning and Placement
Enrollment Management (Admissions, Records, Financial Aid, Veteran
Affairs, Testing)
Disability/ADA Compliance
Counseling
Educational, Instructional, and Learning Services
Academic Advising and Registration
Housing and Dining
Safety and Security
Greek Life and Recreational Sports
Reporting Lines: President (most common), Vice Chancellor (system),
or Executive Vice President (academic affairs or college operations)
Student Affairs: Liberal Arts Institutions

Common Functional Areas Include:







Some Structures Include:




Multicultural/Diversity Programs and International Services
Bookstore
Disability/ADA
Seldom Found:





Housing/Residence Life and Dining Services
Health Services
Counseling Centers and Career Planning/Placement
College Union, Student Activities, and Recreation
Service Learning and Community Outreach
Judicial Affairs, Safety and Security
Admissions and Records
Financial Aid
Testing/Assessment
Academic Support and Academic Advising
Reporting Lines: President or Provost/Executive Vice President for
Academic Affairs (most common)
Student Affairs: Private Research
Institutions

Functional Areas Highly Dispersed Across
Institution.



Uncommon to find a single unit or division
encompassing most traditional student affairs functions.
Lack of student affairs identity exists as focus is on
academic performance/engagement and role of faculty.
Reporting Lines: Provost or Vice Provost (student
affairs does not maintain a senior cabinet
position, nor report directly to the President).
Student Affairs: Public Research
Institutions

Common Functional Areas Include:






Some Structures Include:






Multicultural/Diversity Programs/Centers
Records, Financial Aid, TRIO
Disability/ADA, Student Publications
Safety and Security, Student Legal Services
Health Services
Seldom Found:



Housing/Residence Life and Dining Services
Counseling, Disability/ADA, Career Planning and Placement
Union, Student Activities, Fraternities and Sororities, Leadership, Community
Service, First Year Programs
Recreational Sports and Wellness
Judicial Affairs (non-academic cases)
Admissions, Veteran Affairs, International Services, Athletics
Academic Support and Testing
Reporting Lines: Executive Vice President
References
Blimling, G., & Whitt, E. (1998, January). Principles of Good
Practice for Student Affairs. About Campus, 3(1), 10-15.
Choosing the Student Affairs Model That Fits Your Campus. (2006,
September). Student Affairs Leader, Retrieved November 10,
2008, from Academic Search Complete database.
Manning, K. (2006, October). Choosing the Student Affairs Model
That Suits Your Students. Recruitment & Retention in Higher
Education, 20(10), 5-4.
Manning, K., Kinzie, J. & Schuh, J. H. (2006). One Size Does Not
Fit All: Traditional and Innovative Models of Student Affairs
Practice. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.