To the editors:

Thank you for your comments about the new sophomore advising system (“Extending Advising Benefits,” Nov. 5, 2007). We have an extremely committed group of sophomore advising coordinators and sophomore advisers and are delighted to see the positive impact they are having.

You are accurate when you write that “asking anyone to be a general adviser to a freshman without support from specialists is asking far too much of a single person.” We could not agree more, and, in fact, that is why first-year advising is designed with built-in redundancy. We believe that this is the best way to provide freshmen with a network of advisers, from proctors to non-resident advisers to peer fellows to concentration advisers, none of whom could—or should—be expected to know everything about every course and every concentration. It is with this in mind that first-year advising provides students with multiple points of entry to advice. In fact, we always recommend that advisers and students consult with specialists in particular fields for concentration-specific guidance. In addition, with new events like the Advising Fair in September and the Advising Fortnight in the spring, first-year advising provides the “readily available advising resources” that you rightly praise in the sophomore advising system.

Matching the academic interests of advisers and advisees works well in the sophomore advising program. Students are, after all, much closer to knowing which fields they are interested in pursuing. Freshman year, on the other hand, should be a time of exploration of the many academic opportunities available at Harvard. Many freshmen enter the College believing they will pursue one field, only to discover an academic interest in an entirely different field as they take classes and listen to their peers. If freshmen were assigned one exclusive adviser each based on stated choice of field in the summer before coming to Harvard, the system would not allow for as much exploration, discovery, and change of direction. We believe that providing a network of advisers gives freshmen the best and widest perspective regarding the many academic opportunities in the College.

To be sure, the first-year advising program faces challenges. With 685 advisers (438 non-resident advisers, 51 percent of whom are faculty plus 62 proctors and 185 peer advisers) and 1,675 students (not to mention 44 concentrations and well over a hundred advisers in the concentrations), making the right academic choices can seem confusing or overwhelming at times, and navigating the curriculum can be complicated. We do see areas for improvement in first-year advising. But freshmen surveys, focus groups, conversations with students, their parents and alumni over the last couple of years indicate that there is a growing satisfaction with academic advising. They all suggest that first-year advising is more successful than your editorial depicts.


INGE-LISE AMEER

TOM A. DINGMAN

JIM N. MANCALL

MONIQUE RINERE

Cambridge, Mass.

November16, 2007


The writers are assistant dean of advising, dean of freshmen, assistant dean of advising, and associate dean of advising, respectively.