NODA Journal 19_1.indd
FALL 2011 • VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 7
Academic Advising and the Student
Transition to College: Current Issues,
Emerging Challenges, and Potential Roles
for First-Year Experience Professionals
Joe Cuseo
The first year of college continues to be a critical period for student persistence,
learning, and development. College students are under increasing pressure to make
commitments to major and career plans at a very early stage in their undergraduate
experience, often without the programmatic support to do so. First-year experience
professionals, who are knowledgeable about student development theory and professionally
committed to facilitating the transition of students to college, are well positioned to fill the
void in support for early academic and career decision-making. Provision of proactive and
personalized support to meet the current demands for early educational and vocational
decision-making may be pivotal for ensuring the success of today’s first-year students in
general, and today’s growing number of first-generation students in particular.
Nationally, more than 50% of all students entering higher education leave the
campus at which they began their college experience without completing a degree
(Tinto, 1993). Across all Carnegie classifications of postsecondary institutions,
including highly selective colleges and universities, the most critical period or
stage of vulnerability for student attrition continues to be the first year of college
(Learning Slope, 1991; ACT, 2010). Thus, the majority of students who withdraw
from college do so during their first year (Consortium for Student Retention Data
Exchange, 1999), resulting in an overall first-year attrition rate of more than 30% at
four-year institutions and more than 40% at two-year institutions (ACT, 2010).
The importance of first-year advising for reducing student attrition is underscored
by research indicating that student commitment to educational and career goals
is one of the strongest factors associated with persistence to degree completion
(Willingham, 1985; Tinto, 1993; Wyckoff, 1999). National surveys of entering
college students repeatedly show that the most common reasons why new students
enroll in college are “preparing for a career” and “getting a better job” (Sax, Bryant,
& Gilmartin, 2004). Thus, it is understandable that students who struggle to find or
commit to a long-term educational and vocational goal are at greater risk
for attrition.
FEATURED ARTICLE
Joe Cuseo is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Marymount College (CA) and an Educational
Consultant.
8 THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION AND TRANSITION
Decided vs. undecided students: Myths & realities
Although research indicates that there is a strong relationship between
student commitment to educational and career goals and persistence to degree
completion, it does not necessarily follow that simply requiring first-year students
to declare a major will reduce their risk for attrition. It is the personal commitment
to the goal, not the public declaration of a goal, which promotes persistence to
degree completion. Supporting this conclusion is extensive research conducted
by Lewallen (1993) who collected data on a representative national sample of
more than 18,000 first-year students from over 400 colleges and universities while
controlling for confounding variables known to affect student retention (e.g.,
academic preparedness and socioeconomic status). He discovered that knowing
whether students were decided or undecided did not have any significant effect on
predicting or explaining their retention. In a subsequent study, Lewallen (1995)
examined a national sample of over 20,000 decided and undecided students at six
different types of postsecondary institutions, and he found that undecided students
actually displayed higher levels of academic achievement (higher grade point
average) and were more likely to persist to graduation than decided students.
These findings suggest that decided students may be equally at risk for attrition,
particularly if their decision is: (a) premature—made without reflective forethought
and careful planning; (b) unrealistic—made without accurate self-knowledge (e.g.,
awareness of personal aptitudes, abilities or talents); or (c) uninformed—based
on insufficient knowledge and lack of accurate information about the relationship
between academic majors and future careers.
Furthermore, student decisions may be driven entirely by extrinsic factors
(e.g., pleasing parents or maximizing future income) rather than by intrinsic
motivational interest. Students may be just as vulnerable to impulsive or premature
decision-making about their major as they are to procrastinate indefinitely about
choosing a major. Farvell and Rigley (1994) contended that “the well-intentioned
question, ‘What are you going to major in at college?’ asked frequently enough by
family and by advisors can lead students to believe they are somehow deficient
because they have not yet chosen an academic major” (p. 37).
Strommer (1997) noted that “being undeclared is generally presumed to be
an aberrant condition that needs fixing” (p. 72). This prevalent belief is not well
supported by empirical evidence because students may be undecided for a variety
of reasons, many of which are psychologically healthy and have nothing to do with
absence of direction, lack of goal orientation, or propensity for procrastination.
As Gordon pointed out, “There are as many reasons for being undecided as there
are students” (1984, p. 75). For instance, students may be undecided because they
have diverse interests and are excited about multiple fields of study; thus, their
indecision may simply reflect a high level of motivation for learning and active
involvement in the productive process of critically evaluating and prioritizing their
varied academic interests.
Other undecided students may simply be reflective thinkers with a deliberate
decision-making style who prefer to gather more information before making
FALL 2011 • VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 9
a commitment (e.g., gaining first-hand experience with different academic
disciplines before committing to one as a major). This is supported by a 25-year
longitudinal study conducted at The Ohio State University of over 19,000 students
who were undecided about a major or career at college entry. Only 22% of these
students indicated that they were “completely undecided,” 31% said they were
“tentatively decided,” and 43% had “several ideas but were not ready to decide”
(Gordon & Steele, 2003). Typically, all three of these types of students would
be indiscriminately lumped together in the generic category of “undecided,”
but almost three-quarters of them were undecided for reasons that demonstrate
a healthy decision-making process characterized by personal reflection and
temporary suspension of judgment. It would be more accurate to classify these
students as “exploratory,” “investigative,” or “deciding” students. As J. R. R. Tolkein
stated in the Lord of the Rings: “All who wander are not lost.”
On the other hand, prolonged indecision about a major (e.g., well into or
beyond the sophomore year) can reflect indecisiveness and fear of commitment
to making a decision that has long-term consequences. A study was conducted at
a large research university that involved personal interviews with 16 “advanced”
undecided students (i.e., students who had completed more than one-third of
the minimum number of units needed for graduation). These in-depth interviews
revealed that a major roadblock for most undecided students with advanced class
standing was an unrealistic view about the long-term consequences of committing
to a major. Namely, these students believed that selecting a major should “give
them answers to all of the questions about what they want to do with their lives
[and would] send them down an unchangeable career path, one they would be
committed [to] for life” (Hagstrom, Skovholt, & Rivers, 1997, p. 29).
The reality is that students’ choice of college majors is marked by much
uncertainty and change. It is estimated that over two-thirds of entering students
change their major during the first year (Kramer, Higley, & Olsen, 1993) and
between 66% and 75% of college graduates end up majoring in a field that was
not their original choice (Cuseo, 2005; Willingham, 1985). Thus, it is not accurate
to assume that students who enter college with declared majors are truly decided
majors; instead, it is probably more accurate to conclude that almost 75% of all
students entering college are actually undecided about their academic and career
plans, and at least 50% of all students with declared majors are prematurely
decided majors who will eventually change their minds.
In his doctoral dissertation, Lewallen (1992) noted the implications of these
findings for postsecondary institutions: “Clearly, the time has come to formally
recognize in our policies and practices that the majority of entering students are in
an undecided mode. Being undecided is not the exception, but rather the norm”
(p. 110). Thus, the reality is that the vast majority of college students do not reach
a firm and final decision about their major before college matriculation; they make
that decision during their college experience.
10 THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION AND TRANSITION
Applying student development theory to understand students’
academic and career decision-making process
One of Chickering’s famous “seven vectors” of college student development is
“establishing identity” (Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Similarly,
in their seminal text on the Freshman Year Experience, Upcraft and Gardner (1989)
cited “developing identity” as a core component of first-year student success. In its
sequel, Challenging & Supporting the First-Year Student (Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, &
Associates, 2005), “exploring identity development” appears again as an essential
feature of first-year success.
These views about the development of college student identity resonate with
my 30 years of experience as a faculty advisor for both decided and undecided
students; if there is anything these experiences have taught me it is that when
students engage in the process of choosing a major, they are doing much more
than selecting an area of academic specialization; instead, they are grappling with
an issue of personal identity. Students often treat their decision about a major as
a decision about whom they want to be or want to become. The question, “What
should I major in?” raises the two key reflective questions identified by Palmer
(2000) in his book, Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation: “What am I
meant to do? Who am I meant to be?” (p. 2).
Research in the area of college student development strongly suggests that the
majority of first-year students need substantial support for making educational and
vocational decisions because they are not yet at a stage of intellectual or personal
maturation at which they can make these complex decisions without support. Perry
(1970, 1998) discovered through in-depth interviews with college students during
successive years of the undergraduate experience that first-year students generally
are at a “basic duality” stage of cognitive development. At this stage, they tend to
view issues and decisions in dualistic terms—right or wrong, yes or no. Typically,
they lack appreciation of multiple perspectives and multifaceted thinking.
Typically, it is during the sophomore year when students naturally start to engage
in and appreciate relativistic thinking (i.e., understanding that multiple factors and
perspectives need to be weighed to understand an issue and to make well-reasoned
choices and decisions).
Perry’s findings are reinforced by the work of Baxter Magolda (1992) who
conducted open-ended interviews with students from the first through final year
of college. She reported that sophomores are at a stage of “transitional knowing,”
transitioning from the absolute thinking of the first year to the independent and
contextual thinking that peaks during the junior and senior years of college.
Supporting the work of Perry and Baxter Magolda is research on the
sophomore year experience, which suggests that students begin to think deeply
about issues involving educational and vocational identity during the second year
of college (Schreiner & Pattengale, 2000). For example, focus group interviews
conducted with students at Purdue University revealed that sophomores frequently
reported moving from being defined in the eyes of their parents to deciding what
was best for themselves. They felt that the first year of college provided them with
FALL 2011 • VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 11
the opportunity for self-analysis, from which emerged a sense of commitment to
self-determination. The outcome of this developmental process often resulted in
a change of plans about their academic major or a renewed commitment to their
original goal (Boston & DuVivier, as cited in Evenbeck et al., 2000).
Chickering’s developmental theory of college student identity (Chickering,
1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993) also postulated that development of personal
identity, long-term educational plans, and career purpose arises after the first year
of college. Chickering’s theory is supported by the empirical work of Gardner
(2000) whose surveys of students at different stages of college experience revealed
that their conversations during the first year most often focused on college courses,
personal problems, and campus issues. In contrast, sophomores reported spending
significantly less time on these issues and substantially more time on career and
major concerns.
Lastly, brain imaging research on the development of the cerebral cortex
provides additional evidence pointing to the conclusion that beginning college
students need maturational time and support to make long-range decisions
because the prefrontal cortex—a “higher order” brain center responsible for long-
range planning and decision-making—is not fully mature until, or after, age 20
(Thompson, 1999).
Campus approaches to working with undecided students
National survey research has suggested that there is appreciable variability in
terms of how colleges and universities approach student decision-making about a
college major. Some institutions require or strongly encourage first-year students
to declare a major, some discourage it, and others take a laissez-faire approach
(Policy Center on The First Year of College Year, 2003). Lewallen (1995) noted that
variations in institutional attitude toward undecided students can have significant
impact on their initial decision-making process:
Some institutions are extremely supportive; others are indifferent or even
nonsupportive. These approaches appear to have the potential to profoundly
influence a student’s willingness to declare being undecided. Additionally,
these approaches have the potential to influence the college achievement and
experiences of undecided students. (pp. 28–29)
Unfortunately, some postsecondary institutions promote premature or
impulsive decision-making by urging or requiring new students to declare a major
at college entry. For instance, Gordon (1995) noted, “Many institutions allow
entering students to specify on an admissions form if they are undecided about
an academic program. Others do not recognize undecidedness as a condition
of enrollment” (p. 93). Even institutions that allow entering students to specify
“undecided” on their admissions form may still strongly encourage or pressure
their students to declare a major early in their first year. A national survey of
nearly 1,000 institutions conducted by the Policy Center on The First Year of
College (2003) revealed that approximately 44% of colleges and universities either
12 THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION AND TRANSITION
“strongly encourage” or “require” first-year students to select a major.
On some campuses, undecided students are left “homeless” because they do
not have an academic or organizational unit of the college that they can call their
own. As Habley (1994) reported: “Some faculty-only systems virtually ignore the
developmental needs of undecided students either by assigning them to random
to faculty members throughout the campus, or by using undecided students to
level the advising load of faculty in departments with fewer majors” (p. 19). This
institutional practice may discourage first-year students from admitting they are
undecided and tacitly encourage them to make hasty decisions in order to meet
institutional expectations that they should be decided and housed in an academic
department. As Frost (1991) noted, “In institutions that urge all freshmen to
declare a major, undecided students might be reluctant to identify themselves
and remain underserved. If colleges and universities are to encourage students to
develop the capacity to judge wisely, then perhaps freshmen should defer selecting
a major until later in their college careers” (p. 32).
Campus policies that expect 18-year-old students to have well thought-out
plans about their immediate academic specialization and their future vocational
identity, and to reach those decisions with minimal or no campus support, may be
viewed as both developmentally inappropriate and institutionally irresponsible.
Institutional policies that push students toward making early decisions about
a college major fail to acknowledge the “inconvenient truth” that a great deal
academic uncertainty exists among the majority of first-year students and the
importance of the self discovery process during students’ first year of college. Tinto
(1993) observes, “The regrettable fact is that some institutions do not see student
uncertainty in this [exploratory] light. They prefer to treat it as a deficiency in
student development rather than as an expected part of that complex process of
personal growth. The implications of such views for policy are not trivial” (p. 41).
Campus leaders and policy makers should be mindful of the fact that beginning
college students need adequate “incubation” time for their major and career plans
to crystallize.
First-year experience professionals may need to raise institutional
consciousness and become catalysts for policy change on campuses where
policies discourage or deny students sufficient time for educational exploration
and personal growth. It is both reasonable and ethical for first-year experience
professionals to question whether such policies are truly student-centered and
intentionally designed with the best interest of students in mind, or if the policies
are really institution-centered and in place to meet the needs or convenience
of academic departments. This question was raised by Redd (2007) in a posted
message to the First-Year Experience Listserv:
Why are we worried about students identifying themselves as undeclared
as they enter our door? I know many department chairs and deans cringe at a
question like that, but if we are requiring it for purely numbers—that is wrong.
I understand the yearly fight to allocate resources, but where does student
welfare come into play?
FALL 2011 • VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 13
In addition to institutional convenience, four other forces have emerged to
exert pressure on students to make early decisions about their college major:
1) State legislatures that are interested in cutting the cost of college education
by cutting time to graduation (four years or shorter). Some campuses respond to
this political push by pressuring or forcing students to commit to a major almost
immediately after entry, or to declare a major prior to matriculation, so they get
right “down to business” and do not “waste time.” This is illustrated in an article
appearing in the Los Angeles Times on a Board of Trustees meeting for the California
State University System, which reported that university presidents are considering
giving students a “dose of tough love” by asking them to choose majors more
quickly—as part of an “ambitious” statewide initiative to raise graduation rates—
particularly for students who are from underrepresented and low-income groups.
One university president, who presides over one of the state system’s most diverse
campuses (populated with a high percentage of underrepresented and low-income
students) was quoted as saying that campus administrators have been “enablers,”
allowing students to “dawdle” in choosing majors and making progress toward
their degrees (Rivera, 2010).
2) Disciplinary (academic program) accrediting agencies that are adding
graduation requirements for majors in their fields, particularly pre-professional
fields. This practice strongly encourages or requires students to make an early
commitment to the major if they hope to finish all of its requirements and
still graduate within a reasonable period of time. For two-year college students
interested in pursuing a very competitive or over-enrolled (“impacted”) major,
this policy essentially forces them to select that major immediately and begin
their sequence of pre-major coursework during their first term of college if they
are to have any hope of transferring to a four-year campus and graduating within a
reasonable period of time.
This development may have especially adverse consequences for low-income
and first-generation college students (who are disproportionately represented
at public community colleges) because they are more likely to choose to pursue
impacted pre-professional majors that lead to well-paying jobs immediately after
graduation (Davies & Guppy, 1997; Goyette & Mullen, 2006). Often these majors
require a heavy dose of courses in math, science, and technology.
Unfortunately, low-income students often come to college from more poor
school districts that may not have had the fiscal resources to provide solid pre-
college preparation needed to achieve early success in these highly competitive or
restricted fields of study (Williams, Leppel, & Waldauer, 2005). Rendón (1994)
points out the danger of early major declaration policies for underrepresented
students: “Minorities often exhibit a naiveté about the costs and benefits of the
higher education system, and may find out they are committing themselves to
goals they don’t fully understand” (p. 30).
3) Increasing emphasis on advanced placement testing that can result
in students entering college with so much general education credit already
accumulated that they are ready, and often expected, to begin courses in
their college major. Calliotte (2006) articulated the adverse decision-making
14 THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION AND TRANSITION
consequences of this practice in a message posted to the First-Year Experience
Listserv: “We now have pressures on students [from the state] to take as many
college level credits as they can while they are in high school so that they come
into college as sophomores, thus making their time to decide shorter.”
Institutional policies that “push” students into making early or premature
commitments to an academic specialization also fail to acknowledge the reality
of academic uncertainty experienced by the majority of first-year students, and
the process of self-discovery that is essential to personal development during the
formative years of college. A deplorable by-product of this trend toward pushing
students to hop on a fast track to their major is to reduce their time to mature
developmentally, to discover their educational and vocational identity and to
meaningfully explore their options through the college curriculum and
cocurriculum.
What can first-year experience professionals do to enhance
the quality of advising received by first-year students?
The first year is widely recognized as a transitional stage during which students
are most “at risk” for academic problems and attrition; however, it is also the stage
of the college experience during which students learn the most and report the
greatest gains in personal growth (Flowers, Osterlind, Pascarella, & Pierson, 2001;
Doyle, Edison, & Pascarella, 1998; Light, 2001). Gordon argues that the first year
in particular is a “critical time [for students] to learn how to gather information
about their academic strengths and limitations and how they can incorporate these
strengths into various major and occupational alternatives. They can experience
the thrill of discovery and hone the skills of critical thinking and information
management. The first year in college should be the time when students begin
to lay the foundation for a lifetime of career choice and maintenance” (Gordon,
1995, p. 99).
Many first-year students do not receive bona fide “developmental” and
“appreciative” advising because faculty members lack the time, preparation,
evaluation, and rewards for doing so. Professional advisors—who do have
preparation and interest in providing new students with high quality advising—
often are saddled with such outrageously high case loads (advisee/advisor ratios
of hundreds or thousands to one) that it becomes virtually impossible to provide
personalized academic advising. When these limitations of faculty and professional
advising are viewed together with current forces that pressure students to reach
quick decisions about their educational and vocational plans, it becomes
imperative that first-year students receive proactive and intrusive support to meet
the challenge of major and career decision-making.
First-year experience professionals involved in the delivery of early student
support programs, such as new student orientation, the first-year experience
course, and first-year co-curricular programs, are well positioned to strengthen the
quality of advising received by first-year students. In so doing, they can help relieve
FALL 2011 • VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 15
some of the pressure on new students to find their academic identity, develop
meaningful educational plans, and discover potential vocational paths.
The following strategies are offered to first-year experience professionals as
intentional practices for helping new students meet the rising challenge of early
academic and career decision-making.
Engage students in the process of introspection and personal reflection about
their educational identity and future plans by asking the following questions:
• Would you say that you’re decided or undecided about a college major?
• If you’re undecided, what information do you think you need to reach a
decision?
• If you’re decided, would you say your decision is: (a) definite, (b)
probable, (c) possible, or (d) likely to change?
• How well do you know the course requirements for your intended major:
(a) very well, (b) well, (c) not well, or (d) not at all?
The “decided” or “undecided” dichotomy does not always accurately capture
the reality that student decisions about majors often vary along a continuum and
reflect degrees or gradations “decidedness.” When my first-year students tell me
they have decided on a major, I have learned to ask two immediate follow-up
questions: (1) How sure are you about that choice? and (2) What led you to that
choice? (i.e., Why did you choose it?)
It has also been my experience that first-year students frequently do not know
what specific courses are required for the major they intend to pursue, nor do
they always know what academic standards must be met to be accepted for entry
into that major, if their intended major happens to be one that is impacted or
oversubscribed.
Posing questions like those indicated above at new student orientation or in a
first-year seminar is likely to reveal that a substantial number of entering students
already have changed their minds about the major they cited on their admission
applications. I have had students confide to me that they checked a major on their
application for admission only because they did not want to appear directionless
(or “clueless”) and jeopardize their chances of being admitted.
Recommended practices to help student explore, identify, and
clarify their decisions about a college major
Remind students that before they make a firm decision and a final
commitment about a major, they still should take the two prior steps of knowing
thyself (step 1) and knowing thy options (step 2). Effective decisions about a
college major rest on the twin pillars of self-awareness and curricular awareness.
Attaining both these forms of awareness precede, and provide the foundation for,
prudent selection of a college major.
Advise students that one of the primary purposes of exposing students to the
16 THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION AND TRANSITION
liberal arts curriculum (general education) is to give them deeper insight into
who they are and what they value, while enabling them to gain greater breadth of
knowledge and experience with different academic disciplines, one of which may
become their college major.
In addition to finding new fields of possible interest as students gain
experience with the college curriculum, they are also likely to gain more self
knowledge about their academic strengths and weaknesses. This is important
knowledge for students to consider when choosing a major because it will
empower them to identify an academic field that builds not only on their personal
interests, but also on their natural abilities and talents.
Thus, the trip through the general education curriculum is likely to lead
students to discover new interests, talents, and choices for majors, some of which
may be in fields that they didn’t even know existed. Advising students in this
fashion not only provides them with some sense of direction about choosing
a major; it also reduces the likelihood that they will perceive general education
coursework as a set of unnecessary requirements that they need to “get out of the
way,” but instead as a vehicle for helping them find their true vocation or calling.
Advising new students to take some time before attempting to reach or
finalize a decision about a major does not mean that advisors are telling them to
indefinitely postpone the process of exploration and planning, or suggesting to
students that they should put all thoughts about their major “on the back burner”
and out of their mind for a while. Instead, students are being advised to use the
first year of college to develop an exploration-and-confirmation plan of attack for
reaching a high-quality decision about their major and future career path(s).
For new students who think they have decided on a major, encourage
them to take a course or two in the major to “test it out” before they make
commitment. Even decided students should be encouraged to suspend final
judgment and declaration of their major until they have acquired some educational
experiences in their major field. Remind them that their initial choice should be a
well-informed choice, i.e., one based on accurate information about what courses
the major entails, what career(s) it leads to, and whether the requirements for the
major are compatible with their personal abilities, interests, needs, and values.
Refer first-year students who are struggling with academic decision-making
issues to advisors who are known to be sensitive to the transitional needs of
new students and who have both the interest and the skills to work effectively
with exploratory students. In a landmark report on the quality of undergraduate
education issued by the National Institute of Education (1984), its panel of
distinguished scholars’ first recommendation for improving undergraduate
education was “front loading,” which they define as the reallocation of faculty and
other institutional resources to better serve first-year students. Helping students
receive high quality advising early in their college experience is an effective way
to implement the principle of front loading and increase the likelihood that new
students will persistence to degree completion. A founding father of the student
retention movement argued that “the critical time in establishing the kind of one-
to-one contacts between students and their teachers and advisors that contribute
FALL 2011 • VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 17
to student success and satisfaction occur during the first few weeks of the freshman
year” (Noel, 1985, p. 20).
Most importantly, connecting new students with the most effective and
committed advisors is likely to result in these students making more thoughtful,
more accurate, initial choices about majors and careers. This serves not only
to promote student retention; it will also reduce the probability of premature
decision-making and later major-changing, which can lengthen students’ time to
graduation.
Encourage students to meet regularly with their advisors, particularly at
times other than during the mad rush of class scheduling and registration.
Point out to new students that an academic advisor is much more than just a class
scheduler, but also a potential mentor, and the best way to take advantage of this
mentoring opportunity is to see an advisor at times other than the mad rush of
class scheduling and course registration.
Encourage students to work with their advisors to develop a tentative
long-range educational plan. This strategy is consistent with the following
recommendation made by the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education
& America’s Promise (LEAP): “Give students a compass. Each student can construct
a plan of study that simultaneously addresses his or her own interests and assures
achievement of essential [liberal] learning outcomes” (Association of American
Colleges and Universities, 2007, p. 29). When students create a long-range plan
(tentative though it may be), it can transform their dreams and aspirations into
a visual map of their educational future with the potential of conversion into a
concrete action plan.
Inform new students that looking ahead and developing a tentative plan
for their courses beyond the first term of college will enable them to obtain a
panoramic overview of the “big picture.” If they do no not take time to obtain
this long-range perspective, their academic experience will be chopped into
separate short-term, term-by-term, class scheduling sessions, causing students to
view it as a series of stagnant still frames or stand-alone snapshots, rather than as a
full-length motion picture.
Students who engage in long-range process of course planning often comment
that it enabled them to either confirm their initial plan about a major or change
that plan while there was still plenty of time to do so. Some students reported that
the planning process prompted them to reconsider their original choice of major
because its required courses were not compatible with their personal interests,
abilities, or values. Other students reported that the long-range course plan boosted
their commitment to and motivation for the major they had chosen because they
were excited to see the type of courses that lay ahead of them (Cuseo, 2001). These
student reactions strongly suggest that all first-year students would benefit from
opportunities to engage in long-term course planning, whether they be undecided
students or students who think they have already reached a firm decision about a
major. As Erickson and Strommer (1991) argued, “We would do well to treat each
one of our entering freshmen as an undecided student. Institutions that extend
substantial career/life planning and academic services to all freshmen can expect to
18 THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION AND TRANSITION
achieve significant improvements in retention rates” (p. 74).
Encourage students to engage in experiential learning opportunities to help
them gain greater awareness of the realities of work in different careers. To
implement this recommendation, first-year experience professionals could suggest
to new students that they: (a) interview professionals in different career positions,
(b) shadow different career professionals during a “typical” workday, and (c)
engage in service learning in different community and work settings. As Gardner
(2002) argued, “The working relationship among service-learning programs and
units responsible for providing career planning needs to be strengthened and made
more intentional” (p. 147).
First-year experience professionals could help organize panels of career
professionals and introduce them to new students via the co-curriculum (e.g.,
major and career fairs) or the curriculum (e.g., first-year experience courses).
Potential panelists could include: (a) college seniors majoring in different
academic fields, (b) alumni who graduated with different college majors, (c)
faculty representing different academic disciplines, and (d) trustee members or
other working professionals from different career fields.
Summary and Conclusion
It is evident from the research reviewed in this article that today’s college
students are in dire need of support for major selection and career decision-
making, and this support should be delivered proactively during the first year of
college. Given the lack of faculty preparation and reward for academic advising,
particularly for advising undecided students, along with the disturbingly high
case loads shouldered by professional advisors, first-year experience professionals
may need take a more assertive or “intrusive” role in reaching out to support
the advising needs of new college students. Such outreach to first-year students
could be made through personal contact, new-student orientation, the first-year
experience course, or co-curricular experiences offered during the first term or first
year of college that are designed to: (a) provide students with the opportunity to
reflectively examine their personal interests, talents, needs, and values in relation
to academic and decisions; (b) educate students about the relationship between
academic majors and careers; and (c) encourage new students to engage in long-
term educational planning.
If first-year experience professionals make a significant early contribution
to facilitate new students’ educational and vocational programs, it will result in
reciprocal benefits for both the students and the institution. The institution
benefits by improving student satisfaction and retention, and students benefit by
increasing the likelihood they will pursue a college major that is compatible with
their interests and talents and a career path that is personally meaningful and
fulfilling.
FALL 2011 • VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 19
References
ACT (2010). National collegiate retention and persistence to degree rates. Retrieved
from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/retain_2010.pdf
Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007). College learning for the
new global century. A report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal
Education & America’s Promise. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related
patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Calliotte, J. (2006, January 5). Re: Research on undecided students [Electronic mailing
list message]. Retrieved from
http:www.sc.edu/fye/listservs/archives/researchundecided-undeclaredfystudents.html
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (1999). Executive summary
1998–1999 CSRDE report: The retention and graduation rates in 269 colleges and
universities. Norman, OK: Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis,
University of Oklahoma.
Cuseo, J. B. (2001, October). The transfer transition. Pre-conference workshop
presented at the Eighth National Conference on Students in Transition,
Oak Brook, Illinois.
Cuseo, J. (2005). “Decided,” “undecided,” and “in transition”: Implications for
academic advisement, career counseling, and student retention. In R. S.
Feldman (Ed.), Improving the first year of college: Research and practice
(pp. 27–50). New York: Erlbaum.
Davies, S., & Guppy, N. (1997). Fields of study, college selectivity and student
inequalities in higher education. Social Forces, 75, 1417–1438.
Doyle, S., Edison, M., & Pascarella, E. (1998). The “seven principles of good practice in
undergraduate education” as process indicators of cognitive development in college: A
longitudinal study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL.
Erickson, B. L., & Strommer, D. W. (1991). Teaching college freshmen. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Evenbeck, S. E., Boston, M., DuVivier, R. S., & Hallberg, K. (2000). Institutional
approaches to helping sophomores. In L. A. Schreiner & J. Pattengale (Eds.),
Visible solutions for invisible students: Helping sophomores succeed (Monograph
No. 31) (pp. 79–88). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National
Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Farvell, R. K., & Rigley, D. (1994). Essential resources for advising undecided
students. In V. N. Gordon (Ed.), Issues in advising the undecided student
(Monograph No. 15) (pp. 37–48). Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience.
20 THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION AND TRANSITION
Flowers, L., Osterlind, S., Pascarella, E., & Pierson, C. (2001). How much do
student learn in college? Cross-sectional estimates using the College Basic
Academic Subjects Examination. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(5),
565–583.
Frost, S. H. (1991). Academic advising for student success: A system of shared
responsibility. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3. Washington DC:
The George Washington School of Education and Human Development.
Gardner, J. N. (2002). What, so what, now what: Reflections, findings, conclusions,
and recommendations on service learning and the first-year experience. In
E. Zlotkowski (Ed.), Service-learning and the first-year experience: Preparing
students for personal success and civic responsibility (Monograph No. 34)
(pp. 141–150). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National
Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Gardner, P. D. (2000). From drift to engagement: Finding purpose and making
career connections in the sophomore year. In L. A. Schreiner & J. Pattengale
(Eds.), Visible solution for invisible students: Helping sophomores succeed
(Monograph No. 31) (pp. 67–78). Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students
in Transition.
Gordon, V. N. (1984). The undecided college student: An academic and career advising
challenge. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.
Gordon, V. N. (1995). Advising first-year undecided students. In M. L. Upcraft &
G. L. Kramer (Eds.), First-year academic advising: Patterns in the present, pathways
to the future (Monograph No. 18) (pp. 93–100). Columbia, SC: University of
South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience &
Student in Transition.
Gordon, V. N., & Steele, G. E. (2003). Undecided first-year students: A 25-year
longitudinal study. Journal of The First-Year Experience, 15(1), 19–38.
Goyette, K., & Mullen, A. (2006). Who studies the arts and sciences? Social
background and the choice and consequences of undergraduate field of study.
The Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 497–538.
Habley, W. R. (1994). Administrative approaches to advising undecided students.
In V. N. Gordon (Ed.), Issues in advising the undecided college student
(Monograph No. 15) (pp. 17–24). Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience.
Hagstrom, S. J., Skovholt, T. S., & Rivers, D. A. (1997). The advanced undecided
college student: A qualitative study. NACADA Journal, 17(2), 23–30.
Kramer, G. L., Higley, B., & Olsen, D. (1993). Changes in academic emphasis
among undergraduate students. College and University (Winter), 88–98.
Learning Slope. (1991). Policy Perspectives, 4(1), pp. 1A–8A. Pew Higher Education
Research Program.
Lewallen, W. C. (1992). Persistence of the “undecided”: The characteristics and
college persistence of students undecided about academic major or career
choice. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 12A, 4226. (University
Microfilms No. 93-10950)
FALL 2011 • VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 21
Lewallen, W. C. (1993). The impact of being “undecided” on college student
persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 103–112.
Lewallen, W. C. (1995). Students decided and undecided about career choice:
A comparison of college achievement and student involvement. NACADA
Journal, 15(1), 22–30.
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge,
MA.: Harvard University Press.
National Institute of Education (1984). Involvement in learning. Study Group on the
Conditions of Excellence in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Noel, L. (1985). Increasing student retention: New challenges and potential. In
L. Noel, R. Levitz, & D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing student retention (pp. 1–27).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:
A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Perry, W. G. (1998). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years:
A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Policy Center on the First Year of College (2003). Second national survey of first-year
academic practices, 2002. http://www.jngi.org/2002nationalsurvey
Redd, M. (2007). Re: Research on undecided students. [Electronic mailing list
message] Retrieved from http://www.sc.edu/fyelistservs/archives/
researchundecidedundeclaredfystudents.html
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of
learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 23–32.
Rivera, C. (2010, January 28). Cal State will push students to graduate. Los Angeles
Times, p. A5.
Sax, L. J., Bryant, A. N., & Gilmartin, S. K. (2004). A longitudinal investigation of
emotional health among male and female first-year college students. Journal of
The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 16(2), 39–65.
Schreiner, L. A., & Pattengale, J. (Eds.) (2000). Visible solutions for invisible students:
Helping sophomores succeed (Monograph No. 31). Columbia, SC: University
of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition.
Strommer, D. W. (1997). Review of “The undecided college student: An academic
and career advising challenge” by Virginia N. Gordon (1995). NACADA
Journal, 17(1), 72–73.
Thompson. P. (1999). The adolescent brain—why teenagers think and act differently.
Retrieved from http://www.edinformatics.com/news/teenage_brains.htm
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures for student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Upcraft, M. L., & Gardner, J. N., (1989). A comprehensive approach to enhancing
freshman success. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & Associates, The freshman
year experience (pp. 1–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22 THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION AND TRANSITION
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates (2005). Challenging and
supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Willingham, W. W. (1985). Success in college: The role of personal qualities and
academic ability. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Williams, M. L., Leppel, K., & Waldauer, C. (2005). Socioeconomic status and
college major: A reexamination of the empirical evidence. Journal of the
First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 17(2), 49–72.
Wyckoff, S. C. (1999). The academic advising process in higher education: History,
research, and improvement. Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education,
13(1), 1–3.