Advising Work Group Recommendations
Step One in Developing a Comprehensive Plan for Academic Advising at
UMBC
Submitted January 28, 2008
INTRODUCTION
UMBC faces many challenges as it does the work that is necessary to move closer to the goal
of providing a distinctive undergraduate education to students while continuing to build its
reputation as a research institution. As members of the Advising Work Group we are
providing the campus with a strategic plan for implementing a fully functioning advising
process based on recommendations from the Honors Task force, the goals of 2016, and
what students have indicated they feel they need to fully benefit from what UMBC has to
offer. We were charged with this effort by the Retention Committee, and have worked over
the past two years to research the campus’ best practices, gather and implement input
received from a NACADA consultant, reviewed the work being done by our peers and
aspirational peers, surveyed departments, conducted focus groups of students, and talked
with our own professional advisors. What is clear is that to ensure every student has the
kind of “honors experience,” to which the University has committed itself, advising plays a
key role.
Advisors are the link connecting students to the many programmatic efforts UMBC offers.
We know these efforts have a positive impact on student success as well as our retention and
graduation rates, however, we also know that a significant number of our students are not
receiving the kind of face-to-face time with an advisor that we know is needed. Such contact
is necessary to ensure that an academic plan characterized by support and follow through is
created, even if the follow through is to help them find a new direction. Therefore, in this
proposal when we speak of advising, we do so in the broadest sense of the word; far beyond
the boundaries and limitations of advising for course selection. Whether to a staff or faculty
advisor, students want and need to be connected to someone who is knowledgeable about
their academic discipline. In our current model, this happens for many students, but there
are many others who do not have this kind of opportunity. Since our current model falls
short in addressing this issue for all of our students, we believe the recommendations of the
Advising Work Group can provide direction as the campus begins to address this lack of
consistency.
BACKGROUND/CONTEXT
At its inception, UMBC was a small institution with the majority of its students commuting
to campus where there was less of a need for a formal advising system. As the student
population has grown and expectations have increased and changed, it is no longer
acceptable to have students disconnected from the University. Advising touches every
student, and with our growth, comes the challenge of providing support for every student
throughout their academic career. In the late 90s UMBC had several programs that were
extremely large and complex. The Advisement Center was overwhelmed, so in working with
other campus leaders Dr. Arthur Johnson, Provost, expanded the model implemented in the
College of Engineering and hired professional advisors for the departments with significant
numbers of majors. As a result, the College of Engineering, which at that time included
Computer Science and Mechanical and Chemical Engineering increased its number of
professional advisors. The Department of Visual Arts also had a professional advisor who
worked with all new students as well. The Departments of Information Systems, Biology,
and Psychology hired individuals to serve as the primary contact for their new students.
This move alleviated some of the pressure on the understaffed Advisement Center. Along
the way, more departments were asked to add new students who had declared a major in
their department to their advising load. Many of the departments were willing to assume this
load, but what we have discovered is that some of those departments, like Economics, now
have significant advising loads according to current faculty and staffing levels. We are at a
point in our history where, in terms of advising, we now have to do all we can to manage our
success in the most effective manner possible.
The decision to increase the number of professional advisors moved the campus from a
centralized model to one that is decentralized. It is now clear that the model developed fails
to provide consistency by assuring equal access to advising for all students, furthermore,
many of our professional advisors now how very unrealistic advising loads, such as in the
Natural Sciences area. Because we have some faculty who are comfortable discussing
general requirements, and others who are not, the Work Group spent a great deal of time
discussing roles and expectations for all groups of individuals who participate actively in the
advising process, whether it be advising for new or continuing students. As Eric White in
his consulting report (Appendix I) noted, expectations of those responsible for advising were
not clarified, nor did we have a strategic plan for further implementation of this model that
grew out of need and now, with its successes, has provided the campus with the opportunity
to evaluate the type of advising model we feel will be of the greatest assistance to our
students as we capitalize on the unique skills of our advisors and faculty.
COMMITTEE CHARGE
The Advising Work Group was charged with recommending a plan that would create greater
consistency in advising across disciplines, colleges, and departments. To begin this process,
as noted by Eric White our NACADA consultant, we focused on developing a mission
statement for advising and goal statements related to the variety of positions that currently
have some responsibility for advising. This was accomplished and is attached in Appendix
II.
Central to the Advising Mission Statement, we seek, “…to inspire students to become
partners in on-going relationships, through graduation and beyond, by delivering holistic,
accessible advising services performed by knowledgeable, competent advocates.” In
order to meet this expectation, we must do all we can to connect students with those
individuals who can provide them with the best possible guidance in a timely manner.
The Work Group re-evaluated UMBC’s best practices and the trends at other institutions,
and, based on what we learned, it became clear that we need to make sure all of our new
students are connected to someone as quickly as possible. As we enhance our first year
opportunities, we will begin to provide a stronger framework for this to occur, but it is
clear students want to know with whom they will be working in planning their
curriculum. We believe that if every student entering UMBC could feel connected to an
2
advisor, this would go a long way in facilitating the kind of academic connections we
want students to make. At this time when the University is working very hard to increase
enrollments through retention, it is the opinion of the Work Group that utilizing
professional advisors as the initial advising contact for all new students would enable us
to take a major step in connecting students to someone whose role is dedicated to their
success. The additional benefit is that it would allow faculty to serve students in the role
to which they feel most suited, that of a mentor who focuses on how to assist students in
their particular discipline and related career goals.
RATIONALE
Taking into consideration the utility and quality which professional advisors have already
demonstrated within the context of UMBC’s academic culture, the Advising Work Group
recommends that additional professional advisors be hired. Moreover, we suggest that the
allocation of new professional advisors be calibrated according to both current (and
projected) “advisor/student” ratios associated with departments and colleges. Right now
our advising system exhibits great disparities between departments and colleges based on
number of students requiring advising (primary majors, secondary majors & minors) and
the number of advisors (faculty, professional, and other) available to provide it. While
some departments, with relatively stable student populations, are able to provide adequate
advising to their students, other departments are experiencing significant challenges as
their student populations increase. Indeed, departments like Biology and Economics
have experienced incredible growth during the last five years, yet the number of
departmental staff (full-time faculty, adjunct) has not increased enough to cover the
expanded advising demand which accompanies such program growth. These
departments in particular are in need of immediate assistance and supplementation with
respect to meeting advising demand.
Furthermore, as our projected enrollment is expected to increase (crossing a record
10,000 undergraduates Fall 2007) we must be realistic about the burgeoning advising
demands which will accompany such systemic goals and objectives. New programs like
Media and Communication Studies (MCS) are already exceeding growth projections and
will need to address advising demand issues within their emergent departmental structure.
Along with supporting enrollment increases, the campus is also charging the advising
community and our “advising system” with major responsibilities (and expectations)
regarding retention. Future expanded roles related to intrusive advising, more explicit
tracking and monitoring of students not in good academic standing, and the “triaging” of
more complex student problems (both academic and non-academic) can be expected for
those with academic advising responsibilities. Such demands and expectations will place
additional pressures upon departments and colleges, perhaps in areas that many faculty
members are not trained or prepared for at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Therefore, based on these assessments of UMBC’s past, present and projected future,
regarding academic advising, it is the Advising Work Group’s contention that UMBC
3
would strategically benefit from hiring additional professional advisors. These full-time
professional advisors would be assigned to departments and colleges according to a
rational, agreed upon formula for devising appropriate “student to advisor” ratios
throughout the University. It would also be recommended that some of the new
professional advisors be trained in a “cluster” capacity in order to serve multiple
departments. A working model might include an expectation that new professional
advisors serve in clusters such as arts and humanities, social sciences, natural and
mathematical sciences, and engineering and information technology. In addition, it
would be expected that these professional advisors be trained by the Office for Academic
and Pre-Professional Advising as well as by respective departments. Direct reporting
responsibilities would be in the respective colleges, yet it would be expected that these
advising professionals be accountable to and active within the greater UMBC advising
community with respect to attending key meetings and executing key reports.
Taking into consideration the pressing advising needs of the campus (2008) – one or two
cluster advisors should be prioritized for immediate hire in the College of Natural and
Mathematical Sciences & the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.
Departments such as Biology and Economics have experienced dramatic student growth
over the last three years and are experiencing significant challenges providing academic
advising to current and projected student populations. Moreover, in light of anticipated
program growth in several other departments – advising demands will continue to grow
therefore requiring realistic attention from the University regarding the allocation of
resources to accommodate predictable advising gaps the campus will be sure to face in
the near future.
BUDGET
Search & Recruitment Costs (per position): Local and regional recruiting campaigns
should yield a suitable pool of qualified candidates from the Maryland, Virginia,
Washington DC area. Strategic use of professional association websites, regional
newspapers, and other advertising media should cost approximately $1000.00.
Moreover, costs associated with interviews (approximating 3 finalists) could range from
approximately $500.00 to $1000.00.
Classification & Salary: UMBC Professional Advisors should be hired as exempt
employees with all the rights and privileges associated with that HR classification.
Experienced academic advisors will expect starting salaries in the $40,000 to $60,000
range.
Office Space, Office Equipment & Computer Costs: Allocation of appropriate office
space for new advisors will need to be addressed by each of the Colleges. The
location of cluster advisors should be done strategically – taking into consideration the
need for administrative and departmental support. Costs associated with outfitting a new
office with computer and related supplies – could range from $2000.00 to $4000.00
depending on the status of an individual department’s facilities. If the University Center
4
advising center restoration plan is enacted – it could be anticipated that this space be
planned to accommodate cluster advisors.
Training & Professional Association Memberships: Anticipated costs associated with
the provision of initial training and the maintenance of at least one professional advising
association (with attendance at a local or national conference) should range from
$2000.00 to $3000.00.
CAREER LADDER FOR PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC ADVISORS
Academic Advisor Classifications: The creation of a career ladder within UMBC’s
employee classification system would help to promote the retention and progression of
academic advisors. Indeed the provision of consistent titles and responsibilities allocated
to professional academic advisors would improve morale and provide incentives to those
engaged in the practice of academic advising on the UMBC campus. The following are
recommendations:

Review all identified positions for their titles, required and recommended
academic credentials and experience, descriptions, and pay levels.

Based on such identification and review, standardize titles, descriptions, and pay
levels for professional academic advisors across the University, creating at least
three distinct categories of academic advising positions that can be used as a
career ladder (see below).

Establish a timeline for the entire process, including conducting reviews, making
recommendations, and implementing appropriate adjustments to all current and
future professional academic advising positions.

The following HR framework in place at the University of Texas-Austin, offers a
career ladder “model” for appropriately differentiated and compensated positions
based on academic credentials and experience.
Academic Advisor I
09/01/2007 $ 30,528 - 43,356
Academic Advisor II
09/01/2007 $ 36,264 - 52,104
Academic Advisor III
09/01/2007 $ 43,164 - 60,108
Specific details associated with each of the above titles and designations are available at:
http://utdirect.utexas.edu/pnjd/index.WBX
Specific details about a model for facilitating a promotion process for academic advisors
is in place by institutions like Auburn University (see below):
5
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/societies/advisors_counselors_caucus/careerladder.html
Models, like the one at Auburn, acknowledge academic advisors for the acquisition of
further educational credentials; years of experience in academic advising; years of service
to the University; advising-related presentations (on and off campus); participation and
leadership within professional associations; publications; and leadership on campus
committee’s which relate to academic advising.
NEXT STEPS
Even as the campus is involved with expanding the model of professional advisors in the
Colleges, it is important to understand that there are other key issues that will need to be
addressed along the way. Some of the most important issues are:
1.
Ensuring that we have the most effective and efficient degree audit system and
pre-requisite checking that SA can provide. This will take much of the data tracking
functions out of the hands of those who advise. Currently this type of work takes up a
great deal of “advising” time.
2.
Continue to evaluate the way in which advising occurs at Orientation. Is the oneday model the best one for our students? Do we really have the time needed to introduce
them to what they need to know to begin a successful career at UMBC? If what works
best for our scholars is a two-day program, would it not be in our best interest to consider
this model for all of our students? What other models should we consider if we continue
to be dissatisfied with our current program?
3.
Support the Office of Academic and Pre-Professional Advising as the office
responsible for advising leadership, advocacy, and assessment.
4.
Consider, per Eric White’s report, whether or not the future of advising at UMBC
is best served as a component of Enrollment Management. He states…”Most institutions
like UMBC place the academic advising oversight on the academic side of the house.
This allows an easier identification for the faculty with the endeavor and allows
professional advisors with such reporting lines typically easier acceptance by the
faculty.”
5.
Consider how we can effectively address the needs of transfer students.
Providing them with direct access to an advisor happens within each department in a
different manner and often on different time tables. We need to standardize this process,
and we also need to evaluate their “first year” needs as they transition to UMBC.
6.
Consider how we will reward faculty for their role in advising. If we move
faculty out of the role of academic advisor for the first year or two of a student’s
academic career, is the University in a position to take a strong stand on the role and
expectations of faculty as advisors for upper level students? This model will only be
6
effective if professional advisors can move students out of their advising load into that of
faculty members who understand that advising is a University priority that is built into
the reward structure. Are we willing to place a high value on this work, and if so what
will that look like?
7.
There is also the need to work with OIR to ensure the development of
assessment tools that will assist us in evaluating our efforts.
8.
Consider developing systematic advising protocol for students with grade point
averages below 2.0. Such a systematic advising protocol would include comprehensive
reporting of “below 2.0 populations” to Department Chairs and Advising Coordinators on
a semester basis; the introduction of intrusive advising contracts; and the monitoring of
these students populations from both a departmental and University-wide perspective.
Such an initiative would need to include a clear mandate on the delegation of
responsibilities for training advisors, managing the process and executing such a
program.
9.
Consider what type of peer mentoring/advisor model would be most effective for
our students. Many institutions have effective programs in which upper-level students
play a major role in conveying important academic information to their peers.
Work Group members believe the model proposed is essential if we are to move closer to
creating an academic advising structure worthy of “an honors university.” This is a first
step toward increasing efficiency in our processes, and in ensuring that the roles staff and
faculty play in advising builds on the strengths of each. Clearly there is more work to be
done; however, the proposed strategies outlined make it possible for us to create an
approach to advising that will address the diverse needs of our student body. By doing
this we will enhance the quality of our students’ experiences with advising and
improvements in our retention and graduation rates will follow.
Current Advising Work Group Members include:
Kim Leisey, Residential Life
Steve Gilmore, Student Representative
Mikhel Kushner, Women’s Center
Cynthia Hody, Faculty, Political Science
Diane Crump-Fogle, Career Services
Jessica Hammond, Athletics
Cathy Bielawski, COEIT
Yvette Mozie-Ross, Enrollment Management
Ken Baron-Co-Chair, Advising
Jill Randles-Co-Chair, Undergraduate Education
Additional contributions made by:
Susan Dwyer, Faculty, Philosophy
Ann Scholl-Fiedler, Career Services
Dominic Wang, Learning Resources Center
7
Jill Barr, Graduate School
Marcella Korn, Honors College
8