English Department Nearly Doubles Advising Score

In 1997, the Department of English Languages and Literatures scraped the bottom of the advising barrel, receiving a score of 1.97 out of a possible five points on a survey of graduating seniors.

In the past two years, however, the department has nearly doubled its score. With a ranking of 3.38, the department is the major success story of this year's advising survey.

"I do not mean to claim that we have arrived at the utopian state, but I'm pleased by the improvements we've made, and I'm pleased that the change has been noticed," said Marquand Professor of English and Department Chair Lawrence C. Buell.

Except for the English Department, however, the results of the 1999 senior survey on advising mirrored the results of the previous two surveys. The survey data showed a divide between small committee concentrations and large department concentrations.

Most of the departments that received below-average marks on the 1997 and 1998 senior surveys were once again at the bottom of the pack.

The departments that received high ranks were mainly small departments and committee concentrations. Of the top five concentrations, four were committee concentrations.

In the social sciences, seniors reported an average satisfaction rating of 3.02 out of a possible five points, significantly lower than the 3.58 mean in the humanities. Natural sciences concentrations came in with a mean of 3.14, while the overall mean was 3.19.

Overall, said Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68, who developed the survey as chair of the Faculty Committee on Advising and Counseling, student satisfaction with advising had generally improved.

Movin' On Up

Administrators in the English Department ascribe their department's success with their recent efforts to improve the program.

Last spring, English department members said they expected very different results on this survey since they implemented reforms since the 1997 survey, including making a senior faculty member director of undergraduate studies.

"I think the improved ratings probably result chiefly from the fact that we have more fully adjusted to and fine-tuned the reorganization of our

undergraduate program," Buell said.

This year, the department made another significant change assigning each concentrator a permanent faculty adviser. Buell said he is optimistic that student satisfaction with the advising system will continue.

Bigger Isn't Better

However, unlike the English Department, most large concentrations did not rate so well on the survey.

The Economics Department which received a 2.45 out of 5 for overall satisfaction in 1997 received a 2.38 out of five this year, still more than half a point below the 3.19 overall mean.

The department was ranked 39th out of 40 concentrations.

Assistant Professor of Economics and Head Tutor Christopher L. Foote, attributed this to the size of the department.

"We've got hundreds of concentrators and its the mentoring resources that are being stretched thin," Foote said.

Foote said the Economics department has tried to increase convenience and accuracy in advising at the expense of mentoring relationships.

According to Foote, the department has a "small number of graduate students intensely trained and familiar with the requirements" sign study cards.

Foote said it is difficult to implement policies that will help establish relationships between students and Faculty members if professors do not sign study cards.

"I would not be surprised if a lot of students felt the economics department was large and impersonal," he said. "But the Economics department has moved on one end of the spectrum making things as convenient as possible, but to make things more intimate you would lose the convenience."

While the department is not looking into any changes of the advising structure, Foote said the department plans to hire more junior faculty members to decrease the student-faculty ratio.

"It comes back down to resources," he said. "We hope by increasing the size of faculty we can meet the needs of the concentrators."

Undergraduate government and history concentrators also expressed dissatisfaction with advising in their respective departments. The Government Department received a 2.79 out of 5 and the History Department received a 2.92 out of 5.

Like Foote, Associate Professor of Government and Head Tutor Louise M. Richardson claimed that student advising is a casualty of a large department..

"The reasons for this are probably not hard to find. They reflect the small size of the faculty relative to the number of students, which makes it more difficult for students to have as much interaction with faculty as they would like," Richardson said.

The department has plans to review their advising structure. The department is seeking input from the Undergraduate Affairs Committee, which includes two concentrators from each House. A committee of senior faculty will also examine the system.

The History department attributes the poor showing on this report to problems with the advising system in the past.

Professor of History and Head Tutor Lizabeth C. Cohen said the department takes the survey results very seriously.

"The department has been concerned with this for at least a year," Cohen said. "Over the last year we have gone through a lot of changes. I feel like we're really addressing this and my hope and expectations is that on the next survey the results will change."

Cohen said the department has tried to improve the House advising system and the tutorial office in addition to assigning each concentrator a faculty adviser.

"We're really trying to reach out to people," she said. "But all we can do is put it out there."

Questioning the Questionnaire

Professors noted, however, that survey results can be suspect because different students define advising in different ways.

"There's a real range in what student expectations are about advising," Cohen said.

Foote also drew attention to the difference between advising and mentoring, adding that he thinks concentrators in his department students are unhappy with a lack of personal connections with faculty rather than a lack of advice.

"The Economics department really believes the issue here is one of mentoring and not advising."

Cohen also questioned the language used on the survey. She said students have different advising experiences and questions may lead students to think a certain type of advising is correct.

"You get out of surveys what you ask," she said.

Lewis said the purpose of the survey is "to track change, and to remind everyone that there are still serious problems in some departments." The survey will be repeated in two years

The committee will continue to work on the implementation of the recommendations of last spring's report. The recommendations included increased faculty involvement in advising, undergraduate advising in programs and increased funding for advising improvements in certain departments.