The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1 - 104

Frank Shushok, Jr. • Jonathan W. Manz

empirical evidence solidifying anecdotes and hunches about the impact of residential living on students and their development during college. Many studies assert that residential campuses boost retention, produce more enthusiastic and connected alumni, afford admissions counselors an important marketing advantage, and enhance student satisfaction. Some of the most widely known and admired studies of college experience (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) collected longitudinal data to examine student outcomes. Among the many findings, students living on campus are more likely to obtain higher grade point averages, report more interpersonal contacts with faculty and peers, and are more likely to persist and graduate (Pascarella & Terenzini). Despite such impressive findings with respect to student growth and development, the prevailing wisdom of the student development paradigm has not been without criticism. As John Dalton and Pamela Crosby (2011) recently asserted, Some critics challenged the usefulness and relevance of the student development model in light of contemporary challenges facing higher education. . . . An expertise based on a foundation of developmental theory has limited practical value in the everyday work of student affairs, is largely irrelevant to the major changes facing higher education, and is little understood and valued by colleagues in the higher education setting. (p. 4) Certainly criticism is common to all approaches solidly anchored in philosophical assumptions. Testing critiques against the hopes and aspirations of any given educational philosophy requires important discernment, the kind that does not too quickly abandon an approach nor
104

dismiss the voices of concern. In the case of the critique summarized by Dalton and Crosby, the arguments highlight questions of practical value, relevancy, and understanding. When an idea is slow to be understood or embraced by colleagues, two questions seem worth serious consideration: Does the philosophy hold merit for the future? How effective have we been in translating the philosophy and its relevance to those with whom we work in the university community? The wealth of evidence since Wallace’s 1980 study sounds a provocative “yes” to the first question and a “somewhat” to the second, for there is still work to be done. Whatever the causes for debate or dissent, they spur all of us to a grand reminder: that we must continue to adapt tightly held philosophical drivers in light of our new learning along the way. So where do we go from here? Wallace, drawing from emerging literature in 1980, prophetically predicted that housing would become more coupled with the academic community,

When an idea is slow to be understood or embraced by colleagues, two questions seem worth serious consideration: Does the philosophy hold merit for the future? How effective have we been in translating the philosophy and its relevance to those with whom we work in the university community?

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1