Voices of Experience
In the following Voice of Experience examples, seasoned advising personnel share their personal
accounts of the development or re-structuring of the Academic Advising Delivery Model on their
campuses.
Please note that, while only four of the models are highlighted in this section, the other three models are
also widely and successfully used; this selection simply represents member submissions.
Name:
Hope College
Location:
141 East 12th Street
Holland, Michigan 49423
Type:
Four-year liberal arts, private
Highest degree:
Baccalaureate only
Size:
3,000
Contact:
Maura Reynolds
Director of Academic Advising
MReynolds@hope.edu
616.395.7760
Organizational Model:
Hope College has a Faculty-Only advising system. Since
1998, first-year students have been advised by the professor of
their first year seminar. After that seminar, students may change
advisors at any time by asking another professor or by declaring
a major. Departmental chair persons coordinate assigning
faculty advisors to their declared majors.
Institution Description
"Hope College is a distinguished and distinctive four-year, liberal arts, undergraduate college, affiliated
with the Reformed Church in America. Its great religious heritage is expressed through a dynamic
Christian community of students and teachers vitally concerned with a relevant faith that changes lives
and transforms society. The curriculum offers a variety of courses in 83 majors leading to a Bachelor of
Arts, Bachelor of Music, Bachelor of Science, or Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. The college has
long been known for outstanding pre-professional training. Each year many graduates go on to further
study in the leading graduate and professional schools in this country and abroad; others directly enter
professions. During the 2004-05 school year, Hope had 3,112 students from 47 states and territories and
33 foreign countries" (http://www.hope.edu/about/).
Delivery Model
At Hope College, all full-time faculty in their second year and beyond serve as academic advisors. Since
1998, approximately 40 First Year Seminars (FYS) have been offered each fall; all new-to-college
students enroll and are advised by their FYS professor. Topics are chosen by faculty; no background in
the topic is assumed. Students select the topic—names and departments of faculty are not included.
Enrollment is limited to twenty students.
FYS professors are chosen by their departments—it was not intended that all faculty teach FYS. New-toFYS faculty attend two, two-day summer workshops; all FYS faculty attend a spring dinner and a precollege lunch/workshop. A faculty member has directed the program of academic advising since 1988;
until 2002, she also directed the FYS program.
Students receive two credits for FYS attendance; faculty receive four teaching credits, as a recognition of
their (non-credit-bearing) advising responsibilities. FYS students evaluate their FYS class and advisor
each fall; results are sent to their advisor, and the director of FYS receives a summary of all results. Online degree evaluations and advising handbooks are available to students and faculty advisors.
Departments complete exit interviews with their graduating majors; departmental advisors are evaluated
as part of this process.
Program Objectives
Goals of the first-year advising program:








To familiarize students with college resources;
To introduce students to the concept of the liberal arts;
To introduce students to the general education curriculum (not just the “what” but the “why”) and
the mission statement of the college;
To help students understand college policies and options;
To support students as they grow in understanding their gifts and abilities and the ways those
may be used in the world;
To help students develop accurate expectations of the time and effort required to be successful;
To hold students accountable for their choices; and
To coach students about how to associate with faculty—inside and outside the classroom.
Goals of advising for declared majors:




To explore options within the major—courses, independent studies, internships, off-campus
programs;
To encourage students to test their assumptions about their major;
To explore with students life-after-Hope College—job, graduate or professional school, volunteer
work; and
To encourage students to consider not just the courses, major or minor, but the skills and
experiences they need to prepare for a career.
Strengths





First-year students and FYS professors/advisors know each other well, having met twice a week
during the first semester.
Much paperwork and administrative trivia have been removed with on-line degree evaluations
and other on-line resources; advising can be learning-centered.
The director of advising knows every advisor; faculty e-mail and phone frequently with questions
and concerns. The director of advising visits living units for late-night study breaks before
registration.
Campus ethos supports teaching and advising.
Faculty have set the curriculum; they’re in the best position to explain it to students.




Faculty model for students how to respond when they don’t know the answer to a question
(ask!!—and isn’t that what we want students to do as well?).
Most faculty genuinely enjoy working with students.
Students and faculty are encouraged to use multiple sources of information—departments, career
services, specialized advisors, chaplains office, director of advising, family, friends, counseling
center, etc.
In their first year, new faculty are focused primarily on their teaching within their own department;
after that, through teaching FYS, they can be more connected with the campus community and
with issues that cross department boundaries.
Challenges






As with any human interaction, some faculty have more interest in and are “better” at advising
than others.
Some advisors focus on advising as course selection only.
Faculty (especially newer faculty) are concerned that they will be perceived by students as
personal counselors.
Some programs are highly structured; several are accredited. Some departments are concerned
that their first-year majors may not be appropriately advised about course selection.
Some students have difficulty re-thinking their academic plans and re-imagining their futures.
We have far more management majors than we do Latin majors; since faculty advise their own
majors, advising loads are not comparable across departments. Some department chairs do not
distribute majors across their faculty.
Web-based materials
http://www.hope.edu/admin/registrar/nav/advising.html
http://www.hope.edu/academic/gened/
http://discus.hope.edu/general/html/messages/156/160.html?1141417099 (Discussion Board is
accessible to on-campus accounts only)
Note: The Hope College Advising Program is a 1991 recipient of the NACADA Outstanding Advising
Program Certificate of Merit. (See http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Awards/OP_Recipients.htm)
Institution:
The University of Texas at Austin, McCombs
School of Business
Location:
Austin, TX
Institutional Type:
Four-Year Public
Highest Degree:
Ph.D.
Institutional Size:
More than 50,000 students at UT-Austin; McCombs School of
Business currently enrolls approximately 4400 undergraduates
Organizational Model:
Self-Contained Model
Contact Information:
Cole Holmes
Director of Advising
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6100
Austin, Texas 78712
phone 512.471.0690
cole.holmes@mccombs.utexas.edu
Institution Description
Considered the flagship research institution of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas at
Austin has an enrollment including 39,000 undergraduates and 11,000 graduate students.
The
University houses 16 colleges, offers more than 270 academic programs from which to choose, and
awards over 11,000 degrees annually. Because UT-Austin is a state-supported school, the majority of its
students are Texas residents (81%), while out-of-state and international students make up the rest of the
student population. Furthermore, almost 94% of the undergraduate population is made up of ‘traditional’
students (< 24 years of age). Students are admitted to specific colleges upon acceptance to the
University, and the academic advising structure is decentralized.
Program Development
In 1990, the McCombs School of Business was the first undergraduate program to institute an academic
advising and career placement fee. This fee allowed the college to expand its advising staff from 5.5 to
11.5 professional advisors. The following year the college implemented a front-end admission system
that eventually reduced enrollment from 8256 to 4400 undergraduate students. Downsizing enrollment
and substantially increasing the number of professional advisors greatly improved the advising program
bringing the advisor/student ratio from 1:1500 to 1:380.
For the next ten years the college employed the Total Intake Model (Habley, 1988) for the delivery of
advising services. During this time, incoming business freshmen and transfer students were assigned to
core advisors who were familiar with all degree programs, but had limited knowledge of the majors. Once
students declared a major, they were assigned to major advisors, who were knowledgeable about major
courses, internships, and other career-related issues. Despite the success of the Total Intake Model,
fluctuations in the number of students in each major made it difficult to maintain equity among student
caseloads. Furthermore, students who participated in a Freshman Interest Group (FIG) established
strong connections with the advisor assigned to their FIG. Consequently, these students seemed to
experience more difficulty transitioning from core advisor to major advisor than non-FIG students. This
realization prompted the McCombs School to re-examine its advising structure. After extensive
discussions with advisors, administrators, and student groups, the McCombs School determined that the
best way to nurture the advising relationship was to adopt a centralized organizational model, one that
would allow a student to stay with the same advisor throughout his/her academic career.
Since the instatement of the Self-Contained Model in 2003, the McCombs School of Business
Advising Program has flourished.
The current system enables students to establish consistent,
meaningful relationships with their advisors, and advisors are more knowledgeable and self-sufficient due
to extensive cross-training. Furthermore, caseload management has improved due to the decreased
student/advisor ratio, and the mere fact that students stay with the same advisor throughout their
undergraduate careers.
Goals and Objectives
The professional advisors in the McCombs School adopted their first mission statement in 1996. Since
that time, the mission statement has been reviewed yearly and slight adjustments have mirrored changes
in the focus and philosophy of the program. The mission of the academic advising program today reflects
the overarching goals of a professional staff dedicated to intrusive, intentional, and individualized service
to students.
The advising program in the McCombs School of Business takes a holistic approach to serving the
undergraduate student population. Committed to the ongoing personal development of each student, the
advising team in the McCombs School believes that the advising relationship begins the moment a
student arrives on campus and continues throughout his or her academic experience at UT-Austin.
Aspiring to dispel the myth that a student arriving on our campus will be “just another number,” the
advisors in the McCombs School work diligently to plant the seed for significant advising relationships to
develop.
Operating under the Self-Contained Model, all academic advising of students in the McCombs School,
from orientation through graduation, is provided from a central administrative unit. Additionally, and
perhaps more importantly, the McCombs School uses a “caseload” system, whereby each student is
assigned a professional academic advisor upon enrollment in the school and remains assigned to this
advisor throughout his or her undergraduate career. One obvious advantage of this model has become
clear: as students continue to see the same advisor throughout their time in the business school,
relationships develop between advisor and student, a key component in student success and retention
(Light, 2001).
The majority of McCombs first semester freshmen elect to participate in the Freshman Interest Group
program, which allows students in groups of 20 to 25 the opportunity to enroll as a cohort in two or three
common courses. Additionally, freshman student cohorts attend a weekly seminar, led by the students’
assigned academic advisor and a peer mentor. Participants enjoy having the opportunity to meet on a
weekly basis with their assigned academic advisors during their critical first semester at the university.
ALL students are encouraged to meet one-on-one with assigned advisors at least once per semester,
though many choose to visit the Undergraduate Programs Office much more often. In addition, each
academic advisor communicates weekly (or more frequently) with his or her assigned students via email,
announcing upcoming deadlines, registration and graduation procedures, and school and campus events.
Careful attention is paid to students who may benefit from additional intrusive advising efforts. Students
who experience difficulty with the rigor of the academic program are strongly encouraged to participate in
the Plan to Succeed Program, allowing advisors to direct them to resources that may enhance their
academic success. Students on academic probation are required to participate in the advising team’s
CARE (Comprehensive Advising, Retention, and Enrichment) program. These students meet at least
monthly with assigned academic advisors, who provide additional guidance and assistance for academic
success. Advisors lead students in exploring options for tutoring, counseling, career planning, and time
management, depending upon each student’s individual needs.
participation in these programs has been encouraging.
Student success as a result of
The excellence of an advising program depends largely on the talents and commitment of those who
work tirelessly and enthusiastically to assure the program’s success. The McCombs undergraduate
division employs a total of 16 professional advisors. Ten advisors supervise undergraduates in seven
majors, as well as undeclared students. Two advisors work exclusively with students enrolled in the
Business Honors Program and two advisors work specifically with undergraduates in the Professional
Program in Accounting. In addition, two professional advisors work with students pursuing one of several
opportunities for study abroad. The advisor to student ratio in the McCombs School of Business is
currently 1:288.
The professional advisors in the McCombs School are among the most experienced advisors on the UTAustin campus, averaging over nine years of experience in the profession. Six of the advisors hold
Master’s degrees; the Director of Advising has earned a doctorate. Six McCombs advisors, as well as our
Assistant Dean, have been awarded the James Vick Texas Excellence Award for Academic Advising, a
campus award for which advisors are nominated and selected by undergraduate students.
Additionally, each year The University of Texas at Austin submits one nominee for the National Academic
Advising Association (NACADA) Outstanding Advisor Award. In the past few years, three McCombs
advisors have been chosen as the official nominees from UT-Austin.
McCombs advisors do not rest on their laurels. A commitment to ongoing professional development
exists from the top of the organization down, and the advising team stands firm in its belief that quality
advising depends upon sustained, intentional development and training.
Program Evaluation Results
A student survey includes nine specific questions related to the performance of the advisor and the
services provided in the McCombs School. Data from the Fall 2000 through the Fall 2005 surveys
illustrate an increasingly overwhelming approval from student advisees. This enthusiastic response is
exemplified in examining results of a couple key survey questions. In response to the statement, “My
advisor is knowledgeable about required courses and degree plans,” 89% of students in Fall 2000 agreed
strongly, while 9% agreed somewhat. Four years later, Fall 2005 results indicated that 96% of
students surveyed agreed strongly with this statement, while 2% agreed somewhat. In response to
the statement, “Overall, my advisor is effective and I am satisfied with the assistance I have received,”
87% of students surveyed agreed strongly with the statement. In Fall 2005, 96% of the advisees
surveyed agreed strongly and 2% agreed somewhat. Student responses to qualitative, open-ended
questions about advisor performance were also significantly positive.
Academic advising efforts cannot be overlooked when examining the factors that influence student
success. For example, the retention rate for students in the McCombs School after one year is 95.5%,
the highest retention rate among colleges on the UT-Austin campus. Additionally, our percentage of fulltime students, a significant priority on our campus, is the second highest of the UT Austin colleges at
94.8%. In 2003, the McCombs School’s four-year graduation rate totaled 60.2%, compared to the
collective UT-Austin rate of 41.7%. Clearly, our students are making their mark. Unquestionably, the
efforts of a highly trained, committed advising team continue to play a significant role in our students’
successes. (Note: UT colleges and schools have different admission requirements, and thus this is not a
strictly "apples to apples" comparison. The most selective schools – business, engineering,
communication, and architecture – have stricter standards for admission.)
Finally, although we have not yet studied advisor job satisfaction, anecdotal evidence indicates that the
change has also increased advisor satisfaction and longevity. The advisors feel much more connected to
their students, more invested in their success, and more committed to seeing their students through to
graduation.
Note: The McCombs School of Business Advising Program is a
2005 recipient of the NACADA Outstanding Advising Program
Certificate of Merit.
(See http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Awards/OP_Recipients.htm)
Institution:
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Location:
Indianapolis, IN
Institutional Type:
Four-Year Public
Highest Degree:
Ph.D.
Institutional Size:
29,500 overall; 7,500 are served by this advising unit
Organizational Model:
Total Intake Model – a centralized unit for all entering students
through admission to a degree-granting academic
department/school. Advisors have a caseload of students in
their first-year seminar courses. All other students are seen on a
walk-in basis or through appointments. Advisors serve as
generalists, advising for more than 180 degree programs. The
Advising Center is staffed by professional and graduate
assistant advisors.
Contact Information:
Cathy Buyarski
Assistant Dean and Director of Advising
815 W. Michigan Street, UC 3007
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Phone: (317) 278-4722
cbuyarsk@iupui.edu
Institution Description
"Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) is an urban research and academic health
sciences campus, with 22 schools and academic units which grant degrees in over 200 programs from
both Indiana University and Purdue University. IUPUI was created in 1969 as a partnership by and
between Indiana and Purdue Universities, with IU as the managing partner. With over 29,000 students,
IUPUI is the second-largest campus in the Indiana University state wide system. IUPUI is IU's home
campus for state wide programs in medicine, law, dentistry, nursing, health and rehabilitation science,
and social work and extends its program offerings through IUPU Columbus" (http://www.iupui.edu/about/).
Delivery Model Used for Advising
A centralized advising center is only as strong as its connections to degree-granting academic units.
Information to support student progress must flow smoothly between the units, and both must work
cooperatively to ensure student success. This is particularly challenging on a campus as complex as
IUPUI, which offers 180 degree programs ranging from certificates to doctoral programs in 19 different
academic schools. In order to address this complexity and the overwhelming amount of academic
program and policy information, the University College Advising Center has developed a staffing structure
using academic advisors in “shared” positions in which the advisor works half-time in University College
and half-time in a degree-granting school. This delivery system ensures that we have formal ties with
degree-granting schools and institutional resources are maximized.
The Shared Advisor Position
Over half of the full-time advisors working in the University College Advising Center have shared positions
in which they work 20 hours per week in a degree-granting school and 20 hours per week in the Advising
Center. While in University College, advisors in shared positions act as generalists seeing students with
any degree objective. However, their expertise and knowledge in a particular academic area is utilized in
the following manner:
1. Advisors in shared positions train new advisors on their degree programs. This provides new
advisors with the most up-to-date information on each degree program.
2. University College advisors are part of instructional teams that facilitate each of the over 100
sections of a first-year seminar. Many of these seminars have an academic focus; shared
advisors are assigned to the sections which focus on disciplines in their academic school.
3. During New Student Orientation, shared advisors deliver a presentation on their academic school
and advise all students with majors in that school.
4. Advisors in shared positions are expected to provide regular updates on curricular and policy
changes. This is done through reporting at weekly advisor meetings, posting updates to the
listserv for University College advisors, or distributing printed information in advisors’ mailboxes.
5. Shared advisors serve as a resource to other advisors by answering their questions in person or
via e-mail.
6. Shared advisors work with the Coordinator of Student Information Services to ensure that degree
checksheets for students are always accurate and up-to-date (see
http://uc.iupui.edu/CheckSht/home.asp).
Reciprocally, shared advisors are a valuable resource in each of the degree-granting schools. In this
portion of their position, they are responsible for informing the degree-granting school of updates and
programmatic developments in University College. Shared advisors are often in a position to provide
leadership for initiatives for first-year students that require involvement of degree-granting schools. For
example, they often coordinate the course offerings for the first-year seminar or our learning community
program. Because problems in advising may not surface until later in a student’s academic career, shared
advisors are able to quickly identify common advising problems in the degree-granting school and provide
immediate feedback and training to University College advisors.
The use of shared advisors provides several administrative benefits to the campus. First, staff members
are able to easily develop a two-fold expertise. One is working with first-year students and the transition
to college and specific knowledge of an academic school, related disciplines and degree programs and
career information. This allows the campus to foster the development of staff that have experience
across functional lines and can contribute to institutional goals in multiple arenas. Because the shared
advising positions support student success across divisional boundaries, funding for most of the positions
has come from a centralized pool of money that the campus has identified for programs and activities
supporting student retention collaboratively across the institution. This has allowed for increased advisor
positions without the reallocation of unit-based funds. Prior to the availability of the campus-wide funds,
the salary for the advising positions was split between University College and the academic unit, thereby
allowing both units to benefit from increased advising without having to allocate funds for a full position.
Shared advising positions have not been developed with all degree-granting schools. In areas in which
there is not a shared advisor, a University College advisor is assigned to serve as a formal liaison with the
academic unit or program. The liaison role is formalized through the following written set of expectations:
Advisors working in shared advising positions or as liaisons are expected to:
1.
Provide and share accurate information on program and degree requirements to UCOL
advisors and staff on a regular basis. More specifically:


Identify contact(s) and/or resources for the school or program;
Possess knowledge of requirements for students to graduate;





Ensure accurate checksheets and major/career connection sheets are updated as
necessary;
Share success stories of employment gained by students with a particular degree;
Provide another contact person other than the liaison/joint position person when that
person is absent or not available;
Serve as a resource for degree requirements and audits; and
Be prepared to give a monthly report during the advisor staff meeting.
2.
Train and update new advisors and/or backup advisors in the academic area.
3.
Communicate concerns expressed by University College advisors to respective schools or
departments on a monthly basis.
4.
Create and deliver the “major presentation” about the academic area at New Student
Orientation.
Program Strengths
The strength of this program lies in the goal of providing students with a seamless and integrated advising
experience from the first year through graduation. Students get better information and advising in the first
year that is connected to the advising they will receive after being admitted to a degree-granting school.
Additionally, this strategy of sharing both human and fiscal resources has supported the growth of
programs and services addressing the needs of new students in a manner which integrally involves each
of the degree-granting schools.
Program Challenges
Because shared positions are a unique staffing structure, when the program began there was a lot of
confusion about the expectations of persons in these positions. Over time we have learned to carefully
structure the position in a way that is manageable and integrated so that shared advisors are truly
working toward common goals rather than essentially having two part-time jobs in different units.
Program Evaluation
A self-study and external review has provided a considerable amount of assessment data for this
program. Overall, the number of shared positions has grown substantially since 1999, when there were
fewer than five shared positions. In comparing the current assessment results to a survey of advising
done in 1999, the program has improved at a statistically significant level in all five of the major constructs
being reviewed:





Interaction Style (e.g. relationship with student)
Knowledgeable (e.g. is the advisor well-informed and accurate)
Student Familiarity (e.g. advisor knows the student as an individual)
Connections (e.g. connecting careers/majors and campus resources)
Professionalism
The evaluation has found statistically significant relationships between the following processes and
student outcomes:



Interaction style and student accepting responsibility for achieving academic goals
Knowledgeable and student knowing the process of getting into a degree-granting school
Connections and the student selecting a major or future career

Student Familiarity and the student feeling a sense of belonging at IUPUI
It is believed that the increases in satisfaction as well as the process/outcome correlations are due, at
least in part, to the shared advising positions which have fostered increased knowledge on the part of all
advisors as well as building a stronger referral network with the academic schools. A primary goal is to
support students in making a successful transition to their academic school and setting academic goals.
Selecting a major/career and knowing the process for admission are all part of supporting that transition.
The Total Intake Model with shared with shared advising positions meets the mission of the institution in
that it supports campus-wide collaborations that help students to be successful.
Note: The IUPUI Advising Program is a 2003 recipient of the NACADA Outstanding Advising Program
Award. (See http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Awards/OP_Recipients.htm)
Name:
Del Mar College
Location:
Corpus Christi, TX
Type:
Two-year, public community college
Highest degree:
Associate
Size:
Over 21,000 credit and noncredit students
Organizational Model:
Split Model
Contact:
Pam Pudelka
Coordinator of Advising
ppudelk@delmar.edu
Institution Description
Del Mar College, founded in 1935, is a comprehensive community college located in Corpus Christi,
Texas. It offers more academic, occupational, technical and continuing education programs than any
other college or university in the area. Each year, over 21,000 students enroll in one of Del Mar's 150
different credit and noncredit programs; Fall semester 2004 credit enrollment was 11,345. Degree
programs are offered on two campuses, located about six miles apart. As the region's leader in higher
education, Del Mar College has helped more than a half million individuals transform their dreams into
realities over the past 65 years (http://www.delmar.edu/glance.html).
Delivery Model
To meet the diverse needs of its student body, Del Mar College has chosen a Split Model of advising.
The over 2300 students who are undeclared or liberal arts majors are advised in the Department of
Counseling and Advising, which has staff located on both campuses. Students with declared majors are
advised by faculty who teach in the department of their major. This model has been in use at the College
for over twenty years. The advising process is reviewed each year by a Faculty Advising Committee.
This Standing Committee is appointed by the President of the College and includes a representative from
the Department of Counseling and Advising, the Division of Student Development, the Developmental
Education Council and the Office of Admissions and Registrar, as well as 6 to 8 faculty members chosen
from the College as a whole. Each year the Committee has reaffirmed the appropriateness of the current
model.
Prior to this, the College used a centralized model, with all advising occurring in the Counseling Office.
The impetus for changing this model came primarily from the faculty, who requested that they advise the
students in their majors. They felt the need to develop a relationship with their students beyond the
classroom that allowed them more individual contact with their students. As the College grew and added
more degree options for students (over 100 degree plans are currently available), it became increasingly
difficult for a centralized staff to keep current on every degree plan, on the appropriate sequencing of
classes within each program, on the specialized content of courses like Introduction to Raster-based
Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Toxicology, and on career opportunities for every
major. We believe that putting control of advising in the hands of those most directly connected to
students and their studies reduces the communication problems that occur in centralized advising and
provides students with the most current information about class content and career opportunities.
Therefore the Chairs of the Departments select who will advise the students in their majors and train them
on the requirements of their programs.
In 1989, the College created the position of Coordinator of Advising. This Coordinator is responsible for
training faculty advisors on topics common to all degree plans, such as institutional requirements for
developmental education, drop policies and resources available to students. The Coordinator leads
training sessions each fall for all new faculty members and each spring for all faculty advisors. In addition
the Coordinator is responsible for maintaining the Faculty Advising Handbook and the Student Advising
Handbook. As a member of the Faculty Advising Committee, the Coordinator analyzes a student
evaluation of advising services, which is conducted semi-annually. Since advising is included in all
faculty job descriptions but is not a part of our formal process of tenure and promotion, the Coordinator
encourages the quality of advising by recognizing two faculty advisors, nominated by their peers, each
year as recipients of the Faculty Advising Award. These recipients are presented to the Board of Regents
and recognized at the Fall Convocation. In addition to their award, the recipients receive an all-expensepaid trip to the state NACADA conference. This enhances their own professional development as
advisors. Every several years, they are invited to participate at a break-out session during Convocation
where they share some of their good advising practices with their peers, so that all advisors can
incorporate similar practices in their own advising.
Program Objectives and Results
We believe this system works well in achieving the objectives of our advising program:
1.
to help students understand themselves and the institution and connect them to the
resources of the college
2.
to contribute to students educational experience by helping students think about life goals,
career goals, career opportunities for majors, options within degree requirements, how to
balance course load with outside responsibilities (working hours, family), and encouraging
students to take advantage of the out-of-class opportunities the College provides
Advising contributes to the success and retention of students and to the College’s goal of helping
students "realize the potential of their abilities through quality education.”
The success of the Split Model in meeting students’ needs has been documented in the semi-annual
survey of advising. On the most recent survey, 88% of the respondents agreed that advising met their
needs. On all survey items, the percent of positive responses ranged from 79% (“I did not have to wait
long for an appointment with an advisor”) to 93% (“I felt comfortable meeting with my advisor(s)”). (See
“Survey of Student Services Spring 2004” at http://www.delmar.edu/IRE/sss2004.pdf.)
Although in a large institution communication is always a challenge, we have taken advantage of
technology to make information available to both advisors and students. Our Faculty Advising Handbook
and Student Advising Handbook are both available on-line. A brief Power Point presentation on
developmental
and
prescriptive
advising
is
also
available
on-line
(http://www.delmar.edu/counsel/fatraining/FacultyAdvisingTraining_files/frame.htm). The College has
recently implemented Quickplace, where minutes from committees, such as the Curriculum Committee,
can be posted and viewed by all employees.
While no formal process of accountability exists, whenever students have a complaint about a faculty
member, they are directed to the Chair of the department. If a student were dissatisfied with advising, the
Chair, who is the immediate supervisor of the advisor, would meet with the student to resolve the issue.
Since Chairs organize the faculty advising schedule, they might direct those most interested in advising to
do more of advising appointments, thus reducing the potential for advising complaints.
Strengths and Challenges
The Split Model of advising is very economical. Since faculty are hired with the understanding that
advising is part of their job, no additional pay is provided. Only a small staff is needed in the Department
of Counseling and Advising, since they advise Liberal Arts and undeclared students. This staff can easily
be supplemented by part-time employees during the times of highest demand.
Our system of advising is not without some major challenges. From the students’ viewpoint, some
advisors are much more willing to be available at times convenient to the students, such as in the
evening. Particularly towards the end of summer, appointment times for some majors are very limited.
From the faculty viewpoint, advising loads vary significantly. In departments with few majors, the
advisor/advisee ratio is very small, while in departments like Criminal Justice, there are many majors per
faculty advisor.
In spite of these challenges, we believe that our current system is the best choice for us. Its greatest
strength is that advisors are extremely knowledgeable about the career opportunities and program
requirements for the students they advise. Particularly in our technical and vocational fields, our faculty
know what kinds of jobs previous graduates have, where those jobs are located, typical beginning salary,
and often the contact information for potential employers. Similarly, the advisors in transfer programs are
well acquainted with the transfer requirements of most universities offering that major. The students can
therefore receive much more detailed information than they would from a centralized staff that advises on
the vast number of degree options we offer. The advantage of being able to provide students with the
very best information possible outweighs the short amount of time a student may need to wait for an
advising appointment.
Is our advising system ideal? No—according to our students, an ideal system would provide immediate
advising at any time on a walk-in basis, with an advisor who was an expert in their particular career
interest. Constricted by the real world of limited budgets, limited people, and limited knowledge, our
system does an excellent job of providing individual advice tailored to individual needs in a reasonable
timeframe.
References:
“Survey of Student Services Spring 2004” at http://www.delmar.edu/IRE/sss2004.pdf
Institution:
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Location:
Fairbanks, Alaska
Institutional Type:
public land, sea and space grant institution
Highest Degree:
only institution in Alaska granting doctorate degrees
Institutional Size:
10,487 students Fall 2005
Organizational Model:
Shared Structure Split Model advising delivery system. The
Academic Advising Center is the academic home for general
studies (undeclared) and pre-major (bachelor intended) students.
Over 18,000 contacts were recorded by the advising center in
2005, resulting in 3,400 academic advising sessions with
students.
Contact Information
Linda T. Hapsmith
Director Academic Advising Center
linda.hapsmith@uaf.edu
Institution Description
"The Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines opened its doors in 1922. The school grew quickly, and in 1935
became the University of Alaska. By the time Alaska became a state in 1959, students could earn Ph.D.s at the
university. UAF remains the only campus in the state that awards doctoral degrees and it holds the distinction of
being one of the few Land, Sea and Space Grant universities in the country. UAF's 9,380 students come from
Alaska, every other state, and 45 foreign countries. About half graduated from high school in Alaska and
nearly 300 are international students. Undergraduate students make up 88 percent of the total student
body. UAF has many non-traditional students. Some are returning to college after years of working or
raising a family while others work full time while attending school or are pursuing a second associate or
bachelor's degree. Faculty teach classes at every level, which means you're able to start building
relationships with professors from the beginning" (http://www.uaf.edu/uaf/about/index.html).
Program History
The Academic Advising Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) was established in fall 1988
by a resolution of the Faculty Council to provide consistent, quality academic advising to a burgeoning
population of undecided and exploratory students. The center operated with only one professional
advisor, who also carried the dual role of director, from its inception in 1988 to 2002. During this time, the
director established a highly regarded, award-winning academic advising program, and expertly guided
the center through a series of organizational shifts, starting under Student Services in 1988, then
reporting to the Division of Academic Affairs in 1992, and most recently as a unit under the Division of
General Studies under the Office of the Provost (academic affairs). Currently, the Academic Advising
Center includes a director, two professional advisors, two peer advisors, ten faculty advisors, an
administrative assistant, an office receptionist, and a student worker.
Delivery Model
UAF’s advising is based on a Split Model advising delivery system with declared students assigned to
faculty advisors in their academic department or program and General Studies (undecided) students and
pre-major
bachelor
intended
students
advised
by
the
Academic
Advising
Center
(http://www.uaf.edu/advising/). The center was also charged with providing training and resources for all
university advisors and is the repository of academic advising information at UAF.
Faculty advisors must apply to work in the center and are selected by the center’s director with input from
the faculty member’s college or school dean. Typically, ten to twenty faculty advisors are hired for the
academic year and paid a nominal base salary. The director attempts to hire faculty advisors representing
a cross-section of the university. Students who aspire to be peer advisors are screened before they are
allowed to sign up for the upper division one-credit peer advisor training course. Once the chosen
students complete that course, they may sign up for a practicum the following semester wherein they
advise students under the supervision of the director of the center.
Other training sessions and workshops for faculty and professional advising staff throughout the
University are undertaken throughout the year, thereby providing consistent, accurate information about
UAF’s undergraduate majors and academic requirements. Role plays, case studies, and observations of
real advising sessions are included in these events.
Program Objectives
The goals and objectives of the Academic Advising Center are being formulated within the broader
framework of the Division of General Studies strategic plan. These are embedded within a general goal to
expand academic advising activities and opportunities at UAF by 1) developing new academic advising
training resources and delivery; 2) identifying key academic advisors from schools/colleges who do not
work in the Academic Advising Center for specialized advising-related training; and 3) expanding
academic advising interactions with students to residence halls or other informal sites like the shuttle
stops.
Program Evaluation
Evaluation occurs for the peer and faculty advising development activities that staff advisors attend.
Furthermore, students are periodically given standardized surveys that include advising-related
questions, which are then analyzed. Individual academic advisors are evaluated by students every spring
semester. Observations of several academic advising sessions during the new advisor’s first semester
are done by the director, who provides the advisor with written or verbal feedback. Each year up to ten
faculty advisors are selected for Feist/Schamel Awards Program for Undergraduate Academic Advising
(http://www.uaf.edu/advising/advisors/award_05.html#feist) and are honored with lunch provided by
UAF’s Chancellor and a certificate.
Strengths and Challenges
The well-established peer and faculty advisor development programs and corresponding materials (i.e.,
the annually published Faculty Advisor Manual) have been the program’s greatest strength. However, the
greatest challenge of the development programs has been adapting training sessions and advising
information into a more easily accessible format that takes into account the vast geographic spread of the
University. Future efforts will include more frequent use of audio and video conferencing, e-mail and
instant messaging systems, and producing advising development modules on Blackboard or possibly
through podcasts and PDAs.
Note: The UAF Academic Advising Center is a 1993 NACADA Outstanding Advising Program Award
winner. (See http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Awards/OP_Recipients.htm)