2008 Advising Survey Report

The full text of the Re-Rad proposal follows. If you would like a PDF version, please download it [[Media:Re-Rad 2008 Advising Report.pdf|here]].

The Report
In Spring 2007, several students associated with the Re-Radicalization of Hampshire College, a student-run group, composed and distributed an informal survey intended to determine first year Hampshire students’ attitudes toward the Hampshire College first-year advising system. The responses offer a unique view of the specific problems surrounding the current advising system. This insight is especially relevant in light of studies like the Wabash report, which reveal student dissatisfaction with many aspects of Hampshire life. Advising is central in helping first year students make the right decisions as they acclimate to college life, and may have a large role in student satisfaction.

The advising survey was delivered to each Hampshire student’s mailbox, and a secure location was provided in the mail room for survey submission. The group received 134 responses, almost a tenth of Hampshire’s student body. Of the 123 students who filled out the demographic portion of the survey, 28 (22.8%) were Division I students, 60 (48.8%) were Division II students and 33 (26.8%) were Division III students. The survey sought to determine the advising needs of Hampshire first year students, so the questions focused primarily upon first-year advising experience. The primary goals of the survey were to determine: 1) the value and frequency of first year students’ meetings with their advisors; 2) “not only what kinds of interactions [first year students are] having with advisors, but also who [is] initiating conversations, if they [are] helpful, and what kinds of things [are] being discussed; as in, was it only academics?” (Advising Committee member interview, 12 Mar 2008); and 3) to identify the major problems with advising and formulate some strategies for improving the process.

Our most valuable data was garnered from the written responses at the end of each survey, which 102 respondents (76%) submitted. These responses reveal many trends, which can help to reveal how students experience the advising system and how we can improve the system to provide better support for both faculty and students in the future.

The role of the advisor, both for first-years and in the upper classes, is described in “Non Satis, Non Scire,” The Hampshire College Student Handbook. This role consists of:
 * Helping students to understand Hampshire’s programs and procedures
 * Assisting students in planning an academic program and developing their educational interests
 * Assisting students in maintaining their academic files
 * Contributing to the determination of students’ academic standing
 * Writing letters of recommendation upon request from students
 * Counseling students about field study, leave and withdrawals

The role of the advisor is multi-faceted, and critical to academic success. “The advisor is fundamental to the student’s sense of satisfaction and progress at the College. The relationship between advisor and advisee should genuinely support the student’s intellectual growth and provide the student with an important resource for academic training” (“Non Satis Non Scire” 153-154).

Sometimes an advisor is able to accomplish these tasks, making a student’s first-year experience smoother and more enjoyable. Twenty comments (19.6% of total responses) said that their advising experience had indeed been enjoyable and that they did not have any significant complaints. However, half of those students (9.8% of total comments) said that they had heard of other people whose experiences were not as enjoyable: “I know I lucked out” was a frequent comment.

Sometimes problems in the advising system arise, and these problems must be solved in order to provide support for both students and advisors. Our survey was designed to identify these problems, primarily through the student comments but also through the specific questions.

The problems were identified by sorting the comments into five general fields, and then breaking those fields up into subcategories. The five general fields were: 1) “Positive Experience” (those who enjoyed their advising experience); 2) “Lack of Information” (those whose main comment was that more information should be available); 3) “Lack of Compatibility” (those whose main concern was a lack of compatibility between advisors and advisees); 4) “Lack of Attention” (those whose main comment was that advisors should have more time for advising or should be more involved in it); and 5) “Other” (See Figure 1).



Sub-categories of the general fields were developed in an effort to quantitatively sort qualitative data in the form of comments. “Positive Experience” was subdivided into “Positive Global Experience” (those who not only enjoyed their experience but saw no problems with advising as a whole) and “Positive Personal Experience” (those who enjoyed their personal experience but identified problems they had heard about or observed in others’ experiences). “Lack of Information” was broken up into “Faculty Lack of Information” – those who wanted advisors to be more familiar with the Hampshire system – and “General Lack of Information” – those who wanted more clarity of information to be available in general. “Lack of Compatibility” was divided into “Lack of Academic Compatibility” (comments that expressed a need for advisors in the same field as their advisees) and “Lack of Personal Compatibility” (those who did not get along with their advisors on a personal level). “Lack of Attention” was divided into “Lack of Time” (those who felt their advisors were overworked and needed more time for Division I advising), and “Lack of Care” (those who reported that their advisor was inattentive or uninvolved in the advising process).

From these subcategories, the investigators identified the main problems Hampshire College faculty and administrators must surmount:
 * 1) Professors are not familiar enough with the Hampshire system to explain it (gathered from the ”Faculty Lack of Information” comments)
 * 2) Both students and professors are unclear about what role the advisor should play, which leads to misunderstandings and omissions (gathered from the “General Lack of Information” comments)
 * 3) Many advisors are not in their advisee’s field of interest and therefore cannot help network or advise as to possible areas of study (gathered from the “Lack of Academic Compatibility” comments)
 * 4) Personal incompatibility between students and advisors leads to a lack of support and cooperation from both ends (gathered from the “Lack of Personal Compatibility” comments)
 * 5) Professor cannot fulfill their advising duties because
 * 6) They are too busy/overworked (gathered from the “Lack of Time” comments)
 * 7) They do not make advising a priority, seeming disinterested or inaccessible (gathered from the “Lack of Care” comments)

1. Faculty Lack of Information
Twenty seven students (26.5% of all those who commented) indicated that they felt their advisor would have benefited from more familiarity with Hampshire’s system, and more organized, coordinated information. “I would love to see advisors with better/more informed info, about the Hampshire structure (administrative, academic, etc.)” a Div III student stated. The advisor should “know precisely how the Hampshire system works and how to communicate that to us” said a Div II student. Some specific areas in which students felt more information should be available were:
 * Transfer student issues
 * Deadlines (especially for paperwork)
 * Knowledge of Hampshire’s bureaucracy
 * Independent studies
 * Fulfilling requirements and passing into Div II

However, in contrast to the comments from some students, some of the other data from the survey suggest that discussions with advisors are considered quite helpful. Of the students who reported that they discussed one or more of a given list of topics with their advisor, an average of 74.4% found those discussions helpful.



2. General Lack of Information
17 comments (16.67% of all the comments) suggested that some of the problems with information were not solely on the advisor’s end, but were instead due to miscommunications between advisors and students. 4 of those comments indicated that their orientation or the information they were given prior to arrival at the school was not as beneficial as they would have liked. 9 said that the most important issue was getting students and advisors on the same page about what exactly the advisor’s role was, and how students should best make use of the resources advisors possess. “A conversation…about roles and responsibilities for both the advisor and advisee is essential!” a Div II student urged. 10 comments also said that advisor training should provide more consistent information, and should be more extensive in general.

3. Lack of Academic Compatibility
One of the most frequent comments (19.6% of those who commented) was that students and advisors with very different academic interests were paired together, and that students felt that those advisors were not able to advise as well as someone in their area of interest might have been. “I came here interested in the arts (particularly film) and I was placed with NS advisor. He didn't care about the arts (though I know some NS profs do!) and could give me no direction with regards to my Div I choices and Division 2 concentration,” a Div II student commented. Another Div II student agreed, “I lucked out because I got placed with a great professor within my field of study. I guess I would want a way to ensure such luck for other students with their advisors.”

The data for “What school is/was your first-year advisor in?” and “What school(s) are you (planning on) concentrating in?” were compared, and only 52% of advisors were in the same school as their advisee, despite the fact that many students chose up to four schools they were considering concentrating in. Some of Hampshire’s five schools have a lower percentage of advisor-advisee academic compatibility than others (See Fig. 2). NS and SS seem to have more students paired with advisors in their area of interest (44%, and 42%) than IA and CS (18% and 26%), with HACU in the middle (34%).



4. Lack of Personal Compatibility
In addition to academic incompatibility, several students (17.6% of those who commented) indicated that they felt they were personally incompatible with their advisors. Personality is a difficult thing to judge based on a tutorial description, so when students selected their courses it would be difficult to tell whether they would get along with their tutorial leader. There were no specific personality conflicts mentioned—most comments were vague or brief—but together they indicate a definite problem that needs to be solved: how can we help to ensure advisors and students are personally compatible?

5. Lack of Attention
Forty-two students (41.2% of all comments) stated that their advisor seemed too busy for them or that they felt like they were unimportant among all of the other concerns the professor had to deal with. It is difficult to determine these students’ specific complaint – half only pointed out that their advisors were very busy (21, 20.6% of all those who commented), while the other half felt that their advisor considered them a low priority and did not allocate enough time for them.

Eight respondents (7.8% of all comments) commented that they would have liked to have more meetings with their advisor. These data were supported by the results of our question “How many times per semester did you meet with your advisor?” The number of meetings with an advisor is broken up by Division (I, II & III), and meetings per semester is lower for Div I students (see Fig. 4). However, the number of meetings is not significantly different when taking into account the 95% confidence intervals.

“Advisors need more time in their lives to devote to students who they are advising. Many seem over busy, stressed, and distracted making them less helpful,” a Div I student points out, and another one agrees that “My advisor mainly just seemed too bogged down to really help.” However, other comments stated that “they seem to want to get their objectives taken care of. They don't help you develop your Divisional studies, but shuffle you off quickly” (a Div I student). Either way, advisor’s lack of time for first-year advising was a major issue in the comments of the survey.



6. Other
The complaints in this section were varied and some were so vague as to contain no real complains other than “there are problems.” However, there were some similarities:
 * 5 (4.9%) of students felt that their passage from Division I to Division II was not facilitated by their advisor
 * 2 (1.96%) felt that there should be more emphasis on the availability of older students as resources

This survey highlights some important and interesting aspects of the first-year advising experience, and could be of great use to future advisors and administrators. However, there are some weaknesses in the survey design and analysis that must be acknowledged.

This survey has some significant weaknesses, most because of time constraints and lack of experience writing surveys. The questions were at times unclearly worded, and some respondents found this confusing. Although the survey was meant to question only the first-year advising experience, this was never specified within the survey, and many students took it to mean all four years of advising. Important features of the advising system, such as committee selection, were not included in the quantitative portion of the survey. In analyzing the surveys, the investigators omitted raw data that was slanted or ambiguous.

Several questions had to be discarded due to wording problems. For example, “How many times per semester did you meet with your advisor?” neglected to clarify that the question only referred to first year advisors, as opposed to Division II and III advisors. Several respondents mentioned confusion about the scope of the survey. In another instance, students were asked to rate their first year advisor on a scale of 1-5. However, the scale did not indicate the meaning of 1 and 5, and the subsequent confusion, as evidenced by several comments, rendered the question unusable for quantitative analysis.

A good deal of error is involved in converting qualitative opinions into quantitative data, though the investigators made great efforts to be true to the letter and spirit of the comments’ meaning. Further, some survey bias may have been present as noted by some with respect to the “loaded” title and questions – “Re-Rad thinks the advising system at Hampshire needs improvement: what do you think?” A further weakness of the survey was the heavy skewing of the questions towards division one students. Older students were sometimes confused for one of several reasons - they were either unsure of the years to which the questions referred, or could not recall everything about their first year experience.

Despite the error involved in process of this survey, the data represented here contain extremely valuable information for the future of the advising process. It identifies the major students complaints about advising and brings to light important information about current advising practices such as how often students meet with their advisors. In highlighting what needs improvement, this survey also points to possible courses of action that the college can take to make advising better.

Now that the lack of information about advising had been shown, steps can be taken to remedy said lack, perhaps in the form of more advisor trainings or a more formal forum for advisors to ask questions and get informed about the resources at their disposal. Knowing that students feel a lack of compatibility with their advisors, perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on the tutorial selection process and getting to know advisors personally. And given the information that there is not enough time and attention devoted to advising, perhaps it needs to be made clearer to students, administration and faculty that advising is an incredibly important part of Hampshire and especially of the first-year experience.

Overall, Re-Rad and the members of the Advising Survey Subcommittee believe that this survey shows not only the features of Hampshire’s current system, but also indications for ways in which to improve the advising at Hampshire and to make this institution a better place for all students, and particularly those in their first year.