Rutgers University Senate Committee on Instruction, Curricula and Advising

Report on Student Advising Services

See also Executive Summary

Report on S-9912:  Review resources currently available for student advising, including those provided by departments, schools or colleges, Career Services and Psychological Services. What types and how many staff/faculty are available for advising? What types of advising are carried out, and by whom (faculty, staff)? How are advisors providing information on course selection, major requirements, post-graduate opportunities? How are advisors receiving their own training? At what stage of their academic careers do students avail themselves of these services? Are electronic media being efficiently utilized to provide advising? Make recommendations for improving academic advising, publicizing its availability, and encouraging students to make better use of these services. This charge should be coordinated with the Academic Services Committee of the New Brunswick Faculty Council, which has considered a parallel charge, and units on Camden and Newark campuses, as appropriate. Respond to Senate Executive Committee by October 2002.

Academic Advising:

The importance of advising services in the academic environment has been supported in the literature and in Rutgers’ own internal studies.  Academic advising is the one process that virtually every student participates in during their college career, and the one that requires the regular personal interaction between faculty or staff and students that is considered a critical component in long-term retention.1   Richard Light, after interviewing students and faculty from almost 100 institutions of higher education about their perceptions of what contributes to a satisfactory undergraduate experience, found that “of all the challenges that both faculty and students choose to mention, providing or obtaining good academic advising ranks number one.  In fact, good advising may be the single most underestimated characteristic of a successful college experience.” 2

At Rutgers, a survey of 1,295 former Rutgers students who had discontinued their studies for three consecutive semesters3  found that user satisfaction with advising/counseling services was lower in all areas than that of graduating seniors.

Advising Services – Satisfaction Rates

Service Former Students Graduating Seniors
Academic Advising 47% 54%
Career Planning 52% 67%
Psychological Counseling 46% 75%

While greater dissatisfaction with some services (e.g., Career Services) might to some extent be attributable to the fact that these students were not here for the full four years and so had less opportunity to use these services, these finding are consistent with other studies of student perceptions of advising services and student satisfaction.4   Perhaps most significantly, in the Rutgers survey students that withdrew consistently reported a lower rate of faculty interaction than those who graduated.

Advising Standards:

As a result of the increased recognition of the importance of the role of academic advising in the past quarter-century,  the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) was established in 1977.  NACADA has developed a Statement of Core Values of Academic Advising (1994) [Appendix A], and formulated the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) Academic Advising Standards and Guidelines (1997) [Appendix B], the accepted national standards for academic advising in higher education.  NACADA has also developed Standards for Advising Distance Learners (1999) [Appendix C].

NACADA standards are grounded in the tenets of developmental advising5  in which the advisor acts as a teacher/mentor rather than just a conveyor of information or advice relating to general requirements or curricula.  Thus the NACADA Standards and Guidelines state that:

The primary purpose of the academic advising program is to assist students in the development of meaningful educational plans that are compatible with their life goals.
and that:
Institutional goals for academic advising should include:
The Committee Charge:

The present charge is at least partially the result of concerns raised during the Senate’s Educational Policy and Planning Committee’s discussions and recommendations pertaining to the “access to majors” and the School of Business issues.  It was felt that in many cases good advising was critical to informed student decision-making, and that too often that advice was either unavailable, inaccurate, or unsought.

The charge is extremely, perhaps unrealistically, broad.  Rather than wait and try to address every point listed in the charge, the Committee chose to report its findings and recommendations to date and seek input on where to go from here.  This is an issue that different players come to with very diverse viewpoints; since the colleges, schools, and departments all have their own way of dealing with advising, our structure doesn’t really allow for any easy solutions.

The Process:

Over the course of the Spring 2002 semester and into the Fall 2002 semester, the Committee

The Report was originally presented to the University Senate at its November 22d 2002 meeting, but at that time was sent
back to committee pending Student Affairs Committee input. That Committee’s Report in Response to Charge S-0302,
Student Advising [Appendix E] was received by ICA on April 9th, 2003 and the original report revised accordingly.

The Structure for Advising Services at Rutgers:

At Rutgers, general (pre-major) advising falls under the purview of the student’s college or school; once a student declares a major they are normally assigned/expected to meet with a departmental advisor.  Structurally, this corresponds most closely to the “Satellite Model” of the seven academic advising organizational models first proposed by Habley (1983).8

In the satellite model, separate advising offices are maintained for each academic subunit (college or school).  Generally, this office/unit is responsible for advising services for all students in that subunit until such time that specific conditions (e.g., general requirements met; major declared) are fulfilled. Results from the latest (1997) American College Testing Service (ACT) survey on advising practices indicate that this model was only utilized by 6 percent of reporting institutions, most often by large (10,000+ students) four-year public institutions.9

In their analyses of the section of the 1997 ACT survey in which respondents were asked to assess their satisfaction with the effectiveness of their programs in achieving eight NACADA program goals and to assess program effectiveness on eleven variables, Habley and Morales10  found that the satellite model was the most negatively viewed both in terms of satisfaction and effectiveness.  They caution however that mean scores should not be used to select a most effective model, but that “the key factor in the success, or lack thereof, of an advising model resides in the degree to which there is a fit between the model and institutional culture.  The culture includes the institution’s mission; the role of faculty; various programs, policies, and procedures; and student needs.”11

Advising Goals

“The institution must have a clearly written statement of philosophy pertaining to academic advising which must include program goals and expectations of advisors and advisees.”12
While the University does include “academic advising and acting as a mentor” as part of ‘Teaching’ in its “Criteria for Appointments, Reappointments and Promotions” in University Regulations and Procedures [Section 3.3.18a13], neither Rutgers as an institution, nor most of the individual school or colleges, seem to have developed formal statements of an academic advising philosophy, or a coherent set of program goals and expectations.

The Task Force Report found that “College deans indicate their aim is to provide individualized advising assistance based on a student’s year in college (e.g., first-year, transfer with less than junior year status, transfer with junior year status, etc.), major, desired profession, academic goals, and/or career goals.”14

An examination of the materials that the various units make available [Appendix D] does seem to confirm that most view advising in the traditional, informational, sense rather than approach it as the developmental process that current national standards recommend.

One notable exception is Livingston College which includes the NACADA “Core Values” in their Academic Advising Manual,15 and also spells out the roles of the advisor and advisee in an interactive advising process in their first-year student advising handbook.16   However, the Manual also indicates that the core values are included so as to “facilitate individual reflection and inform our collective dialogue,” which would seem to imply that these values have not formally been endorsed by the college.

Without some consensus as to the philosophical basis of academic advising and program goals, there can be little consistency in the provision of advising services university-wide or even within a single unit.

In spirit, these recommendations are analogous to the Advising Task Force Recommendation 2:
“Reframe advising as a partnership that would go beyond class selection to focus on how students succeed in and out of the classroom.  Develop clearly defined expectations and responsibilities for students and academic units.  Articulate what students can expect from the unit, and what the unit expects of students.”
Obviously what in many cases would be a radical shift in academic advising philosophy and approach is not something that can happen just by affirming a philosophy or distributing a list of “core values.”  This is a process that will take time and will require the cooperation of trained and motivated advisors.

Who Advises?

“The academic advising program must be staffed adequately by individuals qualified to accomplish its mission and goals.  The academic advising program must establish procedures for selection, training, and evaluation of advisors, set
expectations for supervision, and provide appropriate professional development opportunities.”17
As part of their study, the Academic Advising Task Force surveyed the Deans of eleven Rutgers units responsible for admitting first-year students18  and the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in New Brunswick.  The Task Force also held five focus groups comprised of a total of 30 first-year and transfer students representing all three campuses and eleven different academic units.

As reported in the Deans’ survey, at most Rutgers units general (pre-major) academic advising is done by a core group of administrative/professional staff augmented by faculty advisors.  At Mason Gross all advising is done by faculty, while at Pharmacy advising is done by administrative staff and student advisors.  At University College general advising is done by four full-time professional counselors and a part-time graduate student. In addition to Pharmacy, the School of Engineering and Livingston College also make use of student peer advisors.

A number of the Deans listed inadequate staffing and the difficulty of getting enough faculty advisors as a major weakness of the current advising program.  Students also noted feeling rushed by advisors, and experiencing difficulty in scheduling appointments with an advisor.19  The issue of advisor availability is an especially critical one as studies have shown that perception of advisor availability is one of the critical factors in determining student levels of satisfaction with advising.20

Despite the recognized need for additional advisors, no college/school seems to have any formal recruitment program except for the recruitment of peer advisors.  While there is probably some sense of “We’ve tried before; faculty just don’t want to do general advising,” in light of the critical need there must be renewed attention given to recruitment.  The larger the number of faculty advisors, the lower the student-advisor ratio.  Being assured of a more manageable number of advisees might encourage more faculty to act as advisors.  And while personal contact is usually the most effective recruitment tool, setting up an email campaign, for example, is a simple mechanism for reaching large numbers of faculty with minimum effort and cost.

Units that have chosen to rely solely on professional staff for pre-major advising also need to periodically assess whether or not their staffing levels are adequate in light of current demands.  Habley notes that in contrast to earlier surveys, the 1997 ACT survey revealed that many advising centers now have “inordinately” high student-advisor ratios, and in general “are in a state of crisis created by increasing expectations and responsibilities without allocating necessary human and fiscal resources.”21

Training and Professional Development

While the 1997 ACT survey found that only about one third of all institutions provide training for faculty advisors22, at Rutgers five of the twelve units surveyed had some formal training program for general (pre-major) academic advisors.  These ranged from an annual three-hour training session (College of Nursing) to an annual three-day session (Livingston College).

Student focus groups noted inconsistencies in levels of advisor knowledge and skills; a number of the deans also noted problems with advisor proficiencies and the need for more extensive training. A move to developmentally-based advising would make the issue of training/retraining even more critical as this would be a new concept for many advisors.

Technology "The academic advising program must have adequate and suitably located facilities, technology, and equipment to support its mission and goals. Facilities, technology, and equipment must be in compliance with relevant federal, state/provincial, and local requirements to provide for access, health, and safety."24 In this area, the Committee concurs with the two major recommendations included in the Academic Advising Task Force report: Task Force Recommendation 3: Investigate the use of web-based advising assistance for ALL colleges (technological capabilities defined and implemented on university level with flexibility for college-specific applications).  Attention should be given to leveraging the use of computing resources and offering students some consistency of service.  For example, creating a single web-based point of contact for students that would provide general information and allow links to college/major-specific information.

Task Force Recommendation 4:  Implement a University degree check system to allow for better coordination between departments and students/colleges, and up-to-date monitoring of the academic career by students and academic advisors.

Task Force Recommendation 3:

As noted in the Task Force Report, the use of technology in the advising process varies greatly between units and is certainly not being used to its fullest potential.25

In its review and compilation of the major Rutgers University web pages relating to academic advising and counseling <> the Committee noted that while in general there has been marked improvement over the past year in the layout and utility of many of the individual unit advising sites,

The Students Affairs Committee Report [Appendix E] also repeatedly notes the disparity between information and services potentially available to students, and student difficulties in locating and utilizing the information and services. Certainly a central site that would serve as the starting point for information and links relating to all aspects of student advising services and information would be an excellent first step in alleviating this problem and the Committee endorses this recommendation. Any such site should, at the very least, be available from both the "Current Students" <> and the "Faculty/Staff" <> sections of the University home page.

It should also be noted that all advising services need to be better integrated; both students and advisors need easy access to information concerning career and general counseling services. There is no good central point for accessing this information.

For example, while Rutgers New Brunswick Career Services has developed a series26 based on RU majors that summarizes the major and lists related occupations, typical employers, and examples of jobs obtained, the Career Center in Camden has a guide27that has links to professional association sites, job sites, etc. While these resources complement each other, it’s unlikely a Camden student is going to look at the New Brunswick site, or a New Brunswick student bother going to the Camden site.

The Rutgers College Counseling Center has some useful guidelines for for Counseling28, yet there is no clear path that would direct an advisor to this resource. Therefore the Committee further recommends that

Task Force Recommendation 4

There is no question that the implementation of a University degree check system would be highly beneficial to students and advisors alike. Except for Rutgers-Newark which implemented a degree audit system in the Fall of 2002, there is no college/university mechanism for monitoring individual student progress towards graduation. In the absence of such a monitoring system, it is possible for students to be close to graduation without having ever declared a major or taken into account what the major requirements might be.

In the absence of a university-wide monitoring system, some colleges/departments have developed their own systems for assisting students to check their progress toward the degree. For example, Rutgers College has a site that students can use to check their progress in completing their general (college) requirements [], while the New Brunswick FAS Psychology Department has developed a site that allows a student to checkoff what psychology courses that student has completed and then be presented with a list of major/minor requirements remaining [ ] . The FAS Division of Life Sciences is currently in the process of setting up an online system that will allow students majoring in the Biological Sciences to monitor their progress towards completion of the major requirements.

At their May 10, 2002 meeting the New Brunswick Faculty Council unanimously passed a resolution stating:

"The New Brunswick Faculty Council recognizes the desirability of developing a University-wide computer system to monitor the progress of students toward their degree and requests that Vice-President Seneca appoint a committee composed of representatives of the Registrar, RUCS, deans, and academic departments to review the technical, economic, and procedural implications of such a system and to make recommendations about how to proceed." A University-wide committee was formed and at the end of February of this year made a recommendation for purchase of a web-based degree checking system that could track both general and major requirements at a cost of some $140,000. While there may be some hesitation to proceed in light of the current budgetary situation, the acquisition of a degree checking system should be seen as not just a convenience to individual students and academic advisors, but something that could significantly and positively impact the institution by helping to ensure that more students would be able to progress in an orderly fashion toward timely graduation. With fewer last minute surprises of requirements unmet/credits lacking, more students are likely to be able to complete their degree within four years. In view of the increasing demands on limited university resources, the implementation of a university-wide degree checking system which could in some measure alleviate some of those demands must be seen as a priority.

One of the most frequently voiced concerns of advisors and those responsible for advising services is the failure of many students to participate in the advising process. The Student Affairs Committee Report also identifies this as an important issue both in terms of pre-major and major advising, and recommended that meeting with an advisor at least once a semester be mandatory for first and second year students.

Certainly there are mechanisms that could be implemented that would force student/advisor meetings each semester. The Advising Task Force found that approximately 70% of the schools that they looked at in their web-based benchmarking search had instituted an automatic "hold" feature in their electronic/telephone registration system. Students are unable to register until they have met with an advisor who is then responsible for removing the "hold."

This is something that could be done within the Rutgers telephone registration system; the University Registrar does already set such holds for specific groups (e.g., at risk students below a certain GPA) when requested by a dean or department. While this may be something that Rutgers may wish to consider implementing across the board in the future, until such time as the pool of trained advisors has been significantly expanded such as system would probably overwhelm the already strained existing advising resources immediately prior to registration each semester. So while the Committee obviously strongly supports the principle of students meeting with their advisors on a regular basis, it can not endorse implementing mandatory measures at this point in time.

It it, however, especially critical that students meet with a major advisor at the time of major declaration. Failure to do so may result in students being admitted to programs for which they have not been prepared and will not be able to complete in a timely fashion. Nor are all students able to independently work out a program of study that will meet their individual needs and goals.

Departments need to make a special effort to meet with newly-declared majors. Students, as partners in the advising process, also have a responsibility to make the effort to meet with their major advisors. In many cases students either fail to make, or fail to keep, appointments with these advisors.

Best Practices
Task Force Recommendation 5:  Identify internal “best practices” within current advising programs as well as external practices identified through the benchmarking study. Establish forums for discussion and dissemination of best practices.
The Committee concurs with this recommendation.  Internally, Livingston College in particular should be commended for its academic advising efforts including The Task Force report also identifies a number of interesting approaches taken at other institutions which might be considered for implementation at Rutgers. For example, the creation of a Transfer Center such as the one at Washington State University32  might be very useful for Rutgers’ colleges with large transfer student populations.

Other Task Force Recommendations

Task Force Recommendation 8:  Develop a regular segment for RUTV that features faculty talking about particular disciplines, courses and potential careers to provide more detailed information about available areas of study. Allow students to call in. Stream live over the web with e-mail link. Archive the “interviews” and make them available to the students on an on-going basis.
While the Committee found this to be an interesting idea, most members were not convinced that such segments would attract a large enough audience to make a “call-in” show viable.  In addition, it should be pointed out that RU-TV is only available on the New Brunswick campus.
Task Force Recommendation 9:  Work with Retired Faculty Association to assist with the advising process.
The Committee found this recommendation problematic.   Retired faculty may not be familiar with current requirements and programs. In addition utilizing retired faculty in this process would seem to be contrary to the goal of creating a bond between student and current faculty that has been identified as important for effective advising.


1 It has been shown that regular faculty contact results in better integration into the university community,  reduces attrition, and generally contributes to a positive undergraduate experience.  Astin, A.W. (1993). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;  Pascarella, E.T., and Terenzini, P.T. (1991).  How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Habley, Wesley R. (1981).  "Academic Advising: The Critical Link in Student Retention." NASPA Journal 18, 45-50;  Light, Richard J. (2001). Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press;  (Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. 2d edition.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2 Light, Richard J. (2001).  "The Power of Good Advice For Students." Chronicle of Higher Education 47(25), B11.
3 1995 Former Student Opinion Survey (Attrition Study). [ ]
4 For example, in their study of a year-long advising pilot, Gallagher and Allen found that students that withdrew not only rated their advisor's knowledge lower than students who continued their enrollment, but also perceived their advisor's interest in them and their success as lower than continuing students.  Gallagher, Dennis J. and Allen, Nancy (2000). "First-Year Initiatives and Results of a Year-Long Advising Pilot Study: A Proposed Advising Model." Journal of the First-Year Experience 12(2), 107-128.
5 The concept of developmental, as opposed to what he termed "prescriptive," advising was first developed by Crookston:  Crookston, B.B. (1972).  "A Developmental View of Academic Advising as Teaching," Journal of College Student Personnel 13, 12-17.
6 Advising Resources. < >
7 Pursuing Excellence in the Undergraduate Student Experience: Assessing and Improving Advising.  Final Report, April 29, 2002.  Prepared by the Center for Organizational Development and Leadership with the Guidance of the Academic Advising Task Force. <>  The Academic Advising Task Force was formed in the Fall of 2000 in response to a series of surveys done by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning which found that 29% of graduating students, 22.8% of continuing students, and 36% of discontinuing students were not satisfied with their academic advising experience at Rutgers. The Task Force was charged with gathering information on how advising is currently handled in the various Rutgers units; identifying student concerns with the advising process; identifying "best practices" at Rutgers and elsewhere; and recommending improvements.
   The Task Force focused specifically on academic advising for first-year and transfer students.
8 Habley, Wesley R. (1983). "Organizational Structures for Academic Advising: Models and Implications." Journal of College Student Personnel 24(6), 21-29.
9 Pardee, Celeste F. (2000). "Organizational Models for Academic Advising," IN Gordon, Virginia N. and Habley, Wesley R. Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 195.
10 Habley, Wesley R. and Morales, Ricardo H. (1998). "Advising Models: Goal Achievement and Program Effectiveness," NACADA Journal 18(1), 35-41.
11 Habley and Morales (1998), 39.
12 "Part 1: Mission," NACADA Academic Advising Standards and Guidelines.
13 The context being: "As teachers, members of the faculty are responsible for effective instruction, whether at the undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral, clinical, extension or continuing education level.  Teaching includes classroom, field, and non-credit instruction; supervision of research, student internships, professional practice, clinical practice, theses, and doctoral dissertations; academic advising and acting as a mentor; the training of extension volunteers and paraprofessionals; the improvement and enrichment of course offerings and other instructional activities within the faculty member's discipline or profession; participation in interdisciplinary courses, honors courses and other special courses offered through the undergraduate colleges and other units of the University; and, the writing of textbooks and the development of other instructional materials to enhance education in the faculty member's discipline or profession...."
14 Pursuing Excellence (2002), 7.
15 Livingston College Academic Advising Manual 2000-2001. (Revised Feb 2001). <>
16 Livingston College Academic Advising For the Class of 2006. (Fall 2002). <>.
17 "Part 5: Human Resources," NACADA Academic Advising Standards and Guidelines.
18 Camden College of Arts and Sciences, Cook College, College of Nursing, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Douglass College, School of Engineering, Livingston College, Mason Gross School of the Arts, Newark College of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers College, University College (Camden, New Brunswick/Piscataway, Newark Campuses).
19 The Senate Student Affairs Committee, in their Report in Response to Charge S-0302, Student Advising (April 2003, p. 1), also cited the need for increased accessibility to advisors as a major concern.
20 Gallagher and Allen (2000), 113.
21 Habley, Wesley R. (2000). "Current Practices in Academic Advising," IN Gordon, Virginia N. and Habley, Wesley R. Academic Advisng: A Comprehensive Handbook.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 38.
22Habley (2000), 41.
23 For example, the NACADA Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference which is to be held in Pittsburgh April 2-4, 2003 will focus on "The Advising-Teaching Connection"–the role that advisors play as educators of college students and the affinities between academic advising and teaching–and would seem to be particularly relevant.  While not focusing exclusively on academic advising, the annual "First Year Experience Conference" at the University of South Carolina also usually has a strong advising component.
24 "Part 7: Facilities, Technology, and Equipment," NACADA Advising Standards and Guidelines.
25 Pursuing Excellence (2002), 16.
29 The Rutgers-Newark system currently in use was, however, designed by an individual who is going out of business so the system will eventually need to be replaced.
30 Rutgers University Senate Student Affairs Committee.  Report in Response to Charge S-0302, Student Advising. (April 2003, p. 2)
31 Pursuing Excellence, 43-44.
32 Pursuing Excellence 12; 19-20. More information on the Washington State University Transfer Center can be found at .