An Unnecessary Stipend

Facing criticism for the weakness of Harvard College’s advising system, University Hall established the Peer Advising Fellows four years ago to replace the perpetually unpopular Prefect program. Believing that a lack of commitment by prefects partially doomed the freshman-mentoring program, the administration decided to energize advisors by paying the new PAFs an annual stipend of $1,000 for their efforts. Four years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, the fundamental miscalculation to pay the Fellows still goes unchallenged. But to establish a genuine culture of peer-based mentorship and to save precious resources in the middle of a budget crunch, University Hall should do now what it should have done at the program’s inception: let PAFs advise for free.

The decision to pay these students in the first place was rooted in flawed logic. After long discussions with the program’s director, it became clear to me that the Advising Programs Office believed paying PAFs made them take the position more seriously; administrators thought that if Fellows viewed the mentorship as a job, they would be more likely to log the necessary hours. University Hall also reasoned that, by paying PAFs, students who would otherwise seek part-time employment could instead apply to the program.

The truth of the matter is that some, if not most, of the Fellows are unaware of the program’s stipend when they apply; it’s an added bonus rather than a reason for advising. UHall is out of touch with the realities of undergraduate psychology if it thinks that paying an extremely low hourly wage will motivate performance—successful PAFs view the responsibility as a pleasure rather than a duty, and the salary does not factor into their level of commitment. The Peer Advising Fellows I’ve seen who have neglected their duties have done so because they’re too busy, their relationships with advisees never materialized, or they were unsure of a successful advisor’s day-to-day duties. “Bad” Fellows don’t feel moral remorse for neglecting their duties as an employee; more often than not, they don’t believe that they’re being bad advisors, and those stipend checks that come only twice a year seem to slip into the back of one’s mind when up against a hard midterm deadline. In short, I’ve never met a Peer Advising Fellow—good or bad—who thought that he should probably attend a study break in order to earn his hourly wage from the APO.

While the decision to pay PAFs wastes limited funds and relies on flawed logic, it also negatively alters how Fellows and freshmen think about the program. The APO believes that freshmen are more comfortable utilizing their advisors if they know they’re paid; after all, they’re employees of the College, right? In reality, this dynamic ignores the real motivation of most PAFs who take on the role: They want to take incoming freshmen under their wing. They want to engage in community-building rather than money-grubbing. They want to give freshmen the advice that they themselves were not lucky enough to receive. Paying the advisors cheapens the nature of this relationship, transforming it from a culture of upperclassman mentorship to a tawdry exchange of smoothies on Mt. Auburn.

Additionally, the biggest weakness of the PAF program lies in Fellows running short on money. Those who take their advisees out for lunch and dinner find that the APO has given them barely enough funds to provide more than Oreo cookies and Doritos at weekly study breaks. Eliminating salaries for Peer Advising Fellows would not only redirect limited monies in an economic crunch but would also correct the ideological design flaw that made the program about money instead of advising for some.

High-quality students won’t stop applying to be PAFs because they’re not getting paid; it is more likely that ending payment will weed out the students who get involved for the wrong reasons. The APO could also consider making the position work-study for those who couldn’t afford to advise otherwise. Historically, the program has received the careful attention and funds it needs to thrive, and it marks a commendable improvement from the system that was in place before I got to Harvard. By ending the payment of Fellows, University Hall would refocus the PAF program on its core commitment: building intergenerational community at the College.

Benjamin P. Schwartz ’10 is a history and literature concentrator in Winthrop House and a former PAF. His column appears on alternate Fridays.