We value relationships but many of our advising interactions with students are transactional

While everyone – staff, faculty and students – emphasized the importance of relationships, they also noted that the practices currently in place do not always facilitate a relational style of advising. Many of the interactions in the current advising system are transactional (i.e., releasing course holds, checking requirements, signing forms). This is not to say that there are no interactions reflecting a relational advising style but only that the most common mode of engagement is transactional.

For example, the two largest undergraduate schools rely on faculty advising which is often narrowly defined to focus on course and major selection. Faculty typically meet with students for advising in 15-minute sessions once a semester. We consistently heard from faculty and students that this practice is not conducive to meaningful engagement. Students spoke clearly about this in both the listening sessions and the Spring 2021 Advising Survey, where some of the most frequently noted negative comments referred to the relational aspect of advising. One of the top concerns raised by College students noted an absence of a relationship, such as “My advisor is nice enough, but I don’t think she actually remembers who I am.” Similarly in Engineering, students lamented having no relationship with their advisors since they just “meet for 10 minutes to just talk about basic requirements.”

In student listening sessions, the Task Force probed more deeply the meaning of a relational style of advising from their perspective. What became clear is that students are not talking about a deep personal or even professional relationship that may resemble mentoring, but about a professional relationship in which one is known and engaged with. Students noted fairly simple ways in which advisors can demonstrate their personal engagement: sending a welcome email, knowing and caring about students’ interests beyond coursework, and remembering the previous conversation or email exchange. This does not mean that deeper relationships cannot form between students and advisors, and indeed students often form mentoring relationships with faculty and/or staff, which tend to be longer-term and grounded in shared experiences (whether based on courses, research, or other interests). It is only to point out that at a very basic level, successful advising relationships are those in which students feel like they matter, which begins with a simple recognition of them as persons.

Engagement with undergraduate offices is also often transactional in nature. Based on the Spring 2021 Advising Survey, “I needed to get a form signed or paperwork filled out” was the most common option selected for the primary reason students went to the Office of Undergraduate Programs in Engineering and the second most common reason students went to see an Association Dean in the College.

Faculty advisors do not always have the requisite knowledge to assist students

In addition to getting forms signed, the other primary reason students go to undergraduate offices is to get answers to questions their faculty advisors are not able to answer. Almost half of the students in the College and Engineering went to undergraduate offices for this type of assistance. “I had questions about courses and majors that my faculty advisor was unable to answer” was selected by 40% of students in the College and 45% of students in Engineering as the primary reason they went to see Association Deans (College) or Office of Undergraduate Programs (Engineering).

In the listening sessions, staff and students often raised concerns about the knowledge of faculty advisors. This concern was noted across all schools with faculty advisors. Faculty advisors themselves noted that they often lacked the necessary knowledge to provide adequate guidance, especially about University resources and requirements beyond their own programs.

A Spring 2021 Advising Survey in the two largest schools corroborates those sentiments. For example, only about 50% of students agree or strongly agree that their major advisor suggests suitable opportunities.⁴

There are notable inconsistencies in advising across faculty advisors  

All stakeholder groups – faculty, staff, and students – noted inconsistencies in faculty advising. All groups could recall excellent faculty advisors, but they could also all recall poor or mediocre ones as well. Having a good advisor was often described as the luck of the draw.

In open-ended responses to the Spring 2021 Advising Survey, the degree of inconsistency in advising was readily apparent. Approximately one quarter of students provided open-ended comments about their advisors. Among those, in both the College and Engineering, the single most common comment was a general positive comment. This was, however, followed by a similar share of negative comments. In the College, negative comments reflected a lack of relationship with the advisor, advisors lacking information, or overall negative experiences. In Engineering, the largest proportion of negative comments referred to not having a relationship with the advisor or having a non-communicative advisor.

Another indicator of inconsistency is the extent to which students report meeting with their advisors. Spring 2021 Advising Survey indicates that only half (49.5%) of the first- and second-year students in the College met with their pre-major advisor as expected (i.e., once a semester). ⁵ Moreover, only approximately a third (35.2%) of third- and fourth-year students reported meeting with their major advisor once per semester. In Engineering, slightly over half (56.4%) of second-, third-, and fourth-year students reported meeting with their major advisor once per semester.

Several data points indicate that these patterns are not simply a result of the pandemic. In the College, the above percentage for pre-major advising refers only to first- and second-year students. Third- and fourth-year students were also asked to reflect on the frequency of meeting with their pre-major advisors and the percentages are exactly the same: 50% of first- and second-year students reported meeting with their pre-major advisor as expected during COVID and 50% of third- and fourth-year students reported the same before COVID.

Also, at the end of the Spring 2021 Advising Survey, we asked third- and fourth-year students about the extent to which the shift to virtual/modified operations impacted their advising experience. The comments offered were about equally distributed between neutral, positive and negative points. Very few comments revealed strong sentiments. Examples of typical comments include:

• Neutral: “No impact. Was still able to meet virtually.”
• Positive: “Online platforms make it more accessible.”
• Negative: “Zoom appointments are confusing.”

A lack of knowledge and a high degree of inconsistency across faculty advisors are not surprising

Both faculty and staff listening sessions indicated that notable inconsistencies among faculty advisors are not surprising. Faculty and staff have noted a number of potential reasons for a lack of knowledge and a high degree of inconsistency including:

• A lack of training. Currently, when training for faculty is offered, it is limited, often narrowly focused on course selection, and not required.
• A lack of time. Even faculty who were recommended by their schools as exemplary advisors noted the challenge of dedicating time to advising. Primary responsibilities for tenured and tenure-track faculty include research and teaching. Advising falls within the seemingly always expanding category of service, which includes a range of department, school, and university-level service obligations.
• A lack of incentives and accountability. Akin to other service roles, there are no incentives for faculty advisors (monetary or otherwise), with the exception of a small group of faculty who teach first-year courses associated with advising; moreover, there is little direct assessment of advisor performance and no accountability for poor performance or not meeting with students at all.
• Vast differences in advising loads. Faculty in the College and Engineering noted vast differences in advising loads, and data from Institutional Research and Analytics confirmed this. While approximately 30% of faculty in the College have 10 or fewer undergraduate advisees, 17% have over 30, and a small group of faculty have over 50. Similarly, in Engineering, approximately a quarter of the faculty have 10 or fewer undergraduate advisees, while 30% have over 30, and a small group (mostly those teaching Introduction to Engineering) have over 50.

There are also significant variations in staff advising: the extent of staff training, opportunities for professional development, and staff advising loads all vary across schools. Staff advisors in several schools noted challenges in serving their students well given their high advising loads and/or other responsibilities that were competing with their advising duties.

It Takes a Village: Necessity of a Network/Team Approach 

Faculty and staff across schools and units agree that collaboration is crucial to providing excellent advising. One individual, no matter how skilled or knowledgeable, cannot address the full range of students’ needs. It is crucial to have a network of individuals who can work together on supporting student success across academic, career, and personal domains.

Students take full advantage of courses and majors across the University  

Undergraduates at the University are not confined to their school of enrollment. Many of them pursue opportunities across different schools. For example:

• Approximately 20% of students (or about 600 students who enter as first-time first-year students in one of the 5 schools admitting first-years and graduate within 6 years) transfer within UVA, graduating from a school other than their original school of enrollment.⁶
• Overall, about 1,000 students each year apply for internal transfer to bachelor’s degree programs in McIntire/Batten/EHD.⁷
• In any given semester, over 50% of undergraduates – or approximately 9,500 students in Fall 2019 and in Spring 2020, respectively – take at least one course outside of their school of enrollment.
• Approximately 20% of fourth-years (or approximately 800 fourth-year students) have a major or a minor outside of their primary school of enrollment.⁸

Given these data, it is striking that advising is typically confined within the primary school of enrollment and advisors are rarely knowledgeable about either requirements or opportunities at other schools. Based on the Spring 2021 Advising Survey, only 42% of College students are satisfied or very satisfied with advising related to transferring to another school at UVA.  

Students are not receiving support spanning different realms – academic, career, and personal

In the two largest undergraduate schools, faculty serve as primary advisors and their role is often defined narrowly to focus on course and major selection. Academic advising is not integrated with career advising, or more generally with advising about life outside of the classroom. Thus, student satisfaction is low with respect to many areas of advising beyond course requirements: only about half of students in Engineering and closer to 40% in the College are satisfied or very satisfied with advising beyond academic requirements/major.⁹

There is no shared understanding or infrastructure to support collaboration or a networked approach to advising

While there is agreement among faculty and staff about the crucial role of collaboration (within schools, across schools, and between academic and student affairs units), the reality does not often reflect our ideals. One of the challenges noted by faculty and staff in listening sessions is a lack of a clear definition of what constitutes advising as well as an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of individuals in the advising ecosystem. Currently, there is no university-wide understanding of the key principles of advising, and most school websites do not provide a definition of advising. Moreover, while some schools convey to students the idea of a network of advisors (i.e., there are multiple individuals they can turn to facilitate their success), there is typically a lack of clarity about who does what in the network (and who the student is supposed to talk to about certain topics or concerns) as well as how to reach specific individuals.

In addition, there is no standardized software that is used across schools and by academic and student affairs units in which advisors can write notes, directly refer students to another person in the network, directly send notifications/reminders to students, etc. Batten and McIntire use Salesforce products for advising, which are school specific and not integrated with other units. They thus do not have any information related to academic, career, or personal advising their students have received before they transfer. College and Architecture use home-grown software, which is used by faculty primarily to schedule advising appointments. The software has limited capacities and is not used by any other units or integrated with student data systems. Thus, to check student courses and degree progression (which is currently a key component of faculty advising), faculty still have to go into another system (SIS).  

This does not mean that collaboration does not occur. Indeed, students are referred to undergraduate offices, ODOS, career center, SDAC, CAPS, etc. and information is at times shared between offices (e.g., undergraduate offices in the schools and ODOS). However, there is substantial confusion about appropriate sharing of information and referral pathways; individuals frequently rely on personal networks as opposed to established channels of communication; and students often feel like they get the ’run-around’, visiting different offices in search of an answer and repeating their stories over and over again.

The First Year is Crucial, Although Advising Remains Important Throughout the College Journey

The first year is crucial as first-year experiences, whether positive or negative, can reverberate throughout the rest of students’ time at UVA. In the listening sessions, students talked about how a great advisor in the first year can help them navigate the university, learn where/how to access resources, build relationships, and feel like somebody cares about them as individuals. They also talked about consequences of inadequate advising in the first year. If they met with an advisor who did not seem to care or did not have accurate information, they did not go back, not only to that advisor but to other potential sources of information and support. Similarly, if they went to an office – whether an undergraduate office in their school or the career center – and did not get good advice, they stopped going and they told their friends not to go either. One bad experience early in students’ time at UVA thus can cascade into many missed opportunities.

Students rate pre-major advising less favorably than major advising

In the 2018 SERU (Student Experience in the Research University) Survey, UVA asked questions regarding students’ satisfaction with major vs. pre-major advising and the results indicate that students are notably less satisfied with advising prior to declaring the major.

The College faces unique challenges related to pre-major advising

Pre-major advisors are not always knowledgeable about major requirements

The College faces unique challenges along two dimensions related to pre-major advising. The first pertains to a lack of knowledge among pre-major advisors about major requirements outside of their field. A comparison of major and pre-major advisors in the College indicates that the advisors are rated similarly on many dimensions, with the biggest difference observed regarding advisor knowledge of pre-major requirements (as seen in Figure 2, comparing orange and blue bars for the College). In the Spring 2021 Advising Survey, 79% of students in the College agree/strongly agree that the major advisor is knowledgeable about their major requirements while 43% of students agree/strongly agree that their pre-major advisor is knowledgeable about their major requirements.¹⁰

Students’ dissatisfaction with pre-major advising in the College is also prominent in students’ qualitative comments in the Spring 2021 Advising Survey and listening sessions. Comments such as: “my pre-major advisor was nice but did not know anything about my major requirements” or “my pre-major advisor was not helpful at all as she did not know anything about my area of interest” came up repeatedly. Indeed, interest mismatch was the most common negative comment about advisors recorded in open-ended responses among College students in the Spring 2021 Advising Survey. 

While students in the College typically do not declare a major until the spring of the second year, a number of majors (particularly in the STEM fields, including some social sciences) have extensive requirements and course sequences that require careful planning. Students interested in those majors thus have to begin taking specific major-related coursework in the first year, and at times may have to take a specific class in a particular semester. Similarly, students who intend to apply for internal transfer to another school often need to complete a range of courses in the first two years to be eligible for transfer.

A lack of opportunities for structured exploration

Due to its size and versatility, the College advises students across a wide spectrum of interests, from those who are undecided or do not have a firm sense of what major or career they may wish to pursue, to those who come determined to major in a particular area and/or pursue a particular career path. In the listening sessions, faculty and staff in the College placed a substantial emphasis on exploration – emphasizing spending the first two years exploring one’s interests. However, there are no structures in place (e.g., no formal connections with the Exploration Team at the Career Center or other formal/structured exploration opportunities) that would facilitate productive exploration of academic and career goals. What exploration often looks like is an advisor asking: “are you sure you want to do x? did you consider y?”, without offering much specific guidance or direction. Moreover, while many topics cross departments and schools, and while many students take classes across multiple schools (and even major and minor across schools), pre-major advisors are not equipped to provide advice about those offerings since they are knowledgeable primarily about offerings in their own departments.  

Note on Transfer Students: In listening sessions both faculty and staff noted that transfer students require specialized knowledge and resources that faculty may not have. Those students face challenges similar to first-year students in terms of navigating the University. In the Spring 2021 Advising Survey, transfer students in the College were more likely to meet with their faculty advisors as well as with Association Deans than first-time first-year students, indicating a higher degree of reliance on institutional supports. The survey revealed no notable differences between first-time first-year and transfer students in their satisfaction with advising or knowledge about resources. It is important to closely monitor transfer students’ experiences and ensure that they can take advantage of all UVA has to offer.

Effective and Efficient Communication with Students 

As a large, comprehensive university, UVA offers a range of resources

In addition to their primary academic advisor, students at the University have access to a range of resources both within schools and across the University. Dean’s offices in each school include personnel who advise and provide a range of supports and services to students. In addition to the University Career Center, a number of schools have school-embedded career centers. The Office of the Deans of Students serves all students, supporting their personal growth and development as well as assisting with myriad challenges students face on their journeys through college. Moreover, numerous offices support students in their pursuit of an exceptional undergraduate experience, from research opportunities to study abroad, and offices such as OAAA and Multicultural Student Services support underserved populations. Georges Student Center provides a hub for advising activities and many offices meet with students in that space.

Students do not know who to talk to and how to access resources

While the University offers a range of resources, students do not know who to talk to about crucial aspects of their experience. For example, only one third of students in the College and under half of students in Engineering agree or strongly agree that they know who to talk to regarding their post-graduation plans or what skills or experiences they will need to pursue their goals after graduation.

These percentages increase as students progress through college, but at a slow rate. Even at the end of the college journey, only 43% of fourth-years in the College and 53% in Engineering agree or strongly agree that they know what skills and experiences they need to pursue their goals after graduation.

Another question in the Spring 2021 Advising Survey asked students to identify various individuals they talk to regarding several key advising topics.¹¹ Relatively small percentages of students engaged with UVA resources. For example, only about a third of College students and about half of Engineering students talked to UVA faculty and staff about pursuing an internship (with or without also consulting with family and/or peers). The rest of the students either did not talk to anybody or talked only to their family/peers, without engaging any UVA staff/faculty members.

The most common reason for not seeking information from UVA faculty/staff is not knowing who to talk to. The second most common is not being sure what question to ask.

• "I was not sure who to ask” was selected in an average of 34.7% of responses in the College and 24.1% of responses in Engineering
• “I was not sure what questions to ask” was selected in an average of 24.8% of responses in the College and 25.1% of response in Engineering

It is also notable that first-generation students (i.e., students from families where neither parent completed a four-year college degree) stood out in response to this question in that they were much more likely to fall in the category of not talking to anybody about advising topics. This was driven largely by their lower reliance on peers and family. Without relying on those personal resources, first-generation students were often left without any guidance. This situation highlights the importance of providing structured access to information and resources, especially for our growing proportion of students who depend on the University to serve as the conduit to services and supports across Grounds.     

Finding information is not easy

Faculty and student listening sessions noted how difficult it is to find information on the UVA website. One often has to go to multiple websites to find a relevant piece of information and at times different websites have different information. Moreover, websites often fail to indicate who students can approach regarding a question or how to reach specific individuals.

In addition, UVA websites do not have good search features. As a simple example, if one enters “UVA drop add deadline” in Google, the first link provided is to the Registrar’s page that includes information on add/drop/withdrawal deadlines for each school. Bingo! However, if one enters “drop add deadline” in the search engine on the main UVA webpage, none of the first 10 links provide the relevant information. Three of the links are for Darden, and three are for Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. One of the websites says “Schedule changes (add, drop, withdraw) | Undergraduate UVA” which is confusing as it is not for all undergraduates but only for Arts and Sciences, and it takes another click to get to the actual deadlines. Even if one is more specific and types “drop add deadline nursing” in the main UVA webpage’s search engine, the relevant link is at the bottom of the page (9^th on the list).

² Spring 2021 Advising Survey focused on the two largest schools (College and Engineering), which account for approximately 85% of undergraduate enrollment. Listening sessions included students across all undergraduate schools.   

³ Pre-major advisor ratings include all students, while major advisor ratings include only students in the major (3^rd and 4^th years in the College, 2^nd-4^th years in Engineering).

⁴ Pre-major advisor ratings include all students, while major advisor ratings include only students in the major (3^rd and 4^th years in the College, 2^nd-4^th years in Engineering).

⁵ In Engineering, instructors for the required first-year seminar (Intro to Engineering) serve as advisors, and thus first-year students see their advisor in class every week.

⁶ Based on first-time first-year students who were admitted in Fall 2015 and graduated within 6 years.

⁷ Based on information about applications to BA programs from McIntire, Batten, and EHD.

⁸ Based on 4^th year degree-seeking undergraduate students in Fall 2021.

⁹ In order to discourage inaccurate responses, an alternative option of “I have not received advising in this area” was available for each of these items. Percentages displayed in this table are taken from the number of valid responses, which do not include those who indicated that they had not received advising in a particular area.

¹⁰ Pre-major advisor ratings include all students, while major advisor ratings include only students in the major (3^rd and 4^th years in the College, 2^nd-4^th years in Engineering).

¹¹ The choices for resources consulted included: faculty advisors, Association Deans, other faculty or staff (combined into “UVA faculty/staff” category), and peers, parents and family (combined into “peers/family” category). Students who did not select any of the choices may have done so either because they did not have any questions or did not know who/how to engage.