Introduction

As part of a doctoral-level class group project that examined shortages in various professions, members of the ACADV Network (an electronic on-line discussion group for academic advisers in higher education) were solicited through a participant posting to ascertain whether or not academic adviser shortages were an issue in higher education today.

A search for relevant literature through databases found in the FirstSearch component of the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), including Education Abstracts, ERIC, WorldCat, and Dissertation Abstracts International, yielded no direct or related research publications on academic adviser shortages. As a result, an attempt was made to examine the views of academic advising professionals themselves to help determine whether or not shortages existed in the profession and what effect these perceived shortages had on academic advising.

Thirty-two ACADV members volunteered to complete a four-item, open-ended questionnaire which was sent by e-mail to only those members who agreed to participate in the study. Twenty-two responses were collected, resulting in a 68.8% response rate. Respondents represented geographic locations across the United States and possessed varying amounts of experience in terms of years in advising or related positions, age, and highest degree earned (see Table 1).


Table 1: Survey Responses and Respondent Characteristics
Shortage Adviser's Institution Type and Location Yrs. Advising Age Degree
Yes Associate of Arts, 2-year public (OR) 6.0 33 M
Yes Associate of Arts, 2-year public (TX) 8.0 42 M
Yes Baccalaureate II, 4-year private (GA) 1.5 43 M
Yes Baccalaureate II, 4-year private (PA) 9.0 55 M
Yes Baccalaureate II, 4-year public (NJ) 6.0 34 D
Yes Doctoral II, 4-year public (IN) 18.0 50 M
Yes Master's I, 4-year public (CA) 2.5 31 M
Yes Master's I, 4-year public (IL) 0.5 27 M
Yes Master's I, 4-year public (MO) 2.0 29 M
Yes Master's I, 4-year public (WA) 3.0 27 M
Yes Master's II, 4-year private (UT) 7.0 48 M
Yes Research I, 4-year public (FL) 2.0 27 B
Yes Research I, 4-year public (OH) 31.0 68 M
Yes Research I, 4-year public (OR) 7.0 35 M
Yes Research I, 4-year public (PA) 7.0 41 M
Yes Research I, 4-year public (TX) 18.0 49 D
Yes Research I, 4-year public (WI) 18.0 46 M
Yes Research II, 4-year public (ID) 4.0 26 M
Yes Research II, 4-year public (SC) 0.5 25 B
No Baccalaureate I, 4-year private (GA) 9.0 46 M
No Master's I, 4-year private (GA) 2.5 31 D
No Research II, 4-year public (OK) 3.0 35 M

Note: The mean number of years of service in academic advising by the respondents was 7.5. Respondents' highest degree earned included three doctoral degrees (D), 17 master's degrees (M), and two bachelor's degrees (B). Information on institution type was taken from “The College Handbook, 1991,” and the “1995 Higher Education Directory.”

The need to examine the questionnaire responses more closely was justified when 19 out of 22 listserv respondents (86.4%) indicated that there was, in fact, a shortage of academic advisers on their campuses. Of the three respondents who stated that their institutions did not encounter a shortage of academic advisers, two were located in the same state (Georgia) and two had three years or less of advising experience.

Responses

Table 2 summarizes adviser reactions to Question 2. Reactions were divided into eleven categories of frequency based upon how the perceived shortage of academic advisers affects their campuses and nearby institutions.

A portion of respondents believed that students were not effectively served as a result of adviser shortages (for example, statements included that it created an overload of students per adviser, limited the number of meetings with each student, and reduced the amount of time students could spend in appointments). Advisers also believed that students did not receive the timely feedback they required, were forced to experience large-group advising sessions (instead of one-on-one student/adviser interactions), met with untrained volunteer advisers, or were guided by available advisers instead of assigned advisers, resulting in student/adviser inconsistencies.

Another point advisers expounded on was that students had to wait inordinate periods of time to schedule an advising appointment, which consequently discouraged those who were less motivated. One respondent theorized that student dissatisfaction with advising increased and became more apparent. This resulted in students giving up trying to meet with their advisers after one or two unsuccessful attempts. In the long run, students who felt they did not receive adequate service were likely to speak negatively about their advising experiences and/or not seek advising at all.

Some respondents even contended that faculty advising needed improvement on their campuses. Responses ranged from sympathy for faculty who might be too busy with regular professorial activities to handle student advising, to mandating a greater overall faculty commitment to advisement. One respondent remarked that “students who are often advised by faculty are not really advised at all,” and that little accountability currently exists for those faculty who do advise.

Table 2: How do you feel this issue affects advising at your college/university, colleges/universities locally, or colleges/universities regionally?
Response f
Students are not effectively served by the institution 7
Students become dissatisfied 5
Faculty advising needs improvement 4
Negatively impacts student retention 4
Recruitment of others (graduate students, student affairs personnel, peer counselors) to advise 2
Career planning suffers 2
Affects student success 2
Advisers become overwhelmed, contributing to low morale 2
Advisers put in extra hours to make sure all needs are met 1
No consistency with advisers students see 1
Little accountability for faculty who advise 1

Advisers were also asked how they would personally resolve the adviser shortages (see Table 3). The obvious answer was simply to hire more advisers, with the realization that more monies would need to be provided or redistributed to do so. One adviser suggested a new funding model that linked a ratio of actual dollar amounts to the number of students advised. A second adviser felt that the problem at his institution was not in the sum of institutional monies, but with allocations, institutional philosophy, and policy. A third adviser remarked that a stronger commitment was necessary on the part of the college in retaining student services, because this area was the first to suffer cuts in recent budgetary actions.

Faculty advisers were not looked on favorably by two advisers who would like to eliminate those who do not want to advise and use the resulting financial surplus to hire more academic advisers. One respondent acknowledged that while some professors serve as excellent advisers, most do not, and advising responsibilities should be removed from faculty who are ineffective. Some respondents demonstrated resourcefulness by suggesting the use of campus volunteers, such as graduate assistants and peer counselors, to help serve the large numbers of advisees.


Table 3: How would you resolve the issue of professional academic adviser/counselor shortage?
Response f
Hire more advisers 7
Create new funding models, provide more money, or reallocate existing monies for advising 6
Change institutional philosophy/create awareness among faculty and administration 3
Utilize volunteers (graduate students, student affairs personnel, peer counselors) 3
Create an advising center 2
Increase technology and disseminate information to students electronically 2
Remove advising from faculty who are not doing it well and obtain greater faculty commitment 2
Place greater emphasis on freshman seminar programs 2
Relieve professional advisers from other campus duties 1
Ensure academic adviser contacts at predetermined times 1
Offer training programs and incentives for faculty advisers 1

The final question invited respondents to predict resistance to their recommendations of alleviating adviser shortages (see Table 4). Overwhelmingly (and to no surprise) advisers responded with phrases such as “budget shortage,” “shrinking budgets,” “budget cuts,” and “budget constraints” to describe the lack of funding available to support their ideas. General comments included the following: some administrative support exists but that “only so much money is available;” traditionally advising is seen as less than a profession and less than a full-time position; faculty needs are often placed above student services; and paid training should be provided for faculty advisers.

General faculty issues, sometimes territorial, sometimes financial, were also noted as roadblocks. At least one adviser felt that some faculty are very protective of their advisement status, making it a touchy area on campus, while another commented that faculty would lose money if relieved of advising duties and, as a result, hesitate to relinquish advising responsibilities.


Table 4: List any potential resistance you might anticipate in your recommendations
Response f
Budget/other resources 18
Faculty issues 5
Resistance from administration 5
Lack of campus facilities 3
Hiring and/or training new advisers 3
Student resistance 3
Unwillingness to change existing system 2
Inability to provide quality service to students/special populations 2
Changing existing negative perceptions of advising and/or faculty advising 2

Conclusion

Most advisers surveyed agreed that there was a shortage of academic advisers on their campuses. This shortage will continue to produce negative effects, such as the inability to effectively serve students and overwork the currently understaffed advisers. On campuses where faculty advising was incorporated, issues surrounding faculty participation included ineffectiveness, lack of interest, and eliminating their involvement altogether and reallocating monies to hire more professional advisers. Overwhelmingly, budgetary concerns were cited as the greatest obstacle to eliminating the shortage of academic advisers on campuses across the country.