Strengths and Weaknesses of the Advising System at the University of Colorado Boulder
The advising system at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) varies significantly depending on the student’s major and academic year. This article explores the strengths and weaknesses of the advising system, focusing on the experiences of students in Arts and Sciences, Engineering, and other specific majors. Understanding these aspects can help students make the most of their academic journey.
General Academic Advising: A.Y. 1 - Arts and Sciences
My first year at CU Boulder as a Chemical Engineering major in the School of Arts and Sciences with extensive Advanced Placement (AP) transfer credits, I encountered a unique set of challenges with the general academic advising system. The advisors were largely aware of general education requirements but struggled with the specifics of major requirements due to the vast number of majors they catered to.
Being a sophomore ahead in coursework, I faced poor class placements. For instance, despite having a supportive placement for a specialized organic chemistry lab, I ended up in the general lab, missing out on potential course credits. My programming class, intended to be more advanced, was instead a basic course. Even the opportunity to advance to a calculus-based physics course during registration was hampered by strict scheduling policies.
Note that a strong strategy involves running a degree audit on MyCUInfo or researching major course requirements in advance of orientation. This proactivity can help students navigate the advising system successfully. However, this strategic approach is less effective for engineering majors, who face rigid course scheduling with limited flexibility due to key classes being offered only in specific semesters.
Engineering Advising: A.Y. 2 - Chemical Engineering and Biochemistry
A detailed system is in place for engineering majors, with highly specialized advisors tasked with knowing the entire curriculum. For instance, biochemistry and chemical engineering majors each have dedicated advisors who can offer in-depth guidance tailored to those specific fields. This level of expertise is invaluable, but it requires regular scheduled meetings, something that might be annoying during busy periods like test weeks.
The advising process for engineering majors can be quite structured. Advisors must approve the course schedule for each semester, ensuring that students meet their prerequisites and progress through the curriculum efficiently. While this added requirement might be seen as burdensome, it underscores the system's commitment to student success and timely progression within the engineering program.
I was eventually able to add the biochemistry major and switch to chemical engineering, which was a very hands-off experience with Academic Support (AS) advisors. Once I moved into engineering, the advising process demanded more frequent meetings and strict adherence to the advising policies. This systematic approach might frustrate some students, especially those with other academic or personal commitments, but it aligns with the goal of guiding them effectively through the program.
Conclusion
The advising system at CU Boulder is a mix of strengths and weaknesses, heavily influenced by the major and the specific academic year. The general academic advisors excel in understanding the breadth of general education requirements but lack in-depth knowledge of specific majors. On the other hand, engineering advisors offer detailed guidance and structured schedules, ensuring students meet their academic goals efficiently.
Regardless of the major, it's beneficial for students to be proactive and prepared. Running degree audits and understanding major requirements in advance can help navigate the advising system more effectively. While the structured approach for engineering majors might be rigid, its emphasis on personalized guidance and strict scheduling can lead to a more successful academic journey for students.