Determining the Worth
of an Advising Unit
Author: Tom
Grites
Richard Stockton College of N.J.
In tough economic times, higher
education administrators are obliged to seek cost-saving measures
and/or to conduct cost-benefit analyses of programs. Academic
advising programs have often been the targets for such reviews.
Academic advising administrators, therefore, must be prepared
to respond to these challenges before they occur.
This article provides a framework for administrators of academic
advising programs to demonstrate the worth of the work they
do. The framework is based on an operational analysis of the
advising unit – not on mere survey data that show students
are “satisfied” with the services provided. Although
the latter kinds of data are important in supporting the overall
effectiveness of an advising unit or program, they do not demonstrate
its functionality. The framework presented here is not intended
to assess effectiveness; it is process-oriented.
Identification of
Responsibilities
The first step in this analysis
is to identify all of the actual activities (functions) that
are conducted by the advising unit. This identification establishes
what the advising unit actually does – how the unit’s
personnel actually spend their time and effort. Obviously, they
advise students, but do they serve special student populations,
e.g., students on academic probation, undecided students, prospective
transfer students, readmitted students, non-degree students,
etc.?
What administrative responsibilities
are fulfilled by the unit? Does the unit assign students to
advisors? Does it process all changes of major? Does the unit
have responsibilities for advisor training, to develop advising
materials and resources, and/or to maintain degree audits and
other computerized tools and information that is important for
advisors – faculty and others? Does the unit have signatory
authority/responsibility for policy exceptions, course substitutions,
graduation clearance, etc.?
Does the unit play a role in
campus/College Orientation programs, residence hall workshops,
career planning efforts? Are there classroom teaching responsibilities,
e.g., Freshman Seminar, for the unit?
The list can become exhaustive,
but it is critical to identify every single responsibility for
the unit – no matter how infrequently it occurs –
because they must all be taken into consideration in the cost
analyses noted above. Those making the cost-cutting decisions
or the cost-benefit analyses are not likely to be aware of the
breadth of responsibilities and activities fulfilled by the
advising unit unless they are clearly identified.
Analyzing Alternatives
and Their Effects
The next step in the process
of determining the worth of the advising unit is to review the
available alternatives for each function identified. What will
happen to this activity if the advising unit no longer has responsibility
for it, i.e., if the unit is eliminated or suffers a significant
reduction in resources – human, fiscal, or physical (space)?
Who will assume the responsibility for it? What will be the
impact of this shift? Will the activity be eliminated?
This aspect of the framework
is likely to be the most difficult and troublesome, for two
reasons. First, the advising unit is forced to look at itself
as though it didn’t exist, that is, someone else can do
the job. Second, the undesirable option of elimination of an
activity altogether must be considered. However, this aspect
should also provide the clearest demonstration of the unit’s
worth to the institution. Two examples will illustrate the process.
Example 1:FUNCTION:
advising special populations of students