Advisor Load

Overview of the issues surrounding advisor load
Read more about it! Statistics compiled from the 2003 ACT national survey. Statistics are divided by school type for both full-time advisors and faculty advisors.

Advisor Load

Wes Habley
Director, Office of Educational Practices
ACT, Inc.

Few topics prompt more discussion than establishing an appropriate ratio of advisees to advisors (advisor load) in an academic advising program. Yet, the field of advising has yet to produce definitive research on the relationship between advisor load and either student satisfaction or advisor effectiveness. The CAS standards for academic advising provide only general parameters on this issue. The standards state "(t)he academic advising program must be staffed adequately by individuals to accomplish its mission and goals." In addition, the standards recommend that "(s)sufficient personnel should be available to meet students' advising needs without unreasonable delay. Advisors should allow an appropriate amount of time for students to discuss plan, program, course, academic progress, and other subjects related to their educational programs." This issues paper will examine three topics: What do we know about advisor loads? What do experts suggest as reasonable advisor loads? What institutional factors should guide decisions on advisor load?

What do we know about advisor load?

In spite of major interest in this topic, research on advisor load has been limited to the National Surveys on Academic Advising conducted by ACT, Inc. In the most recent survey (the Sixth national survey) published in 2004 as a NACADA monograph, data were collected on the mean number of advisees assigned to each full-time equivalent advisor. The survey showed that the mean number of advisees assigned to full-time advisors at 375/1 in two-year public colleges, 121/1 in two-year private colleges, 285/1 in four-year public colleges, and 153/1 in four-year private colleges. It should also be noted that to some these figures may seem low but we must realize that many full-time advisors work in advising programs that provide services to students with specialized advising needs (e.g. undecided students, underprepared students, adult students, honors students, and/or students with disabilities). Data on reported student contact with full-time advisors can also be used to gain a better understanding of advisor load. In the Sixth survey, the mean number (should this be numbers) of student contacts per full-time advisors during an academic term were (or should this be WAS) 2.5 (two-year public colleges), 2.2 (two-year private colleges), 2.4 (four-year public colleges), and 3.3 (four-year private colleges. As corroboration for these contact data, the most recent normative report from ACT's Survey of Academic Advising (a student evaluation) indicates that the mean number of contacts between an advisee and a full-time advisor is 2.68.

The sixth national survey also focused on advising load and student contact for full-time instructional faculty. The mean loads for full-time faculty were 37.3 (two-year public colleges), 19.7(two-year private colleges), 38.2 (four-year public colleges), and 20.2 (four-year private colleges). Also noted in the sixth survey were two additional points. For the first time, the survey asked the highest advisee load for a full-time faculty member and the lowest advisee load (known as advisor load). The extremes in advisor loads varied from 79.8 - 12.9 (two-year public colleges), 44.9 - 10.4 (two-year private colleges) 135.7 - 12.5 (four-year public colleges), and 45.4 - 7.1 (four-year private colleges). The great variations in faculty loads within institutions is caused by the fact that all campuses have departments with many faculty and few majors as well as departments with few faculty and many majors. Advisee contacts with full-time faculty per term were 3.0 (two-year public colleges), 4.6 (two-year private colleges), 2.1 (four-year public colleges) and 2.9 (four-year private colleges). These results were somewhat lower than contacts reported (2.7 mean contacts for all institutions) in the Normative Report of the Survey of Academic Advising.

What do the 'experts' recommend as reasonable loads for academic advisors?

It is interesting to observe that 'experts' in academic advising are not 'on the record' regarding advisor load. That is, there are few, if any published recommendations on this topic. Note also that even the CAS standards beg this issue. The standards suggest that advising programs must be adequately staffed with sufficient personnel to meet student needs without unreasonable delay. Yet, the standards provide no quantitative insights into the definition of the terms adequately, sufficient, student needs, or unreasonable. Off the record however, many 'experts' in the field of academic advising suggest that a target advisor load for full-time advisors should be about 300/1 and the target advisor load for full-time instructional staff should be about 20/1. Usually, the 'experts' immediately qualify these recommendations suggesting that many institutional factors should be considered in determining a reasonable advisor load.

What institutional factors should guide decisions on advisor load?

In reality, institutional factors must be examined to determine that an advising program is adequately staffed with sufficient personnel to meet student needs without unreasonable delay. Examine the logic of the following statements:

IF -- your stated goals for advisor load are 300/1 for full-time advisors and 20/1 for full-time instructional faculty.

THEN:

Advisors who work primarily with students who have more extensive advising needs should have fewer advisees. The institution must decide which students need more extensive advising. On many campuses those students are undecided, underprepared, adult, disabled, minority, and/or first generation.
Advisors who work with students in complex academic programs that include rigorous institutional requirements and/or state and accrediting agency requirements should have fewer advisees.
Advisors who work with students in transition (first-year, transferring in or out) should have fewer advisees.
Advisors who work with students in academic difficulty should have fewer advisees.
Advisors who work with international students should have fewer advisees.
Advisors (full-time) who are assigned other tasks necessary for the operation of the advising program should have fewer advisees.

NOTE: The above statements are illustrative only and not exhaustive. As a corollary to these statements, it is assumed that if the advising load goals are 300/1 and 20/1 respectively, the end result is that if there are advisors with loads lower that the institutional goals then there must also be advisors who will have loads higher than these.

There are several other institution-specific questions that must be explored before determining appropriate advisor loads.

To what degree is the advising program supported by technology? Technology is used to support advising (degree audits, SIS systems, etc). And, technology is used in the delivery of advising information (email, web, telephone, etc.) It is important to note that technology can support advising, but that technology is not advising. Nevertheless, the application of technology must be a consideration in determining advisor load.
Are academic policies centralized or decentralized? In an institution replete with campus-wide policies, there is common ground from department to department (or college to college) and, as a result, fewer academic advising situations are complex. If however, each department (or college) makes its own determination on policy issues, advisors may need to take additional time in contact with advisees.
Does the campus incorporate advising (particularly of first year students) into group settings? On many campuses, first year advising takes place as part of an orientation course or freshman seminar. On other campuses, peers (or others) are used to deliver a common information base to entering students.
Does the campus use a variety of media to support advising? Although technology is used to support and used in the delivery of advising, there may be other alternative methods for sharing basic advising information with students.

SUMMARY

There are some very good reasons why the CAS standards are qualitative and not quantitative. And, those same reasons explain the lack of a visible 'expert' position on advising load. Frankly, there is no magic formula that fits determining advisor load at every institution. Simply stated the terms adequately staff, sufficient personnel, meet student needs, and unreasonable delay, are terms that require institutional definition. In a sense, the issue of advisor load is predicated on understanding the differential needs of your students.

Contact Web Habley at wes.habley@act.org

Cite the above resource using APA style as:

Habley, W. R. (2004). Advisor load . Retrieved -insert today's date- from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Web site: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/advisorload.htm

Listed resources are member suggested; as such, listings are not comprehensive in nature. Members are encouraged to suggest resources they find helpful to their advising practice. Listing of commercial sites does not imply NACADA endorsement.