Advising Survey (Spring 2018) (draft 2)

Key themes

Process Issues / Culture Issues
Impacting students
-Grad-checks take too long
-Advisors think only one semester at a time; no long-term planning
-Decentralized advising helps us get to know faculty
-Staff advisors can handle GE but faculty advisors should handle advising for majors
-CSUB 101 should train students on how to build a class schedule, how to use roadmaps, etc.
-Never a clear answer to the question- ‘which advisor should I see?’ / Service attitude, lack of
-Advisors act as if we are imposing on them
-They don’t have a sense of urgency or seriousness regarding our issues
-Advisors are in a hurry to get rid of students
-Rude and unhelpful tone
Impacting faculty
-No formal training provided for faculty advisors
-Faculty get to know their students in decentralized advising
-Bring back the ‘GE Fellows’ program
-Centralized advising takes away the faculty’s flexibility to recommend classes that are best for their students
-Lecturers should be compensated when they do advising / Accuracy
-Advisors (staff and faculty) make too many mistakes; waste students’ time and money, and slow down graduation
-Advisors lack attention to details
Group advising
-Too many unanswered questions in group advising
-Group advising is an “injustice” to students / Role expectations
-Staff advisors should not be teaching and holding office hours during the day
-Staff advisors should not be telling students which instructors to avoid and which classes are ‘difficult’
-Staff advisors waive too many pre-requisites, thus, basically, changing the curriculum
-Good advisors help students (esp. 1st gen students) navigate the university, not just pick classes
-Every advisor sees her/his role differently; some think it is holistic care for students, some think it is more limited
-Holistic view - guide students based on their career goals
-Balance details (this semester’s classes) with the big picture (students’ long-term goals)
Communication, logistics, technology
-Each student should receive an email - name of advisor and how best to contact them
-Provide an online appointment system to see staff advisors
-Priority should be given to seniors in advising appointments
-We need more staff advisors at CSUB
-Poor communication & coordination between advisors in the different units, and with student affairs; “silos”
-Provide an online portal for students to select classes based on roadmaps
-Improve communication between faculty and staff advisors
-Things work better when one advisor is assigned to one department
-Provide advising on Saturdays (early in each semester?) / Managing students’ expectations
-Students see advising as counseling sessions regarding school, work, life, etc.
-Students have unrealistic expectations from advising; more are capable to picking their classes but they won’t do it
-Seniors and graduate students should be able to figure out their classes based on plans of study; too much hand-holding expected
-Promote a ‘shared responsibility’ model between student and advisor
Impacting advisors
-Inconsistent training practices for advisors
-Very little consistent formal training; learn by watching and shadowing
-Excessive workload
-Equity issues in workload among advisors in different schools
-Centralized advising will amplify the impact of any mistakes made
-Centralized advising will require advisors to know every little detail in all of CSUB’s programs; high risk for errors
-If choosing a centralized system, assign advisors by major, not by students’ last names / Feeling disenfranchised
-Staff advisors give many suggestions but they are ignored
-“Why weren’t staff advisors consulted in developing this survey?”
-“Offended” that centralized advising is being considered again; implies that staff advisors currently aren’t doing their job
-“Taken for granted’
-Leaving for another campus with “a broken heart”
-Someone or other wants to change the advising system “every semester”
Trust and collaboration
-Low trust and collaboration among faculty and staff advisors
-Staff advisors usurp too much power (per faculty)
-Faculty are not available easily to advise (per staff)
-Staff advisors “encroach” into the domain of faculty responsibilities
-Advisors are telling students what majors to choose; such advice should come from faculty
-On-Base technology product may improve staff-faculty communication and advising consistency
-SSE did a staff-faculty advising training to build communication and trust
-Both faculty and staff should advise at-risk students

Units that received compliments: Liberal Studies, Nursing, EOP, CAMP

Units that received criticism: BPA, Psychology, Pre-Med, AV