The distinction between advising and mentoring was mentioned in the committee's report. But the committee's members put little credence in the distinction.

"I reject the notion that there is a set of bureaucratic questions Faculty shouldn't have to answer, " Lewis says. "I think that almost every question is an opportunity to explain something."

Lack of Faculty members for advising raises the question of whether or not advisers must be Faculty or whether they can be graduate students.

Lewis says that some Faculty members seem to feel that it is beneath their dignity to answer more technical questions, but they are responsible for undergraduate programs and should be involved, he says.

He points to another problem that the committee's report highlighted.

Some departments' directors of undergraduate study programs are junior Faculty who often lack the necessary clout to encourage senior Faculty to take the time-consuming job.

"One of the major reports of the committee was that the Head Tutor should be a senior Faculty member," Lewis says. "Not that junior Faculty aren't superb advisers, but they need some one who has the full respect of the senior Faculty to change departmental culture."

The report that the committee produced last year has not yet fulfilled its goal of encouraging the departments that ranked low to improve, College officials admit.