UA still pushing for advising overhaul

But the UA proposals have gotten a lukewarm reaction from officials. The Undergraduate Assembly committee responsible for a recent report critiquing the Penn's advising system is continuing its attempts for University-wide improvement. Since the report was released last month, committee members have urged advising officials from all four schools to "keep the report in their minds." College sophomores Dave Futer and Mark Sagat -- co-chairpersons of the committee -- said they accomplished their goal of creating University-wide conversation about revamping the advising system. But they added that it remains to be seen how and if the individual schools will implement the UA's suggestions. "There is no quick overnight fix," Futer said. "Advising systems are being constantly revised. We have to catch [the schools] at the right time, at the right step of the process." UA members said they have tried to stress the improvement of the peer advising systems -- which received the lowest student scores in the report -- with administrators from all schools because peer advising posed a campus-wide problem. And they offered suggestions of how peer advisors could better assist freshmen during the summer before they enter the University. "We wanted to focus on short term solutions, such as networking among advisors and clarifying the role of advisors," Futer said. "From there we can expand to bigger issues." Sagat added that convincing administrators to reevaluate the advising system is his top priority -- regardless of whether the officials then decide to adopt UA suggestions on how to improve it. UA members predicted that better defining the roles of advisors and restructuring the peer advising system would occur in the near future. They added that the School of Engineering and Applied Science has the greatest potential for positive change. "It is our understanding that Engineering is going through a major reorganizing of student services," Sagat said. "That might be a good place to start." And Katherine Becht, assistant to Associate Engineering Dean David Pope, agreed that Engineering advisors would be in a good position to improve their programs, noting that the school is looking to better publicize -- and is in the discussion stages of revamping -- the current peer advising systems. Becht added that her meeting with UA members was constructive, but that the Engineering advising department "was simply not large enough to implement some of their suggestions." College of Arts and Sciences Peer Advising Manager Brendan McGeever, a junior, also said he was pleased with a follow-up meeting he held with UA members. But he emphasized that some of the suggestions outlined in their report "were logistically not possible." "We had to get past the numbers because that's not what interested us," he said. "We are thinking of training resident advisors in a similar way to how peer advisors are trained, but we are just bouncing the idea around." Some dormitories are already looking into the report's suggestion to have resident advisors serve as peer advisors. In the Quadrangle, Community House residents distributed information sheets -- containing their resident advisor and manager's majors and e-mail addresses -- within the house yesterday. "We want kids to approach us with problems," Community House Resident Advisor and College junior Jonathan Daves said. "A lot of times faculty members don't have experience, and they forget how to be students." And Resident Advisor Taylor Berkowitz, a College senior, said "resident advisors will provide a good resource for students." But Daves added that he was "not sure how effective this approach will be."