Troublesome Fellows

When Associate Dean of Advising Programs Monique Rinere was brought to campus in February, she was charged with the task of overhauling freshman advising in time to train new student advisors on May 15. This Monday, the Peer Advising Fellows (PAF) Program met its deadline. With a surprising 480 applications to sort through on a tight schedule, this was a considerable accomplishment, but the process used for selecting PAFs belied the success. Its methods—particularly the solicitation of recommendations from undergraduates on the Student Advisory Board (SAB)—sparked controversy and left more than a few students confused and frustrated.

The administration is to be commended for the new program, largely designed by the SAB. Currently, most first-years have an abysmal advising experience, and often survive only on the coattails of upperclassmen in their extracurricular activities. Reform was urgently needed. But while the administration’s haste was understandable, the questionable and opaque process of selecting PAFs was not.

Applications were due April 16. By April 18, some applicants had been accepted. Before the interviews began on April 24, a total of 90 applicants—nearly half of the 190 that would eventually be chosen—had been given positions. The rest were offered interviews or rejected. Among other factors, these decisions were made based on recommendations of members of the SAB.

Accepting new PAFs without an interview was a mistake. Brooks B. Lambert-Sluder ’05, project coordinator of the Peer Advising Program, explained that the selection team was confident in the ability of PAFs it accepted early, based on the combined recommendations of deans and SAB members and on their applications. Although the time and the volume of applications put unexpected pressure on process, he said he was uncertain that there was ever a plan to interview all applicants. It didn’t seem necessary, he said, “to interview people when you already know you are going to accept them.”

That approach is precisely the problem: acceptances should only be decided when all candidates are given an equal chance in an interview. Only then would highly qualified applicants without the right connections be able to compete fairly with their dean- and SAB-recommended peers. Deans only know a handful of students very well, so even recommendations from resident deans, much less recommendations from students on SAB, should not be accepted in lieu of an interview. The College plans to entrust the PAFs with social and academic advising of first-years—as well as a $1,000 stipend. Even pressing time constraints do not justify automatic acceptances when a $250,000-plus program hangs in the balance.

Three weeks after this process was first questioned, Rinere explained that four to six people reviewed each application, and that no applicant was chosen solely on the basis of SAB recommendations. Nonetheless, Rinere told SAB members that the Advising Programs Office (APO) office would “do [its] best to accommodate your recommendations,” and Lambert-Sluder confirmed that SAB-recommended applicants were all either accepted or given an interview. This was not necessarily the case for applicants recommended by residential deans. It was clearly to an applicant’s overwhelming advantage to have connections to the SAB, and even some members of the SAB have expressed their discomfort with this situation.

The injustice of the process aside, the controversy has been fueled by the inexcusable opacity of the process. Until this week, e-mails asking for clarification of the proceedings—including those from accepted fellows—received no response. No one is asking the APO to report and explain its every move to the student body. But when students ask questions, particularly in relation to a campus-wide controversy, it is reasonable for them to expect a timely answer.

Throughout the restructuring of advising, the APO has insisted on much more secrecy than other similar bodies engaging in similar efforts. The Committee on House Life welcomes reporters to its meetings, but asks them not to quote anything said during discussions. The Harvard College Curricular Review has gone out of its way to invite all students’ feedback. The University permits members of the Executive Board of the Undergraduate Council to attend most Faculty meetings. While the APO is under no obligation to emulate either of these models, it could at least make an effort to inform interested students of its efforts, rather than instructing members of the SAB not to speak to the press.

Despite all the controversy, lack of transparency, and frustration, the PAF program still promises to be an improvement to the Class of 2010’s advising. When the selection process occurs again next spring, none of this year’s time constraints should be an issue, and there should therefore be no reason for a repeat of this year’s problems or lack of interviews. In the meanwhile, we hope that the APO continues to be more open about its proceedings. Rinere took a step in the right direction Monday when she apologized to the new PAFs for the lack of clarity thus far. Students benefit from access to good information and the APO should recognize that—that is the whole premise of advising, anyway, isn’t it?