Student advising needs change, accountability
Commentary by Hailey Hawkins
Issue date: 12/3/09 Section: Opinion
. Hallick's Listening Tour prepared to face off with a panel of Pacific higher-ups that would refute my concerns about the fate of the university with their bureaucratic jargon. Instead, I found myself in the PULSE, sitting with a white chocolate macadamia nut cookie, not 10 feet from our new president who sat among my peers and I, without the preconceived squad of reinforcements. To my pleasant surprise, the talk seemed more akin to a garden tea party than the epic battle I'd expected.
Dr. Hallick did not try to convince us of the university's successes, nor did she skim over any comment given by anyone in the audience regardless how big or small the suggestion might have been. In fact, I felt that the president's intention was to get a clear evaluation of the situation from the people that would know best. The topic of conversation focused on the current status as well as the future of our university.
As a new member of our campus, our president is still learning about the inner workings of our university; the four credit change, Winter III and the disgruntled feelings of the Theater and Media departments who would like to see a little more funding *cough* *cough* coming our way. The president's quiet chuckle assured the audience that the other grievances, such as Aramark food and limited parking on campus, had already made themselves voiced.
Of the criticisms that were voiced at that particular tour, one noteworthy issue I hadn't expected made itself clear. Advising, a process that was still going on at the time of the tour, is lacking an evaluation program. That is, we have no system for keeping advisors accountable for the quality of their advising.
As freshmen, we come to Pacific with an assigned advisor that calls us over the summer and helps us set up our first classes. Typically, we stick with this advisor for at least a semester or so at which point many of us either declare majors or just decide to go with a different advisor whom we are more comfortable with.
Dr. Hallick did not try to convince us of the university's successes, nor did she skim over any comment given by anyone in the audience regardless how big or small the suggestion might have been. In fact, I felt that the president's intention was to get a clear evaluation of the situation from the people that would know best. The topic of conversation focused on the current status as well as the future of our university.
As a new member of our campus, our president is still learning about the inner workings of our university; the four credit change, Winter III and the disgruntled feelings of the Theater and Media departments who would like to see a little more funding *cough* *cough* coming our way. The president's quiet chuckle assured the audience that the other grievances, such as Aramark food and limited parking on campus, had already made themselves voiced.
Of the criticisms that were voiced at that particular tour, one noteworthy issue I hadn't expected made itself clear. Advising, a process that was still going on at the time of the tour, is lacking an evaluation program. That is, we have no system for keeping advisors accountable for the quality of their advising.
As freshmen, we come to Pacific with an assigned advisor that calls us over the summer and helps us set up our first classes. Typically, we stick with this advisor for at least a semester or so at which point many of us either declare majors or just decide to go with a different advisor whom we are more comfortable with.
Be the first to comment on this story