September 8, 1994: Vol26n2: FSEC proposal on advisement calls for freshmen to choose majors


By STEVE COX
Reporter Staff
Undecided underclassmen, beware: your days of indecision could be
numbered.
	A proposal was presented to the Faculty Senate Executive
Committee at its Aug. 31 meeting to revamp academic advisement. The
plan places substantial advisement responsibilities in the hands of
faculty members and requires all incoming freshmen to declare an
"intended major."
	The proposal seeks to "provide lower division students with a
curricular home," and calls for: 
	1) Incoming students to elect an "intended major," with
"undecided" no longer being an option. Responsibility for academic and
curricular advisement will rest with the department selected by the
student.
	2) To the extent possible, departments to admit all students
who apply to the major and conform to university standards for
acceptable performance.
	3) Possible enrollment management, by limiting the admission
of students pursuing high-demand majors, to be considered if it
appears retention is affected by failure to gain entry to the major
department of choice.
	It was developed by a committee appointed to study the subject
after passage of a Feb. 8 resolution that says, in part, that "every
student be assigned a faculty advisor" and that "the provosts and
deans are strongly urged to implement a campus-wide advisement
system."
	Nicolas Goodman, vice provost for undergraduate education,
Joseph Tufariello, dean of the Natural Sciences and Mathematics
faculty; and Janina Kaars, director of academic advisement, presented
the plan to the FSEC, describing it as thoroughly researched though
"preliminary in nature."
	"The intent is to get students into departments early on,"
explained Tufariello. Research conducted in developing the proposed
policy indicates that "60 percent of new students know what they will
major in," he said, "and we know roughly how this will break down by
department." Of the 17,000 undergraduates currently at the university,
7,500 have not been accepted into majors, according to Kaars.
	Kaars explained that while the proposal places substantial
advisement responsibility on faculty members, she envisions utilizing
the current staff of professional advisors as "gatekeepers," directing
students to departmental faculty members. Currently, each professional
advisor in her department is responsible for advising approximately
800 students, Kaars added.
	The plan met with a cool reception from some FSEC members.
Dennis Malone, of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department,
questioned a portion of the plan that would require mandatory
counseling for students under a certain grade point average,
tentatively pegged at 2.3. "I understand that currently, 12 percent of
students have a GPA 2.0 or lower," he said. Since an even larger
number must fall at 2.3 or lower, Malone questioned the ability of
faculty to meet this obligation.

Samuel Schack, of the Mathematics Department, questioned what the
plan's call for easier access to major departments would do to the
"degree of competence" represented by graduates of the department. 
	Brian Scudder, representing the Undergraduate Student
Association, urged the committee to move cautiously in changing the
advisement policy. "In my experience, most freshmen and sophomores do
not know what they want their major to be," Scudder said, "and many
that choose a major change their mind later."
	Scudder said he fears that departmental advising could be too
"one-sided," not offering students sufficient exposure to other areas
of study available. Scudder said also that professional advisors deal
with far more than academic advice, helping with problems  ranging
from parents to alcohol.
	Goodman warned that the unusually large freshman class of
1993-94, some 3,000 students, will create a strain on advisement  this
spring, as they apply to majors. Earlier intervention by faculty
advisors could cut the number of students who leave UB after failing
to get their first-choice major.
	In  other  action, President William Greiner told the FSEC
that he has instructed senior officers, including Senior Vice
President Robert Wagner and Student Affairs Vice President Robert
Palmer to abide precisely by the recent state Supreme Court order
banning direct recruiting activities on campus, but not extend it
beyond the actual requirements of the order.
	Calling the university campus a place that should be "open to
ideas and behaviors that we don't like," Greiner said the decision
places UB in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why it
would allow controversial speakers on campus, but not the military.
	The Supreme Court order, however, "cannot transcend the First
Amendment," Greiner said, so placement offices on campus will still
stock literature and other information on military careers and will
provide information to any student on request.
	He also cautioned that more controversy could be on the
horizon as conservative Congressman Gerald Solomon pursues enforcement
of federal legislation that exists, to cut off research funding for
institutions that do not allow military recruitment.
	Solomon, a Republican from  New York, has pursued efforts to
insert language to cut off funding in the National Science Foundation
and National Institutes of Health appropriations bills.