Carrie DuPre, Ph.D.
Clemson University
Helen Diamond Steele
University of West Georgia
Jason Umfress, Ph.D.
Coker College
To PhD or Not to PhD:
Three Students Explore the Decision to Return to School
We are surrounded by education. As student affairs practitioners, we spend our days mentoring students as they discover how to best use their time in college to prepare them for “life.” It is only natural that we should value education, and it might even be expected that we would contemplate further education ourselves.
Perhaps, at some point in your career, this question has crossed your mind: Should I pursue a PhD?
Within that short question exists many more (and more complicated) questions. What programs are available to me? Do I need a terminal degree to reach my goals? Would I enjoy the process? Can I afford the tuition? How will it affect my job, my family, my schedule, my bank account, my sanity?
Here, three doctoral students—one recent graduate and two soon-to-be graduates— discuss the catalysts that pushed them to go back to school and the challenges, rewards, and lessons they encountered along the way. Each took a different path toward their degree; one resigned from a university job to attend school full-time, one kept her university job and entered school part-time, and one built a family while in school.
Jason Umfress: The Full-Time Student
The decision to put my career on hold and return to school full time was a difficult one. Previously, I had attempted to do my Master’s work while working full-time and found it to be incredibility challenging. I didn’t feel I was able to give my best efforts to either endeavor. From that experience, and in anticipation of the intensity of doctoral-level courses, the decision that best fit my learning/work style was to return to school full-time. I applied for the program and was awarded an assistantship in the department. “PhD, here I come!”
Quitting my mid-manager job, moving across the region, and diving into my doctoral studies brought many challenges, none of which were minor. I sacrificed some financial comforts for a student lifestyle of penny pinching and bargain shopping. I questioned my intellect and abilities, often engaging in negative self-talk. “Am I smart enough to do this?” A new institution in a new place presented the traditional transition issues of navigating my new surroundings, making new friends, and finding the support groups that I needed.
Although these transitions were not easy, the one I found most difficult was the shift in role from professional to student. In my mid-manager position at my previous institution, I had established myself on campus as an expert in my field. In my new role as a graduate student, not being “needed” or viewed as an expert took some getting used to. It was a great exercise in humility and adaptability.
Because I felt like I had put my life on hold to obtain my degree, I was anxious to complete the program and return to my life as a practitioner. Staying focused and surrounding myself with people who cared about me and my success helped tremendously. I worked very hard, but was very fortunate to have a lot of “dumb luck.” I completed my coursework and the majority of my dissertation before I landed an amazing job at an institution I love. I know it sounds cliché, but the culmination of my journey was the moment I was hooded by my dissertation chair. Shaking the university president’s hand and hearing him say, “Congratulations, doctor” made all the sacrifices seem worth it.
In retrospect, I would not change anything about my experience. Being a full-time student wasn’t easier; it simply had a different set of challenges. I may be a little deeper in student loan debt, but the path I chose was the best decision for me at that time in my life.
Carrie DuPre: The Part-Time Student
My road toward a PhD was a rather crooked one, with detours and confusing highway signs. My Master’s is in communications—not student affairs—so the decision to take a side road toward a career in student services required further education. Pursuing a PhD went from a personal goal to a career necessity. Quitting my job was not an option, but it turned out not quitting was an asset: pursuing a degree at the university where I was employed allowed me six free credit hours a semester. That is a hard deal to beat.
The balance has been difficult. For the past three-and-a-half years, I have felt like my time is split between multiple roles: the employee who must always be there to satisfy department needs and to support multitudes of students; the wife who values a happy home life; and the student who strives to earn As and learn as much as she can. I have become a skilled multi-tasker, spending lunch hours in the library and conducing marathon Sunday writing sessions. (Being able to tap into my campus library from the comfort of my couch 24/7 is both a gift and a curse.)
I am a full-time faculty member; I understand how things work. The students a professor sees regularly are the students who are successful and who receive the most of the professor’s time and attention. The students who have other priorities (and the person who signs my paycheck has to be a priority) often get passed over. As a part-time student, this has been one of my biggest challenges: being the invisible student. If it happens between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., I cannot attend. I have to receive supervisor approval before enrolling in any course that could potentially cross into work hours. I cannot spend hours hanging out between classes discussing research with my professors and building valuable alliances.
The challenges do come with rewards. I am able to apply what I learn in real-time with my students, which in turn inspires me to learn even more. When engaging in class discussions, I am able to contribute practical examples to bring theory life. And upon earning my degree, my vita will be enriched with educational accomplishments, research, and in-the-field experiences.
Pursuing a part-time doctorate requires determination, confidence in your intellectual capabilities, an honest desire to learn, and a thick skin. Now, as I enter the home stretch, I can reflect on the obstacles I have overcome, and it is because of these that my degree will mean so much to me.
Helen Steele: The Mother/Student
Before I decided to have a child, I did what any good doctoral student would do: I began a review of literature. I already knew that completion rates for PhD students are relatively low. I learned that women who have a child while pursuing a PhD are even less likely to graduate, and those who do graduate take longer to do so. However, I stumbled across a blog, "Mama PhD," in Inside Higher Ed, which gives a voice to mothers who have chosen to balance a family with a career in academia. One week, this blog focused on the decision to have a baby while in graduate school, and I was pleasantly surprised by the supportive tone of the article and the encouraging comments of the readers, who highlighted benefits like a graduate student's flexible schedule and a campus full of potential baby sitters. Ultimately, my review of literature left me with a heap of statistics, personal anecdotes, and differing advice, and I realized that the decision to have a child is a personal decision—one that my partner and I would have to make together.
Once we decided to start our family, I sought out others who could provide advice about balancing my doctoral work with new parental responsibilities. However, I quickly realized that there weren't very many role models for me. Few doctoral students have children during their graduate studies, and few students in my program have any children. Some are married, many are single, and starting a family seems to be the farthest thing from most of their minds. Even among the faculty, having children, especially before earning a PhD, seemed rather uncommon. Still, I was fortunate to find mentors who gave me insight and hope. My graduate assistantship supervisor and a member of my doctoral committee both managed to balance their graduate studies with a family, and they assured me that I could do the same.
Now, I am working on my dissertation, and I have a 15-month-old son. It's not easy. Despite my attempts to research this balancing act and to seek advice from other parents in academia, I did not fully understand what I was getting into. I have had to reprioritize my life. I was not prepared for the lack of sleep; I underestimated the amount of time and energy a newborn demands. However, I also underestimated the blessings I would enjoy as a mother. Having a supportive partner willing to share the workload has made it possible for me to continue my studies, and my child inspires me to carry on. I will graduate next year, and when I look back on my experience as a doctoral student, I wouldn't change a thing.
Jason W. Umfress, is Dean of Students at Coker College (jumfress@coker.edu). Carrie DuPre is a lecturer at Clemson University (cpriddy@clemson.edu). Helen Steele is Director of the First Year Experience at the University of West Georgia (hsteele@westga.edu).
Spring/Fall 2011
Articles:
by Kendra Stewart
Reviews:
by Charles A. Lowman
Perspectives:
by Carrie DuPre, Helen Diamond Steele & Jason Umfress
Kendra Stewart
Clemson University
Marriage Made in Heaven?
The British Higher Education Philosophy towards International Students
Introduction
The United Kingdom (UK) is home to the oldest institutions of higher learning in the English-speaking world (Tibbert, 2010). It is no surprise that students from all over the world seek out the opportunity to study at institutions that have such long-standing traditions of academic excellence. British higher education has not only been responsible for producing monarchs and prime ministers within its own borders, but world leaders of many nations (Chesterman, 2010; Tibbert, 2010). Thusly, there has been a historical relationship of Britain granting access to international students to its colleges and universities.
However, given the position and close relationships to its European continental family countries, the term international is a layered one within British higher education. Although students from other European countries are not citizens of the United Kingdom (UK), they are considered members of the European Union (EU), or home students. Therefore, Peacock (2010) explained that they are not necessarily regarded as international students in terms of governmental law and policies. To clarify, international students in the UK are students who do not hold citizenship within the EU (Peacock, 2010).
How the United Kingdom regulates access to its higher education institutions has been a topic of concern covered on the floor of Parliament. In an effort to keep EU tuition affordable and offer governmental support to EU students, the ministers decided to place a limit on the number of home students that British colleges and universities can accept (Ames, 2010; Chesterman, 2010; West, 2010). Parliament’s premise behind limiting the amount of EU students was to ensure that the government would be able to financially support all EU students that were enrolled. Parliament sought to avoid enrolling more EU students in higher education than the government had allocated to support (Curtis, 2009; Shepherd, 2010).
Closely related to this cap on EU student enrollment is the absence of a cap on international student enrollment. The UK government has capped EU student enrollment in order to maintain a low cost of EU student tuition. Conversely, since there is no governmental attention or concern for maintaining low international student tuition, there is no government concern in the form of law for regulating international student enrollment. Therefore, international students pay a premium tuition rate, which is a lucrative incentive for British colleges and universities to enroll increasing numbers of non-EU students (Ames, 2010; Chesterman, 2010; West, 2010).
The number of international students enrolled in the UK system of higher education has doubled in the past decade (Curtis, 2009). This heightened enrollment displays international student demand for enrolling in British colleges. While the number of EU students increased by 5% in the last year, the number of non-EU students in British higher education increased by more than 7% (Shepherd, 2010). Given these statistics showing high numbers of international students, British higher educational officials may choose to ignore or implement policies to regulate international student enrollment in the future. For now, colleges may view their relationship and recruitment of international students in the midst of financial constraints as a marriage made in heaven.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the British perspective of providing access to its colleges to international students versus home students. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has promoted the strategic aim of widening participation for EU citizens, making access to British higher education more broadly attainable (Widening Participation, n.d.). However, Parliament has implement a limit on how many EU students can be enrolled in British colleges, limiting this aim of widening participation due to financial constraints (Curtis, 2009; Shepherd, 2010). A cap does not exist, however, on the amount of international students, that bring with them premium tuition rates, British colleges can enroll. This situation in higher education is not an uncommon conundrum for all nations that seek to perform as purveyors of social justice and promoters of global economic competiveness for their country all while operating under limited funding bases. A discussion and analysis of Britain’s approach to international and home student enrollment seeks to further the understanding of the many roles of systems of higher education undertake and how these roles may at times work against one another.
Benefits and Costs to Colleges
Financial Benefit
There is a financial benefit for British colleges to seek out the enrollment of non-EU students. Home and EU students paid a maximum yearly tuition of 3,290 pounds sterling, recently raised to 9,000 pounds sterling (Labi, 2011). Comparatively, international students are obligated to a pay a yearly tuition as high as 14,000 pounds sterling, a premium rate (Undergraduate Tuition Fees, n.d.). For the same education, international students are paying quite a bit more. This premium tuition rate is comparable to the in-state tuition and out-of-state tuition differences present in the United States. Out-of-state students pay a premium tuition rate to enroll in colleges outside of their home state. Both find out-of-state or non-EU students as a lucrative source of tuition income. Although United States colleges have yet to institute in-state caps on students, limited state resources to financially support in-state students have started to become an issue (Martindale, 2011). For instance, the University of California has been criticized for admitting increased numbers of out-of-state students to the chagrin of in-state students. As state funding for the University of California system decreases, a system representative said it was not out-of-state students that were taking those spots. Instead, the representative stated, "What's forcing campuses to turn away in-state students is the inadequate funding from the state" (Martindale, 2011). This US scenario is similar to the situation at the center of discussion in Britain and may become a more globally debate issue for many nations as budgets are tightened.
This British premium tuition is imposed upon international students despite the lack of UK-based grants and loans for this particular population (Fees and Funding, n.d.). International students are completely responsible for financing their education either out of their own pockets or by way of grants and loans from their home countries. Essentially, money from other countries is being pumped into the UK economy via institutions of higher education. Beyond tuition, the British economy is stimulated by international students’ need for accommodations and other costs of living during their time in college. The Immigration Minister Damian Green released that international student enrollment is a five billion pound a year contribution to the British economy, and cited all intentions to protect this source of income (Travis, 2011).
Overall, in addition to British colleges benefiting from premium tuition payments, the British government and taxpayers are benefit by not having any obligation in place to provide financial aid to international students. A benefit that is not associated with the enrollment of home students. Displaying Britain’s economic insecurity in its ability to continue to subsidize home students’ education, Parliament recently proposed and approved raising maximum college fees from 3000 pounds to 9000 pounds for home students (Labi, 2011; UK Officials, 2010). This proposal has been met with large-scale protests, most peaceable, by British students, including an attack on royal family members’, Prince Charles and wife Camilla, car (UK Officials, 2010). The Deputy Prime Minister asserted that some action was necessary for the government to respond to record levels of budget deficits for the nation (UK Officials, 2010). However, protesting students said it was unfair to triple rates of tuition (UK Officials, 2010) without changing the quality of the education.
Educational Benefit
Aside from the economic benefits of enrolling international students, UK institutions find other incentives to welcome these students. These benefits are more aligned with institutions’ academic missions of producing scholars that think beyond borders and a workforce equipped for the global marketplace (Ames, 2010). From an educational perspective, international students bring with them some of the most brilliant minds to UK colleges and universities. When these minds meet with some of the most esteemed faculty in the world, the educational possibilities are considered endless.
Additionally, international students also bring with them their culture, a culture that may differ significantly from UK and/or EU students. In an ever-shrinking world that promotes global competition and collaboration in the marketplace, it is important for students to be prepared to interact with people from different cultures and overcome, differing customs of practice and barriers to communication (Ames, 2010; Peacock, 2010). International students, by their mere presence, are encouraging both the in-classroom and out-of-classroom learning for EU students (Ippolito, 2007). Ippolito (2007) cited British higher education’s goal to make college curriculum more international, promoting intercultural learning. Such intercultural learning is more widely encouraged as EU students are exposed to greater forms of diversity from the presence of students from outside of the EU. From this exposure and interaction, EU students are able to attain more broadened global perspectives of academic and life issues. The benefits of having a diverse student body are realized through the presence of international students on British college campuses.
Cultural Costs
Although the recent trend in higher education worldwide has been to emphasize the benefits of diversity, there are some issues institutions must consider when enrolling a diverse student body, especially regarding diversity that crosses continental borders. Although academic institutions are places of learning, they must still market themselves to consumers and maintain their brand. University of Bath Head of Student Services stated that one consideration of maintaining the University of Bath brand, was maintaining its image and identity as a British university (Ames, 2010). He stated that if the institution enrolled too many international students, then the British cultural experience could be compromised. Therefore, it is a complex process of finding the right balance of enrolling international students to enhance the cultural diversity on campus without diluting the present home culture that the universities were founded for and upon.
As the debate about finding a balance of enrolling home students and international students continues, Parliament has announced plans to begin to limit the amount of international students that can enroll in British colleges (Travis, 2011). Immigration Minister Green explained that this limit would only affect further education colleges, which are more technical in nature and similar to the United States system of community colleges (Travis, 2011). Green cited “unpleasant abuses” as the reason for targeting further education colleges as a means to stop immigration into the country (Travis, 2011). The majority of non-EU migrants to Britain were students (Travis, 2011). Green proposed many migrants abused the guise of lower-level, non-degree seeking courses to gain student visas to gain entry into the country; he stated these abuses needed to be regulated in order decrease numbers of migration and maintain necessary quality of further education courses (Travis, 2011).
Further education colleges responded by labeling this policy a “hostile act” that would hinder international recruitment and costs them about one billion pounds a year in course fees (Travis, 2011). Green acknowledged the financial and global economic competition benefits of enrolling international students in degree-seeking programs, especially those in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) subjects. International students make up over 45% of postgraduate students in Britain, and Green assuaged some university concerns by stating that no action would be taken to limit international student access to “our world class academic institutions” (Travis, 2011). Such policies and intentions show Britain’s disputes surrounding balancing the dichotomy of financial and cultural benefits and costs to enrolling international students.
Benefits and Costs to International Students
Market Benefits
When referencing global league tables, which rank the world’s colleges in comparison to one another, the top universities mentioned by British campus officials hailed from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia (West, 2010). Because the UK can tout the fact that it has the oldest colleges in the English-speaking world and enrolls such high numbers of international students from all over the world, some of these institutions, such as Oxford, view themselves not only as British institutions, but international institutions of higher education (Tibbert, 2010). In large part due to these league tables, international students are provided with information detailing the academic competiveness of colleges and universities in the UK (West, 2010). Academic competiveness may be appealing for them as they want to be properly equipped to enter the global marketplace as a marketable employee. Employers also read league tables and are aware of the employability of graduates from British institutions of higher education (Chesterman, 2010). From this standpoint, it may be to their benefit for international students to attain a degree from UK colleges and universities that are highly regarded in the global market.
Additionally, just as UK students benefit from the diversity international students bring to campus, international students also receive preparation for the global marketplace by immersing themselves in a different culture. Through their matriculation from an institution outside of their home country, international students display their cross-cultural communication skills and ability to succeed in unfamiliar environments. Additionally, they become more culturally adept as they are able to learn skills and new ideas from other students, faculty and their new environment (Welfare and Support, n.d.).
Social Costs
As with anyone in an unfamiliar setting, there may be discomfort for international students entering a college campus that does not reflect their home culture and customs. UK students face transitional issues associated with homesickness and being independent for the first time; this reality may be exacerbated for international students that are far from home and not able to frequently return home or communicate with their families. International students have left their social networks behind. They must overcome obstacles associated with building a social network in an environment where they are the minority and their culture may not be fully understood by the majority (Peacock, 2010).
In fact, the campus environment may even go so far as to offend their home culture and customs. One academic consideration of having a diverse classroom is how and what curriculum is presented. Depending on the inclusion or exclusion of certain items in the curriculum, it may very well offend certain cultures. As a result of such instances, international students may deal with issues of alienation from the campus environment. In addition to overcoming communication and language barriers, international students may find trouble accepting the campus curriculum (Peacock, 2010).
Representatives from both the University of Sheffield and the University of Bath asserted how international students are often not fully integrated into the greater campus community (Peacock, 2010; West, 2010). Such segregation may implicate the discomfort international students feel on campus and in reaction retreat within their homogenous groups. If so, neither EU students nor the international students are fully realizing the benefits of being exposed to differing populations.
Critique of Cap on Home Students
It appears that the British Parliament has implemented a cap on home students to position the government in a place to realistically offer financial support to all UK college students. This ideal, in turn, has lead to a philosophy of enrolling international students for the benefits, financially and educationally, that they bring. However, do the benefits equate to the win-win situation as it appears on the surface? What is happening to the home students affected by the cap? Does this mean that they are not able to access the British college and university of their choice? Or does it mean that they are not able to access British higher education altogether?
To begin to address such questions, it is necessary to return to the intended mission of the British system of higher learning as it relates to widening participation. The HEFCE cited widening participation of traditionally underrepresented groups in higher education as one of its strategic aims, stating that this initiative is necessary socially and economically (Widening Participation, n.d). Part of this mission of widening participation is outreach to more populations and providing additional opportunities to access British colleges and universities (Widening Participation, n.d.). The underrepresented communities the HEFCE specifically identified are related to physical ability, sex, age, and race and ethnicity. In regards to the goal to widen participation, the HEFCE stated that “Our aim is to promote and provide the opportunity of successful participation in higher education to everyone who can benefit from it” (Widening Participation, n.d.).
The HEFCE acknowledged that to properly support the presence of underrepresented populations, more funding must be funneled into building infrastructures of support on campuses (Funding, n.d.). Such a funding policy decision to offer extra funding support contributes to the dilemma of how to properly allocate a finite amount of British financial resources. One the one hand, Parliament funneled resources into the aim of widening participation by offering extra support. However, on the other end of the spectrum, if a policy that capped how many EU students are able to access higher education to begin with, the purpose of widening participation within the EU is hampered from the beginning.
On the upside, however, the applications of home students have risen (Curtis, 2009; Shepherd, 2010). There seems to be a heightened demand for higher education created among the British citizens. Yet, on the downside, this rise in applications also corresponds with a rise in the number of applicants that are not offered admission to the colleges and universities (Curtis, 2009; Shepherd, 2010). These rejections in large part may be due to institutional fear of being fined if they exceed the home student cap (West, 2010). If home students are not gaining access to institutions they pay tax money to support and international students are instead being offered extra spots, it would seem anti-ethical to the core values of British higher education and the population that it purports to serve.
Delving deeper into this issue, the UK cap on home students has also incited fear of potential brain drain. Just as non-EU students have found opportunities to fulfill their higher education needs abroad, EU students may also follow suit if they feel that they have a greater opportunity of accessing a desired education outside of the UK. The UK may find that more and more home students pursue this option and decide to pursue higher education elsewhere. UK students may choose this route if they feel their ability to attain admission and finance the college of their choice is heightened (UK Students, 2001). This may especially ring true for the most academically competitive students that cannot apply to both Oxford and Cambridge (Chesterman, 2010; Tibbert, 2010). There are no limits on how many elite universities a student may apply to in the United States Ivy League, for instance. In addition to compromising its initiatives of widening participation of underrepresented groups, British higher education may also see its traditional college-going population attending universities overseas.
Conclusion
In summary, the United Kingdom may be applying a band-aid to temporarily resolve financial issues that have greatly affected higher education. On one end of the spectrum, British colleges and universities are benefiting from their ability to enroll international students and gain their premium discount tuitions. Beyond the financial gains, these students also bring with them educational value to better the learning environment within the British system of higher education. On the other end, however, the decision to continue to enroll increased numbers of international students is related to how higher education officials approach EU students. The government cited their desire to properly provide financial support to EU students as the reason for such a cap, and this is an admirable plea. However, the reality still remains that the cap is limiting access to home students seeking higher education. It sends a strong message to cap the number of EU students that are able to enroll in UK institutions, while concurrently allowing a limitless amount of non-EU students to access these institutions. There is a philosophical quandary present when home-based institutions are forced to shut their doors to home-based students.
References
See printable version
Charles A. Lowman
University of South Carolina – Columbia, SC
Review of Grown-Up Leadership: The Benefits of Personal Growth for You and Your Team
Bailey, L., & Bailey, M. (2005). Grown-up leadership: The benefits of personal growth for you and your team. Singapore: Nova Vista Publishing.
In every sector of the economy, one encounters leaders who are ineffective at motivating their teams. Try as they may, some leaders simply miss the mark. It seems intuitive that an inability to connect with colleagues and employees can be detrimental to team cohesion and effectiveness. But, what causes this gulf to emerge, and what can be done to make improvements? Those are the questions that Grown-Up Leadership: The Benefits of Personal Growth for You and Your Team seeks to answer. The text, written with corporate audiences in mind, has relevant applicability to leadership challenges in Student Affairs. Its developmental approach challenges readers to explore the roots of their leadership tendencies, identify barriers to success, and formulate action plans for sustainable, positive change.
While it begins with an introduction of commonly discussed leadership basics and the characteristics of great leaders, the text quickly transitions to its central metaphor – the concept of “sitting at the grown-up table at family dinners,” hence the term “grown-up leadership.” The authors argue that dynamic, inspirational leaders abandon childish behaviors such as bullying, selfishness, emotional volatility, and dishonesty. Grown-up leaders commit themselves to a process of on-going, intentional self-discovery. The authors distill the hard-to-explain phenomenon of why some leaders fall short into a single, vivid image to which the reader can relate.
Holistic self-discovery is the fundamental concept in Grown-Up Leadership. The authors emphasize the point that those sitting at the “grown up table” did not get there overnight and once sat at the children’s table, too. Through serious reflection and hard work these leaders were honored with an invitation to join the “grown-ups” and enjoy the associated privileges. In a work context, those privileges might be high employee satisfaction, team loyalty, self-efficacy, and productivity.
Unlike the multitude of leadership texts that only lecture readers about the benefits of self-discovery, Bailey and Bailey facilitate the process through a series of personal coaching sessions in each chapter. These discussions transform the reader from passive learner to active participant. For example, Chapter Two’s personal coaching session helps readers to identify personal barriers from their own life histories that may prevent them from connecting with their colleagues and employees. The book addresses leadership challenges in very practical ways, which is a major strength.
Instead, it encourages readers to frame the discussion in their own terms through activities which build personalized understanding of concepts in each subsequent chapter. Readers are able to see the impact they have on their personal leadership tendencies by exploring their background and experience.
Although replete with clever metaphors and analogies, the text addresses a few aspects of “grown-up leadership” in a somewhat unsophisticated manner. Early on, the authors outline two different types of immature leaders, Intimidators and Accommodators. These labels deserve criticism because they are self-explanatory and appear to lack creativity. Although most of the text’s examples are vibrant and colorful, the Intimidator/Accommodator dichotomy is black and white, and oversimplifies the inherent complexities of leadership styles. However, the authors do eventually offer an explanation of why they chose these labels. One author considers himself to be an Accommodator, while the other considers herself to be an Intimidator, and both have struggled over the years with these base tendencies. By disclosing numerous personal examples, the authors connect to their readers who may have shared similar growing pains. In other words, they are relatable figures because they took their own advice to become more effective leaders, coaches, and partners. They are not merely telling others what to do – they have lived the process and come out better.
The text is easy to read, organized, and stimulates thought from start to finish. Its simplicity is refreshing. It is written in an informal tone that one might hear in a conversation with a mentor. The book’s numerous graphics and diagrams break down complicated concepts and will appeal to readers with a visual learning style. Key ideas, people, and terms are indexed in the back of the book for quick reference. Quotations from well-known leaders and revolutionaries line the margins in each chapter, injecting inspirational thoughts into the discussion without interrupting the points being made in the body of the page. These combined elements make Grown-Up Leadership a book that almost seems to read itself.
Student Affairs professionals looking for a different type of leadership book should consider reading Grown-Up Leadership. It is appropriate for staff and supervisors of all experience levels because it is customizable to the individual. Its numerous examples, case studies, and thought-provoking ideas will resonate with new and senior-level professionals alike – even those who consider themselves good leaders. New professionals will delight in learning basics such as how to run effective one-on-one coaching sessions, whereas mid and senior-level professionals will enjoy the opportunity to reflect upon past achievements and failures, and set new goals for improvement. Because of its versatility, Grown-Up Leadership is ideal for use in training exercises, departmental retreats, and general professional development programs. In sum, this text delivers a thoughtful message that is still relevant to contemporary leadership challenges in Student Affairs.
.gif){kind=small}
