JHU faculty members need to take tutorial about advising procedure

The first registration period in which all undergraduates were permitted to register online went off fairly smoothly, for which the University Registrar and Hopkins Information and Technology Services (HITS) should be commended.

However, there were significant oversights in the area of student clearance, oversights that cannot be ignored.

Some students - most notably juniors - despite going through the entire clearance process, were denied access to the online registration system when they attempted to register at 7 a.m. on the morning of April 8, when the system officially opened to undergraduates.

The reason for this, according to Associate Director of Academic Advising Richard Sanders, was that the electronic holds for juniors were on two separate views and when academic advisors lifted their holds, they did not always check to see if they faculty hold was lifted. With the faculty advisor hold still on, juniors were unable to register. Such an oversight could and most likely did cause some students to be shut out of classes (never mind the incredible inconvenience of waking up early for no reason) because they couldn't register when they had planned.

A mistake like this is unacceptable. Many students woke up early so they could register at 7 a.m. sharp. Their inability to do so should never be the result of an error by the very administrators they met with to earn their registration clearance.

Senior Academic Advisor Adriene Breckenridge said that the Office of Academic Advising did indeed receive calls from students whose holds were not lifted but "we released them immediately. Usually it was no more than a couple of hours or the next morning until they could register."

This comment is contradictory in its nature. "More than a couple of hours or the next morning" is by definition not "immediately." Such complaints should have been taken care of in a more timely fashion. A couple of hours might suffice - not allowing students to register until the second day of registration because of an administrative error does not suffice at all.

The greatest disappointment is that such errors that cause students grief could have been easily avoided. A thorough training program for faculty advisors on how to use the new online system or a small revision in the junior clearance policy itself would have avoided frantic phone calls from disgruntled students.

It is well documented that several faculty advisors were confused about how to use the new system and lift the holds of their students. Sanders himself said, "A lot of [faculty advisors] were very puzzled, mostly about using the computer and releasing the hold. We suggested to faculty what they might talk about [with students], but we haven't had any formal training."

Although Sanders also said that faculty advisors were instructed on how to use the system and instructions for lifting the hold were sent to them, a formal training program would have given faculty the chance to ask questions in-person and clear up confusion. Perhaps even better would be revising the junior clearance policy itself so that faculty advisors don't have to lift holds at all. Students could still be required to meet with their faculty advisors. Showing proof of that meeting and having academic advisors lift one single hold would simplify the process and avoid the mess of confusion among faculty for which training program might have to be implemented.

We hope that when freshman go to register this summer and University students do the same this November, the clearance process will be more effective. Better communication is essential - too many advisors are demonstrating in their conversations with students that they don't adequately understand the new advising policies. They ought to understand soon.