Allison Ewing-Cooper, University of Arizona Kami A. Merrifield, University of Arizona Kathryn N. Gallien, University of Arizona Quality advising plays an important role in supporting retention and graduation initiatives, but turnover among academic advisors is higher than for other university staff positions (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021; Elliott, 2020). Given high advisor turnover and the central role academic advisors play in supporting student success, there is a need to explore why advisors leave the profession and what institutions might do to retain them.
Advisor turnover negatively affects institutions and students. Hiring and training new employees is costly and time consuming (Cascio, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2001). Turnover increases workloads for colleagues as they take on added caseloads and train new advisors. It also impacts employee morale. High advisor turnover can be extremely disruptive for students as well; they might struggle to build relationships with their new advisors. Moreover, since experienced advisors are more familiar with student resources, policies, and degree requirements, advisor turnover can result in a loss of knowledge that hinders the entire institution (Elliott, 2020).
Past research explored turnover of student affairs professionals in general, but not specifically of advisors. Studies have found that 50–60% of student affairs professionals leave the field in the first five years (Marshall et al., 2016). On average, advisors stay only three years (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). Student affairs professionals quit for multiple reasons, including long hours, low pay, lack of flexibility, few opportunities for advancement, and poor morale in the workplace (Bichsel et al., 2022; Marshall et al., 2016). Advisors experience all these factors as well as the pressure to increase student retention and feelings of burnout (Solon et al., 2022).
To explore advisor attrition, the authors of this article (a team of advisors at the same university) gathered data from individuals who left the field of academic advising in the past ten years. Participants completed an IRB-approved survey, answering questions about the reasons they left advising, what professions they moved to, what could have convinced them to stay in advising, and if they would return. We emailed the survey to the 14,000 subscribers of the NACADA listserv. Using purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002), we asked the recipients to forward our recruitment email to former academic advisors, and based on these recommendations, we recruited a sample of 56 former advisors who completed the entire survey. Participant Characteristics
Most participants were female (87.5%) and White/Caucasian (78.85%). About half (46.43%) were aged 35–44. The majority (67.86%) advised at public, four-year institutions, but there were participants from private, four-year universities and public, two-year schools. Most participants (92.86%) had a master’s degree or higher. Former advisors stayed in the profession an average of 7.85 years. Sixty one percent of respondents remained in advising for six or more years.
The majority of those who left advising (78.57%) reported staying in higher education, although it is possible that gathering participants through the NACADA listserv inflated this percentage. A much smaller percentage (14.28%) left higher education. One became an RN, one opened a small business, one moved to HR, and two others moved into education policy work. When asked if they would return to advising, 46.43% of respondents said “probably not.” Another 14.29% said “definitely not.” Only 10.71% of respondents indicated they would definitely return to advising, and 12.50% indicated they would probably return.
Why Do Advisors Leave the Profession and How Might Institutions Retain Them?
One survey question prompted participants to select all applicable answers from a list of reasons why they left academic advising. The most popular answers were more money (69.64%), different work responsibilities (62.50%), title promotion (60.71%), and better work environment (50.00%). Only 32.14% indicated that they no longer wanted to be advisors and 8.93% stated they no longer wanted to work in higher education. Former advisors also reported the top reason they left academic advising by selecting one reason from a provided list. The most common answer was more money (28.57%). One participant wrote, “I love working with students and working in higher education, but I was tired of getting paid so little and being so underappreciated for the work I was doing.” Nearly half of respondents (44.64%) wrote that a pay increase could have enticed them to stay in advising. Some noted that their pay felt too low for their responsibilities and lay far below comparable private sector positions. One former advisor wrote that they needed, “higher pay so I can retire one day” and another commented, “a livable wage.” Several respondents surmised that advisors were able to stay in their positions because they received financial support from a family member or spouse.
The next most popular answer was wanting a better work environment (19.64%). One former advisor described their workplace as a “very toxic work environment with a terrible boss. I was also limited to what I could do beyond just the daily grind of academic advising; thinking of advising outside the box was frowned upon and there was too much territoriality or personal competition.” When reporting why they would not return to advising, some participants indicated that their health and wellbeing had been negatively impacted by their position and that their current work was more satisfying and less stressful.
Multiple participants expressed that the problems associated with academic advising have increased over time and been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. One participant wrote, “Prior to COVID, my staff and I were underpaid and overworked but these issues mushroomed when the pandemic hit.” Another former advisor commented: Over the past decade, professional academic advising has veered sharply into bookkeeping and enrollment management. Student development, major exploration, and just general conversation have been replaced with crappy software and pressure from admins to increase enrollment. The job is less and less about supporting education, and more and more about increasing bottom lines for the institutions.
Although wanting a title promotion played a part in many advisors’ decision to leave, only 8.93% indicated it as their top reason. Again, a desire to leave advising was not the top motivating factor; only 7.14% selected not wanting to be an academic advisor as their top reason. Many participants indicated that they loved working with students and being part of the academic advising professional community. Low pay and the environment (pressure and stress) appeared to play a bigger role in driving advisors out than the actual job.
When asked if anything could have convinced them to stay in advising, 28.57% noted that they might have stayed had there been a path to professional advancement, including title promotions and increased work complexity. One former advisor with a master’s degree, who had since moved into an assistant director role, wrote that they might have stayed in advising had there been “some sort of career ladder or incentive system for doing research or other scholarly work.” Another commented: “I think whenever a job becomes a repetition of the same tasks at the same level of complexity, employees tend to feel like they have plateaued in their professional development.”
Two other common responses were that student caseloads needed to be smaller (14.20%) and that they wanted more “flexibility” in their jobs (13.00%). Respondents offered different definitions of flexibility, including working remotely, having a portion of the summer off, and having the autonomy to determine daily tasks and workflow. For example, one respondent wrote they desired, “more flexibility or balance in responsibilities aligned with advancement (e.g., fewer student appointments and more projects/leadership).”
Summary and Conclusions
Results from this study paint a picture of why academic advisors leave the profession and support extant research on employee behavior (Bichsel et al., 2022; Marshall et al., 2016). Low pay, poor (and deteriorating) work environments, high caseloads, and stress drive advisors to find other jobs, even when many really enjoy advising. The results also point to what institutions can do to retain advisors.
First, institutions should create clear criteria for promotions and pay raises. Institutions should acknowledge that advisors are important and pay them accordingly. However, advisors cannot bear the responsibility for student success alone; other units must examine how they can contribute to student success independently and in cooperation with advising units. Second, colleges and universities should evaluate caseload sizes. High caseloads can contribute to stressful working environments. The Boyer 2030 Commission (2022) recommends an advisor-student ratio of 250:1 for complex, research universities. Bharadwaj et al. (2023) report that advisors with caseloads over 300 are less likely to stay in their roles over the next five years. Given that studies on student success and persistence report that “the quality of academic advising . . . is the single most powerful predictor of satisfaction with the campus environment for students at four-year schools” (Kuh et al., 2006, p. 60), institutions would do well to reevaluate advisors’ pay and working conditions.
Higher education is facing a number of challenges that will affect student enrollment, including the demographic decline, the perception that college is not valuable, and diminished state support. High quality advising will go a long way to attenuating the impact of these challenges; however, this will not be possible unless leaders make a concerted effort to keep their high quality, experienced professional and faculty advisors. The good news is that retaining great advisors can be cheaper, in the long run, and is better for student success, which brings additional financial benefits to institutions.
References
Bharadwaj, P., Shaw, C., Condon, K., Rich, J., Janson, N., & Bryant, G. (2023). Driving toward a degree 2023. Tyton Partners.
Bichsel, J., Fuesting, M., Schneider, J., & Tubbs, D. (2022). The CUPA-HR 2022 higher education employee retention survey: Initial results. CUPA-HR. https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/research-briefs/higher-ed-employee-retention-survey-findings-july-2022
Boyer 2030 Commission. (2022). The equity/excellence imperative: A 2030 blueprint for undergraduate education at U.S. research universities. The Association for Undergraduate Education at Research Universities. https://doi.org/10.37514/CUS-B.2022.1503
Brantley, A., & Shomaker, R. (2021). What's next for the higher education workforce? A look at the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Higher Ed HR Magazine. https://cupahr.org/issue/feature/whats-next-for-the-higher-ed-workforce/
Cascio, W. (2006). The economic impact of employee behaviors on organizational performance. In E. E. Lawler & J. O’Toole (Eds.) America at work (pp. 241–256). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403983596_14
Elliott, R. W. (2020). Keeping college students in the game: A review on academic advising. Interchange, 51(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-020-09401-5
Kuh G. D., Kinzie J., Buckley J. A., Bridges B. K., Hayek J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. https://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/kuh_team_report.pdf
Marshall, S. M., Gardner, M. M., Hughes, C., & Lowery, U. (2016). Attrition from student affairs: Perspectives from those who exited the profession. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1147359
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069391
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd Sage Publications.
Solon, K., McGill, C. M., & Jensen, D. (2022). Understanding the career management of female primary-role advisors. NACADA Journal, 42(2), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-22-16
