Advisor
Load
Wes
Habley
Director, Office of Educational Practices
ACT, Inc.
Few topics
prompt more discussion than establishing an appropriate ratio
of advisees to advisors (advisor load) in an academic advising
program. Yet, the field of advising has yet to produce definitive
research on the relationship between advisor load and either student
satisfaction or advisor effectiveness. The CAS standards for academic
advising provide only general parameters on this issue. The standards
state "(t)he academic advising program must be staffed adequately
by individuals to accomplish its mission and goals." In addition,
the standards recommend that "(s)sufficient personnel should
be available to meet students' advising needs without unreasonable
delay. Advisors should allow an appropriate amount of time for
students to discuss plan, program, course, academic progress,
and other subjects related to their educational programs."
This issues paper will examine three topics: What do we know about
advisor loads? What do experts suggest as reasonable advisor loads?
What institutional factors should guide decisions on advisor load?
What do we know about advisor load?
In
spite of major interest in this topic, research on advisor load
has been limited to the National Surveys on Academic Advising
conducted by ACT, Inc. In the most recent survey (the Sixth national
survey) published in 2004 as a NACADA
monograph, data were collected on the mean number of advisees
assigned to each full-time equivalent advisor. The survey showed
that the mean number of advisees assigned to full-time advisors
at 375/1 in two-year public colleges, 121/1 in two-year private colleges,
285/1 in four-year public colleges, and 153/1 in four-year private
colleges. It should also be noted that to some these figures may
seem low but we must realize that many full-time advisors work
in advising programs that provide services to students with specialized
advising needs (e.g. undecided students, underprepared students,
adult students, honors students, and/or students with disabilities).
Data on reported student contact with full-time advisors can also
be used to gain a better understanding of advisor load. In the
Sixth survey, the mean number (should this be numbers) of student
contacts per full-time advisors during an academic term were (or
should this be WAS) 2.5 (two-year public colleges), 2.2 (two-year
private colleges), 2.4 (four-year public colleges), and 3.3 (four-year
private colleges. As corroboration for these contact data, the
most recent normative report from ACT's Survey of Academic Advising
(a student evaluation) indicates that the mean number of contacts
between an advisee and a full-time advisor is 2.68.
The sixth national survey also focused on advising load and student
contact for full-time instructional faculty. The mean loads for
full-time faculty were 37.3 (two-year public colleges), 19.7(two-year
private colleges), 38.2 (four-year public colleges), and 20.2
(four-year private colleges). Also noted in the sixth survey were
two additional points. For the first time, the survey asked the
highest advisee load for a full-time faculty member and the lowest
advisee load (known as advisor load). The extremes in advisor
loads varied from 79.8 - 12.9 (two-year public colleges), 44.9
- 10.4 (two-year private colleges) 135.7 - 12.5 (four-year public
colleges), and 45.4 - 7.1 (four-year private colleges).
The great variations in faculty loads within institutions is caused
by the fact that all campuses have departments with many faculty
and few majors as well as departments with few faculty and many
majors. Advisee contacts with full-time faculty per term were
3.0 (two-year public colleges), 4.6 (two-year private colleges),
2.1 (four-year public colleges) and 2.9 (four-year private colleges).
These results were somewhat lower than contacts reported (2.7
mean contacts for all institutions) in the Normative Report of
the Survey of Academic Advising.
What
do the 'experts' recommend as reasonable loads for academic advisors?
It
is interesting to observe that 'experts' in academic advising
are not 'on the record' regarding advisor load. That is, there
are few, if any published recommendations on this topic. Note
also that even the CAS standards beg this issue. The standards
suggest that advising programs must be adequately staffed with
sufficient personnel to meet student needs without unreasonable
delay. Yet, the standards provide no quantitative insights into
the definition of the terms adequately, sufficient, student needs,
or unreasonable. Off the record however, many 'experts' in the
field of academic advising suggest that a target advisor load
for full-time advisors should be about 300/1 and the target advisor
load for full-time instructional staff should be about 20/1. Usually,
the 'experts' immediately qualify these recommendations suggesting
that many institutional factors should be considered in determining
a reasonable advisor load.
What
institutional factors should guide decisions on advisor load?
In
reality, institutional factors must be examined to determine that
an advising program is adequately staffed with sufficient personnel
to meet student needs without unreasonable delay. Examine the
logic of the following statements:
IF -- your stated goals for advisor load are
300/1 for full-time advisors and 20/1 for full-time instructional
faculty.
THEN:
-
Advisors who work primarily
with students who have more extensive advising needs should
have fewer advisees. The institution must decide which students
need more extensive advising. On many campuses those students
are undecided, underprepared, adult, disabled, minority, and/or
first generation.
-
Advisors who work with
students in complex academic programs that include rigorous
institutional requirements and/or state and accrediting agency
requirements should have fewer advisees.
-
Advisors who work with
students in transition (first-year, transferring in or out)
should have fewer advisees.
-
Advisors who work with
students in academic difficulty should have fewer advisees.
-
Advisors who work with
international students should have fewer advisees.
-
Advisors (full-time)
who are assigned other tasks necessary for the operation of
the advising program should have fewer advisees.
NOTE: The above statements are illustrative only and not
exhaustive. As a corollary to these statements, it is
assumed that if the advising load goals are 300/1 and 20/1 respectively,
the end result is that if there are advisors with loads lower
that the institutional goals then there must also be advisors
who will have loads higher than these.
There are several other institution-specific questions that must
be explored before determining appropriate advisor loads.
-
To what degree is the
advising program supported by technology? Technology is used
to support advising (degree audits, SIS systems, etc). And,
technology is used in the delivery of advising information (email,
web, telephone, etc.) It is important to note that technology
can support advising, but that technology is not advising. Nevertheless,
the application of technology must be a consideration in determining
advisor load.
-
Are academic policies
centralized or decentralized? In an institution replete with
campus-wide policies, there is common ground from department
to department (or college to college) and, as a result, fewer
academic advising situations are complex. If however, each department
(or college) makes its own determination on policy issues, advisors
may need to take additional time in contact with advisees.
-
Does the campus incorporate
advising (particularly of first year students) into group settings?
On many campuses, first year advising takes place as part of
an orientation course or freshman seminar. On other campuses,
peers (or others) are used to deliver a common information base
to entering students.
-
Does the campus use
a variety of media to support advising? Although technology
is used to support and used in the delivery of advising, there
may be other alternative methods for sharing basic advising
information with students.
SUMMARY
There are some very good reasons why the CAS standards are qualitative
and not quantitative. And, those same reasons explain the lack
of a visible 'expert' position on advising load. Frankly, there
is no magic formula that fits determining advisor load at every
institution. Simply stated the terms adequately staff, sufficient
personnel, meet student needs, and unreasonable delay, are terms
that require institutional definition. In a sense, the issue of
advisor load is predicated on understanding the differential needs
of your students.
Contact
Web Habley at wes.habley@act.org
Cite
the above resource using APA style as:
Habley,
W. R. (2004). Advisor load . Retrieved
-insert today's date- from the NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic
Advising Resources Web site: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/advisorload.htm
