The State of College Advising

Poll: Advising needs work The College of Arts and Sciences freshman advising system satisfies students' core needs -- including information on course selection and requirements -- but does not adequately encourage sustained relationships outside of class, according to a recent survey conducted by The Daily Pennsylvanian. The survey, conducted from October 20 to October 27 -- with a margin of error of 6 percent -- revealed that around three-quarters of those questioned could not name all four of their freshman advisors -- the peer, faculty, College Office and residential advisors -- by name, and over a third had not even met each of them. But according to the 271 College students surveyed, the desire exists to develop ongoing relationships with advisors. Of those who had not met all of their advisors, 58 percent wished that they had. For years, students have complained that Penn's advising system is confusing and insufficient and that it starts freshmen off on the wrong foot. Now, College Dean Richard Beeman says he wants to improve the system and -- after seeking evaluation over the summer from an external committee comprised of administrators from four universities -- he and a task force are hoping to institute major changes for the incoming Class of 2004. In the external report this summer, administrators from Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Washington universities were invited to campus to evaluate Penn's advising system. Their findings revealed that Penn's numerous academic advising components have not been adequately integrated into a system, leaving students often confused about which of their four advisors they should see at what time. Beeman said he wants an advising system focused more on long-term, career advising and less on bureaucratic complaints, like pass/fail and drop/add confusion. However, he added that students at Penn are "excessively passive about setting their educational goals." "Students don't expect enough of the system or themselves," Beeman said. According to advisors in the College Office, standard information about courses and the General Requirement are available in College Office literature and do not even require an advisor to explain. Beeman and College Office advisors say the crucial element missing from the system is the notion of a relationship between advisor and advisee. "A relationship needs a few ingredients -- continuity and investment in time and energy," Assistant Dean for Advising Srilata Gangulee said. "The relationship is incumbent on both the advisor and the advisee." "Right now [the lack of long-term relationships] is a fault of the system," Director of Academic Advising Diane Frey said. In one of the most surprising results of the survey, 60 percent of students felt their faculty advisors were sufficiently trained to meet their needs freshman year. Beeman said this finding was unexpected, calling the high approval rating for faculty advisors "generous." "We don't do enough to train our faculty advisors," he said. Indeed, the faculty advising component has been criticized in years past for including faculty who have little, if any, interest in serving as advisors. Beeman said that the current context of faculty advising, in which students are assigned to professors based only on projected major and required to meet prior to advanced registration, does not cultivate relationships. In keeping with the findings, students expressed mixed experiences with advisors during freshman year. College senior Muna Tuna had trouble tracking down her faculty advisor, let alone forming a relationship. "I would wait for hours to get a signature for advance registration," she noted, adding that her professor was usually conducting research. One student had to adopt another faculty advisor when her assigned professor would not help her. "My first faculty advisor slammed the door in my face," a College sophomore said. "[He] told us to observe his office hours." Currently, Beeman added, the College focuses harder on training peer advisors than faculty advisors. The survey showed that 77 percent of students questioned said their peer advisors were sufficiently trained to meet their needs. While Beeman listed the peer advising system as one of the main attributes of the current advising system, only 12 percent continued to communicate with their peer advisors after freshman year. And some students found faults with peer advising, saying that their undergraduate advisors were out of touch and unwilling to hand out negative advice. One College sophomore said that her peer advisor told her not to sign up for a meal plan and warned her that she would be "the only one in morning classes" if she registered for an early-hour course. Beeman said he could understand that peer advisor relationships dwindle, noting that major advisors eventually take over that role for upperclassmen. According to the survey, the College Office in Logan Hall seems to be the strongest link in the current advising system. Eighty percent of those surveyed felt they could turn to an advisor in the College Office for support or academic advice, with freshmen giving the highest approval rating at 89 percent. College freshman Michael Richter, who has seen Assistant Dean for Advising Alice Kelley four times this semester, said he appreciated her personal touch when she directed him to the on-campus Rose's Florist in his quest to find a house plant. Other students said there was not enough career advising freshman year in the College Office. "There should be a better synergy between class advising and career advising," College senior Geoffrey Dacosta said, pointing to what he saw as the relatively weak bond between Career Services and the College. Additionally, incorporating advising with the college house system remains inconsequential to most, as only 8 percent surveyed said that linking advising to the residences was very important. The survey polled students living both on- and off-campus. Director of College Houses and Academic Services David Brownlee, a member of the advising task force, was not surprised that students do not feel residential academic advising is important. "We haven't made enough use of [the college house system's] potential yet, so it doesn't surprise me that students are not focusing on it now," Brownlee said. "Of course, students who live off campus cannot be expected to identify the college houses as a source of advising, either," Brownlee added. When the college house system was launched in 1998, students hoped that the Wheel program -- moving math, writing, information technology and library advising into the residences -- would evolve into a residential advising system. Beeman, however, conceded that "we have a very long way to go" in terms of integrating college house personnel and academic advising. "I don't think we have a college house system," Beeman commented. "We have a system of freshmen dormitories." He pointed to the tendency for freshmen to live in either the Quadrangle or Hill House and the need for advising services in those residences. According to Beeman, the attributes of advising at present include the large amount of faculty participation and College advisor dedication. Assistant deans for advising -- also known as College advisors -- expressed enthusiasm for the College's attempt to re-evaluate and change. "If the students are not happy with the system, we have to change the system," Assistant Dean for Advising Hocine Fetni said. Advisors noted that the College publicizes too many advisors to freshmen right now. "Having options is good," Gangulee said. "Having too many options can be very frustrating." And some said that advising at universities will always be flawed. "I don't think there's a perfect system," said former Student Committee on Undergraduate Education Chairperson Rachael Goldfarb, a 1999 College graduate, who researched advising at other institutions in conjunction with Beeman's advising task force.