The evolution from a traditional model of individual faculty advising pre-health professional students to a committee structure incorporating both faculty and staff is discussed. In detailing the transition, the advantages, disadvantages, successes, and failures of three models of advising are considered. The goal of this chapter is to assist other institutions that may be considering changes in their pre-health professional student advising model. Key considerations during transitions were the desire to have a consistent message, to address the multiple stakeholders of pre-health advising, and to create a cohesive, robust, collaborative strategy.
TopBackground
Alma College is an independent undergraduate institution located in central Michigan, founded in 1886 by the Presbyterian Synod of Michigan. The College offers 41 different majors in 21 departments, and supports 31 minors and programs, including nine pre-professional programs. Faculty and students interact closely at Alma, with a student-faculty ratio of 13.7/1 permitting an average class size of 15.5.
Typically, 40-50% of Alma’s entering class express an interest in STEM and pre-health professional career pathways with approximately 20-25% graduating from relevant pre-health professional majors. Close to 20% of incoming students are first-generation college students and the number of Pell-eligible students is significant. These two populations are at particular risk of attrition, especially in STEM-related areas of study (Bettencourt et al., 2020). Therefore, the quality of advising, and student support more generally, is of particular importance to the Alma campus.
In his dissertation work, Chan (2021) noted that the literature on institutional structures that best facilitate pre-health professional advising is sparse. Specifically referring to structural considerations in pre-medical advising, he stated “…no empirical studies have been found on the development and practice understanding of premedical advising and the organizational structures that exist at various institutions” (Chan, 2021, p. 23). Some do report survey data, however, noting that no one model works best and that institutional culture must be considered (Habley, 1997; Pardee, 2004). That is not to say, however, that there have been no scholars identifying the many pitfalls in pre-health advising and recommending structures to address them. Nearly a half century ago, Bruhn (1977) noted that quality advising was hampered by faculty attitudes regarding their professional responsibilities and student need for support, lack of training and resources, lack of communication between advisors, and an inability to remain abreast of the changing nature of professional program requirements. To address these issues, he recommended a specific office for preprofessional advising and counseling, a model that is common today.