The Search for Advising

At a recent meeting of the economics department's undergraduate advisory committee, at which nine undergraduate members and only two of eight Faculty members were in attendance, a discussion which was intended to invite undergraduate feedback on a variety of topics quickly turned to the need for greater Faculty involvement in the intellectual growth of undergraduates. In a manner befitting economists of all ages, the question arose: How can we change the behavior of the majority of the department's Faculty (i.e. their total lack of interest in undergraduate interaction) without changing their incentives to spend less time on their research and more time teaching?

The discussion was cut short when one of the Faculty in attendance stated that if economics concentrators really valued teaching over a first-rate department, then they should have gone to Amherst instead of coming to Harvard.

This discussion is not unique to the economics department. Indeed every discussion of undergraduate education, whether at a recent panel for visiting alumni or in the recent survey by the Carnegie Foundation, which criticized Harvard for its large classes and its use of graduate students instead of professors for individual instruction, focuses on similar issues. Complaining that Harvard doesn't care about undergraduate teaching or academic advising has become routine.

In the past, administrators and Faculty members have attempted to deal with this embarrassing problem by issuing lists of resources or referring students to the infamously unreadable Handbook for Students, a strategy comparable to advising someone who is not feeling well to read a biology textbook. The Dean of the College sent out goals for a better advising system all department head tutors, but he apparently has no power to change the system.

The departmental head tutors, in addition to having no incentive other than embarrassment to change their ways, complain that they face over-powering constraints on what they are capable of offering so many undergraduates, given the department's limited resources. They lament that they cannot ensure that upperclass students have access to residential advisors because this is the domain of the individual Houses. In response, the senior tutors within these individual Houses point out that it is the department's responsibility to advise its own students regardless of whether the House is able to hire a resident tutor in every large field.

In any case, it is clearly not possible for under-graduates to forcibly reform the system themselves. As a next best step, and without absolving Harvard's Faculty of their responsibility to students, I would like to offer some suggestions for how undergraduates can use an inadequate system to get what they need.

First, if one needs to point out an administrative problem or voice a complaint to the administration, the most direct route is the most effective. Deans Lewis and Epps both have office hours in University Hall on Thursdays from 2-3:30pm, and they claim to be shocked by the suggestion that they might not reply in person to e-mail. I therefore encourage every disenchanted undergraduate to test this out by e-mailing either lewis@fas or aepps@fas with his or her comments and suggestions. Often high-level administrators are blissfully unaware that a problem exists and it is in your interest as well as their own to inform them.

Second, students in the large departments should be aware of and plan around the difficulties they will undoubtedly face in creating sustained academic relationships within their fields of study. Since no official mechanism exists to facilitate such relationships, and many professors do not even advertise their office hours, students must be aggressive. Once you find a professor who is doing work in an area of your interest, be relentless about going to his or her office hours. Inquire about the professor's research and ask to be employed as a research assistant. Hopefully these interactions will develop into a personal relationship and provide tangible and intangible benefits.

No advising system which relies on graduate students can replace mentoring relationships with full professors. A mentor can help prospective academics to learn how academia works and facilitate their entrance into a field of study. A personal relationship with a professor can help to focus intellectual curiosity, assist in finding a thesis advisor, provide a source of term-time employment and write the letters of recommendation which are invaluable to any senior.

After doing extensive surveys, Kennedy School professor Richard Light finds that the most important factor contributing to a meaningful undergraduate academic experience at Harvard is participating in an intellectual experience that is sustained for one year or longer. Clearly more of Harvard's resources should be devoted to fostering such experiences, but for those departmental administrators who complain that they have no control over resources, there is already at least one example of a large department which managed to create a successful mentoring program without additional resources--biochemistry.

In fact, the tutorial staff in the biochem department recognized the need for mentoring more than 70 years ago and instituted the senior scientist program. Under this program, Faculty volunteers, as well as post-docs and scientists in the biotech industry, act as tutorial leaders for a group of no more than eight undergraduates for a period of three years. Senior scientists sign study-cards, assist their tutees in finding a lab in which to work and often act as thesis advisors.

The tutorials are not for credit but rather provide a way for undergraduates to learn about academic research by meeting regularly, either one-on-one or in small groups, with their senior scientist. The tutorial office coordinates and supports these meetings, and if a particular student doesn't attend the meetings, the staff go out of their way to find out if that student needs additional help or advice. This system is the result of a firm commitment on the part of the department to undergraduate education, and the biochem tutorial staff as well as the Dean of the College express great pride in the program. The fact that students are also enthusiastic about the program, as seen by the high ratings the biochem department received in the annual Harvard survey on advising, suggests that other departments can learn from this example.

It is no wonder that so few Harvard seniors pursue careers in academia, since most of them have experienced four years of large lecture classes with sections for which no one does the reading. If it were less difficult to persuade professors to pay attention to undergraduates, then maybe the consulting firms and investment banks that invade the campus each fall would have less appeal and Harvard seniors would not have the reputation of having become more materialistic than intellectual. Until Harvard does more to foster the intellectual creativity of its own undergraduates, students need to take the time to think early and seriously about their academic and career goals in order to have other options when senior year arrives.

Leila C. Kawar '98, a Crimson editor, is an economics concentrator in Winthrop House.