The tales of first-year advising experiences are those of striking juxtapositions: a prospective physics major paired with a music professor, a philosophy enthusiast assigned to a chemistry professor, the list goes on (in my case, a would-be history major paired with a drama professor). The initial disparity in interests is not necessarily undesirable; ideally, superficial contrasts can in fact encourage broader academic interests. For an increasing amount of students, nevertheless, the University’s pre-major advising system seems to have many drawbacks.
In recognition of evolving student needs, University administrators are currently in the process of implementing an initiative known as “Total Advising,” a key aspect of the University’s Cornerstone Plan. In recent years, students have been quite vocal about their general dissatisfaction with the current advising system, citing concerns such as the insufficiency of career advising resources and a lack of advisors who match student interests during the pre-major period. A survey last year found that roughly 40 percent of students are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the state of pre-major advising. The current initiative may be overdue, yet it should serve as an important step in improving an advising system that has induced a sense of disappointment and isolation in many past students. While students should have reason to support the new programs, it will also be important going forward to understand that the quality of the advising is as dependent on students themselves as it is on the structure of the system and the availability of advisors.
As with any administrative matter in which student concerns are involved, students themselves should ensure that their voices are audible and their views well defined. Systemic reform of the advising system must be a truly collaborative effort, not a nominally cooperative one. While the Cornerstone plan specifies that the advising reform effort will be led by students, administrators and faculty, the influence of students will be significantly higher if the student body is able to express clear, collective support for specific reforms and if representatives thus feel truly empowered to speak for the masses. Designating specific student leaders who are empowered to collaborate with faculty and administrators in designing reforms to the advising system makes practical sense. That being said, student representation will only be effective so long as the broader student body articulates a definitive, clear vision for the structure of academic advising; student engagement must be high if a satisfactory system is to emerge from this plan.
In an encouraging move, administrators are focusing on providing better connections between students and faculty members who are involved with their potential future careers or current interests. The exact manifestation of that focus, however, is somewhat problematic. The current initiative seeks to establish a series of online “career communities” that would help to create networks between students, alumni and faculty who are interested in or involved in careers that relate specifically to student interests. To a degree, this initiative has promise in that it will provide specialized resources of the sort not readily available under the current advising system. That being said, the creation of online career communities does not seem to address the fundamental problem, specifically the assignment of faculty advisors who often do not match student interest during the pre-major period. With any luck, these online networks will help to facilitate future one-on-one relationships between students and faculty members.
Where the advising system occasionally fails, however, COLA courses help to pick up the slack. The steady increase in the popularity of COLA courses points to the high value that first-years place on the advising aspect of such classes. These one-credit seminars taught by faculty advisors have many significant benefits, yet many first-years either choose not to take them or are not able to garner a spot in a course of their choosing. As the University implements new initiatives aimed at reforming the advising system, it should also consider expanding the availability of COLA courses, perhaps even with an eye toward a COLA requirement, an idea that my fellow writer Sawan Patel explored in a recent column. The administration has made important steps in this regard, including the creation of 15 new COLA courses, bringing the total to 60 available courses.
The current advising system, which assigns students to association deans based on housing and randomly assigns advisors to first-years for the period before they declare a major, has shown that it is incapable of meeting the changing needs of students. The administration should be lauded insofar as it recognizes this reality and is beginning meaningful attempts at reform, yet the issue is perhaps broader than both administrators and students realize. The question, in the end, is as much about what students should expect from a college education as it is about whether the advising system itself functions properly.
Conor Kelly is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at c.kelly@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 2 days agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | December 16, 2024It is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
