Difference between revisions of "Random Faculty Assignment"
From Help Wiki
(Created page with 'Model A - the Hummer') |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==== ==== | |
| + | |||
| + | Random Assignment by class standing. Faculty would be assigned students of the same level<br>and would follow through their career. Students grouped by lower and upper division. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Pros==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Encourages broad liberal arts and interdisciplinary advising conversations and content | ||
| + | *Common experience for students to meet other students across the curriculum who are at the same | ||
| + | *moment in their UG trajectory. | ||
| + | *Least administrative overhead | ||
| + | *Potential to allow for team coordination by faculty advisors who are working with different levels of | ||
| + | *advisees | ||
| + | *Frees faculty and students from presumptions about the advisor/advisee relationship | ||
| + | *Does the most to remove inequity from the process | ||
| + | *A great way to have students interact with disciplines they previously have not encountered | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Cons==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Structurally doesn’t allow peer mentorship across levels within advising seminars | ||
| + | *Faculty anxiety around advising students whose interest fall outside of their areas of expertise | ||
| + | *Students’ anxiety around not being with faculty whose areas of expertise matches their areas of study. | ||
Revision as of 09:01, 18 July 2011
Random Assignment by class standing. Faculty would be assigned students of the same level
and would follow through their career. Students grouped by lower and upper division.
Pros
- Encourages broad liberal arts and interdisciplinary advising conversations and content
- Common experience for students to meet other students across the curriculum who are at the same
- moment in their UG trajectory.
- Least administrative overhead
- Potential to allow for team coordination by faculty advisors who are working with different levels of
- advisees
- Frees faculty and students from presumptions about the advisor/advisee relationship
- Does the most to remove inequity from the process
- A great way to have students interact with disciplines they previously have not encountered
Cons
- Structurally doesn’t allow peer mentorship across levels within advising seminars
- Faculty anxiety around advising students whose interest fall outside of their areas of expertise
- Students’ anxiety around not being with faculty whose areas of expertise matches their areas of study.
