CEHSP Advising Committee

December 2, 2002

Members Present:

• John Keener, HPER
• Cindy Spillers, CSD
• Paula Pederson, Psychology
• Chang'aa Mweti, Education (last half of meeting)
• Lisa Rigoni Reeves, Student Affairs
• Michael Sullivan, Student Affairs
• Maribeth Overland, Student Affairs
• Members Absent: Joie Acheson, Psychology

Agenda items for the meeting included: faculty advisor training and advisor loads.

A discussion was held to identify current training/information needs of faculty advisors in the areas of general advising and APAS issues. Because we have just experienced an advising period, a suggestion was made by John K. that an email be sent out to all faculty requesting information as to problems, concerns, issues that arose during this semester's queue. Additionally, it was proposed that Student Affairs send out an email identifying the most common student/advisor problems and how they were addressed during this same period. The committee agreed that this method would be the most effective means of generating issues/concerns of faculty advisors. It was agreed that SA staff would implement the committee's suggestions for communication with the advisors within the next few days. As a follow up to the dialogue generated by the emails, Maribeth will make a request of department chairs to be placed on the agenda of a departmental meeting in spring semester (just prior to queue) to hold a discussion of the issues brought forward.

The committee was informed that all new faculty advisors had received an initial training session in the CEHSP advising model, APAS, forms, and procedures. It was suggested by Cindy S. that future new faculty training sessions include typical scenarios of often-occurring complex advising situations. The committee agreed that this might be beneficial to not only new, but also experienced advisors as well. SA will consider providing training sessions based upon this suggestion.

Committee members were questioned as to whether or not they still felt comfortable with the recommended advisor load of 30-35 advisees. It was unanimous that this level be maintained. SA staff members then discussed the current level of advisees being served by SA (859) and how that number would be reduced due to the increase in new faculty advisors in the education and athletic training areas. Although the SA advisee load will be reduced by approximately 210, it is still at a level that greatly exceedes optimum advising service. The committee agreed that should this high level of SA advisee load continue, there should be a request for greater resources within the departments to provide additional advising.

In further discussion, the committee was asked to comment on whether or not they believe faculty should be able to take on additional advisees, increasing their advising load, while other members of the department had less than the recommended level. This could be due in part to students' requests to change advisors, or the faculty member's decision to advise more students within the program. The committee unanimously agreed that SA should continue to base faculty advisor assignments on the recommended level of 30-35 advisees. Lisa R. recommended that faculty who choose to increase their advising load be asked to sign off on a form stating that they are willing to accept the student as their advisee beyond the current level. The student will be required to bring that signed form to SA to have the advisor assignment processed. SA will create a form and the committee will review it before being implemented. The committee also stated that tenure-track faculty should be strongly encouraged to maintain the recommended level for advisee load.