| The problem of this study was to ascertain the types of academic advisement processes utilized in a random sampling of 1,401 regionally accredited, baccalaureate degree granting institutions which offered liberal arts and general programs. The problem also included determining who was responsible for the advisement programs and whether the same advisement procedure was used throughout each institution. Other facets studied were the consideration given students who had not yet selected majors, location of authority for academic dismissal of students, effects of curricular changes and minority student recruitment on advisement, perceptions of current advisement plans, and relationship of institutional size to advisement plans used.;Findings indicated that faculty were the primary advisers at 89 percent of the institutions. Vice presidents for academic affairs were responsible for 70 percent of the advisement programs. The same advisement procedures were utilized throughout each of more than 70 percent of the responding institutions. The offices of the chief academic administrators and the advisement centers held responsibility for undecided majors in nearly one third and one quarter of the institutions, respectively. Academic dismissals were handled by chief academic officers in more than two thirds of the institutions. Extensive curricular changes were reported in only 72, or 34 percent, of the responding institutions. Just over one half reported minority recruitment, and 40 percent of these reported that such programs affected the advising process. Less than 20 percent of the respondents called their programs excellent or outstanding, 45 percent called them good, and 30 percent called them only fair or poor.;Conclusions are that academic advisement is now and seems destined to continue to be a faculty responsibility. Other forms of advisement appear to be intended to augment faculty advising. Advisement processes are not highly successful, and the manner in which these programs are operated leaves much to be desired for higher education. However, those who are responsible for academic advisement are honest in their appraisals of their work and are concerned about their failure to be able to make their programs as successful as they would like them to be.;Recommendations focused first on the need for leadership by the office of the chief academic administrator to insure that academic advising receives the concerted priority status that it deserves. Second, an institutional officer, preferably an assistant or associate academic vice president, should be appointed to coordinate the advisement process within the entire institution. Other recommendations included the need for faculty advisers to receive formal and continuing preparation for their advisement responsibilities and for the recognition of their service as advisers through extra compensation or in the regular faculty reward structure. Other recommendations related to the use of professional advisers, maintenance of realistic advisee loads, and regular evaluation of the advisement process.;Data were obtained from an approximate 25 percent random sampling of 1,401 institutions. Questionnaires with accompanying cover letters were mailed to 344 institutions. The initial mailing resulted in 227 responses, or 66 percent of the sampling, and 211 responses, or 61 percent of the total sample of 344, were utilized for the study. |
