Motions from the Joint Committee on Advising



  1. The Joint Committee on Advising proposes that each department or program develop a procedure to certify the remaining requirements for degree completion for each Bachelor’s degree candidate after completion of 85 credits. Each student should then be given a formal statement to the effect that if he or she completes specific remaining requirements, he or she will be awarded the appropriate degree. We recommend that one person should have responsibility for this review in each department or program.



Over the past several years the fraction of students who are pursuing dual and other

complex degrees has increased dramatically. Templates exist for many dual degrees, but it is not reasonable to generate templates for all possible combinations and special circumstances. This has led to confusion and occasional misstatements by academic advisors, which has led to last-semester difficulties for some students when each student's program is certified prior to graduation.

This problem can be ameliorated by conducting an earlier review, when the student has completed 85 credit hours, and informing the student of remaining requirements for the degrees the student has specified. This early review will typically leave two semesters to complete 30-35 credit hours and allow the student to take necessary courses that are offered only in one semester per year.


At the discretion of the department, the person responsible for the review may be the degree clearance officer.



  1. The office of the Provost, working with the registrar and DotCIO should institute a system by which all students are required to meet with their academic advisors before registration each semester. A system of checks needs to be put in place so that both advisor and the student verify the meeting occurred and that the student provides feedback on both their advisor and the advising system as a whole before the student can register for classes.





It is the recommendation of the Joint Advising Committee that one of the following systems be used in verifying the student/advisor meeting.


Advisor: Either the advisor needs to login to the Early Warning System and remove the hold from the student's account or the advisor needs to have an individual ID number to give to the student which will be inputted to the Banner system in order to remove the advising hold.


Student: After the advisor has removed their hold, the student will be required to click on a link within the banner system which will take them to an electronic survey system. The survey would be completed after the student had left the meeting and should not be completed in the presence of the advisor. The survey will be comprised of questions which will gauge the effectiveness of both the student's individual advisor and the advising system as a whole. Once the survey has been completed the system will remove the advising hold and allow the student to register.



  1. The Office of the Provost should institute a Faculty and Staff Honor Roll for Advising and Mentoring. The Academic Affairs Committee of the Student Senate and the Honors Committee of the Faculty Senate will make recommendations annually on candidates.






At present, there is only one university-level award for advising and mentoring – the Darrin Counseling Award. The honor roll for advising and mentoring would provide an addition avenue for recognizing the work of dedicated individuals. A faculty or staff member could be placed on the honor roll multiple times, as warranted. This motion is synergistic with motion 2, in which students evaluate their individual advisers. With proper precautions, some data from these student evaluations could be used as input to the selection process.