Administrators skeptical about US's advising report

Administrators offered both praise and criticism for the Undergraduate Assembly's report on the University's advising system, released last week. The UA surveyed undergraduate students about the quality of advising they have received and then rated the advising programs within each of the undergraduate schools, giving an average score of 3.17 on a scale of 1-5. Based on that data, the UA suggested several improvements to the current advising systems. The recommendations included combining the role of residential and peer advisors, making Nursing faculty advisors more accessible and establishing a faculty advising program in the Wharton School and a professional advising staff in the School of Engineering and Applied Science. Provost Stanley Chodorow said the report provided solid information about student views on advising and that many of the suggestions will be incorporated as part of the "21st Century Project." And Chodorow added that a committee chaired by Psychology Professor David Williams is already working to establish an electronic information system to help students with course choices and other tasks typically done by advisors. But officials working with advising programs across the University expressed doubts about the report's findings. Nursing Admissions Associate Director Susan Schwartz defended her school's advising department, specifically its peer advising program "Students Helping Students." The volunteer program includes both academic endeavors and social events such as a hoagie supper. "I think [the UA report] was a terrific undertaking to want to do," Schwartz said. "But it's really important to contact the right individuals. They didn't get the whole picture." She added that her office would look to strengthen the advising department by providing peer advisees with open office hours in the future. College Advising Director Diane Frey welcomed the UA's recommendations but pointed to the College's higher ranking in past surveys. Frey said the College is "always trying to get students to be better advisees and not fly by the seat of their pants" when needing assistance. She added that the College's small faculty limits its ability to successfully implement many of the UA's suggestions. But she maintained that the College has "many satisfied customers." College Peer Advising Manager and junior Brendan McGeever said he was skeptical about the accuracy of the report's findings. While McGeever said, "It's no myth that there is room for improvement," he questioned the committee's investigative method, as well as the feasibility of the report's recommendation to combine the roles of residential and peer advisors. Engineering Advising Manager and senior Raj Iyer was also doubtful about the report's statistical claims. "The report had some great ideas, but there weren't enough responses to make sweeping claims," he said. "It simply doesn't agree with what I've seen." Iyer pointed to the report's large standard deviation as evidence of its inaccuracy, but added that the Engineering peer advising program would work to improve its future organization. Officials at the Benjamin Franklin Scholars and PENNCAP programs, which scored higher than the school-based programs, welcomed the report's findings. BFS Associate Director Linda Wiedmann said her program's higher ratings were due to the relationship each advisee is able to maintain by having the same advisor for four years. And Director of Academic Support Programs Terri White said PENNCAP's small advisor-student ratio may contribute to the program's success. Wharton administrators could not be reached for comment, but one anonymous peer advisor and Wharton junior was definitive about his role in the advising hierarchy. "I do nothing? absolutely nothing," he said.