I, along with 100s of other people, received a Tweet from the above Twitter account letting me know about an upcoming event happening at KSU. Here’s what’s wrong with it and why you shouldn’t do your marketing like this…

1. Irrelevant – I don’t go to KSU. I’m no where near KSU. I don’t know anyone at KSU. You just used Social Media to Spam me. Next time you try and get my attention, I’m not going to listen, if I haven’t blocked you already.
2. Inpersonal – Even if I did go to KSU, if I see you sent the exact same message to everyone, no longer do I feel special about getting a message from you.
3. Called Out – Social norms exist in Social Media, if you break them, you’ll get called out. I’m calling you out and now your “great” marketing idea just turned into a PR mess.

Hat Tip to Felecia George and Sandi Pope for sharing this one with us.

Like baseball 10 years ago, higher education is focused on what’s easy to measure. For baseball it may have been body parts, batting averages and the numbers on the radar gun. For higher education, it’s the 3Rs: research, rankings and real estate. Each of these areas is easily quantified or judged: research citations or number of publications in Nature and Science; U.S. News ranking (or colleges choose from a plethora of new entrants to the ranking game, including the international ranking by Shanghai Jiao Tong University); and in terms of real estate, how much has been spent on a new building and how stately, innovative and generally impressive it appears.

Unfortunately, the 3Rs correlate about as closely to student learning and student outcomes as batting average or fastball velocity, which is to say, not at all. Buildings are the “ugly girlfriend” of higher education.

Universities that continue to focus on the 3Rs in the wake of the seismic shifts currently roiling higher education (state budget cuts, increased sticker shock, technology-based learning) are either not serious about improving student learning and student outcomes, or they’re like the baseball fan who has lost her car keys in the stadium parking lot at night. Where does she look for them? Not where she lost them, but under the light because that’s where she can see.

“A young player is not what he looks like, or what he might become, but what he has done.” – Billy Beane

Similarly, a university is not what its buildings look like, or what its reputation or rankings say, but what it has done. And by done, we don’t mean research. The link between research and instructional efficacy is unproven at best. We define instruction of students to mean producing measurable outcomes in terms of student learning and employment.”

Ryan Craig – partner at University Ventures Fund. You can read the full essay here.

The other day, however, I had a student leader ask me for a letter of recommendation via Linkedin. This was a first for me. I’d filled out Linkedin recommendations for work colleagues and consultants, but never for a student leader’s work. The more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea of a Linkedin recommendation over a paper recommendation.

The advantages included…

• Longer Lasting

Unlike a paper recommendation that is often used once or twice and then tossed. A Linkedin recommendation is posted online for as long as that person feels that it is relevant.

• More Viewers

A paper recommendation tends to be distributed only to a select group of people who are asking for it (e.g. job applications), which limits the potential impact of the recommendation. On Linkedin, people are constantly coming and going from profiles, so now your letter of recommendation can be seen my hundreds of people who might also be interested in your skills.

• Digital Identity Enhancement

While the numbers keep shifting, the data generally shows that 50-70% of HR people scan an individual’s digital identity during the hiring process. Of that group, 86% say that if they see positive information, they will use that to the advantage of the applicant. The more Linkedin recommendations you have, the more positive your digital identity will look and that can only help you in the hiring process.

Are Linkedin recommendations becoming the new thing? It’s only happened to me once from a student leader, but I suspect it won’t be the last time. I wonder if students will start asking teachers to write a letter of recommendation on Linkedin for them about their in-classroom abilities. What do you think?

Not seen in the clip is that at the end it cuts to his report card showing he’s doing poorly in every class. This got me thinking in two different directions…

1) Can a student leader be too involved?

If you work with student leaders, you most likely know at least one student that is trending in this direction. They start off being involved in one club, but by the end of the year, they are leading three and a part of four others. They can’t get enough of “life outside the classroom” and all looks great from your seat as the head of student activities because this student is hyper-engaged. Then, you start to hear that they are slipping in their grades. It’s like a star quarterback who gives 100% of his time to the team, but fails every class. A bad coach would just focus on the fact that he is helping the team win. A good coach would see his star player is failing elsewhere beyond football.

If I were to graph it, I think it’d look like this…

So, what is the right amount of time spent in extra-curricular activities that maximizes the value without hurting academic performance? My guess is whatever the amount of time it takes to be involved in one to three clubs. I’m hoping someone reading this can point me to research on the topic of when too much is too much.

2) Who would I rather hire?

The second direction of my thinking is related to the person I’d most likely hire if four different students, as seen in the graph below, came to me for a job.

Student #3 would be the easiest to dismiss in an early screening because they were neither academically successful or involved in extra-curricular activities.

Student #4 would probably get a pass from me because, even though they excelled academically, they didn’t display any usage of their knowledge. It’s one thing to be smart, it’s another thing to be able to do something with your smarts.

Student #2 would be the most obvious pick because they showed they can managed a massive work load on multiple fronts. They display the ability to be book smart and street smart (which is what I think co-curricular activities teach a student). Student #2 would be the shining star, though I think this type of person is an extremely rare case.

Then there’s Student #1. This is Max in Rushmore. This is the wildcard in the application process. He/she could be a creative genius who loves to make stuff happen and doesn’t care for the “game of school.” He also could be extremely aloof and forget the purpose of the role he’s in. If I had to pick between Student #1 and Student #4, I’d prefer Student #1 because he/she shows action with real-world results.

So in the end, if I could only interview two, I’d probably choose to interview #1 and #2. Unless I were hiring for a very technical position, (doctor, mechanic, etc) then I’d probably pick #4 over #1.

What about you, If you could only pick two to interview who would you pick and why?

Recently, I read “The Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki and it got me thinking about the countless number of times I’ve held student group decision making discussions that I thought were great, but in reality, and based on the research in this book, were pointless groupthink.

Deliberation in a groupthink setting has the disturbing effect not of opening people’s minds but of closing them. When the pressure to conform is at work, a person changes his opinion not because he actually believes something different but because it’s easier to change his opinion than to challenge the group.”

Moving forward, I’m going to set up all my student group decision making discussions less like a traditional meeting structure and more like the game show, Who Wants to be a Millionaire. In the show, when the contestants ask the crowd for support on guessing the correct answer, the crowd guesses the correct answer 91% of the time. Wow! If all decision making came with a 91% accuracy, we’d be golden.

So what makes it work? Here are the 5 keys to effective group decision making:

1) Diversity

Colleges campuses are naturally diverse because people come from all over to live, study, and play together for a set period of time. Immersed diversity is one of the great by-products of the colleges experience. A recent study, however, showed that students tended to gravitate away from diversity and more toward homogenous friend groups on campus. So, in determining who you want to have a decision making discussion with, reach beyond your friend group or student group. You need diversity or else you won’t have any…well diversity in thinking.

The smartest groups are made up of people with diverse perspectives. Cognitive diversity is essential to good decision making.”

2) Independence

Groupthink is way more powerful than we want to believe. You’re setting yourself up for failure if think you’ll get independent decision making when you put a group together and have a discussion. There are so many factors at play. Research in James’ book shows that the first person to talk can set the direction for the whole group. The person who talks the most, or the loudest, can also have a big influence. Even though your best idea may be inside Silent Sally in the corner, you better believe it’ll be Boisterous Bob who will be the first, loudest, and longest one to talk, thus Silent Sally will conform to groupthink.

People are far more likely to come up with a good decision if the people in the group are independent of each other. The more influence a group’s members exert on each other, and the more personal contact they have with each other, the less likely it is that the group’s decisions will be wise ones.”

3) Simultaneous Decision Making

Related to independence, the old idea of going around the room to get everyone’s opinion is a death trap for groupthink. Creating a sequential discussion sounds nice and inclusive so people like Silent Sally get a turn, but unless Silent Sally is the first person to talk, someone else will set the tone of the discussion and decision.

The problem starts when people’s decisions are not made all at once but rather in sequence. If you want to improve an organization’s or an economy’s decision making, one of the best things you can do is make sure, as much as possible, that decisions are made simultaneously (or close to it) rather than one after the other.”

4) Limited Options

Ever had someone ask you to tell a joke and instantly your mind freezes? Sometimes, opening up a discussion too broad is dangerous. As backwards as it sounds, decision making needs boundaries in which to play in. The more defined the boundaries, the easier it is for our brains to come up with solutions. Do the hard work of defining the bounderies for the group ahead of time by yourself.

Groups are better at deciding between possible solutions to a problem than they are at coming up with them. Invention may still be an individual.”

5) Delayed Discussions

It should be clear by now that discussions can be dangerous. They can lead to groupthink. They can lead to Silent Sally not sharing what she really thinks or feels. They can lead to poor decision making. Discussions are good however, and do serve a purpose, but have them after you have each person independently record their own thoughts on the matter.

As a general rule, discussions tend to move both the group as a whole and the individuals within it toward more extreme positions than the ones they entered the discussion with. Evidence suggests that the order in which people speak has a profound effect on the course of a discussion. Earlier comments are more influential, and they tend to provide a framework within which the discussion occurs.”

So now you have the 5 keys to effective group decision making. Test it out with your group and let me know how it works. Here’s to helping every student leader make decisions with a 91% accuracy.

As a student leader in college, my club spent a full year fundraising to host a year end celebration. We hosted bake sales, raffles, and even a “kissing” booth so we could generate enough funds. The amount of time it took to raise so few funds was ridiculous and had nothing to do with the purpose of our group. We spent so much time fundraising, and so little time doing. When I look back at my college years, my strongest emotional connections are to the times I spent engaging outside the classroom in various student groups.

As an Alumni, I get solicited to donate to my Alma Mater all the time via mail, email, and the occasional singing telegram. I’ve never donated. Not because I don’t have the funds to donate, but because I feel like I’m just writing a check that gets lost in the black hole of operations. It’s emotionless donating. I could check the “other” box and restrict the funds to a specific campus project, but it still feels emotionless to just check a box. I’d be much more excited to donate money directly to “my” college club to host their year end celebration. I want to help them spend less time fundraising and more time doing.

So we built www.AlumniChoose.org to solve these problems.

AlumniChoose is an online fundraising tool for current campus groups that leverages the power of social media and micro-funding. It works in four steps:

Step 1: Campus Groups post projects they need funding for.
Step 2: Family, friends, & Alumni financially support interesting projects.
Step 3: Student Groups receive funds and start their projects.
Step 4: Donors receive project progress updates.

The idea of micro-funding should sound familiar because it’s been proven successful many times in other industries, but it hasn’t caught hold in Higher Education yet.

The mission of AlumniChoose is to help student leaders realize their full potential by spending less time fundraising and more time doing. Two by-products of our mission include:

1. Higher retention rates through increased engagement
2. Increased donor pool & donations using fewer institutional resources

Through partnerships with Student Affairs offices, we make #1 happen. We make the process of posting projects, getting the word out, raising funds, receiving funds, and updating project donors insanely easy. Student leaders get to spend less time fundraising and more time doing.

Through partnerships with Alumni/Development offices, we make #2 happen. We know that small restricted donations are a pain for Development Offices. We also know that we LOVE small restricted donations. When one person donates $1 to a student club project that excites them, because that’s all they can afford, we smile .

Through backend processes, we run all the leg work for the Development Office on all the small restricted funds, so they can continue to focus on the large unrestricted donors who “keep the lights on.”

Like what you hear? Then let’s get to it. Whether a Student Leader, Student Affairs professional, Alumni, or Development Office, make your way to www.alumnichoose.org and either set up your own campus project or fund a campus project that sounds exciting to you. Together let’s positively impact even more student’s lives!

Curious what was hot on our blog last year? Below are the top 5 posts for the year 2011. Enjoy!

1. Blender Events Brainstorming List
2. Personalizing The Institution From Within
3. CoolTool: Booshaka – Discover Your Facebook Page SuperFans
4. Anything is Fun as Long as You have Two Things
5. The Habit of Circling Up

The #SAchat conversation from yesterday was on credentials in Student Affairs. It was sparked, in part, by an initiative by ACPA to create a Student Affairs Credential Program.

Within the first couple questions it was clear that the relationships between credentials, competencies, qualifications, achievements, experiences, and degrees were confusing.

Q1: How are we defining credentials? The evidence of my skills they required was a Bachelor's degree, Master's degree preferred. #sachat

January 19, 2012 1:10 pm via TweetChatReplyRetweetFavorite

@lmendersby

Lisa Endersby

In the crowd, fortunately was Gavin Henning, who’s a member of the ACPA Credential Implementation Team. Here’s his attempt at explaining the relationship:

Q2. I think about a credential as a validation of skills, knowledge, and maybe experience depending on the type of credential. #sachat

January 19, 2012 1:16 pm via TwitterfallReplyRetweetFavorite

@gavinhenning

Gavin Henning

Q3. I am thinking of a competency as the basis of a credential program. #sachat

January 19, 2012 1:28 pm via TwitterfallReplyRetweetFavorite

@gavinhenning

Gavin Henning

Q3. Credential is based on common set of competencies in which we must acquire through various means. #sachat

January 19, 2012 1:29 pm via TwitterfallReplyRetweetFavorite

@gavinhenning

Gavin Henning

Q3. The credential would be based on competence in a defined set of skills and knowledge. #sachat

January 19, 2012 1:31 pm via TwitterfallReplyRetweetFavorite

@gavinhenning

Gavin Henning

Got it? Goo…no me neither. I suspect ACPA will spend some time next on stepping back to have clear, understandable definitions of each term. Putting the actual meaning of each word aside for a moment and thinking about the goal of ACPA’s credential program…

“[To] demonstrate they have the skills and knowledge required to perform their responsibilities […] by providing an opportunity for a professional’s skill and knowledge to be validated and to bolster our value of continuous professional development.”

and I appreciate their “why” behind the program…

“We value the myriad ways individuals can enter our international profession. This diversity of experience adds a richness of professional practice that contributes to the field and enhances our students’ time at our institutions.”

It’s true, the diversity of roads into Student Affairs are almost as long as the number of different roles a university will clump under Student Affairs. I’ve had great conversations with career SA folk who were student leaders, then undergrads, then grad assistants, and now working on their Phds. I’ve also met people who were asked to move from managing the game room to heading Student Activities, “because no one else wanted to.” I wish I could say that it was consistent that the “career SAers” always had better programs than the “stumblers,” but that hasn’t been my case. Though it tends to be that way. In a blog post from yesterday on the same topic, Amma Marfo nicely said…

“You can be competent without credentials, and unfortunately incompetent with them.”

In a way, I’m a “career SAer” but without the credentials, if credentials are defined as…

Q2: to me...credentials = degrees, certifications, etc...experience is different #sachat

January 19, 2012 1:16 pm via TweetChatReplyRetweetFavorite

@BrianLind7

Brian Lind

I spent 25 hours a day on campus as a student leader and for the past seven years I’ve worked with over 250 SA departments to help create, increase, and measure student engagement through Student Affairs. I’ve read every book, research paper, blog post, and motivational quote that is probably given during a graduate program. I’ve attended countless conferences, ed sessions, tweetups, and boring lectures on Student Affairs. But when it comes to something I can hang on my wall…nope, got nothing for you.

So am I hirable in Student Affairs based on our current system? What is more important, a test that results in a paper to say I’m competent, or the results of the work I’ve done over the past 11 years and am doing right now? I get the desire to systemize through credentials once you realize the number of applicants that need to be screened, interviewed, and hired every year. But is there a better way? A sort of “Klout” like member-to-member system that awards you “credentials” not because you stop what you are doing to take a test, but rather awards you, in the moment, from your peers, while you are doing the work and showing the results. In Quora, I score points from peers based on the value I bring to the table, regardless of who I am, where I come from, or what my credentials are. What if we started hiring, and promoting, based on “engagement points” verses “credential points?”

But back to me for a moment . I love the marco work I get to do now, but I miss watching the students grow over the year. I’d love to someday work at one school and be there, day-to-day, with the students. Much like an adjunct professor, but I worry that creating more credentials (as defined above) that I need to have to even be considered will push people like me out because I’m not going to stop “doing” to prove I can “do.”

A football team practices set plays over and over again in preparation for the upcoming game. An army works out like crazy in preparation for the battle. Avon Breast Cancer Walk volunteers prep months ahead of time in preparation for their once-a-year walk.

Whether a game, a battle, or a walk, they each provide the same level of motivation and focus for a team by having a tangible team rally point. A rally point is a singular event in which the entire team comes together for a set period of time and produces some outcome.

Some student groups already have a defined rally point such as THON. But many others I’ve encountered over the years don’t and it shows in the team moral. Without a tangible rally point, it’s hard for the leaders to express to the rest of the team ‘why’ what they are doing matters. Creating an emotional bond within the team is a lot harder in words than it is through a physical event in which all hands are on deck.

Follow these three rules and set up a rally point for your team:

1. Repeating event (monthly, quarterly, yearly)
2. Defined start and stop times to the event
3. Involves as many team members as possible