Decentralized advising has been a hallmark of UCSC. The campus has repeatedly considered-and rejected-the "advising center" approach in favor of retaining a decentralized model because of its potential for fostering personalized advising relationships. But decentralization also poses issues of consistency and coordination (which were mentioned in the campus's fourth-year report to WASC).
Faced with an expanding student body and diminishing resources, campus programs have retreated from attempting to offer general-purpose advising to a more task-oriented model focusing on key decision points such as the declaration of a major, extensions of enrollment, or study abroad. In order to ascertain how well this approach serves students, a questionnaire was administered to campus advisers. Because the campus has shifted to a significantly greater proportion of transfer students over the past several years, the survey also examined how various advising programs are accommodating their distinct needs.
Our inquiry considered the contributions that both faculty and staff make to advising, as well as how their services intersect. Our findings suggest that a hybrid faculty-staff advising program offers a rich diversity of services to students. Although some of the most important advising may take place in coffee shops, residence halls, student-led study groups, or during faculty office hours (in which two-thirds of our students participate), the primary focus of this section is the formal advising system.
A short history of advising issues at UCSC prior to 1985 affords a useful context. In 1979, an external review team submitted a retention report which prodded the campus into rethinking advising. The review suggested that students who actively sought advising became productive and contented members of the campus community, while those who did not do so received little academic guidance and were particularly prone to leave the campus. Concerned about this latter group, the campus implemented a faculty-based advising program in the eight colleges which required quarterly meetings between first-year students and their advisers. Two years later, the campus retreated from this brief experiment, returning to mandatory advising for the first quarter and, beyond that, to providing advising primarily for those who seek it.
In this same era, the academic preceptor position in many colleges was redefined from an annual faculty appointment to a career position for a professional adviser/administrator. Staff advisers in this position worked towards intercollegiate communication and consistency through the Council of Academic Preceptors, which first met in 1979. In the early 1980s, professional advisers played an important role in catalyzing changes in the culture (and staff) of the colleges that helped to achieve richer ethnic and cultural diversity.
The following changes in the advising system have taken place within the current review period:
The colleges are charged with orienting, welcoming, and advising new and undeclared students; they counsel all students concerning general education and university requirements, extensions of enrollment, and minimum progress. Colleges employ both faculty and staff in advising in varying combinations, according to their particular strengths and traditions.
Most, though not all, colleges utilize affiliated faculty to welcome and advise new students, usually in a fall advising fair. While some colleges expect all ladder faculty to participate in college advising, others solicit faculty volunteers. During the period under review, faculty advising in the colleges has become increasingly focused on new students (both freshpersons and transfers).
Each of the eight colleges employs a .92 FTE academic preceptor and one FTE assistant/records coordinator. The colleges' advising staff enforces a wide variety of campus policies, grants exceptions when warranted, and advises students in academic difficulty. The preceptors are generally available to all who seek them out. Except at the busiest points in each quarter, appointments are available within one week and, even at peak times, drop-in hours afford students who urgently need to see an adviser the opportunity to do so.
The boards' charge includes advising declared majors concerning course selection, requirements, and pathways; the comprehensive exam or thesis; and graduate school and career possibilities. Boards also orient and advise prospective majors about their program. With approximately 40 autonomous boards of studies at UCSC, there is very properly a diversity of advising approaches in place. The approach used depends in part on the numbers of both faculty and students (perhaps the most critical factor), the nature of the subject matter, and the propensity of the faculty to engage in advising. There are three distinct models:
As noted previously, the campus instituted a new process for declaring a major during the current review period. This change has had a far-reaching, positive effect on advising in the boards. Students now uniformly receive advising from faculty at the point of choosing a major and prepare a cogent plan to carry them through graduation. The process has worked smoothly in boards in which faculty are primary advisers. Boards with professional advisers also have weathered the change well. The greatest challenge has been in boards with "hybrid" advising programs, particularly if faculty members had not previously been active in advising.
As in the boards and colleges, academic advising within student services and allied programs takes place in units which discharge multiple responsibilities. The great strength in allowing each unit to advise students in a focused arena is that students have direct contact with specialists who can fully assist them with such issues as learning disabilities, study abroad, career preparation, and applicability of transfer credit.
The campus as a whole has grown dramatically since the 1985 self-study, and the increase in specific student populations has far outpaced the campus average. In 1984, only one or two students were considered learning disabled; now, over 100 are so diagnosed. In 1984, the sole staff adviser at Disabled Student Services (the director) primarily served students with temporary disabilities. Now, 50 percent of that unit's clientele have permanent disabilities, and three full-time staff advisers are on hand. The Student Affirmative Action/Educational Opportunity Program has seen its target population increase from 689 in 1985 to 1776 in 1992 with little increase in advising staff: one .5 FTE adviser was added in 1989 for a total of 3.5 FTE. As a result of this increased load, this office has been obliged to redefine its goals and procedures, relying more heavily on colleges and boards for comprehensive advising services. Career and Internship Services has seen its staff diminished even though it has experienced an increased workload.
To what degree are undergraduates involved with the advising system? Available data suggest that students from the lowest socioeconomic strata are most involved in advising. The same study indicates that males are 50 percent more involved in advising than females, though the absolute number of respondents to the questionnaire involved is quite small. Among freshpersons, more than 40 percent say that they never see an adviser despite the fact that required advising still exists for first-quarter students (both entry level and transfer) at most of the colleges, as it does for students below minimum progress, for all students at the time they declare majors, and for selected SAA/EOP students who are deemed to be at risk. While this inconsistency makes it impossible to take student responses literally, it does suggest their mind-set. From a survey of UCSC graduates conducted in 1990, it is clear that as many students are dissatisfied with advising as are satisfied. Students praise the faculty as advisers even when they are critical of the quality of academic advising itself.
Over 40 percent of UCSC students were dissatisfied with the availability of their faculty advisers. No information is available concerning the nature of the barriers that lead students to give up seeking advisers (e.g., missed office hours or the absence of posted office hours). It should be pointed out, however, that faculty members who diligently honor the requirement to advise on particular days frequently report that very few students seek them out, especially in the winter and spring quarters. This apparent contradiction is certainly worthy of examination.
When students actually meet with faculty advisers, their satisfaction ratings are somewhat higher. Porter College students were asked simply, "was the advising session helpful?" following two quarters of mandatory meetings with college faculty. Sixty percent considered the meetings helpful, 25 percent did not, 15 percent gave no answer. These unweighted results are quite positive, although they represent a decline from 80 percent responding affirmatively in the early 1980s.
In contrast to the self-reported data, objective measurements of student success paint quite a different picture of advising since the previous WASC review. Four-year graduation rates of those entering as freshpersons have dramatically increased. Although a variety of factors are associated with this change, it coincides with two broad-based changes in advising: the mandatory declaration-of-major session and the new extension-of-enrollment process, both of which require multiple meetings with campus advisers.
A comprehensive effort to improve retention was undertaken in the spring of 1988. The Council of Provosts, at the request of the Chancellor, established seven task forces to consider different aspects of the problems associated with retention and the length of time to graduation. The task forces examined issues associated with financial aid, the structure of majors, the grading system, the effects of senior thesis and comprehensive requirements on completion of a degree, the barriers for junior transfers, campus ethos, and advising. The task forces completed their reports in the fall of 1988, and several recommendations for changes in policy and procedures were implemented, including the redistribution of college personnel to strengthen academic advising at each of the colleges. Of particular importance was enforcement of a policy not to allow students to enroll for their seventh term until they have declared a major and filed an enrollment plan. Students must now meet with a faculty member in their proposed major before their enrollment plan will be accepted. In addition, all boards now sponsor meetings for undeclared students to help them learn about their major programs.
Table A.8 compares UCSC's retention and graduation rates for 1985-86 to 1992-93. Retention rates (especially for students' junior and senior years) have increased substantially and the four-year graduation rate has more than doubled.
The net improvement in UCSC's four-year graduation rate for regularly admitted students has moved it from the lowest of UC campuses to the highest. Given this change, the five- and six-year graduation rates are expected to increase over the next few years. Retention and graduation rates for junior transfer students are also the highest in campus history: 87 percent are retained for their second year and 42 percent graduate by the end of their second year.
A near consensus exists in favor of greater coordination and organization of campuswide advising endeavors. Despite the notable strengths of decentralized delivery of advising services, the specialist approach to advising sometimes offers students a bewildering number of choices. If coordination with other advising units is insufficient, advising can seem disjointed and confusing. Student Services and allied units at UCSC have clearly demarcated areas of focus and minimal overlaps with board and college programs, but some students new to the campus remain mystified as to whom to see about particular problems.
The danger also exists that autonomous units will treat students inconsistently. Student Services advisers have much to say about the need for greater campus coordination of advising and more systematic information sharing across units. Because they work with all of the colleges and/or boards, they are acutely aware of variations in the application of policy from college to college or from board to board. To be sure, it may be pedagogically defensible for the Art Board to accept Education Abroad Program credits freely, for example, whereas the Physics Board insists that its core curriculum be completed at UCSC. Nevertheless, some Student Services advisers would be reluctant to see these issues left wholly in the hands of boards or colleges.
Cooperative ventures initiated since the last self-study include the 1992 Advising Symposium and an advising colloquium sponsored by Oakes College in fall 1992. Except for these one-time events and ad hoc initiatives by groups of advisers, such as the Board Advisory Group and the Council of Academic Preceptors, little systematic oversight of advising exists. The 1992 Advising Symposium recommended the development of a participatory forum such as a Council of Advisers in which all categories of advisers would be appropriately represented. Its purpose would be to build better bridges between structures like the Council of Academic Preceptors, the Board Advisory Group, and other autonomous advising units on campus which have been operating effectively, but within the confines of their own particular jurisdictions. It might also undertake to provide a campus advising handbook which, in describing the many resources available at UCSC, would assist both student advisees and faculty advisers.
The need for coordination is particularly acute in relation to transfer students, who require coherent and accurate advising prior to admission and immediately upon their arrival. As a result of a far-reaching transfer student study and report, the colleges now refer transfer students to the boards for advice as soon as possible. The boards also offer quarterly orientations on their majors and are attempting to define and meet transfer students' distinctive needs in other ways as well. In the Psychology Board, for instance, junior transfers have priority access to advising from professional staff at the beginning of each quarter. In fall 1993, several boards pioneered orientations exclusively addressed to transfer students. The Environmental Studies Board has developed a process whereby junior transfers are informed about acceptance into the major before their first quarter of attendance. The Community Studies Board sends a special mailing to all junior transfers each summer apprising them of the major and its requirements. The colleges also offer orientations geared to the specific needs of these students and have developed a component of the core course for junior transfers. Despite these and other significant advances, transfer students do not uniformly experience the transition to the campus and their major program as a smooth one.
To ensure that well-prepared junior transfers can complete their degree in two years, the campus is exploring new models for advising transfer students during their first quarter at UCSC. The Summer Advising and Enrollment Task Force is in the process of developing early advising and orientation programs so that students meet with college and board advisers prior to selecting classes for their first quarter. In addition, the Admissions Office has focused outreach efforts for transfer students on helping them come better prepared through increased course-to-course articulation with California community colleges and through Project ASSIST (a computerized articulation and transfer planning system). Once students arrive, evaluators hold office hours for one-on-one advising specifically to address transfer credit questions.
With the progressive implementation of the campus's new advance enrollment system, changes in the timing and coordination of advising will be necessary. Course selection will normally take place during the middle of the preceding quarter, and advising will have to be adjusted accordingly. An Advance Course Information program (ACI), recommended and recently approved by CEP, will augment the new advance enrollment system. Beginning fall 1994, ACI will provide expanded advance information about courses (including syllabi, hours required, course structure, requirements, how students are evaluated, educational approach, and proposed readings) so that students will have time to review course syllabi and plan their programs of study before meeting with their adviser and selecting classes. This information will be available on-line through INFOSLUG on the campus network. Transfer students with access to library computer systems outside of Santa Cruz can connect to ACI through Telnet.
For the most part, faculty rewards for advising are those intrinsic to the process. In a 1989 survey of faculty, there was absolute unanimity among the faculty and administrators queried that the statement "faculty are rewarded for advising skills" is not "very descriptive" of the UCSC campus. On occasion, board chairs and colleges document advising in a personnel letter in response to outstanding work. The Academic Senate Committee on Academic Personnel reports taking such information into account in rendering its recommendation.
In the absence of an explicit recognition structure, accountability is a serious problem in faculty advising. Without discernible rewards, there is little incentive to become knowledgeable about fields other than one's own, about general education requirements, or about campus resources. The typical faculty member would never miss teaching a class, yet a number do miss the required advising each quarter; and a few flatly refuse to participate in college advising. Most faculty do not take advantage of training opportunities and are consequently uninformed about ancillary issues, even though they must often function as generalist advisors to pre-major students.
The expectation that faculty will participate in college advising for undeclared majors has been reasserted in two ways. First, all faculty have been required to affiliate with a college to encourage involvement with the collegiate life of undergraduates, including advising. Second, the deans continue to send quarterly letters to faculty members which make clear that they are to be available for college advising on a specific day each quarter. Both actions underscore the statement in the systemwide UC Faculty Handbook, "faculty members are expected to advise students in planning their academic programs." Still, if the campus is to give students what they appear to expect-a single, multi-talented faculty adviser-the challenge which it faces is to develop greater consistency through training, provide adequate recognition for excellent faculty advisers, and make efficient use of staff advisers in support roles within the colleges and boards.