The critique and study of student affairs competencies began as early as 1949 when Wrenn called for uniformity in curricular content. The 1960s introduced the development of formalized statements for guiding professional preparation (Miller, 1991) with the Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education (COSPA) publishing the first guidelines in 1964. This was followed by a revised and more comprehensive statement in 1967 called the Guidelines for Graduate Programs in the Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Higher Education (COSPA, as cited in Miller, 1991). The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) was subsequently established, and in 1986, adopted its first formal set of standards and guidelines, which included guidelines for master’s programs in student personnel. The most recent revision of the guidelines occurred in 2006 (CAS).

The CAS professional preparation guidelines, in particular, have been informed and shaped by a number of studies examining requisite competencies for student affairs professionals. The earliest of these studies was conducted by Newton and Richardson (1976), followed by similar research by Ostroth (1981). Both studies, sampling student affairs administrators’ perceptions of new professionals’ competency requirements, highlighted the importance of addressing interpersonal and leadership skills. Two decades after Ostroth’s study, Kretovics (2002) found that employers place the most importance on demonstrated helping skills, personal commitment to diversity and computer skills. Taken together, these studies of new professionals identified 10 wide-ranging skills for entry-level professionals: assessment and evaluation, instruction, consultation, counseling and advising, program development, personal communication, an understanding of individual differences, caring, ethics, and legal responsibilities.

Other professional preparation studies have compared the perspectives of preparation faculty with those of student affairs professionals regarding the importance of various competencies. Hyman (1988) surveyed graduate faculty of student personnel programs as well as student affairs administrators to determine the extent to which they agreed on the importance of identified entry-level competencies and whether recent graduates possessed these competencies. The faculty and administrators agreed that a diverse collection of 33 identified competencies were important for entry-level staff positions, and that goal setting, consultation, communication, assessment and evaluation, and environmental and organizational management were the most important. Kuk, Cobb, and Forrest (2007) found similar results and, further, noted that administrative practitioners attributed more importance to management and leadership functions than did faculty members.

In 2000 Lovell and Kosten released a synthesis of the studies conducted over the preceding 30 years regarding the skills, competencies, and traits needed to succeed as a student affairs administrator. By synthesizing these studies, Lovell and Kosten formed a more comprehensive list of competencies than was evident in any of the previous studies, including delineating competencies between knowledge and skills. The skills most commonly identified in the various studies as necessary for success were administration and management, human facilitation, research, evaluation, and assessment, communication, and leadership. Important knowledge characteristics included student development theory, functional unit responsibilities, academic background, organizational development/behavior, federal policies/regulations, and student needs, values, and behaviors.

In 2005, ACPA established a Task Force on Certification (ACPA, 2006) to identify salient professional competencies resulting in a list of eight competency areas that professionals entering the field were expected to exhibit (ACPA, 2007). Currently, ACPA and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) are working together to revise the competency list. The survey for this study was administered before the release of the new competency draft document and, thus, was based on the 2007 competencies (ACPA).

While studies of student affairs competencies have been conducted extensively over the past three or four decades, studies of the effectiveness of master’s degree professional programs have been more recent. Multi-institutional quantitative studies by Young and Janosik (2007) and by Cuyjet, Longwell-Grice, and Molina (2009) examined the degree to which recent graduates of student affairs preparation programs reported their graduate programs addressed the recommended curricular elements identified in the CAS standards. Between the two studies, areas that were identified as lacking were research foundations, grant writing, budgeting, financial management, and supervision (Cuyjet, Longwell-Grice, & Molina, 2009; Young & Janosik, 2007). Waple (2006) compared the level of attention given to certain competencies in preparation programs with the importance they were attributed by new professionals. Waple’s findings were similar to Cuyjet, Longwell-Grice, and Molina’s; that is, deficits were found in the degree to which the following competencies were addressed in professional preparation: supervision, strategic planning, and budget and fiscal management. Hyman (1988) examined the degree to which preparation faculty and student affairs professionals perceived the qualifications of graduating students. Although the two groups had common perceptions of the importance of particular competencies, practitioners were less likely to agree that new graduates possessed required professional competencies than were preparation program faculty.

In a year-long, qualitative, national study, Renn and Jessup-Anger (2008) identified themes salient for professional preparation, recommending that preparation programs attend to these issues in order to successfully prepare professionals. These included: Attention to the importance of creating professional identity, developing skills for navigating new organizational cultures, cultivating a lifelong learning orientation, and promoting effective use of mentors and supervisors. These themes have relevance both to content and process issues in professional preparation. For instance, creating a professional identity can be somewhat idiosyncratic and is not defined by a technical skill set. Rather, it suggests that programs might foster reflection among students in order to consider particular ways that individual students might negotiate challenging professional circumstances.

Due to the work of CAS and ACPA and a host of related studies of professional competencies, there is a growing understanding of the value of particular knowledge and skills for professional practice (Kuk, Cobb, & Forrest, 2007). This study adds to this knowledge base by assessing the relevance of the newly developed ACPA competencies to the work of new professionals. Additionally, it provides information about strengths and limitations of in-class and out-of-class graduate program experiences by including respondents’ perceptions of the degree to which they acquired these skills in these different settings. Importantly, we also explore new professionals’ insights into how particular in-class and out-of-class practices foster these competencies. This aspect of the study can provide particular guidance to faculty and administrators who share the important task of preparing new student affairs professionals.

In this study, new professionals, defined as working in the field for 5 years or fewer, were asked to identify the degree to which they use each competency in their current position and the degree to which their preparation program addressed the competency within and outside of the classroom. The survey was pilot tested with six new professionals, and changes were made based on the pilot. Following the pilot, ACPA staff sent a link to the web-based survey along with an invitation to participate to the American College Personnel list of New Professionals. A total of 1,280 emails were sent with 63 returned as undeliverable. From the remaining 1,217, there were 593 responses for a response rate of 48.7%. Five hundred and six (506) participants were deemed eligible following the screening questions and were invited to continue in the study, and 456 continued through the end of the 92-item survey, which took an estimated 15 minutes to complete.

We included questions to ensure eligibility, and participants who did not meet the following criteria were excluded from continuing in the survey: Currently employed in a higher education position; worked between no more than 5 years in a full-time position; and completed the master’s degree within the preceding 5 years.

Among those responding 69.5% identified as female and 29.4% as male. A large majority of respondents (86.9%) identified as white, non-Hispanic; 9.7% were African-American; and 5% were Hispanic. The majority of respondents (63.1%) were in the 26 to 30 year age group, and another 31.8% were 25 and under.

The quantitative findings are presented descriptively. That is, no inferential analyses were conducted.

The survey included open-ended items designed to provide insight into the actual preparation program practices that led to the acquisition of competencies. The qualitative approach was basic, interpretive qualitative research, described by Merriam (1998) as the most common form of qualitative research in education. The qualitative responses were maintained and managed using weft.qda, an open source qualitative data analysis software (http://www.pressure.to/qda/). We analyzed the data inductively (Patton, 2002) by reading over the responses to gain familiarity with the responses, and then assigning codes and identifying relationships among the codes. The coding process conformed to the analytic process described by Richards (2005). Specifically, Richards recommended a process of analyzing data by considering: 1) conditions under which various phenomena manifest, 2) consequences of different behaviors, ideas, or phenomena, and 3) strategies and interactions that relate to the phenomena. Furthermore, we sought linkages (Richards, 2005) or relationships (Patton, 2002) among codes. Finally, the process of developing themes and connections continued through the writing process (Wolcott, 1990).

The responses to Question 1 are shown in Table 1. The table is ordered by the extent to which respondents agreed that the competency was used in the current position on the following scale: 4 = Significant, 3 = Moderate, 2 = Minimal, 1 = Not at all. The most commonly used competency reported by participants was Advising and Helping. Advising and Helping was followed by a related competency, Leading and Managing Human Resources which included conflict management, team building, motivation, supervision, and hiring. These competency sets are similar in that they both rely on strong relational skills.

^a % agreeing = the percentage of respondents responding that the competency is required to a significant or moderate degree.

^b Denotes competency area within Leadership and Management/Administration category.

Five of the top eight competency areas reported among new professional were under the Leadership and Management/Administration category. These areas represent diverse skill sets, cutting across technical, interpersonal, and political domains. In addition to the Leading and Managing Human Resources competency, other important skills within the Leadership and Management category are Resource Management (facilities, fiscal, technology, and “green”); Organizational Development (planning and organizing, cultural landscape, political landscape, types of leadership, change, goal setting, organizational improvement); and Social Responsibility/Civic Engagement.

The other notable high-ranking competency relates to Ethical Standards. This competency includes knowledge of professional ethical standards as well as possessing a personal code of ethics and assisting students with their own ethical decision-making.

The Assessment, Evaluation, and Research competency was reportedly used the least by respondents, following the Teaching and Student Learning and Development competencies. The survey distinguished between understanding theories of Teaching and of Student Learning and Development and the application of these skills. Application skills in respect to Student Learning and Development theory and theories of Teaching were reportedly more important than simply understanding the theories. Finally, Understanding and Applying Legal Foundations ranked above Student Learning and Development Theory application. The only competency area that fewer than half of participants reported using to a significant or moderate degree was the Ability to Critique Assessment, Evaluation, and Research competency and, even in the research domain, nearly half of respondents (49.7%) considered the competency to be important in their work.

Participants were asked to report the extent to which the competency was addressed in the classroom or through out-of-class experiences in their graduate program. Table 2 illustrates the degree to which participants reported competencies were addressed in the classroom. The primary classroom-based foci were related to theories, including Student Learning and Development Theory, learning about Organizations and Cultures, Leadership, and Pluralism. Participants also reported learning about Applying Ethical Standards from their classroom experience. Managing Resources, including human resources, was the lowest ranked competency obtained in the classroom. It is noteworthy, however, that at least 60% of respondents indicated that 14 of the 15 competencies were addressed either to a significant or moderate degree in the classroom. The only competency that less than 50% of participants indicated was not addressed at least to a moderate degree was that of Managing Facilities, Finance, and Technology at 49.6%.

^a % agreeing = the percentage of respondents responding that the competency is required to a significant or moderate degree.

^b Denotes competency area within Leadership and Management/Administration category.

In respect to out of class learning (See Table 3), participants reported considerable learning in the areas of Advising and Helping, as well as the related competency of Managing and Leading Human Resources. Other competencies that reportedly received the most attention outside the classroom were Applying Ethical Standards, Organization Development/Leadership, and Pluralism. Competencies associated with Assessment, Evaluation, and Research were reportedly the least addressed through out-of-class contexts, with Critiquing Assessment as the only competency not addressed by a significant or moderate degree in out-of-class learning settings for over one-half of respondents (52.8%).

^a % agreeing = the percentage of respondents responding that the competency is required to a significant or moderate degree.

^b Denotes competency area within Leadership and Management/Administration category.

Figure 1 illustrates the degree to which out-of-class and in-class learning, respectively, correspond to new professionals’ reported use of each competency. There were three competencies in which scores were lower for both in-class and out-of-class learning than the scores representing the degree to which the scores were used by new professionals. That is, the degree to which these skills were addressed in the graduate program did not meet the level at which the skill was used in professional practice for new professionals. Among those three were the two reported highest use proficiencies: Advising and Helping and Managing and Leading Human Resources. The other competency area for which this was true was the Resource Management of Facilities, Finances, Technology, and “Green.” In all three of these cases, participants reported that these skills were addressed through settings outside the classroom more than in-class.

Figure 1: Comparison of new professional competency use with in-class and out-of-class acquisition: Ordered by reported use of competency.

Participants reported four competencies receiving more emphasis in classroom than in out-of-class settings. Two of these competencies related to Student Learning and Development and two related to Assessment, Evaluation, and Research. Overall, the out-of-class learning line illustrated in Figure 1 is more parallel to and in closer contact with the usage line than is the in-class learning, suggesting that new professionals perceive that their out-of-class learning experiences in graduate education were more closely tied to their work than were in-class experiences.

Participants were asked to identify one competency area that they considered to be the single most important in their current work and to describe, in an open-ended response, how their graduation preparation addressed this competency. The competency Advising and Helping was identified by 45.6% of participants as the most important. Managing and Leading Human Resources was identified by 24.6%. So, among the 15 competencies listed, 70.2% selected one of these two as the most important. The next most frequently cited “most important” competency, “The ability to apply student development theory to improve and inform practice,” was selected by 4.3% of participants, illustrating a significant gap between the two most commonly cited competencies and the other 13.

In general, participants were positive about the connection between their graduate preparation and their current work. One new professional provided a comment that reflected the tenor of a large portion of the respondents:

Indeed, participants cited a wide variety of experiences, both in-class and out-of-class, during their graduate programs that prepared them by addressing the competencies they considered most important.

Know thy students. Despite student development theory being ranked among the lower half of competencies in importance in the quantitative component of this study, participants frequently cited its value in the open-ended responses. One participant noted, “Through student development courses, I learned how to assess student needs and determine a plan for improving or challenging students.” Respondents also commented, specifically, on the importance of learning about diverse student populations through their student development coursework. “The student development theories we learned influenced the ways I approached the students I worked with on a daily basis. Additionally, I was given the opportunity to further understand the importance of working with different populations.”

A few respondents noted that their programs did not address the developmental and learning issues associated with particular groups of students they were now working with as professionals. For instance, one new professional commented, “My graduate program focused mainly on student development theory of traditional age students, which does not benefit me for my job working with non-traditional adult students.”

On the other hand, when classroom experiences did not sufficiently address particular sub-populations’ needs, the out-of-class settings sometimes served as an important complement to the classroom, as expressed by a number of respondents. Intentionally structured out-of-class experiences often exposed students to opportunities to work with diverse student populations, including students with disabilities, students of color, commuter students, and LGBT students. Obtaining exposure to work with diverse populations of students was aided by mentors and supervisors who assisted future student affairs professionals to make meaning of their work with diverse populations and to work more effectively. One respondent described the ways in which the GA setting promoted opportunities to work with students with disabilities.

Both in class and through internship opportunities, aspiring professionals acquired skills and knowledge related to the processes of student learning and development. With the large proportion of respondents who indicated that helping and advising skills were the most relevant to their careers, it is not surprising that several respondents highlighted the value of their counseling classes in promoting valuable competencies in working effectively with students, as evidenced in the following response:

Other participants discussed counseling-related courses and curricula as they allowed students to “gain communication and theory skills,” “understand how to connect with and assist in advising and supervising others,” and “assist with being critical in thinking about issues.”

While the counseling content was highlighted as being particularly important by a substantial number of respondents, we acknowledge that a host of other important skills and competencies were mentioned by participants of this study. Those competencies included as wide a range of competencies as were indicated by the quantitative portion of this study. However, it is also clear that, among this group of new professionals, experiences related to understanding, counseling, advising, and supporting students were pre-eminent, and were frequently addressed through counseling and helping skills courses.

Intentional theory to practice pedagogy. Several respondents gave valuable clues to the types of classroom activities that effectively connected with practice-related competencies. Among the most common activities positively cited by participants involved employing case studies and role-playing exercises. Participants often referred to these experiences in tandem. For instance, one participant reported, “In my graduate classes, we would role play situations and discuss case studies in order to analyze how we would approach specific situations. Each of us was able to give and receive feedback based on these role play situations.” Similarly, another participant explained, “Several of my classes required me to provide feedback to my peers and we did role playing and case study exercises where we played/imagined we were supervisors and supervisees.” And, another spoke to the virtues of “dissecting and discussing many case studies” relevant to important professional competencies.

Classroom experiences such as role-playing and case study were helpful in that they represented challenges that students were likely to later encounter as professionals. Some participants also mentioned team projects and other classroom activities that reflected skill requirements of their professional positions. For instance, one participant noted, “We had a lot of team projects that allowed us to work together and learn to talk to each other about issues and critique each other in our work,” further noting that teamwork was an important requirement of her position as a new professional.

Another participant pointed out a useful course-related exercise in which students practiced giving critical feedback to peers:

A subtext of this theme was the acknowledgement that there were no clear blueprints that would lead to an adequate understanding of real-life work issues in student affairs. One participant noted that pedagogical approaches reflecting work requirements “assisted with being critical in thinking about issues” rather than providing banal answers to the complex problems faced by practitioners.

Nurturing skills outside of class. Most participants cited graduate assistantship work and, to a lesser extent, practica and internships as important contexts for developing important professional competencies. In this illustration, a new professional described the opportunity to practice the relevant skill set while a graduate student: “Our practical experiences also helped us to build our skills in the areas of support, direction, feedback, critique, and guidance by providing us with hands-on opportunities to supervise and advise individual students and student organizations.”

Similarly, the following participant described the role that out-of-class experience played in professional skill development while also citing the importance of mentors and classroom learning. However, it appears that the practical experience was preeminent for this new professional.

Participants also noted the importance of shorter-term experiences, such as practica, in equipping them for professional practice. The following statement illustrates the important learning experience a semester- or quarter-long experience can provide to students. “My strongest experience in this area was through a practicum where I taught a class. Providing feedback to students about projects and papers has helped me to provide feedback about job performance to the students I currently supervise.” New professionals also reported that being exposed to diverse groups of students and a variety of work contexts through internships and practica were important in their preparation.

While participants were generally very positive about their out-of-class experiences as a source for acquiring important competencies, some were less positive, as pointed out by the following participant. “I'd say I am moderately well-prepared. My skill in this area related to students was not emphasized in my graduate assistantship, so I sometimes feel as though I am less qualified in this area than I'd like to be.”

Organized, seamless educational experience. It is clear that most of the participants recognized strong connections between in-class and out-of-class experiences as illustrated by the following:

Indeed, as pointed out by the following new professional, intentional efforts existed to bring together classroom experiences with out-of-class realities, and the participant notes the value of this symbiotic relationship.

Likewise, the following participant illustrated that a sense of shared responsibility and partnership between faculty and administrators was an asset in professional preparation.

Unfortunately, some respondents described “poor structure” and “lack of organization,” “faculty filling in at the last minute,” and lack of coordination between academic programs and administrative placements (e.g., graduate assistantships and internships). Participants indicated that these structural deficiencies led to missed educational experiences.

It is noteworthy that, throughout the responses, new professionals cited the importance of supervisors, faculty, and other mentors in providing them personal direction and support in their professional preparation. While the particular structures of the graduate experiences (e.g., theory classes, case studies, internships, etc.) are vitally important, the life-blood of professional education is provided by the thoughtful attention given by caring and experienced professionals.

Generally speaking, the classroom context did not address requisite competencies for new professionals as directly as did out-of-class, structured experiences such as internships and graduate assistantships. This supports a similar finding by Renn and Jessup-Anger (2008). Managing resources including human, facilities, fiscal, and technology were the lowest ranked competencies taught in the classroom. In the case of the Resource Management (facilities, fiscal, and technology) competency, however, neither in-class nor out-of-class settings sufficiently addressed this area. Similarly, Cuyjet, Longwell-Grice, and Molina’s (2009) and Waple’s (2006) studies found that budgeting and financial management were not sufficiently addressed in the curriculum. It is not surprising that graduate students would have less exposure to managing a budget than would new professionals. However, faculty and staff mentoring graduate students should consider ways to provide aspiring professionals with more opportunities to learn and apply these resource management competencies.

It is also noteworthy that two of the areas that new professionals deemed to be most salient for their practice, (1) Advising and Helping and (2) Managing and Leading Human Resources, were under-emphasized in classroom contexts. That is, for these two areas, there was a gap between competency requirements for new professionals (i.e., high) and the relatively low degree to which these two important areas were addressed in the classroom. Survey participants noted that these competencies could be addressed both through curricular content and process. In terms of content, this study points to the importance of classes related to counseling, organizational behavior, and student development theory. Although applying and understanding student learning and development theory were not the most employed competencies reported in the quantitative data, the qualitative data suggest that grounding in these theories is important for new professionals. In particular, participants noted that student development theories that fostered understanding of diverse student populations were particularly important for their professional practice.

In respect to process, students must not only understand the theories taught in the above-mentioned classes, but they must be given opportunities to apply the theories in the classroom setting. There were substantial expressed differences among the qualitative responses regarding the degree to which students had opportunities to learn to apply theories in their classes. Some participants lauded their instructors for employing role-plays and case studies in class. Other approaches such as group projects and evaluating each other’s presentations in class were also recognized by respondents as directly applicable to their future work. For example, participants recognized that exercises such as evaluating peers helped to nurture skills that were related to staff supervision.

Although the design and implementation of assessment, evaluation, and research was one of the least reported competencies utilized by new professionals, the competency was still utilized at a significant or moderate amount by nearly 60% of new professionals. Lovell and Kosteen’s (2000) synthesis of studies over the last thirty years related to skills, competencies, and traits needed for success in student affairs indicated that the research, evaluation, and assessment competency was one of the most commonly identified skills deemed important within the field. In addition, studies focusing on mid- and upper-level professionals indicate that it remains important beyond entry level positions. However, even at the mid- and upper-levels, research indicates that technical skills such as assessment and financial management are not as highly valued as are skills such as leadership, personnel management, and communication (Cooper & Saunders, 1999; Fey & Carpenter, 1996; and Sermershein & Keim, 2005).

The results of this study clearly indicate that new professionals perceive their out-of-class learning to be more in line with their work than in-class learning. Not only can curricular adaptations be considered, but it is important that strong partnerships exist between academic programs and administrative areas that provide these out-of-class learning experiences. Students who have the opportunity to successfully apply knowledge they gain from rich classroom experiences in a practical setting expressed higher satisfaction with their graduate education. A sense of shared responsibility between these two areas is a valuable asset to one’s graduate education. Collaboration and effective mentoring from both practice-based supervisors and classroom faculty can have a powerful influence on preparedness of student affairs professionals. Participants noted the important role their supervisors and faculty played in providing valuable feedback, assistance with skill development, and in serving as role models.

In addition to validating the new ACPA competencies, this study also supported the usefulness of the CAS Standards for Professional Preparation (CAS, 2006). However, we recommend that “process” issues as well as “content” matters be further emphasized in future editions of the CAS standards for professional studies. Current standards mention the importance of describing pedagogical strategies. We recommend that standards go further in asserting that in-class experiences include a strong emphasis on relating theory to practice through activities such as case studies, role-play, group projects, and evaluating peer work (e.g., presentations).

The findings provided in this study help to enhance understanding of how preparation programs support the development of ACPA competencies. The findings derived from the quantitative and the qualitative data suggest that professional programs are addressing relevant skill areas for new professionals. However, out-of-classroom experiences are viewed as addressing the needs of new professionals more directly than in-the-classroom experiences. Qualitative data suggest that providing more theory to practice opportunities for students can enhance classroom experiences. Continued efforts must be made to ensure that new professionals have skills and experiences that can be transferred back and forth between the classroom and their work environments.