Armed with the results of the 1997 senior survey, the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE) tackled concerns about advising yesterday.

CUE is composed of faculty members, students appointed by the Undergraduate Council, Dean of Undergraduate Education William M. Todd and Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68.

The committee's discussion was centered around the 1997 survey which assessed the various departments' performance in meeting minimum advising requirements.

"The standards [presented on the survey] were an attempt to get at modest, concrete aspects we could get all the departments to agree should be components of proper advising," Lewis said.

The level and quality of advising vary greatly by department, according to Lewis.

He suggested that this discrepancy showed "there is something about departmental cultures."

Student and faculty members of the committee expressed concerns about the state of the advising at the College.

James T. Grimmelmann '98 said he believes when the formal advising system fails, undergraduates rely on the advice of upperclass students and professors.

"If formal advising does not meet the minimum standards then less formal `guerrilla advising'" arises," Grimmelmann said.

Sandra A. Naddaff, director of studies in literature, expressed concern that advisors were not given enough free time to do the job well.

"Advising takes time. We've got to figure out a way to make more time available for people," she said. "Until we hit that head on, somehow we're not going to get any-where with this."

CUE members also debated the state of advising within the House system. Students and faculty expressed concerns about the ability for tutors to offer both academic and personal advice.

Naddaff, who is also the master of Mather House, said tutors are selected for a combination of personal and academic qualities.

"It's always a trade-off between the comfort factor and the academic," Naddaff said.

Lewis echoed Naddaff, noting House tutors are called on to fill two roles.