Vice Chancellor Genaro Padilla, Co-Chair
Dean Carolyn Porter, Co-Chair
Minutes of the CUE Subcommittee on Advising
Present: VC Padilla (Chair), Dean Shun, Gail Kaufman, Sheila Humphreys, Rosanne Fong, Margaret Distasi, Gregg Thomson
Unable to Attend: Carla Trujillo
We began the meeting with Rosanne Fong from New Student Services describing the feedback they receive about CalSO's advising. Students would like to spend more time on advising, work individually with an advisor, and in smaller groups. These feelings hold true for incoming freshman as well as transfer students.
Rosanne and Margaret Distasi described the types of information incoming students receive from L & S and CalSO--and the fact that some come very prepared to plane their first semester and others not. Much of the time in CalSo is spent on advising issues, but there is just not enough staff to provide for one to one work. They have late night advising session which are very popular. Many students just want reassurance that they are doing the "right" thing and ask the same question over and over. This summer we were short staffed with various leaves,but this year we have two more
temporary positions and more peer advisors.
During Welcome Week we work with those who did not come to CalSo. There are workshops and various schools and colleges do their own orientations. We talked about having more orientation type work during welcome week--such as library tours, and using technology more effectively such as chat rooms on advising issues. (The College of Engineering has been successful using on-line and more telephone communication with students/advisors.)
There are particular issues for transfer students. During the summer it is hard to find folks in departments and going to an L & S advisor is not really satisfactory. They also want individual attention and find advising for majors very inconsistent.
We then turned to the question of undeclared majors. Dean Shun described the various interventions used to encourage students to declare after 60 units. A letter is sent, use of an advisor code one must get from a Dept. to be able to register on Tele Bears, putting a block on registration once a student is a Senior--and exploring how to put reminders on Tele-Bears. Dean Shun described a problem whereby students are doing upper division course work without the pre-reqs--it makes sense because they are more interesting courses--but what happens if they do not get into the major? Margaret said that often those students will be interdisciplinary majors.
We also discussed what delays graduation: There seems to be a strong correlation between the time a student declares a major and when he/she graduates. Changing a major and adding a major increases time to degree. There was a great deal of agreement over the need to get students to declare but a recognition of the problem of impacted majors--and that students come to Cal thinking they will major in___ and find out that it is not possible--and it creates a great deal of frustration.
Gregg Thomson passed out survey results from UCB on "Satisfaction with their Undergraduate Experience," which shows that advising is not very satisfying for many students. We will discuss these survey results at the next meeting, along with the other advising issues identified by CUE.
Submitted by Gail Kaufman, October 5, 1999
Present: VC Padilla, Dean Shun, Margaret DiStasi, Sheila Humphreys, Rosanne Fong, Carla Trujillo, Gail Kaufman
We first discussed the problem of departmental advisors having so many different and inconsistent titles, and that we need to remember that the reason L & S was created was because faculty advising did not work. Dean Shun described the different types of advising that faculty are involved with. For example, Engineering Faculty help plan student’s programs, but do not do graduation checks or keep track of units per semester—that is work done by Student Affairs Officers.
The Subcommittee discussed the proposal put forth by Robert Knapp in CUE last year, and the fact that Engineering does a great deal of what is discussed. Every Engineering undergraduate has a faculty advisor, but in other departments it is a hit and miss situation.
The Sub-committee then went on to develop the outline of a proposal for how to develop interest and excellence in faculty advising. What follows is the description of this idea and some others discussed at the meeting as presented to CUE by VC Padilla at its October 14, 1999 meeting.
Advising Subcommittee Ideas
1. Chancellor’s Distinguished Faculty Advisor
To create an identity for faculty dedicated to improving undergraduate education and to improve the image of academic advising in a research university, we recommend that the campus set aside $100,000 to provide a $1,000 stipend to 100 faculty members committed to providing excellent academic advising.
Faculty members could be drawn from those who demonstrate an interest in undergraduate education through their involvement with the Freshman Seminar program by connection to specific gateway classes, or other interested faculty. If the faculty member became involved because he/she was teaching a gateway class, increased emphasis on advising could help: 1) build a stronger connection to the discipline and the faculty member; 2)could involve teaching assistants and readers as mentors and role models; and 3) enrich the context, meaning and use of office hours.
In order to be named a Chancellor’s Distinguished Faculty Advisor, faculty members might be asked to:
Purpose is to raise the profile of the importance of faculty advising to undergraduate students in a research university context.
2. Build a double major advising program/ help students make the connection to the different disciplines they are studying
3. HELP Center modeled after other UC programs
Possibly in Moffitt—needs to be centrally located
Focus would be on advising, but information on other campus resources, as well.
Possibly partner with ASUC/ work with new librarian/ attract a donor
The Subcommittee decided that at its next meeting it should explore the use of technology in the advising process. The group recommended that we invite Alice Agogino, Dave Patterson, Randy Katz, Larry Rowe and Marty Hearst as possible resource people to help the committee develop its ideas.
Submitted by Gail Kaufman and Tim Heidinger
This meeting was devoted to a discussion of the relationship of advising to technology. In order to help with our deliberations, Lisa Yesson joined us from the Interactive University and Tim Heidinger from UGA Computing.
1. We began our discussion about advising and technology with a description of DARS-Degree Auditing and Reporting System and at what point it is in its development. Much progress in being made in terms of training folks for the system. It is particularly important for transfer students and with a more effective interface with admissions, more students will get information much sooner to help them with designing their programs. The biggest problem for transfer students is whether they are taking the right classes. Students really need information on what classes are accepted by UCB, either the summer before they enroll or at the very least, before they have to register for second semester. At some colleges, like Long Beach State, students know during the summer what classes have been accepted etc.
Project Assist can help with General Education requirements, but is not good for information on majors.
The point was made that although it is important for students to have DARS, they also need to have human interaction on what to take, what’s missing etc. This situation is made more difficult at Berkeley because the campus is so decentralized, less true at UCLA, for example.
We are also making headway with EDI- and the transfer of data from CC and four-year institutions–getting transcript data electronically.
2. Tim Heidinger discussed the concept of putting successful students’ programs on line, for other students to emulate. Departments could provide this service on their own web sites, for example--
* sample programs in double majors
* how students developed a coherent program with a major/minor
* what types of non-science breath makes sense for science majors
* the best sequencing of courses for a specific concentration or interest
This is intended as an advising tool–paint typical scenario, what’s out there that I should be considering taking, what courses are related to my major, my interests.
3. In discussing how technology could help students before they come to campus.
Put common questions on the web for students and their families.
L & S has an FAQ Handout and on web site, Que Pasa L & S
Should we create a chat room, an email package for incoming students, sample programs, advising on-line.
Rosanne Fong of NSS believes that students want a live person, not just the computer/tech info
There are, for example, language issues–can we get translation of materials on the web
Questions:
* Is there a way to use technology to support advisors work, streamline the bureaucracy, Students would be able to use resources no matter what time of day. Electronic petitions, can we do signatures on line??
* Can we get new admits, UClink accounts right away
* Should we have faculty on-line to answer questions between the time a student gets admitted and they have to SIR
* Tim asked what the various points at which students must do certain things–and those are the points at which we could figure out an intervention that, in part, makes use of technology. Rosanne said there were quite a few points like that and they could be identified.
These are notes that Tim Heidinger passed along for our consideration, as well.
Categorize Types of Advising:
Academic (Colleges: Faculty and Staff and Students (Peer))
Academic Support (Staff (Chavez, ResHall, Dept))
Medical (Staff(Tang))
Social (Students)
Activities/ Involvement (Staff (SAS), Students)
Conduct (Staff (SAS, OSC))
Technology (IST (WSS, TSW))
Financial (FAO, CARS?)
Career/ Graduate School (Faculty, Staff: CGSS, Department/School)
Residence Hall
Cohort (Athletes, AAD, EAOP, ...)
Identify Types of Advisors (formal and informal):
Faculty
Staff (Acad Departs, UGA, UHS)
Students
Family, Friends
Describe Types of Advisees (advisee profiles):
Considering the campus
New to campus / New to Higher Ed (freshman)
New to campus / Some Higher Ed (transfers)
First generation
Declaring a major
Graduating
Crisis
Trying to make sense of it all
Discover Mandated Interactions with Advisor/Faculty that could be streamlined:
Late add/drop
Major declaration??
Document typical steps involved with advising:
Academic:
Specific to college / department?
L&S specifically:
Appointment (phone? Or in person)
Research by Advisor (get folder and past history)
Walking to Campbell
Document Predictable Advising Peaks:
Admit Letter
SIR
Orientations
Credit for previous work (transfer and AP for freshman)
Course enrollments
Add/drop deadlines
Startup/ Mid term/ Finals
Selecting a major
Graduations
Discover Breakdown of advisor workday:
xx%: Preparation: getting documentation
xx%: Face to face interaction
xx%: Electronic interaction
xx%: Basic Questions
xx%: Specialized questions
xx%: Bureacracy
Catalog advising delivery methods:
Face to Face (Faculty, Staff, Peer, family)
Printed material
Web material
E-mail
Other internet
State goals of technology intervention:
Save advisor time for quality value added interactions
Save student time by reduce 'dead' time, i.e. waiting in line
Remove time, space barriers, i.e. after 8-5 and from anywhere
More informed decision making, i.e. more and better info and timing
Last updated on 1/11/00 by CS.