HESA Written Comp Exam- Bib (Autosaved)

UNDERPREPAREDNESS FOR POST-COLLEGE LIFE 1
HESAL Comprehensive Written Exam Michael Weddington
Spring 2015
Exam Problem:
The Underpreparedness of U.S. Undergraduates for Post-College Life.
Doctoral Committee
Chair/Research Advisor Florence M. Guido
2nd HESAL Member Matthew Birnbaum
Committee Member Kathleen Fahey
Faculty Representative David Kendrick

Table of Contents
Part I. Introduction to my Exam Problem and Its Significance .......................................................3
Students are Entering an Increasingly Complex World ...........................................................3
How my Problem Relates to HESAL in Terms of Institutional Mission………………….....4
Part II. An Integrative Literature Review ........................................................................................6
Sociological: College has become the de facto way station to adulthood....................................7
Historical context......................................................................................................................7
Pre-1960s: Families and institutional authorities know best ...............................................7
Post-1960s: Growing uncertainty over who knows best......................................................9
Result: An existential and epistemological vacuum ......................................................... 11
American colleges: A practical training school for the whole person .............................. 12
Preparing College Students to Participate in Society ............................................................ 13
Community engagement beyond college .......................................................................... 13
An evolving definition of adulthood: Becoming vs. Being ............................................... 14
Economic: Employers increasingly demand college educated workers.....................................15
Economic transformation requiring more postsecondary preparation............................... 15
What employers are looking for from new college hires.................................................. .19
Environmental: Escalating ecological threats require informed and engaged responses .......... 21
Developmental: Supporting integrative personal growth during fast-changing times .............. 25
Mythic/spiritual perspectives ............................................................................................. 26
Psychosocial perspectives .................................................................................................28
Cognitive perspectives ......................................................................................................31
Moral perspectives ............................................................................................................ 33
Social identity formation perspectives .............................................................................. 34
How HESAL Relates to the Preparation Process of College Students for Post-college Life.......35
Part III. Recommendations and Implications for HESAL Practice and Research ........................36
Sociologically-oriented Recommendation #1....................................................................37
Economically-oriented Recommendation #2.....................................................................38
Environmentally-oriented Recommendation #3 ................................................................ 39
Developmentally-oriented Recommendation #4 ............................................................... 40
Part IV. Three Proposed Research Questions with Accompanying Agendas ..............................40
Research Question #1: .....................................................................................................41
Part V. A Reflective Positionality Statement ................................................................................51
References .....................................................................................................................................53

Part I. Introduction to my Exam Problem and Its Significance
In my HESAL Ph.D. comprehensive written exam, I submit for consideration−based on
an in-depth review of the literature−that U.S. undergraduate college students today are generally
underprepared for the typical demands and stresses of post-college life. I assert that this lack of
preparedness generally applies to undergraduate students attending institutions across the
Carnegie Classification. In defending this assertion, my primary focus will be on undergraduates
attending 4-year institutions, but my discussion will relate to 2-year college students as well.
Students are Entering an Increasingly Complex World.
Life in our society has perhaps never been more complex. To be sure, complexity and
change have always been a feature of not only American society, but human societies in general.
Therefore, I make no claim that life today is any more challenging, threatening, or even faster-
changing than times of yore, but rather that it is more complex; complexity as defined by a state
or condition involving both increasing interconnection and−paradoxically−differentiation. Life
has become more complex for a number of reasons; one is the oft-used but rarely defined word
globalization, defined here (Ghemawat & Altman, 2014), as a composite of such measurable
processes as cross-national merchandise trade, stock exchanges and other capital flows, phone
calls, published material shared, and student, migrant, and tourist flows. According to these
indexes, the human species is cumulatively interacting across borders more than ever before,
with the United States serving as a major driver of this clear if uneven trend in interconnection.
Humans are not just more connected on a macro scale, of course. The touted ‘digital
revolution’ has over the past thirty years enabled millions of humans to access previously
unimaginable amounts of information, while allowing nearly instantaneous communication with

most everyone else on Earth across multiple platforms (McGrath, 2011). Meanwhile, knowledge
and behavioral differentiation has also exponentially increased over the last few decades.
Consider the sheer number of decisions large and small we each make a day, based on the
vast number of choices available (Worth, 2009). This includes matters of considerable
importance; our healthcare system is considered as the most complicated in the world (Taylor &
Morrison, 2011), while our four million word tax code is so byzantine, even the IRS’s own
Taxpayer Advocate Service complains that it is overly complex (Fishman, 2013). The US legal
code? Up to 22 million words long with more than 80,000 estimated links (Arbesman, 2012).
A central outcome of this massive increase in life complexity is the growing practical and
theoretical understanding throughout the academic disciplines that we now live in a world of
interdependent and yet differentiated systems (Homer-Dixon, 2011) that feature increased
aspects of non-linearity and unpredictability. Functionally speaking, we are less independent
things than participants in complex webs of interdependence (Senge, 1994).
That is essentially what this exam paper is about; how our higher education system is
inadequately preparing its students to meaningfully participate in and enhance ‘complex webs of
interdependence’ that range in levels from the organizational to the global.
How my Problem Relates to HESAL in Terms of Institutional Mission.
The underpreparedness of U.S. undergraduate students for post-college life matters to
HESAL, because HESAL is concerned with preparing its masters and doctoral students to
become leaders at promoting student learning and development across institutional contexts in
higher education. A significant component of this student learning and development is arguably
life preparedness, as described in UNC’s mission statement, as well as in mission statements
across the U.S. higher education landscape.

Mission statements are not universally appreciated or understood. A common criticism
is that−in trying to be all things to all possible constituencies−they become vague, hollow, and
bereft of real meaning (Davies, 1986; Chait, 1979; Delucchi, 1997). It has also been pointed out
that when mission statements attempt to articulate specific and substantive goals for diverse
campus communities, confusion and discord can arise (Birnbaum, 1988). Nevertheless, they
remain the primary means of expressing the overall purpose and justification for the existence of
a given postsecondary institution. They articulate a vision of educational quality for campus
communities and the public (Kuh, Schuh, & Whitt, 1991), as part of the process of clarifying and
asserting institutional values (Quinley, 1991). In short, mission statements are arguably moral
and ethical statements; they express what profoundly matters to colleges in codified ways.
How much emphasis do they place on preparing students for post-college life? A great
deal, according to an extensive thematic analysis (Morphew & Hartley, 2006) of 300+ mission
statements from a representative sample of U.S. four-year institutions across Carnegie
Classification. Findings revealed that−out of 118 distinct statement elements identified−among
the 3 most common types of elements were those that exhorted to some extent engagement with
and preparedness for life beyond college. Thematic examples included: “serves local area”;
“prepare for world”; “civic duty/service”; “student development” and “leadership”.
The national Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS)
explicitly supports this life preparatory theme by stating in its current general standards
guidelines (CAS, 2011) that “the formal education of students, consisting of the curriculum and
the co-curriculum, must promote student learning and developmental outcomes that are
purposeful, contribute to students’ realization of their potential, and prepare students for
satisfying and productive lives” (p. 4). Our own institutional mission statement joins the chorus,

by stating as its very purpose and goal (University of Northern Colorado, 2014b) “…to prepare a
well-educated citizenry whose understanding of issues enables them to be contributing members
of a rapidly changing, technologically advance (sic), diverse society”.
Based on such findings, it appears that higher education leaders across the U.S. recognize
student life preparedness as a significant component of their institutional and programmatic
focus. However, does this rhetorical emphasis actually translate into well-prepared students in
relation to the contemporary rigors and complexities posed by life beyond college? The research
does not generally bear this out, as I will discuss across categories in Part II.
For the purposes of this discussion, I examine the notions of student ‘underpreparedness’
and ‘typical demands and stresses of post-college life’ holistically, from behavioral,
psychological, and spiritual perspectives. The diverse viewpoints of researchers, higher
education professionals, employers, and students themselves will be included. My focus is
primarily practical and applied, but I will also include theoretical perspectives, particularly as
they relate to HESAL research and practice. ‘Post-college life’ is defined experientially, as
characterized by such adulthood-achieving experiences (Nelson & Luster, 2014) as career
establishment and advancement, civic engagement, financial and residential independence,
starting a family, clarifying a life purpose, applying critical thinking in relation to personal and
social problems, assuming responsibility for personal decisions, leadership roles, and marriage.
Part II. An Integrative Literature Review
This literature review is organized around four emergent themes uncovered from the
findings: Sociological, economic, environmental, and developmental. I will endeavor to explain
and discuss how each relates to the underpreparedness of undergraduate college students for

post-college life, generally speaking. I will focus on U.S. higher education, as an international
treatment would exceed the scope of this exam paper’s limitations.
Sociological: College has become the de facto way station to adulthood.
It is not the sole responsibility of U.S. colleges and universities to facilitate the transition
of young people into adulthood, of course. Per the African proverb of ‘it takes a whole village to
raise a child’, families, K-12 education, government leaders, employers, churches, social
agencies, health providers, the media, the military, and other entities all play vital roles.
However, a case can be made that higher education now plays the most vital role of all.
Historical context. In cultures around the world from the beginning of recorded history,
there have been normative milestones and rites of passage to mark and celebrate the passage of
the young into adulthood (Van Gennep, 2010). In American society, from the beginning of the
20th-century into the 1970s, adulthood was signified by individually achieving a certain sequence
of tasks, including leaving/graduating from high school, leaving home, completing college (for
the small and largely white male minority who attended), getting a job, getting married, and
starting a family by the time one reached their early- to mid-twenties (Gillis, 1996; Settersten &
Ray, 2010; Furstenberg, 2010). Marriage was perhaps the pre-eminent marker of full adulthood
(Kett, 1977; Modell, 1989; Rotundo, 1993).
Pre-1960s: Families and institutional authorities know best. The task of what to teach
the young about life and how to live was primarily left to families, as informed by community,
governmental, educational, religious, and popular media influences (Gordon, 1978). The cultural
signposts were fairly clear and unambiguous (at least until the mid-1960s), and interlocking
community support was abundant (Putnam, 2000). To quote Silva (2013), “Within the Postwar
era of secure wages, low employment, and stable nuclear family structures, coming of age was a

journey with stable, predictable, and clearly gendered endings” (p. 13). Trust in government was
much higher than today (Pew Research Center, 2014c), as well as belief in the importance of
religion and weekly church attendance (Gallup Poll, 2013). There were also exponentially fewer
competing media outlets and platforms (e.g. 3 primary T.V. networks, Time and Life magazines,
no internet or cellphone technology), which were corporately controlled to market monolithic
and relatively uncontroversial messages and programming. Families tended to stay in the same
place, and develop comparatively strong community and civic ties (Putnam, 2000).
During the immediate and prosperous post-war years, a much smaller percentage of
American 18-24 year olds were enrolled in college than today (Snyder, 1991; National Center for
Education Statistics, 2013). For examples, in 1950, only about 16.5% were enrolled, and in 1960,
22.3%; however, by 2011, that figure had swelled to 42.0%. Therefore, in a comparative sense,
secondary schools played a larger role than colleges in practically preparing teenagers for adult
life. In order to prepare increasing enrollments of baby-boomer children from the 1950s into the
60s for expanded work opportunities (including a large percentage in booming unskilled and
semi-skilled industries), high school districts across the nation added to their standard home
economics courses (for girls) and shop classes (for boys) by multiplying their vocational
education offerings in response to community and parental demand (Reese, 2011). College,
meanwhile, was still primarily reserved for white males from middle- or upper-income families,
with well delineated career paths and prospects (Brock, 2010).
However, this post-war state of affairs as idyllically portrayed in such popular television
shows as Leave it to Beaver and Happy Days marginalized or entirely excluded the participation
and presence of females and minorities in society (Spigel & Mann, 1992; Bogel, 2001). Women,
Blacks, and other marginalized groups continued to broadly suffer from widespread and

deplorable civil rights restrictions in the post-war years. Even so, the parameters and possibilities
of life were generally understood, offering a sense of both promise and stability to (generally
white) members of the burgeoning middle class. Financial responsibilities were also clear-cut
during the prosperous post-war years; young adults were expected to largely ‘pay their own way’
once they left home for a job in their late teens or early twenties (Furstenberg, 2010).
Post-1960s: Growing uncertainty over who knows best. This relatively stable and
homogeneous understanding of the life course was frayed and increasingly called into question
during the late 1960s and 70s by both economic malaise and cultural upheaval. The decline of
well-paying unskilled and semi-skilled jobs from the late 60’s and 70’s onward (Furstenberg,
2010), coupled with steady wage stagnation relative to inflationary pressures (Meyerson, 2013)
made it increasingly difficult for many young adults to ‘strike out on their own’. Meanwhile, the
stable American cultural fabric was torn asunder by the increasingly controversial war in
Vietnam and its attendant draft; the various civil rights movements and demonstrations erupting
across urban centers and campuses across the nation; the destabilizing assassinations of JFK,
RFK, and Martin Luther King; continually rising cold war tensions with the Soviet Union and
China signatured by ever more powerful tests of ‘doomsday’ nuclear devices; the emergence of
the counter-culture and its embrace of environmental concerns, ‘free-love’, experimental drug
use, and its ethos of distrust for prevailing institutions−all arguably culminating in the first
impeachment and resignation of an American president in the nation’s then 200-year history.
Concurrently, on many college campuses there emerged among scholars and students a
growing embrace of what became known as identity politics (Jacobsen & Jacobsen, 2008), which
sought to assert and legitimize the rights and narratives of marginalized groups such as females,
people of color, and gays and lesbians. Broad epistemological assumptions about society were

challenged and deconstructed, giving birth to multiple approaches to knowledge and its
acquisition. The political scientist Walter Truett Anderson (1990) opined thusly:
The 1960s were the true beginning of the postmodern era. The decade brought forth
audacious critiques of the modern world-view, attacks on all belief systems. Strange new
ideas about such matters as consciousness and sanity and objective truth entered the
public dialogue. The public may not have fully understood them−the people who were
throwing them around probably did not fully understand them−but nevertheless we began
to grapple more resolutely than we ever had before with open challenges to social reality
(p. 44).
In the wake of the sociocultural earthquake that was the 1960s, American culture has arguably
assumed over time a more fragmented and skeptical character to this day. The historian Bruce
Schulman (2002) describes this turning point as a momentous shift in American culture, society,
and politics: Where a civically-inspired universalism that gave birth to the New Deal, the civil
rights movement, and widespread optimism in the post-World War II years morphed into an
increasing distrust of societal institutions and the sovereignty of the free market. Where a weary
public re-focused attention from community to more individual concerns (Putnam, 2000).
An outcome of these sociocultural and economic transformations is that today’s young
adults, or so-called ‘Millennials’, are “relatively unattached to organized politics and religion,
linked by social media [instead of traditional community structures], burdened by debt,
distrustful of people, in no rush to marry [or start families]…” (Pew Research Center, 2014a).
Furthermore, it is now understood that the transition to adulthood is fraught with more prolonged
uncertainty and variability (Waters, Carr, Kefalas, & Holdaway, 2011; Settersten & Ray, 2010;
Arnett, 2015), due to greater difficulty in achieving financial independence right out of high
school or college, a differentiated understanding of what it means to be an adult, and increased
confusion over where to turn for answers to life’s pressing questions (Arnett, 2015).

Result: An existential and epistemological vacuum. As life becomes fraught with more
uncertainty, young adults are turning towards each other and the Internet for life’s answers. A
national survey (Rosen, 2012) found that 59 percent of people ages 18 to 29 said that social
media or the Internet had “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of influence in shaping who they are.
Meanwhile, in-depth and longitudinal interviews with a broad cross-section of 230 American
adults of ages 18 to 23 found that they turn primarily to each other in order to make meaning of
life (Smith, Christofferson, Davidson, & Herzog, 2011; Astin, 1993). While parents are highly
valued today by many young adults in terms of emotional and financial support (Arnett, 2015;
Furstenberg, 2010; Grigsby, 2009), they are often kept at a distance about many of the most
important things going on in their lives (Smith, Christofferson, Davidson, & Herzog, 2011).
Where, then, do young people today most often develop influential and supportive peer-
networks, and learn vital life skills? In college. Of course, they also attend to acquire the in-depth
knowledge, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills demanded by a more competitive and
global job market, and to decide upon a career path (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2014; National
Academy of Sciences, 2010). And yet, for many students (even for those attending two-year
colleges, or who must work a great deal to support their education), college is for much more
than vocational training. It essentially serves as a relatively safe place for practicing how to be an
adult in a generally supportive environment (Arnett, 2015; Grigsby 2009; Arum & Roksa, 2011;
Arum & Roksa, 2014). It is a place for learning how to gradually take responsibility for oneself,
develop social skills, and experience personal growth. Arnett (2015) perhaps sums it up best:
In many ways, the American college is the emerging adult environment par
excellence…college is a social island set off from the rest of society, a temporary safe
haven where emerging adults can explore identity possibilities in love, work, and
worldviews with many of the responsibilities of adult life minimized, postponed, kept at
bay (p. 166).

American colleges: A practical training school for the whole person. From the founding
of Harvard College in 1636 to the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862, colleges acted the role of
paternalistic stewards of their mostly upper-class white male charges (Lucas, 2006). Their
primary function was to instill character from religious and classical perspectives, and to confer a
measure of elite status (Lucas, 2006; Leonard, 1956; Geiger, 2014). They served as surrogate
parents, as codified by the term in loco parentis. To the extent they provided vocational
preparation, it was for the assumption of narrow, traditional roles within the clergy, industry, and
education (Lucas, 2006; Leonard, 1956; Geiger, 2014).
The Morrill Act of 1862 initiated the process of radical change that transformed the
landscape of American higher education. Nascent ideas for agricultural, vocational, women’s,
liberal arts, research, and Historically Black colleges and universities were given impetus by the
Act’s several iterations (Lucas, 2006; Leonard, 1956; Geiger, 2014; Nuss, 2003), as public funds
were allocated towards higher education for the first time. As a result, vocational education
became a primary focus of student life preparation (Leonard, 1956; Nuss, 2003: Rudolph, 1965).
By the early 1930s, an understanding of the need to prepare students to be well-rounded
and engaged citizens began to emerge (Dungy & Gordon, 2011). This concept of educating the
whole person and of relating academic curriculum to extra-curricular activities formed the basis
of the student personnel movement (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Nuss, 2003). Thoughts and
practices informing this holistic approach to student guidance coalesced when the representatives
of 14 institutions of higher education met and issued a landmark report in 1937 known as the
Student Personnel Point of View, under the auspices of the American Council on Education
(ACE, 1937). A follow-up report in 1949 (ACE, 1949) presciently related student developmental
concerns with a need for societal engagement and responsibility. And yet, the concept of in loco

parentis continue to prevail on campuses in a still relatively monolithic American culture that
was pre-occupied with the major stresses of the Great Depression and World War II.
Then came the 1960s and early 70s. Campuses nationwide responded to the times by re-
conceptualizing and dismantling the practical and legal ramifications of in loco parentis, and
articulating a more egalitarian relationship with students (Bloland, 1991; Loss, 2012). American
colleges and universities came to establish a partnership relationship with students and their
parents (Dungy & Gordon, 2011), while expanding their student affairs staffing to both promote
and meet demand for student growth in holistic ways (Loss, 2012). Students and their parents are
now understood as empowered consumers of higher educational servicing in a highly
competitive industry, who seek out college experiences for individual exploration and life skill
preparation, as well as and for academic training (Arum & Roksa, 2014).
Preparing College Students to Participate in Society. How well are colleges and
universities preparing students to engage in an increasingly complex and diverse society?
Community engagement beyond college. Fortunately, there is a wealth of research on the
practical benefits of student leadership and engagement programs. Such programs−and sustained
college experience in general−are associated with an increase in many measures of civic
responsibility, including helping others in difficulty, influencing social values, influencing the
political structure, and participating in community action programs (Levine, 2006; Sax, 2004;
Astin, 1977; 1993; Bowen, 1980; Hyman & Wright, 1979; Pascarella, Smart, & Braxton, 1986;
Pascarella, Ethington, & Smart, 1998).
However, findings show that many of these gains seem to disappear during the first
several years after college, suggesting only a temporary effect by college on instilling altruistic
and community-building behavior such as volunteering (Sax, 2004). Regarding how colleges

promote civic responsibility after college, three experiences standout: amount of time students
spend in religious services or meetings, the effect of performing volunteer work during the
college years, and socializing with students from different racial or ethnic groups. In sum,
varieties of student involvement experiences, especially those that expose students to diverse
people and issues (i.e. difference), is key (Sax, 2004; Hu & Kuh, 2003).
It is important here to point out that many popular measures of college and post-college
leadership and engagement such as volunteering, organization-building, voting, raising money
for charitable and political causes, Greek Life participation, and church attendance may be
highly partisan and polarizing in nature, thus contributing (however intentionally) to division
and distrust in our society. However, such effects can be ameliorated by exposing participants in
such activities to diverse people and issues, as part of the process (Sax, 2004; Hu & Kuh, 2003).
These generally encouraging engagement-related studies, however, are countered by national
studies (Pew Research Center, 2014a; Smith, Christoffersen, Davidson, & Herzog, 2011), that
suggest that young adults today (including college graduates) are largely disconnected from
community and political concerns, including in comparison to earlier generations.
An evolving definition of adulthood: Becoming vs. Being. The definition of what an
adult is and when adulthood should ideally be attained has shifted considerably during the last
few decades. For starters, marriage and family formation are no longer considered significant
markers and defining features of adulthood achievement by most young adults today (Nelson &
Luster, 2014; Arnett, 2000; Tanner, 2009). Instead, accepting responsibility for yourself, making
independent decisions, and becoming financially independent are consistently rated by young
adults as the top criteria (Nelson & Luster, 2014; Arnett, 2000). Strikingly, all three are process-

versus milestone-oriented; each can be describing as a state of becoming as opposed to being,
which is perhaps reflective of the increasing complexity of contemporary life.
Economic: Employers increasingly demand college educated workers. A second reason
underpreparedness for post-college life matters is the heightened workforce demand for college
educated workers. Below, I will discuss this demand from both broad economic and specific
employer perspectives, and how colleges are falling short of meeting this rising demand.
Economic transformation requiring more postsecondary preparation. According to a
recent report by the Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce (Carnevale,
Smith & Strohl, 2014), their nationwide surveys report an increasing need for college educated
workers. However, at the current production rate in higher education, our nation’s employers will
collectively fall 5 million short of the workers with postsecondary credentials needed by 2020.
This current and ongoing shortfall may negatively impact not only domestic employment needs,
but our nation’s ability to compete globally as well (National Academy of Sciences, 2010).
Influential advisors to the federal government, the Georgetown Center’s longitudinal and
comprehensive studies (Carnevale, Smith & Strohl, 2010; 2014) determined that the percentage
of the U.S. workforce possessing at least some college education rose from 28% in 1973 to 59%
in 2010, with the Center’s projection for 2020 rising further to 64%.
Unfortunately for the non-college educated, the Georgetown projections (based on a
comprehensive analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports across industries over time),
suggest that their future job openings will increasingly consist of low-paying food, blue collar,
sales, and office support positions, compared to the substantively better-paying technical,
managerial, professional, education, and STEM jobs that will be dominated by the college-
educated (Carnevale, Smith & Strohl, 2014). Thus, the prospects are diminishing for high school

drop-outs or graduates to secure the kind of work necessary to achieve functional adulthood
markers such as leaving the parental nest, attaining financial independence, and starting a family.
For those questioning the value of a college education in this age of escalating student
debt, a recent study (Pew Research Center, 2014d) found that the U.S. median values for annual
income, unemployment rate, and percentage living in poverty of young adults aged 25-32 with
bachelor degrees in 2012 were $45,500, 3.8%, and 5.8%, compared to $28,000, 12.2%, and
21.8% for millennials who only graduated from high school, respectively. Of course, there will
always be notable exceptions to this trend that correlates higher education attainment with a
higher standard of living, but in general, college appears to be a sound financial decision.
Or is it? There are very troubling trends with regards to college affordability that pose
serious economic challenges with respect to our entire American postsecondary system, and its
ability to meet growing workforce needs. As the entire higher education community and much of
our society is well aware, the cost of a college degree is becoming prohibitively expensive for
many families and individuals−particularly those from lower socioeconomic and minority
backgrounds. As public and private 4-year universities continually raise total per student costs
(adjusted for inflation, 2.3% and 1.5% annually for the past 30 years for publics and privates,
respectively; College Board, 2014; net cost for 2-year college has actually fallen a tiny bit),
including tuition, room, board, and fees, inflation-adjusted mean family income has actually
fallen since 2003 for all but the top 5% of income-earning families (College Board, 2014).
Meaning, when your net annual income is falling far short of the inexorable annual
increase in cost of a 4-year degree for all but the top 5% of families, and the cost of other
necessities such as healthcare and food also steadily rise, the need to dip into savings and equity
is paramount. The problem with this strategy is that only the top 10% of American households in

terms of net wealth realized a net wealth increase from 2003-2013 (Pfeffer, Danziger & Schoeni,
2014); the median American household suffered a net 36% decrease. The bottom quartile
household, meanwhile, experienced a near 60% decline, to a net worth of $3,200. Low-SES
families simply have little to nothing to give for college (Pfeffer, Danziger, & Schoeni, 2014).
Perhaps even more startlingly, a recent representative national poll found that roughly three-
quarters (three-quarters!) of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, with little to no savings
to cushion the blow of a job loss, medical emergency, or other unexpected event (Steiner, 2012).
For the average black and Hispanic household as compared to the average white, wealth
inequality is extreme, and has actually increased since the official end of the Great Recession
(Fry & Kochhar, 2014), reaching its highest level since 1989, with average white household net
worth currently 13x higher than average black household net worth ($141,900 vs. $11,000). The
story is similar for Hispanic households today, with current white household net worth averaging
10x more ($141,900 vs. $13,700); a disparity not rivaled since 2001 (Fry & Kochhar, 2014).
Here we are plainly dealing with an economic and social justice issue of significant social
magnitude, as many are already aware. How are we supposed to meet rising employer demands
for millions more college educated workers in the near-future, when affording the cost of a four-
or even two-year degree is near impossible for most middle-class and the great majority of low-
SES and black and Hispanic families on their own, even when cleaning out their life savings? Of
course, that’s where student loans come in, and where this situation becomes exceedingly grim.
According to an analysis of National Center for Education Statistics data (Izzo, 2014),
over 70% of the undergraduate senior class of 2014 left school with student loan debt, with an
average of $33,000 (even accounting for inflation, that is double the amount borrowers had to
pay back 20 years ago). Graduate students borrowed even more, with 15% leaving with six-

figure debt burdens. There’s more; according to recent data from the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York (Brown et al., 2015), of borrowers who began repaying their student loan debt in
2009, 26% have already defaulted (meaning they fell at least 270 days late on their payments); of
those who went into repayment in 2005 (before the Great Depression began), 25% defaulted.
This compares to an aggregate national mortgage default rate of 10% during the height of the
Great Recession (Hedberg & Krainer, 2012).
Student loan insolvency cannot be wiped clean with a bankruptcy, unlike mortgage and
other forms of delinquency. Instead, the Federal Government will arrange garnishment
(involuntary withdrawal) of any available debtor income on a paycheck to paycheck basis. In
practical terms, garnishment happens most often to those students least able to withstand its
impacts: Low-SES, First Generation, and/or minorities with little to nothing in assets (Johnson,
Van Ostern, & White, 2012). To compound matters, college financial aid offices (particularly in
private For-Profit institutions, but definitely not exclusively) frequently fail to present all loan
repayment options to many unknowledgeable students and parents, thus making loan repayment
even more difficult in many cases (Johnson, Van Ostern, & White, 2012).
Thus, in terms of student preparedness for post-college life, large numbers of college
students are graduating with enough debt to severely stunt their ability to save for an apartment
or home of their own, build a business, or start a family, thus perhaps contributing to the
prevailing contemporary opinion among young adults that self-sufficiency is a primary hallmark
of adulthood achievement. Meanwhile, I have yet to mention the 29% percent of students who
drop out of school with student loan debt (Nguyen, 2012); this sizeable group (proportionately
more from private for-profits) is four times more likely to default on their debt amid
comparatively poorer prospects for gainful employment (Nguyen, 2012).

We are left, then, with this curious situation where we push students of families and
independent individuals to enroll in college by nearly every possible means, because the statistics
suggest that this will more than pay out on average in the long run; because colleges and
universities are increasingly reliant on student tuition to make up declining state government
funding, and shrinking (until the past couple of years, at least) endowments; and because
businesses are increasingly clamoring for better prepared hires. And yet, on the other hand, we
have increasingly huge numbers of students who are taking so much crippling debt that they are
unable to build a financial foundation for adulthood upon graduation, if they happen to graduate.
Perhaps the pièce de résistance of this woeful financial reality is that, according to a
recent Inside Higher Ed survey (Lederman, 2015) of 647 college and university leaders across
the country, over 60% doubted whether their institution’s existing business model was
sustainable over the next ten years, due to declining revenue streams and rising costs.
In spite of the precarious financial condition of many postsecondary institutions,
however, demand for well-prepared college hires will increase for the foreseeable future. What
exactly are employers looking for? That is the next topic of discussion.
What employers are looking for from new college hires. Interestingly, as employers
across industries and regions call for more college educated hiring pools, a clear majority appear
to be asking for candidates with more general, transferable skill sets and attitudes.
A recent national study conducted on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and
Universities (Hart Research Associates, 2014), based on a survey of 400 companies with at least
25 employees each found that employers generally desire college hires who possess both field-
specific knowledge, as well as a broad range of transferable knowledge and skills, including

critical thinking, interpersonal communication, creative problem solving, intercultural skills, a
broad liberal arts perspective, ethical and moral judgment, and an embrace of civic values.
Another prominent national survey conducted by the National Association of Colleges
and Employers (NACE, 2014) specifically asked a broad cross-section of employers which 19
most commonly mentioned attributes they look for on a candidate’s resume. The most popular
responses were “leadership” and “ability to work in a team”, followed by “written
communication skills”, “problem-solving skills”, “strong work ethic”, and “analytical/
quantitative” skills. “Technical skills” and “computer skills” ranked 7th and 10th, respectively.
Unfortunately, colleges and universities are generally failing to meet such employer
expectations and needs. Referring to the Hart Research Associates (2014) study above, it also
surveyed 613 four- and two-year students across the nation regarding their self-perception of
their personal readiness to meet such desired employer skill expectations such as critical
thinking, ability to work in groups, problem-solving aptitude, and openness to diverse people and
ideas. Compared to actual employer assessments of same, there was a sizeable perception gap.
Only 42% of the employers thought that colleges and universities were adequately preparing
their students for their particular entry-level needs and expectations, compared to 74% of the
students; in terms of workplace advancement and promotion readiness, only 36% of employers
stated that their new college hires were ready for such opportunities, compared to 64% of
students. Other notable national studies have supported these findings (Maguire Associates, Inc.,
2012; Hart Research Associates, 2013; Hart Research Associates, 2010; Chegg Inc., 2013).
In other words, the research suggests that employers across industries and regions value
and desire the kinds of both general and specific higher-order thinking, leadership, team-
building, problem-solving, communication, decision-making, and knowledge acquisition skills

that U.S. colleges and universities purport to develop and provide for society (according to
mission statement after mission statement), but often find the actual product wanting. Well-
rounded preparedness for work and citizenship matters to employers, and institutions of higher
education have room to improve in answering such desires, based on the research.
On balance, how is higher education preparing its students for post-college life from an
economic perspective? We can do better, based on the research and evidence.
Environmental: Escalating ecological threats require informed and engaged responses.
In the face of worsening environmental problems with national and global consequences
if left unchecked, how well are our students prepared to act in informed and helpful ways? Not
very, according to the research.
Doomsday prophecies and their failure to materialize have been a staple of human
cultures since antiquity, all the way up to the recent Mayan Apocalypse scare. Science has not
been immune to this peculiar behavioral pattern, from Malthusian over-population and frequent
peak oil fears to the dire Y2K predictions. However, what makes the current alarms sounded by
the great majority of environmental scientists unusually concerning, is the sheer amount of
interdisciplinary data supporting their various assertions, backed by ubiquitous anecdotal reports.
Notwithstanding the passionate objections of certain ideological groups, the scientific
evidence is increasingly clear: The lifestyle choices we humans (and especially Americans, as we
consume more energy and resources than any other nation) make are adversely impacting life on
earth. Both the most recent United Nations report produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (2014), and the U.S. National Climate Assessment Report (U.S. Global Change
Research Program, 2014) that was reviewed by members of the American public and the
National Academy of Sciences, have issued ominous warnings. The reports voluminously detail

how human-generated global warming could threaten society in the near- to medium-term with
critical food shortages, refugee crises, wars, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations,
mass extinction of plant and animal species, ocean acidification, and a climate so drastically
altered that it may become dangerous for people to be outside during especially hot periods.
Here in Colorado, estimated rising average temperatures of between 2-4 degrees F over
the next few decades is expected to reduce Spring snowpack, the average depth of soil moisture,
increase the threat of wildfires, reduce available water supplies for agricultural, commercial, and
residential usage, and impact wild habitats, river flows, rainfall patterns, and the state’s lucrative
tourism industry in unforeseen ways (Lukas et al., 2014).
While the scientific consensus is overwhelming, what is not is how higher education is
coherently and systematically preparing college students to broadly contribute towards
environmental solutions, as opposed to aggregately contributing to trending problems.
Given that environmental challenges are prime examples of complex systems in action,
how well do colleges and universities foster in students an understanding for and ability to
practice systems thinking in real-life contexts, as a means to organize and make meaning of their
complex life experiences in engaging ways? I specifically focus on systems thinking here,
because according to systems science pioneer Peter Senge (1994), systems thinking is a way of
thinking about, describing, and understanding complex forces and interrelationships that helps us
to see how to change systems more effectively, and to act more in tune with the natural processes
of the natural and economic world. From a leadership perspective, systems leadership involves a
holistic perspective; a breaking down of organizational silos; an understanding of change that is
non-linear, dynamic, and increasingly complex; and a belief that both human and ecological
systems can be reciprocally influenced, but ultimately not controlled (Allen & Cherrey, 2000).

There is a good deal of literature on how to explain systems thinking from theoretical and
disciplinary perspectives, but relatively little research on how to effectively cultivate it in college
students, with long-term success. A fundamental challenge is how to develop, measure and
evaluate systems thinking in ways that are transferable across disciplines (Vanasupa, Rogers, &
Chen, 2008), although a new ‘Systems Thinking Scale’ (STS) developed by Dolansky & Moore
(2011) shows promise. Most applied research focuses on pragmatic business operations. They
suggest that systems thinking practiced by organizational leadership is associated with higher
organization performance (Skarzauskiene, 2010; Galliers, Mingers, & Jackson, 1997).
Fortunately, there is a good deal of research on how to teach about sustainability−a key
aspect of complex living systems. However, awareness of the conceptual importance of
sustainability and actually integrating it (and transformative change in general) across disciplines
has been a challenge at several postsecondary institutions (Bawden, 2005; Bekessy, Samson, &
Clarkson, 2007; Kezar, 2005, 2002; Moore, 2005). One study found that campus cultural barriers
to sustainability from faculty perspectives can be overcome by strategically and intentionally
promoting increasing dialogue between self-interest groups that honor and balance diverse
viewpoints and approaches (Sylvestre, Wright, & Sherren, 2013).
Insofar as how well institutions of higher learning are promoting sustainability and
ecological citizenship (i.e. environmental literacy, sustainable behaviors, and civic and political
engagement and activism) among their students for post-college life, there appears to be a great
deal of work to do. Certain environmental scientists (Saylan & Blumstein, 2011) assert that
public education at both the K-12 and postsecondary levels are simply failing to create
responsible ecological citizens. One study (Wray-Lake, Flanagan, & Osgood, 2010) that has
longitudinally examined national trends in young people attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors since

the 1990s notes dramatic declines in “the sense of personal responsibility for the environment,
conservation behaviors, and beliefs that resources are scarce” (p. 3).
Meanwhile, the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
(AASHE, 2012) has produced an assessment & rating system (STARS) to determine how well
two dozen participating colleges and universities promote and advance ecological citizenship at
the institutional and pedagogical levels, and has found that−even at these prominent, model
ecological campuses−about half do not systematically discuss ecological citizenship with
students at a practical level, and virtually all do not require an ecological literacy assessment of
their students at any point during their collegiate careers. This is curious, given that many higher
education researchers, institutes, and laboratories are at the forefront in terms of exploring and
uncovering steadily worsening local and global environmental problems. Meanwhile, the
findings from one study (Schmidt & Blumentritt, 2007) suggests that the attitudes and behaviors
of college students can be substantively influenced by participation in an environmental course.
A ready-made theoretical approach to effectively promoting campus-wide environmental
consciousness and action is ecology theory. An integrative, systemic approach to understanding
college students, ecology theory draws heavily from the work of such theorists as Bubolz &
Sontag (1993), Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1989, 2005), and Walsh (1978) in providing conceptual
frameworks for the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ of analyzing student growth in contextual ways.
However, they do not provide temporally-oriented models that can be used to measure the
growth of ecological consciousness through the lifespan.
Like most colleges and universities in the U.S., we have at UNC a number of
sustainability-related initiatives and coursework in action. We provide an environmental and
sustainability studies program offering both a major and minor to interested students. Our

Honors, Scholars, and Leadership (HSL) program has developed a community partnership with
the area High Plains Environmental Center, the National Park Service, and the environmentally-
minded Stewardship of Public Lands program through the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities, and HSL also includes environmental courses as part of its Leadership
Studies minor. HSL also organized a recent UNC Sustainability Summit to gather faculty,
students, and staff interested in promoting sustainability across campus. Meanwhile, the Center
for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning (CETL) supported a Scholar in Residence (Dr.
Karen Barton) last year in order to support campus sustainability research and action.
UNC’s positive and well-intentioned environmental efforts are emblematic of higher
education’s general relationship to the local and planetary challenges posed by global warming
and other many other un-mentioned environmental issues like rapid deforestation, local and
global waste disposal problems, and increasing air, water, and food toxicity levels; we essentially
do enough to recruit and ‘preach to the choir’−students, campus, and local personnel who already
are inclined to engage in environmental causes. What UNC and virtually all other higher
education institutions have abjectly failed to do, is to treat growing environmental challenges as
a national and global security issue requiring an immediate and systemic response that matches
the gravity of the challenges posed. Contrary to the views of a former U.S. Vice President,
environmentalism is not a ‘personal virtue’ or pet cause of the liberal left; it is a sacred and
collective responsibility we owe to both past and future generations, and to a mysterious
providence that gifted unfathomable beauty and opportunity into our care and experience.
Developmental: Supporting integrative personal growth during fast-changing times. I have
discussed student life preparation from behavioral viewpoints, where growth into adulthood is
understood in terms of task-achievement within social contexts. Here I turn to a discussion of the

inner lives of college students in reference to the integrative, process-oriented development of
the whole person. How is higher education preparing students for life from interrelated
mythic/spiritual, psychosocial, cognitive, moral, and social identity formation perspectives?
Mythic/spiritual perspectives. During these complex times, an analogy to the ancient
proverb, ‘a rolling stone gathers no moss’ might be, ‘a fast-changing society discards irrelevant
myths and conventions’. To the extent this is true, this is a sociocultural problem. According to
the American existential psychologist Rollo May (1991), myths are “narrative patterns that give
significance to our existence [and are] essential to gaining mental health” (p. 15). From this
subjective understanding, “myth…is a narrative resurrection of a primeval reality, told in
satisfaction of deep religious wants, moral cravings” (Malinowski, 1954, p. 101). According to
the late comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell (2004), for millennia, myths in cultures from
around the world have performed four essential functions: To evoke a sense of awe before the
mystery of existence; to present an image of the cosmos that meaningfully interrelates the
individual to everything about her/him; to validate a particular social order and the customs and
laws that maintain it; and, to provide a psychological map with attendant rites of passage that
functionally carry the individual through the important stages and challenges of life.
To the extent that myth is a valid meaning-making device for the human species, the
problem is that the world has been changing so quickly in modern times that myth-making
simply hasn’t kept pace (Campbell & Moyers, 1988; May, 1991). Secular science, politics, and
legal systems have gradually assumed the second and third functions of myth in modern,
industrialized (and now information-based) societies; science, meanwhile, has ‘housecleaned’
the first function, foreclosing much of transcendent mystery with brilliant but largely
mechanistic explanations of life’s wonders, while modern religion has replaced the notion of an

ineffable deity with one much more personal and relational (Campbell & Moyers, 1988; Dean,
2003). The fourth function−the pedagogical−has been increasingly adopted by psychologists,
therapists, psychiatrists, and educators in an effort to support the life passage of individuals who
are forced to create their own personal life-informing myths or narratives, in place of ancient
stories that now bear little resemblance to modern realities (May, 1991; Campbell, 1968).
Today, young adults are more likely to leave an organized church compared to their
elders, and are more progressive in their religious views (Gallup Poll, 2013; Jones, Cox,
Navarro-Rivera, Dionne Jr., & Galston, 2013; Kinnaman, 2011; Smith & Snell, 2009).
Nevertheless, their desire for authentic spiritual and religious meaning-making experience
remains strong (Kinnaman, 2011; Smith & Snell, 2009; Lindholm et al., 2011), and they expect
more from colleges in terms of how to support this desire (Astin, Astin, & Lindholm, 2010),
while colleges have tended to avoid the topic (Tisdell, 2003; Speck, 2005).
Parks (2000) exhorts campuses and workplaces to provide students and graduates with
mentoring communities that can provide invaluable life guidance, wisdom, and support; research
by Ray & Kafka (2014) suggests that the positive effect of caring mentorships in college can
extend into post-college life by resulting in a more satisfying personal and work life. Other
researchers (Nash & Murray, 2010; Bronk, Finch, & Talib, 2010) strongly recommend that
faculty and student affairs professionals help students find a sense of purpose in order to imbue
their lives and experiences with meaning. Baxter Magolda‘s integrative work (2001) on narrative
to promote student self-authorship supports this inherent need for overarching life purpose. Dror
& Johnson (1998), have had success in meeting students’ spiritual needs by developing an
interdisciplinary course that practically incorporates rites of passage in an experimental way.

The foremost theorist to address spiritual development is Fowler (1978), who
characterized this dimension of growth as ‘faith development’ as informed by his Methodist
training. Synthesizing insights from, among others, Piaget, Kohlberg, Kegan, and Gilligan,
Fowler developed a cognitive-structural stage theory that envisioned faith development as
proceeding spirally through stages in increasingly complex and comprehensive ways. Research
with students (Fowler, 1981; Lee, 2002; Leak, 2003) has since validated aspects of his theory,
while it has also been criticized for being ethnically and religiously biased (Broughton, 1986;
Nelson & Aleshire, 1986), of having questionable applicability to the experiences of women and
other cultures (Harris, 1986; Anderson, 1994; Watt, 2003), among other deficiencies. A hopeful
avenue for Fowler’s work from a lifespan perspective is his interest in linking faith development
to an integrative concept of vocation that incorporates every aspect of a person’s life.
Perhaps the only spiritual/mythic-related theory that has been thoroughly explored from a
post-college, longitudinal perspective is Baxter Magolda’s work on self-authorship (2001),
which I argue has as much spiritual/mythic as well as cognitive development value. I assert this
due to self-authorship’s emphasis on serving an essential function of myth by creating a way for
meaningfully self-storying one’s existence through the complexities of modern life. Building on
the work of Kegan (1994), Baxter Magolda’s in-depth qualitative and longitudinal studies
(2004a, 2004b, 2008) have found evidence that participant epistemological development is
interrelated with the development of their sense of self and relationship with others.
Psychosocial perspectives. How well do colleges and universities support the
psychosocial development of their students, in preparation for life beyond college? While there
are a wealth of theoretical perspectives informing this topic (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, &
Renn, 2010), there is scant assessment data relating to the question that spans the college and

post-college years. Hanson (2014) opines that this general lack of psychosocial assessment is due
to a prevailing mindset among influential state and national politicians that view proper student
development assessment in human capital terms for vocational placement purposes, and
incentivize and legislate accordingly. Psychosocial development is also considered difficult to
assess due to its multidimensionality and complexity (Miller & Winston, 1990).
Perhaps the most influential student psychosocial theorist−Arthur Chickering−has had his
theory assessed longitudinally within the college years in a plethora of studies. Chickering’s
theory (1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993) is integrative and organic, consisting of seven
different ‘vectors’ of interrelated personal development that ideally build upon each other in the
formation of student identity. While there isn’t room here to discuss the research findings in
detail, in sum they generally support Chickering’s theory in at least limited ways that students
psychosocially develop in complex, uneven, and integrative ways during their college careers,
and that this development can be influenced by environmental conditions and interventions
(Mather & Winston, 1998; Foubert, Nixon, Sisson, & Barnes, 2005; Martin, 2000; Rogers,
2004). However, it has also been pointed out that Chickering’s theory lacks specificity and
precision (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010), and still has not effectively
incorporated multicultural issues and concerns (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004).
In particular, the question of whether student psychosocial development can be facilitated
in ways that sustain into the post-college years is of interest, because of the lengthening time it is
taking young adults to assume both adult societal roles and an enduring embrace of adulthood
itself (Arnett, 2000; Settersten & Ray, 2010). Whether indicative of a distinct new developmental
stage in our species titled ‘emerging adulthood’ (Arnett, 2000), or merely a kind of historical
hiccup due to cultural and economic change (Arnett, Kleop, Hendry, & Tanner, 2011), the fact

remains that since the 1970s, young adults across racial/ethnic and SES categories have
increasingly delayed or avoided altogether such principle adulthood markers as marriage and
family formation, while delaying sometimes into their thirties and beyond a comfortable interior
embrace of the identity of ‘adult’ (Arnett & Tanner, 2006).
Schlossberg (1981, 1984) provides a much-needed theoretical model for how to help
college students navigate the transition into post-college life, no matter their age. Goodman
(2006) refined this model by presenting four primary sets of factors (the ‘4 S’s) that can be
practically used to examine a given student’s situation in order to provide appropriate support to
facilitate the transition process. Schlossberg’s model can be applied to any stressful life transition
occurring beyond the college years. However, it lacks formal assessment tools to evaluate its
validity, and it is unclear how it applies to diverse and marginalized populations.
Need for transitional support of a psychosocial nature for young adults is underscored by
the findings of a longitudinal interview study (Smith, Christoffersen, Davidson, & Herzog,
2011). that drew from the third of three sequential interviews taken of the same 230 young adults
(aged 18-23; a representative sample of American youth; many in or just out of college), who
had earlier been interviewed by the team between 13-17 and 16-20 years of age.
To the extent their findings can be transferred to American young adults in general, the
study revealed that most young adults today do not have a developed moral philosophy,
motivation, or judgment; the large majority define life goals in terms of consumerism and
materialism; alcohol consumption and binge drinking are an increasing component of their lives;
most appear unaware of the emotional, ethical, and moral consequences of “hooking up”; and,
the majority express a disheartening lack of interest in civic and environmental affairs. These
findings comport with a qualitative study by Damon (2008).

Cognitive perspectives. In this post-modern age of competing worldviews and
knowledge claims that are rinsed in ever larger waves of available information, is higher
education adequately preparing college students to intellectually make meaning of an
increasingly complicated and fast-changing society? According to Parks (2000), meaning-
making “is the activity of composing a sense of the connections among things: a sense of pattern,
order, form, and significance” (p. 19). Given that college campuses are places that excel in
fragmenting experience and knowledge into increasingly segmented compartments, how well do
they re-balance in students the facility to ‘compose a sense of the connections among things’? In
ways that actually relate to real-life conditions and experiences beyond the academy?
Another principal aspect of cognition is its application for discernment; to critically
evaluate between diverse views and claims for both practical and theoretical purposes. How well
do colleges and universities teach their students to think critically in ways that have real-life
applications beyond school? For decades, the prevailing view based on several empirical studies
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, 1991; Bowen, 1977; Trent & Medsker, 1968; Astin, 1977, 1993)
was that the college experience−particularly during the first two years−significantly enhanced
cognitive skills and intellectual growth on a number of dimensions, including formal abstract
reasoning, critical thinking, the use of reason and evidence to address complex problems, and the
ability to deal with conceptual complexity in general. Furthermore, they aggregately suggested
that such cognitive and intellectual growth was sustained beyond the college years.
However, these conclusions have been challenged in recent years, perhaps most
prominently by the work of Arum & Roksa (2011). Basing their critique on the results of their
study that tracked the longitudinal gains of some 2300 students at a range of 4-year institutions,
with respect to measurement of critical thinking, analytic reasoning and other ‘higher level’

skills, the pair determined that most students demonstrate only modest or statistically
insignificant gains over four years. Critical response and debate was immediate and followed by
both the academic and popular media (Lederman, 2013). Critics of Arum & Roksa’s study
pointed out that its conclusions were heavily based on the Collegiate Learning Assessment
(CLA) exam, and have since supposedly been refuted by a prominent report (Benjamin, 2013).
Interestingly, when 400 employers across industries were recently surveyed (Hart
Research Associates, 2014), only 26% said their new college hires were well prepared in terms
of critical/analytical thinking, and only 24% in terms of analyzing and solving complex
problems, with respect to a wide range of tasks and duties. In terms of how well professors and
instructors are teaching critical thinking, studies (Gardiner, 1996; Paul, Elder, & Bartell, 1997)
reveal that−although college teachers are virtually unanimous in their stated belief of the value of
critical thinking−a much smaller percentage are actually capable of either clearly defining it
themselves, or effectively nurturing it in students.
From a meaning-making perspective, the work of Perry (1968) has heavily influenced
higher education scholars and practitioners. It is theoretically founded on a non-durational, non-
linear conception of nine static ‘positions’ that signify cognitive and ethical development
actually occurring between the positions. This development is characterized by a progression
from dualistic to multiplistic to relativistic meaning-making capabilities, each more ethically
inclusive and complex in dimension and practice. The application of Perry’s theory in teaching,
counseling, and advising has been extensive across campus environments for decades, and
cannot adequately be covered in this space. Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn (2010)
provide a comprehensive summary of findings. It is considered as an invaluable aid in

understanding student learning processes (Moore, 1994), and as a significant means of
understanding students from developmental perspectives (Knefelkamp, 1999).
Perry’s work has informed diverse research approaches and models, including on women
(Belenky et al., 1986; epistemological reflection (Baxter Magolda, 1992), reflective judgment
(King & Kitchener, 1994), and faith development (Parks, 2000). It has been criticized for its lack
of inclusiveness in its original research sample, and broad applicability across cultures (Durham,
Hays, & Martinez, 1994; Zhang, 1999), its inclusion of two constructs (intellectual and ethical
development) that can blur understanding of development, and a lack of evidence supporting
Perry’s most advanced positions of denoted growth (King, 1978). Additionally, although his
theory has been operationalized across campus contexts with promising results (Knefelkamp,
1999), it is not clear how effective it is in promoting and sustaining cognitive and ethical growth
throughout the post-college lifespan, in terms of outcomes. Research is needed in this regard.
Moral perspectives. Two theoretical conceptions of moral development in college
students have gained ascendency over the years: Kohlberg’s justice-oriented stage theory (1976,
1981) and its Neo-Kohlbergian variation developed by Rest (1979, 2000), and Gilligan’s non-
universal theory (1993) of women’s moral development, as characterized by a woman’s ongoing
and progressive dialectic between caring for the needs of others and of the self.
Unlike many other college student preparatory topics and sub-topics covered in this
paper, there is ample evidence that the very experience of college contributes to students’ moral
development (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). Further, from a justice-oriented
perspective, there is evidence that moral development continues long after students complete
their college and professional education (Rest, 1986; Rest & Thoma, 1985; Lind, 2000).
Conversely, research suggests that self-sustaining moral-cognitive development may actually

erode over time in adults who did not attend college at all (Lind, 2000; Niemczynski et al.,
1988). Meanwhile, I haven’t been able to locate in the literature longitudinal studies that explore
and empirically demonstrate the efficacy of Gilligan’s care-orientation beyond the college years.
Fortunately, there is promising research (Lind, 2000; Lourenco & Machado, 1996;
Sprinthall, 1994) that moral development can be developed and sustained in individuals with
little to no college education throughout the lifespan by providing a mix of role-taking
responsibilities that are carefully combined with guided, situation-specific reflection.
Social Identity Formation Perspectives. Social Identity theory emerged during the
turbulent 1960s and 70s during the civil rights movements that highlighted the oppression of
blacks, females, gays and lesbians, and other marginalized members of American society. It has
since grown to incorporate the experiences of all minority groups including multiple identities, as
discussed by such scholars as Abes, Jones, & McEwen (2007), and Reynolds & Pope (1991).
Social identity theory balances psychosocial theory by placing identity development squarely in
context, where students can come to understand their identities as multiple (e.g. gender, SES,
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) in fluid response to social interactions (McEwen, 2003).
In a postmodern world where diversity beliefs, identities, and backgrounds are
continually colliding and intersecting in social, cultural, political, religious, and scientific ways
in often visible and impactful ways, a widespread understanding and appreciation for differences
in identity are absolutely vital for promoting communal peace and prosperity for all.
Accordingly, integral theories (Jones & McEwen, 2000; Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007; Chavez,
Guido-DiBrito, & Mallory, 2003) that provide a dynamic, organic, interactive basis for
understanding the factors and processes underlying identity privilege & dominance in relation to
identity oppression can especially be useful in helping oppressors and oppressed alike to find

common ground and acceptance. The potential for applying these and more identity-specific
theories throughout the lifespan for developmental purposes awaits empirical validation,
however. In light of the recent incendiary race-related events in Ferguson, MO., New York, and
other locations, divisive views over immigration affecting millions of Hispanic individuals and
their families, growing fear and distrust felt towards Muslims in relation to the increasing
violence in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Europe, and many other contentious matters
involving social identity, such applications are sorely needed.
How HESAL Relates to the Preparation Process of College Students for Post-college Life.
Our Higher Education and Student Affairs Leadership (HESAL) program relates to my
exam topic in a particularly impactful way. As designed, HESAL exists to cultivate and place
student affairs leaders throughout campuses across institutional type; leaders who are trained to
practice scholarship, policymaking, instruction, and service in support of institutional missions.
HESAL’s homepage (HESAL, 2015) articulates vision and purpose that aligns well with
our increasingly complex and fast-changing society’s need for well-prepared citizens who can
effectively communicate and productively work together; critically investigate, analyze and
solve problems amid ever-increasing possibilities; support multicultural diversity in mutually
empowering ways from multiple perspectives, and lead transformative change in a systemic and
collaborative manner. For example, our homepage states that “…our graduates develop an
understanding of organizational dynamics and cultivate skills to provide effective leadership in a
variety of student affairs, academic, and policy arenas…in ways that both contribute to the
scholarly literature and are culturally congruent with who students are and how they make
meaning of the world”. While primarily focused on the college experience in terms of
developing higher education and student affairs leaders, HESAL offers a number of courses

translatable to supporting student life preparation for life beyond college, including development,
leadership, and current issues studies. In short, HESAL trains higher education leaders to capably
fulfill institutional missions that include adequately preparing students for life after college.
Part III. Recommendations and Implications for HESAL Practice and Research.
Higher education in the U.S. is concerned with two interrelated purposes, as I understand
it: Providing actionable research to integratively improve the human condition across disciplines,
and to facilitate the development of humans throughout the lifespan. The former purpose is more
research-based; the latter, more application-based, although these foci continually blur in
practice in a dialectical fashion. The second purpose has been my focus in this paper.
Both foci involve the entire higher education community, to some extent. We are all
stakeholders in the collective enterprise of promoting human teaching, learning, and
development. With respect to the preparation of college students for life after college, we all
keep one eye to the future as we serve their learning and development needs and interests in the
present. If we are individually and collectively to honor and fulfill the moral imperatives guiding
our mission statements, then we must each do what we can from our institutional vantage points
to integrate life preparedness as a vital aspect of our work with students. In an increasingly
complex world beset by growing and systemic environmental, economic, and sociocultural
challenges, it is essential that we do all we can to adequately prepare students to live in such a
world, whether we call ourselves faculty, administrators, or student affairs personnel. At stake is
nothing more than the current and future prosperity and viability of our species, from individual,
familial, organizational, societal, and global perspectives.
On a more mundane and practical level, there is much that HESAL can contribute to the
preparedness of college students for life beyond college, based on the findings from my literature

review. Next, I will offer four recommendations in particular, in relation to the four student
preparatory themes covered in the literature review.
Sociologically-oriented Recommendation #1.
From a sociological perspective, it struck me from the literature how the studies of Sax
(2004) and Hu & Kuh (2003) suggested that simply socializing with people racially/ethnically
different than oneself during and beyond college could both help promote and maintain a greater
sense of civic responsibility and engagement. On the face of it, this could prove invaluable at
UNC, as some 75% to 87% of the students, faculty, and staff are white (UNC Census, 2014a;
UNC NCATE report, 2011), while some 31-32% of Weld County and Colorado residents are
non-White (U.S. Census, 2015b), and the majority of the U.S. is projected to be non-White in a
few decades (U.S. Census, 2012). To address this racial imbalance, HESAL could promote an
experiential understanding among its masters and doctoral cohorts regarding the value of diverse
racial/ethnic social interaction by intentionally create more opportunities for such understanding.
To be clear, HESAL has demonstrated a bonafide commitment to diversity in terms of its
recent hiring history. HESAL also provides several courses where diversity is either a primary
topic for consideration, or it is thoughtfully embedded throughout course materials and activities,
as I know from direct experience. However, there is no substitute for direct contact, and a
majority of the masters and doctoral students from year to year are white, which makes direct
cross-racial interaction rather challenging within the program.
One idea would be to coordinate with the Center for the Enhancement of Student
Learning (CETL) at UNC to develop a series of cultural competence forums for HESAL
graduate students (available during the campus lunch hour, typically), where they can learn about
the value and challenges associated with advising and working with students across race/

ethnicity from on- and –off campus experts in a roundtable format, and to hear stories from
minority and white students alike regarding what it is like to experience and deal with
racial/ethnic issues as a graduate student participating in not only HESAL-related programs
across, say, the Front Range, but within graduate programs of all kinds. These forums could be
strategically augmented by readings and discussion within certain HESAL courses, of course,
while possibly sparking in some students new lines of thesis and dissertation research interests.
Economically-oriented Recommendation #2.
Moving to student preparatory concerns of an economic and financial nature, there is also
much to address here. Upon reflection, my primary takeaway from the literature was just how
precarious the short- to mid-term economic and financial realities are for most students,
especially low-SES and black and Hispanic students. It really is about plain economic survival
for many of these students and their families, on a month-to-month. How do you convey the
degree of seriousness of the reality of students’ individual and family situations in a way that
compassionately provides strategic and tactical activities, programs, and tips that not only will
get them through school, but just as importantly help them launch a financially viable future?
One way HESAL could support this pressing and broad-based problem would be to offer
a new course that could be titled, for example, “The economic and financial lives of students:
Facilitating understanding and support from student affairs perspectives”. The course as
envisioned would be 3 units, and would include macro, meso, and micro perspectives on the
topic, as well as narratives from actual student lives and experiences. Equal emphasis would be
placed on student retention & completion as well as student post-college lifespan planning that
would include a bio-ecological theoretical recognition that students develop within interactive
‘nests’ or ‘onion skins’ of social context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989, 2005). There would also

be research-informed and practice-related activities concerning how to implement increased
recognition and support of student financial planning for the lifespan by student affairs
departments throughout campus communities (as you are likely already aware, students currently
get little of this from either the financial aid or career services departments, for example).
Providing social justice and equity perspectives would inform our topic and help our students to
understand how economic inequality is structurally embedded in our society (Johnson, 2006).
Environmentally-oriented Recommendation #3.
Here is another massive and pressing problem that can only be adequately addressed in a
broad-based and systematic manner within higher education, based on the literature. Therefore,
to develop environmental literacy within budding student affairs leaders from both applied and
theoretical perspectives, I recommend that HESAL offer yet another new course; one that studies
societal and local environmental problems in a bio-ecological manner (Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
1989, 2005) in ways that incorporate systems & organizational theory (Capra, 1997; Senge,
1994), as guided by systemic leadership principles (Allen & Cherrey, 2000).
The new course could be titled “Building a sustainable society: How student affairs
leaders can make a systemic difference across student and campus communities”. It would
include research on how to overcome cultural barriers and resistance on campus (Sylvestre,
Wright, & Sherren, 2013; Conklin, 2015) with respect to implementing change, and practical tips
for teaching sustainability that are applicable for not only faculty, but staff depending on the
situation (Timpson, 2006; Blewitt, 2004, Bardaglio, 2009). The course as envisioned would
invite speakers from UNC’s environmental and sustainability studies program to provide
research, best-practices, and policy-making perspectives related to student affairs functioning. A
capstone course project could include a paper that challenges each student to produce a ‘white

paper’ on how to design and lead a given student affairs department with respect to promoting
both student learning and campus initiatives in relation to sustainability concerns.
Developmentally-oriented Recommendation #4.
This is a learning domain I believe our HESAL program is especially adept at covering
with masters and doctoral students, from multicultural perspectives. If there is one development-
related topic that could perhaps use bolstering, it would be existential concerns that involve
questions of a spiritual/religious, mythic, and life-purpose nature. While professor Guido’s
courses address such questions from research and narratively reflective perspectives, it could be
helpful to require each masters and doctoral student from their inception into the program to
keep a program-long journal that addresses such deep topics from an auto-ethnographic
approach; sort of a ‘self-authorship of the soul’ exercise. Students would be responsible for
storing and saving each ongoing journal entry, and would add to it at the immediate conclusion
of each new course. Each course instructor would assign a small credit to each journal entry
upon review, and the cumulative journal would be a requirement for program completion.
The rationale for the activity would be to introduce and facilitate a sense of integration
throughout each student’s program journey, as each interrogates, develops, clarifies, and
expresses a sense of purpose for their program enrollment and participation, as informed by their
spiritual/religious and mythic understanding of life and their place within it. A final requirement
upon program completion would be to write a reflective essay on how this activity made
meaning for them, and how they might reproduce such an integrative experience for their staff
and the students they serve within a real or hypothetical student affairs department, for example.
Part IV. Three Proposed Research Questions with Accompanying Agendas

Based on my literature review and reflective considerations that include recommendations
for improving HESAL practice and research, I propose three research questions (in italics) that
may reasonably contribute to a better understanding of my research problem. Discussion of each
question will include a different kind of research agenda. I will include in each discussion an
explanation as to why researchers might identify with and use each particular agenda.
ResearchQuestion #1: What is the preparation process of undergraduate college students for
post-college life?
Throughout my paper, I have presented research and discussion regarding the
underpreparedness of U.S. undergraduate college students from a third-party perspective, as
inductively organized into four emergent themes. What is sorely missing from both my paper
and the general literature is an in-depth qualitative study that explores how students make
meaning of their impending exit into ‘the real world’ in relation to my four themes. This
proposed study would aim to begin to fill that research gap.
Paradigm. Constructivist. In this worldview, phenomena are perceived “through lenses
bestowed upon us by our culture” (Crotty, 1998, p. 54). The purpose of research is to achieve an
understanding of phenomena in socially interactive contexts, by dialectically reconstructing
previously held constructions through the process of social engagement (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Theory is developed inductively based on patterns of meaning that emerge from the interactions
between researcher and participant (Schwandt, 2007).
Epistemology/ontology. Transactional and relativist. The world is known subjectively
through interaction between individuals, and the form and content of the world is dependent on
the particular individuals interacting; they are creating and making meaning of the world as they
engage with each other, thus collapsing the distinction between epistemology and ontology

(Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Therefore, knowledge is a socially-generated construction, not an
objective ‘thing’; it is fluid, complex, ever-changing (Guba, 1990).
Methodology. Narrative inquiry. Narrative is understanding life as story. It is a way of
making meaning of experience “in a collaboration between researcher and participants, over
time, in a place or series of places, and in social interaction with milieus” (Clandinin &
Connelly, 2000). Narrative inquiry provides a way of organizing events, objects and the actions
of others into a meaningful whole over time (Chase, 2005). It is a methodology well-suited to
study real-life situations (Giovannoli, 2006), and for “capturing the detailed stories or life
experiences of a single life or the lives of a small number of individuals” (Creswell, 2006, p. 55).
Data collection method: Semi-structured interviews. Interviews that provide a basis for
exploring specific research interests, but in an open-ended way that allows participants freedom
to express their views on their own terms. This method can allow new ways of seeing and
understanding the given research question in an interactive and emergent fashion, while still
keeping to the general topic at hand. Data is typically captured with a recording device so that
interviewer attention can be wholly kept on the conversation at hand.
This researcher agenda is a way of allowing researchers such as myself and others to
flexibly explore and uncover first-person stories that will hopefully provide ‘thick’ insight into
complex life experiences such as the preparatory process for post-college life; experiences that–
in my study–are explored in interaction with student voices and perspectives in an integrative,
relevatory, and organic fashion; stories that are in the process of continually becoming, as
opposed to being already edified to meet the perceived expectations of given third parties.
Interview questions will touch on such pertinent topics as where they tend to turn to for
preparatory help and advice on- and off-campus, and for what reasons; what internet resources

augment this process for them; how intentional or random does their preparatory process appear
to be; do what conscious extent do they consider issues related to financial life planning,
environmental concerns, civic engagement, romantic and familial relationships, and residential
status in developing a life preparatory plan; and, how do they make meaning of and feel about
this overall process, as informed by some sense of personal identity/ies, and a spiritual/religious
philosophy that may or may not be purposeful and structured by a process of self-authorship.
To allow for multiple in-depth interviews of a given participant over time as appropriate,
four or five participants will be considered overall for the project. In hopes of eliciting diverse
perspectives, each would be taken from a different academic college on campus at the same four-
year institution. Sampling would be purposive; all participants would be enrolled in their final
year of undergraduate education, and at least two of each gender would be represented.
Appropriate gatekeepers would be contacted at each college in order to identify
candidates they would consider to be articulate and model representatives of their particular
colleges, so as to equivalently provide insights from high-achieving students from each college.
Racial/ethnic, and SES diversity will also factor into the final candidate selection. Proper IRB
procedures will involve informed consent procedures, and ethically honor issues related to
participant confidentiality and autonomy, to minimize psychological and social risks for each
participant. Research benefits such as interview outcomes shall be shared with each participant.
Conducting the research in a way that rings true to readers, practitioners, policy-makers,
and other researchers is paramount, as my goal is to provide rich and authentic-feeling stories
that are transferable to other settings and situations, such that they may contribute to actionable
behaviors. In other words, are my research findings “sufficiently authentic…[that] I would feel

sufficiently secure about these findings to construct social policy or legislation based on them?”
(Lincoln & Guba, 2000, p. 178).
To establish this degree of trustworthiness, I will employ researcher triangulation
(Guion, Diehl, & McDonald, 2011); a mindful, methodical process of reviewing and analyzing
my emergent patterns of meaning from multiple perspectives, including member checking them
with the participants themselves; checking them against relevant observations and data; having a
trusted advisor(s) and/or research colleagues provide third-party reactions; carefully considering
alternative explanations for determined patterns of meaning; and importantly, transparently
reflecting on how my personal researcher biases, dispositions, and assumptions may influence
the data collection and analysis process, such that other readers and researchers might understand
how my study conclusions were positioned and informed.
ResearchQuestion #2: From a systemic, integrative perspective, how does a given four-year
college or university support the life preparatory process of an undergraduate student?
My first research question explores the preparatory process for post-college life from the
crucial vantage point of undergraduate students themselves, in ideally an organic and authentic
manner. This second question flips that perspective in a reciprocal manner by investigating how
an entire given four-year institution supports that process in a systemic way. This question will
allow me to explore to what extent a given four-year institution integratively, intentionally, and
strategically interacts with, supports, informs, and mirrors a given undergraduate student’s
preparation and expectations for the ‘real life’ that will happen after the interminable graduation
speeches and renderings of pomp and circumstance have faded into hazy memory.
Paradigm. Post-positivist. This is a worldview or set of mutually-reinforcing beliefs
about reality that holds that reality exists outside of oneself apart from social interaction, but that

it is impossible to ascertain an understanding of reality that is free from the influences and
prejudices of the individual researcher. Therefore, claims about reality must accordingly be
tentative and qualified (Crotty, 1998). The aim of post-positivist inquiry is explanatory, in order
to generate insights that that have predictive power (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Ontology/Epistemology. Critical realism, from a modified dualist/objectivist
perspective. This research view or ‘lens’ apprehends reality in an objective but ‘critical realist’
manner (Cook & Campbell, 1979), because–given the acceptance that the grasp of full reality
can never be realized due to the flawed nature of human intelligence and the fluid and dynamic
aspect of phenomenon–all reality claims must be subjected to the most comprehensive
examination possible, in critical recognition that we can only approximate true reality as closely
as our limited abilities and perspectives will permit (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Nevertheless,
objectivity loosely remains as an informing reality stance, such that findings may be found as
scientifically palatable by influential and pragmatic institutional leaders and policy-makers who
still pre-dominantly tend to hold an objective understanding of shared events and processes.
Methodology. Case study. A case study is an “in-depth description and analysis of a
bounded system” (Merriam, 2009, p. 40). It can be understood as both a process of
“investigating a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (Yin, 2009, p. 18), or as
an “end-product (my italics) of field-oriented research” (Wolcott, 1992, p.36). Case studies can
focus on anything from a given relationship, a decision process, or a particular project, or more
concretely, an individual to a department to an entire institution; the key is to define the
phenomenon with certain parameters such as a specific time and place in an organic, real-life
way (Creswell, 2013).

Data collection methods: Case study data collection is generally extensive, given its
systematic focus. Interviews; documents, photos, letters, and other artifacts; observations;
archival records including statistical data; audiovisual materials; all can enhance the description
and understanding of a given bounded system (Yin, 2009; Creswell, 2013).
This research agenda provides a multi-dimensional way of understanding how a given
entity such as a college or university operationally behaves from a systems perspective in actual
working conditions. The agenda’s end-goal is the generation of a descriptive and explanatory
report that heuristically provides recommendations for how to tangibly improve processes for the
betterment of a given population (i.e. undergraduate students). Thus, this agenda is appropriate
for researchers such as myself and others who desire to use research instrumentally as a means to
influence institutional design and practices, and the governmental policies that guide the makeup
of their respective elements and implementation.
As envisioned, I would organize my systemic inquiry within and across bio-ecologically
organized settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989, 2005), in order to describe, understand, and
explain how a given postsecondary institution supports the student preparatory process for post-
college life on behalf of its undergraduate students across institutional levels, in order to obtain a
holistic understanding of such. In other words, I would conduct inquiry and data collection at the
individual level (time- and availability-constrained interviews of staff, faculty, and
administrators that focus on their personal views and experiences related to the research topic);
departmental level (document, artifact, statistical data collection and general observations,
augmented by interview data informed by role-playing views and perspectives); institutional
level (data collection focused on providing a campus-wide perspective), and the meta-
community-state-societal level (accessible data that influences and impacts processes at the

given institution). Thus, my data collection sampling will attempt to be as inclusive and
comprehensive as time, resources, institutional strictures, and study limitations will allow.
My case study inquiry will be informed by research (Smith, 2012; Kezar, Hirsch, &
Burack, 2002; Kinzie & Kuh, 2004; Schuh & Whitt, 1999; Ray & Kafka, 2014) that suggests that
student affairs professionals and faculty who build meaningful relationships across borders with
each other, the surrounding community, and their students can create an institutional learning
environment that positively supports the developmental prospects and outcomes of students after
they leave college. This research will help provide the basis for the kind of specific ‘how’ and
‘why’ questions that are characteristic of case study (Yin, 2009).
As mentioned earlier, this case study would be conducted from an instrumental
perspective with the goal of generating plausible and applicable findings in terms of informing
practices and processes across institutions, as well as influencing policy-making that guides and
directs such processes. The extensive amount of data collected would be thematically organized
and analyzed holistically in an inductive fashion. In contrast to other studies that can take a
positivist/post-positivist orientation, case study has been criticized for its “lack of rigor in the
collection, construction, and analysis of the empirical materials that give rise to this study. This
lack of rigor is linked to the problem of bias…introduced by the subjectivity of the researcher”
(Hamel, 1993, p. 23). However, in response, Shields (2007) counters that case studies can be
performed according to rigorous qualitative standards, in spite of whether a researcher adopts a
post- positivist framework towards the inquiry process or not, explaining that “because case
study includes paradoxes and acknowledges that there are no simple answers, that it can and
should qualify as the gold standard [among qualitative research approaches]” (p. 13).
Accordingly, rigor is established by the same general process of achieving research

HESA Written Comp Exam- Bib (Autosaved)

HESA Written Comp Exam- Bib (Autosaved)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to HESA Written Comp Exam- Bib (Autosaved)

Similar to HESA Written Comp Exam- Bib (Autosaved) (20)

More from Michael Weddington

More from Michael Weddington (20)

HESA Written Comp Exam- Bib (Autosaved)