As an administrator who deals perennially with the college student population, I am naturally interested in any recommendations that could potentially make my job easier and/or enhance my effectiveness. Whenever I hear that someone has suggested a better way of achieving these rather modest goals, I tend to take notice and investigate. I guess that is why I find John Schuh's discussion of student development theory in the April issue of Talking Stick so entertaining.

I certainly agree with Schuh when he notes that a number of influential writers within the field have gone to considerable lengths in an attempt to make some sense of the student development ideology. The literature certainly abounds with a seemingly endless array of rhetoric and scholarly discourse concerning how student development theory has revolutionized the student services profession since the 1960s.

It would not surprise me in the least if tomorrow I were to read that student development theories have been linked to a cure for both cancer and the common cold.

But seriously, folks. The theorists have theorized and the researchers have researched. The critiquers have critiqued and the summarizers have summarized. I guess we all have different ways of spending our leisure time...and writing for a small group of scholar-administrators with a similar "mission" is probably as good a way as any to kill a few hours.

The point is that it is always easier to theorize and play the academician when you are on the mountaintop. Those of us in the trenches who are actually dealing with students on a day-to-day basis, however, are usually preoccupied with the increasingly difficult task of mere survival. Just doing your job well, it turns out, takes a lot of time and effort.

There's not a lot of time left over to hang out in the library or ponder the relative usefulness of opposing theoretical constructs.

But back to the issue at hand.

With all due respect to Schuh and those who are so gallantly carrying the student development banner, it is only fair to acknowledge that the profuse proliferation of printed pages pertaining to the topic does contain some insights that are genuinely useful. Sheer volume and the laws of probability dictate that some good will come out of all the work spent toward these ends.

It is still my contention that there are a number of fundamentally erroneous assumptions out there concerning what student development theories can accomplish within the context of sound administrative management in higher education. And, one might add, even if the intrinsic value of these theories could be demonstrated in some ultimate sense, the response by many administrators would no doubt be a collective SO WHAT.

Consider the evidence.

It is often taken for granted that student development is a well- defined, somewhat linear process that can be explicitly categorized and understood in terms of concrete stages or phases through which students pass on the road to maturity and social adjustment. But despite the vast accumulation of published material on the subject, in reality a clear-cut consensus does not exist among many of the self-proclaimed "experts" as to what student development constitutes in a ecumenical sense.

Yes, we all go through changes as we grow and develop. And since we are all human, logically there is going to be some similarity in how these changes are characterized. I acknowledge that. My grandfather, who has never even set foot on a college campus, acknowledges that. Arguing about the details of the process and what they mean is, for the most part, an exercise in self-gratification for those who find the topic intellectually stimulating and, as a result, have a burning need to illuminate the rest of us.

Another rather dubious conclusion reached by many professionals in the field is that student development theories have their basis in, and are supported by, research studies that are, for all practical intents and purposes, conclusive. In actuality, research into key student development concepts is often very fragmented, of questionable design, and, as such, applicable only to limited populations. In the majority of cases, data produced by these types of studies are not consistently generalizable to "students" in the larger sense.

Comprehensive studies that could provide the answers many researchers are so desperately searching for are almost nonexistent.

Another misconception prevalent among the student development set these days is the notion that these theories have an innate and self-evident practicality with respect to the individual. Regardless of how proficient in the more clinical aspects of student development theory one may be, it is still extremely difficult, and more often than not impossible, to determine precisely what is happening in a particular person's life at any given juncture. Even when such an evaluation proves accurate, deciding how to respond based on such an assessment is seldom any easier.

Finally, many of those who advocate student development theory as a means of enhancing administrative practice tend to believe that the developmental process can be positively manipulated by personnel engaged in proactive intervention strategies. All professionals involved in the delivery of student services have a vested interest in making this kind of assumption.

But we need to bear in mind that it has never been shown conclusively that what we do has a permanent impact on students' overall development.

Essentially, it has been my experience that students want us to be aware of, and responsive to, their various needs and desires. I am not convinced that the vast majority of those I encounter on a daily basis want, or need, anything beyond that.

By considering these fallacies within the appropriate context, it is possible to infer what the role of any student services professional should be with respect to student development. Practices which are supported primarily by "expert" opinion, intellectual speculation, and questionable research should be treated as experimental and therefore used only minimally until greater justification for their widespread acceptance can be demonstrated.

Student services administrators must return to policies and practices that serve to minimize the potential for harm which has been associated with many of today's more "progressive" philosophies. When dealing with peoples' lives, it is indeed better to be safe than sorry.

First and foremost, we should be working to develop and maintain an environment that is free from unnecessary and unwarranted distraction. Students in the 1990s will be faced with unprecedented pressures and anxieties as they seek to further their education beyond the postsecondary level. The last thing they need is to be confronted at every turn by administrators who have a preconceived notion of what is "best" for them.

One of our primary goals should simply be to maintain an atmosphere that is conducive to "student development", regardless of what that might entail for different segments of the population.

Within this same line of reasoning, we need to be more active in promoting services and programs which tend to give our students' a personal sense of responsibility for their own destiny. Far too often, in our efforts to provide students with "direction", we fail to allow them the freedom necessary to explore various problem-solving strategies on their own. When professional staff try to assume too much of an active role in student development, the net result is often counterproductive--actual growth and maturation are significantly inhibited.

It is important that various programs and services be available for students; it is markedly less important that they be coerced into utilizing those programs and services.

Another key role of the student services administrator, like it or not, is to see that the institution's policies and procedures are consistently and equitably enforced throughout the collegiate population. In large part, our culture is founded on the belief that there are certain behaviors that are recognized as being "acceptable", and there are other behaviors that are clearly outside this realm.

By striving to create and maintain order through the humanistic enforcement of policies and procedures (realizing, of course, that is not a mortal sin to make exceptions from time-to-time), we are helping to prepare students for a more satisfying, meaningful, and ultimately successful life on the "outside".

What could be more inherent to any theory of student development?

Sadly, opinion and speculation seem to constitute the majority of all material published in the student services professions. The data needed to lend support for all the theorizing is simply not there.

On a fundamental level, there are only two plausible explanations for this phenomenon. Either student services professionals (1) do not know how to conduct competent research, or (2) do not see an overriding need to do so. My sense is that the answer involves a combination of these two alternatives.

Furthermore, it is also my belief that the literature currently available to student services administrators is almost unilaterally ignored by most of the practitioners in the field. Of course, it could be pointed out that I do not have any "hard data" to support such a blanket assertion.

My defense is that you do not need a research study to confirm the obvious.

The next time you are at a professional conference or meeting, informally inquire among your colleagues as to how much of the student services literature is actually being read and acknowledged. The simple fact is that most of us do not keep up with the latest developments in our field simply because, for the most part, it is not essential that we do so.

Consider this. In the social sciences, if you do not keep up with the latest developments and trends in your discipline, there is a very good chance that you will be out-of-touch with its dominant themes and therefore where the profession as a whole is headed. The same is true of the medical profession. If I were a M.D. and I did not keep up with the literature, I would probably find myself in court within a relatively short period of time.

This is just not the case with the student services profession. I could perform the duties and responsibilities of my job almost indefinitely regardless of whether or not I ever saw a copy of many of our professional journals. As a practitioner, I want something I can easily translate into concrete administrative practice. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a primary motivation for many of those contributing to our journals. Most seem much more interested in writing for a small, elitist group of folks with similar interests.

Skeptical? Just try to get anything with even the slightest anti- student development slant published in any of our leading professional publications.

I think the basic idea is that we, the common folk, can learn something by eavesdroping in on the ongoing dialogue that is taking place between the "leaders" of our profession. Somebody should let them in on what the rest of us already know.

In closing, I do appreciate the efforts of Schuh and his cohorts to indoctrinate the masses as to the relative importance of student development theory. It is just that I, along with a surprising number of my colleagues who constitute the silent (read: unpublished) majority, are tired of listening to all the preaching concerning the virtues of this particular ideological point of view.

We do not, as Schuh states, have to "...become expert in at least one theory." in order to do our jobs, and do them quite well.