The Value of Student Organizations and the Role of Faculty Advisers

Abstract

The entire system of higher education has been undergoing considerable public scrutiny in the last several years, and questions about the priorities of universities in conjunction with funding pressures have caused institutions to look more closely at operating systems and assumptions. Out of all this re-examination, a strong call has emerged for re-emphasizing undergraduate education and for enhancing faculty-student interactions. This seems to be a particularly apt time to examine pubic relations education within this framework; this section of universities has received its own share of questions and concerns from public relations professionals. Indeed, some have argued that there should not be any public relations curriculum in universities, suggesting that a broad liberal arts degree would be preferable (Schwartz, Yarbrough, and Shakra, 1992). For those who do support public relations education, there seems to be broad agreement about the need for professional contact and hands-on experiences to be integrated as a key aspect of public relations curriculum (Schwartz, Yarbrough, and Shakra, 1992). This kind of professional interaction and hands-on experience may be approached in a variety of ways. Many universities have incorporated professional public relations experience into job descriptions for faculty (as a review of Spectra job listings over the last several years would indicate) in the hopes that the more practical aspects of the profession would be woven into courses (Hoskins, 1981). Many programs invite professional guest speakers into classes, workshops, conferences, and open lectures. Others build in projects that require students to conduct public relations work for clients as part of coursework. Many also offer internship programs that allow students to work in professional public relations environments. One option that has grown steadily is the presence of Public Relations Student Society of America chapters on campuses. This is an extra-curricular activity in the form of a student organization that offers a great opportunity to address concerns for higher education. This paper explores the research regarding the value of student organizations in general and PRSSA in particular, builds a case for supporting such activities and their advisers, and reports the results of a survey of PRSSA faculty advisers' perceptions. Recommendations for support are provided along with directions for future research. Student organizations Extra-curricular or co-curricular activities have long existed on college campuses, and, recently research has been conducted regarding their impact on education. The research that has been conducted offers consistent and strong support for the value of student organizations to both students and the universities that sponsor them. One key area of strength has been in the area of student retention. Evidence has come from a variety of sources that extracurricular activities, and specifically student organizations, play a central role in reducing dropouts and encouraging student retention (Tinto, 1987; Austin, 1975; Christie and Dinham, 1990; Noel, Levitz, Saluri, and Associates, 1985; Abrahamowicz, 1988; Billson and Terry, 1982; Lenning, Sauer, and Beal, 1980; Ramist, 1981). Much of this work argues that participation in such activities involves students more directly in college life (e.g., Austin, 1975) and that the social integration involved in these activities enhances student commitment to universities (e.g., Tinto, 1987; Christie and Dinham, 1990). Other research suggests that extracurricular activities in general, and student organizations in particular, have numerous benefits for student development beyond staying in school. The Report of the Study Group on Excellence in Higher Education (1984) called involvement the most important condition for improving undergraduate education, and noted that student organizations are a key way students become involved in education. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.