Overall, I do want to say that I found this series of readings difficult. I got the impression that not only is the gap in trust between administration and faculty widening, but it also seems that the responsibilities of the administrators/student affairs personnel in regards to student well-being have been on the rise as well.
It was nice to have the historical background put forth by The Rise of the Administration, by Laurence Veysey. Veysey clearly illustrated the widening gap between the students and the professors of the time. Other than age, there were no clear cut differences, such as social class, between students and professors. Without this distinction, students had difficulty viewing their professors as role models. The faculty were merely viewed by the students as old book worms.
As the gap between the students and faculty widened, so did the gap between the newly forming administration and the faculty. The administration were needed to help handle the increase of students and to effectively control student conduct, which the faculty could no longer handle.
I feel that this set the stage for the us and them kind of attitude I see strewn throughout this week's readings. It seems apparent to me that faculty began to see their purpose as purely academic, and they no longer claimed the responsibility of moral and social development. This was to be left first to the president of the institution and then to the administration. The dean's role is stated very clearly in "History and Development of the Office of Dean of Men", by Thomas Arkle Clark when he says:
The office of dean of men in general came
first in the large institution where it was felt
that the personal relationship between the
student and the institution was not close as it
should be and where the deans of the colleges
or the president or whoever is responsible for
the bringing about of this relationship is too
much engaged in other affairs or were temperamentally
unfitted for doing so.
Clark very clearly saw himself as the buffer between students and faculty. It was up to him, as dean, to form those personal relationships with the students that they had been lacking from the faculty, and which the president was unable to form with them.
Clark and Rosovsky both demonstrate a great commitment to their jobs. Clark appears to gain happiness from simply knowing that the students come to him for support and guidance. He feels that if he can help just one student, despite all of the inquiries about discipline and other issues, it is all worth it.
Student affairs personnel continued to be responsible for the same things as Clark was responsible for, but their jobs slowly became more specialized. They were no longer just thought of as disciplinarians or buffers between the students and faculty. They were slowing becoming recognized as educators. Institutions began to become concerned with the ideas of personal development. The university, through its student affairs personnel and administrators, began to take on the responsibility of helping students form effective study habits, personal interests, spirituality, individuality and to find good jobs, just to name a few.
It appeared to me that Clark, in 1922, seemed to have the same problem that Henry Rosovsky had in his article,"Deaning". They were both professors who had gone the route of administration. Faculty in Clark's day thought he babies the students, while Rosovsky's faculty were more likely to view him as having gone to the "other side." It was likely he was thought of as tired of his research, a type of "sell-out", as opposed to the educator he was, and continued to be. It seemed as though because he was becoming a part of the administration, he would soon be giving his former colleagues orders. Obviously, nobody likes to be bossed around. This move was likely to be viewed by faculty as a promotion, rather than lateral move.
Student affairs personnel were (and still are) always on their toes. If it isn't to fix financial problems of the institution,, it is to develop new programming for students to help them to better achieve their goals. Deans need to watch what they say so as not to offend the faculty, while the faculty can say whatever it chooses about the administration. It appears more and more like a political game to me.
I also observed that throughout the readings the faculty do a lot of criticizing of the administration, but no one actually wants to become an administrator. I know it is a tough job, but one would think someone would be willing to put their money where their mouths is, and take the job. I also didn't like the idea that faculty who decided to take an administrative position were essentially put out to pasture by the other faculty members. I would think that faculty would see a transition to an administrative position as a move towards improvement, or at least as some sort of bridge between the administration and faculty.
I found this set of readings very frustrating as well. I hate to see so much distrust. It appears to me that the administration has to do a lot of juggling, appeasing and hoop jumping to make everyone happy, and even when they do, no one appreciates it!
Perhaps I am being naive, but I would like to see the faculty and the administration/student affairs personnel working toward the same goal. We should be working as a team to help our students become well-rounded, educated, better people. Better people/students are the ultimate goal of all parties involved in higher education, and all parties need to be heard to accomplish this goal. Perhaps faculty could meet with administrators more often, and administrators could validate the feelings of the faculty. Administration does not need to be viewed as the enemy, and student affairs personnel need to be respected in the role they play outside of the classroom.
I felt that the readings gave an overview of the roles that each party plays in pursuing our ultimate goal of educating students. The ACPA reading gave us some great questions and the best summary of our current responsibilities as student affairs personnel and administration.