Looking for Advice

It's the time of year when the quality of one's academic advising seems to matter most. In the race to pick classes and have study cards signed by often absent or careless head tutors, the spotty nature of Harvard's guidance system becomes abundantly clear. This month's report released by the Standing Committee on Advising and Counseling reveals what we students already knew--academic advising at the College is disturbingly inconsistent, with a few departments offering strong guidance and too many doing a poor job.

The report included statistics from the 1997 and 1998 comprehensive senior surveys and a list of concentrations ranked according to satisfaction level from the 1998 survey. Women's studies, music and literature ranked in the top three for quality advising. English, applied mathematics and physical sciences were at the bottom of the pile. While the statistics in the report make for interesting, if depressing, reading (where does your department fall on the hit list?), it is really the suggestions of the committee which are most worth evaluating.

The Faculty members and student representatives proposed two especially useful plans of attack to improve advising--establishing a minimum standard of quality across all departments and encouraging the appointment of senior Faculty members as head tutors or directors of undergraduate studies.

Both proposals are good ones, though it seems that it would not be asking too much to have the College impose more than just a "minimum standard" of advising across departments. Harvard takes pride in its decentralized system, and departments hold tight to their autonomy. But if there's one area which should be closely watched and standardized, it is advising. Without strong prompting from University Hall, some departments may never recognize that their undergraduates deserve careful attention. The Economics Department, for example, ranked 35th out of 38 concentrations on the 1998 senior survey. But Head Tutor and Associate Professor Christopher L. Foote says, "We have no plans to rework the system." If even one department holds on to this kind of "why fix what's broken?" philosophy, the College must step in.

The most philosophically significant suggestion made by the Committee is that senior faculty be heads of undergraduate advising in all departments. Assistant professors may be helpful and well-meaning, but they often lack the knowledge of the College's systems and the authority to advocate on behalf of their students. While senior Faculty may have busier schedules, their expertise would make a world of difference to undergraduate concentrators.

Finally, the report raises a crucial point about the need for better representation of concentration tutors in all the houses. Especially since randomization, now that students can no longer pick their houses with an eye towards strong advising in their area of interest, masters should be careful to hire a cross-section of concentration tutors to back up the departmental advising and listen to the requests of students in this vein.

The report is a good start, with several ideas worth implementing. This will be a long process, but it's vital and long overdue. Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68, who has rightly focused attention on this issue, and the rest of the committee should keep us informed about the progress being made and remember that centralizing the system is the best way to achieve consistently strong advising for every student.