What happens when colleges and universities invite students to explore of the idea of vocation? I answered that question in The Purposeful Graduate (2015), describing the effects of a $250M Lilly Endowment initiative undertaken at 88 campuses across the nation. But it has been six years, two tumultuous Presidential elections, and one pandemic since that book was released. Much has changed. Might the hearing and telling of vocation narratives now draw a smaller audience than it once did? Might the voices shouting “get a job” have drowned out students’ ability to hear quieter voices or reflect on their interests and values? As I reflect on what I’ve seen and heard since 2015, I want to invite individuals and campuses alike to consider the road less traveled.

To start, some background is in order. Between 2000-2008, the Lilly Endowment funded 88 colleges and universities with $2.5M grants in support of “programs for the theological exploration of vocation.” The Endowment selected campuses with vibrant to dormant church affiliations and from diverse traditions (e.g., Catholic, Pentecostal, Quaker). It moreover refused to define what the “theological exploration of vocation” meant, nor prescribe what “programs for” this effort should be, inviting campuses to devise creative programs that fit with their own institution’s mission. That last part was critical, and I have described how this creativity, along with the idea of vocation itself, generated sizable and lasting effects on students, alumni, faculty, and staff.

Word of this initiative traveled widely, and before it wrapped up, former participating campuses along with a few dozen non-participating campuses joined forces to create a Network for Vocation in Undergraduate Education (NetVUE). This network, now in its second decade as a Council of Independent Colleges program, has grown to 270 dues-paying college and university members, and hosts a biannual conference, regional gatherings, extensive online resources, and modest grants ($10,000-$50,000) to support vocational exploration on its members’ campuses.

I have visited 41 of the NetVUE campuses since 2015, often to lecture but occasionally to consult, and met scores of faculty and staff intrigued by the idea of, eager to begin, or actively engaging students in exploration of vocation. Why are so many interested? The answers are many, but among them are 1) the idea of vocation and its value as a meaning-making life narrative, 2) student and employee openness to vocational exploration, 3) the felt effects of declining support for American higher education, and 4) the appreciation for ideas and narratives that unite rather than divide. Reflection and conversation about vocation will not of itself raise institutional funds or unite the nation. But the proactive, meaningful life journey that vocational exploration offers does calm anxious students, reenergize weary faculty, refresh exhausted staff, and boost campus morale, making it feel like a step in the right direction.

Vocational exploration does not appeal to everyone, of course. I have had faculty tell me that they added exploration of vocation to their classes because it helped them engage a wider proportion of their students, even as they personally do not find the idea valuable. I have had development officers relay how vocational programming expanded their donor pool and increased contributions, grinning about the additional giving but uninterested in the actual impact of vocational exploration on their campuses. And I have heard student life staff report how meaningful vocation is to many students and to their own lives yet indicate there are plenty of students with “no interest at all in an examined life.” Vocational exploration is not a panacea for student engagement nor is it a retention strategy. About 1 out of 2 students will be open to the idea nationally, and a program that engages 1 out of 4 students ranks as highly successful.

Indeed, when I first heard about this Lilly Endowment effort, I doubted it would accomplish much beyond attracting dreamy students and converting them into hyper-idealistic and practically useless college graduates. My goodness, was I wrong! On recent visits to institutions that have put vocational discernment into their missions and embedded it into their public communications — where faculty and staff took to the idea of vocation, dug into its rich literature, and coalesced around an institutional mission that put vocational nurture of students at the core — I noticed a palpable and positive energy on the campuses and a renewed sense of institutional calling among administrators, faculty, and staff. These campuses have discovered that purpose is not only enriching for individuals, but transformative for their institutional culture as well. I knew vocational exploration could generate purposeful graduates, faculty, and staff; I am now convinced it can generate purposeful colleges too.