In some fields, advising languishes

After four frustrating years at Harvard, Joel Pollack '99 decided something had to be done about the College's academic advising system.

"I and many of my classmates struggled with bouts of unhappiness, confusion and isolation in both academic life and personal life...in which we found the existing advising structure to be quite unhelpful," Pollack says.

So stressful was his experience that Pollack and a few friends from the Class of 1999 proposed an initiative on Monday that they hope will improve advising at Harvard.

They aren't the only ones. Students, faculty and even administrators admit that poor advising continues to be a problem in many Harvard departments--even though hard data on the issue has been available for three years.

Pollack hopes external pressure will work. But even Harvard officials admit the goal is lofty.

Though Harvard's problems with advising--high student-to-adviser ratios, little contact between students and Faculty, confusing routes to seek help--have been long acknowledged by College officials, students in several departments still say they feel helpless.

This lack of progress frustrates College officials, who, in an effort to pressure delinquent departments into reforming, have publicized data showing students are weary of the advising system. Even this has not succeeded.

College administrators say they can't force departments to change and that Faculty members should shoulder the responsibility of advising students.

Advice on Advising

In January 1999, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences' Committee on Advising and Counseling published a report on the status of advising in the College. The report aimed to "spur deficient departments to reflect on their sins" and learn from the more successful concentrations.

Faculty analysts compared the results of the 1997 and 1999 senior surveys, in which departing students were asked, among other things, to assess the quality of their department's advising.

The results varied greatly between concentrations, but in general, the high scorers tended to be the committees for degrees (which use Faculty from departments) and the smallest departments (which can hire their own Faculty).

Humanities departments received higher rankings. The hard sciences ranked in the middle, and social sciences like economics ranked near the bottom.

The Hist and Lit Example

History and literature is the largest concentration that has consistently ranked well in the senior survey questions on advising.

Besides the low student-to-faculty ratio in the honors-only concentration, juniors and seniors have one-on-one tutorials.

Stephen H. Biel, director of undergraduate studies for the concentration, says that when tutors are hired, they are made aware that advising is a major part of their job. Those who disdain one-to-one interaction with students are generally discouraged from applying, he says.

Even though it already ranks high on the senior surveys, history and literature has increased its focus on academic advising. From discussing it in tutor meetings to emphasizing the many resources available, administrators let students know all the appropriate avenues for advising.

"We make it clear that we are available to the students, they take advantage of it," Biel says. "We have busy office hours. There is a student-Faculty committee that meets periodically--it's an opportunity for students to sit down with us to raise their concerns about the concentration."

The English department, after ranking very low in the 1997 senior survey--a 1.97 out of a possible 5--has been attempting to revamp its advising system as well. The 1999 survey shows the efforts have been successful. Last year, English scored a 3.38.

Why the change? The department appointed a senior Faculty member as the director of undergraduate studies--and assigned each concentrator a permanent Faculty adviser.

"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," Marquand Professor of English and department chair Lawrence Buell told The Crimson in October.

Nothing Ever Changes...

According to College administrators, other departments seem to resist change.

Indeed, most of the concentrations that ranked at the bottom of the 1997 senior survey reprised their performance in 1999. The surveys show that there have been no significant improvements in the departments of government and economics since 1997, despite Faculty from those concentrators citing concerns with advising.

The economics department blames an unfavorable student-to-faculty ratio for its problems. As a result, department administrators say, changes in the advising system have been hard to implement.

Economics concentrators are not assigned to specific advisers but are told to seek help at the tutorial office. During business hours, one of eight economics graduate students are available to chat.

The department has assigned the graduate students to the Houses and encourages students to get to know the graduate advisers.

But that has been the extent of the change.

Christopher L. Foote, an assistant professor of economics and the head tutor, says the economics department has no further plans for improving advising on a Faculty level, though he pointed out that the department has hired a number of Faculty in recent months.

"Students get outstanding advice and consistent advice on courses; it's also very convenient and lots appreciate that," Foote says. "The disadvantage is that it's hard for students to get to know professors.

"I don't think we have the Faculty resources to take on advising responsibility on the Faculty level," he says.

Who's to Blame?

Most departments that have ranked poorly over the years attribute the problems to having a poor student-to-faculty ratio. They claim that with so many undergraduates it is impossible for the Faculty to get to know them at all.

"We have graduate students rather than professors signing study cards," Foote says. "It makes it harder for students to establish relationships with professors."

Katherine E. Boutry, a lecturer in English and American literature and language who is the concentration's assistant director of undergraduate studies, points to size as the reason that English still ranks below concentrations like literature or history and literature.

Louise M. Richardson, an associate professor of government and the department's head tutor, says she also blames the student-to-faculty ratio.

"I believe that what is being measured here is student satisfaction with the opportunities for developing close intellectual relationships with Faculty," Richardson wrote in an e-mail message. "In a large concentration, especially one with a low Faculty-student ratio, the opportunities for developing these relationships will necessarily be more constrained."

Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles says that Faculty size is certainly a problem for some departments. In his annual letter to the full Faculty, he placed the hiring of new junior Faculty members as one of his top priorities.

"There is no doubt that our Faculty are busier and have less time for everything they do than elsewhere," Knowles wrote in an e-mail message. "So I expect that more Faculty would mean better advising if only because professors would have more time."

But Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 says that blaming everything on the fabled ratio is not acceptable.

"I don't like the pleas of despair," he says." There are lots of things people haven't tried."

If the Faculty has not been advising well until this point, Lewis asks, what evidence is there that hiring more Faculty members will accomplish anything?

"Some say we just need 10 more Faculty members," Lewis says, "but you have no confidence that that is where Faculty energy would go."

Some Faculty members, however, insist that the size of the department is a crucial factor.

"It really depends on what is meant by advising," Richardson wrote. " I believe that if what is meant by advising is mentoring then the explanation in large part lies in the student-faculty ratio."

"On the other hand, if what is meant by advising is simply notifying students of opportunities and requirements, providing adequate guidance on course selection and other issues pertaining to their concentration then I agree a low faculty-student ratio is no excuse for poor performance," she adds.

The distinction between advising and mentoring was mentioned in the committee's report. But the committee's members put little credence in the distinction.

"I reject the notion that there is a set of bureaucratic questions Faculty shouldn't have to answer, " Lewis says. "I think that almost every question is an opportunity to explain something."

Lack of Faculty members for advising raises the question of whether or not advisers must be Faculty or whether they can be graduate students.

Lewis says that some Faculty members seem to feel that it is beneath their dignity to answer more technical questions, but they are responsible for undergraduate programs and should be involved, he says.

He points to another problem that the committee's report highlighted.

Some departments' directors of undergraduate study programs are junior Faculty who often lack the necessary clout to encourage senior Faculty to take the time-consuming job.

"One of the major reports of the committee was that the Head Tutor should be a senior Faculty member," Lewis says. "Not that junior Faculty aren't superb advisers, but they need some one who has the full respect of the senior Faculty to change departmental culture."

The report that the committee produced last year has not yet fulfilled its goal of encouraging the departments that ranked low to improve, College officials admit.

This is where Pollack and some of his classmates come in.

Though they no longer have any ties to the University, they've initiated a project to help current students find the resources they need.

The Harvard-Radcliffe Student/Alumni Committee on Advising is a web-based initiative.

Its stated goal, according to their website, http://journey.digitalspace.net/

hrsaca.html, is to "involve students and alumni in the development of a set of principles and recommendations that we will present to the Harvard University community by the fall of 2000."