Standardizing advising across units allows institutions to create consistency in advisor responsibilities and caseload sizes, invest centrally in technology that saves advisors time, and develop a universal professional development and career pathway that allows advisors to advance within the institution. To do so, however, leaders must build trust and transparency with academic leaders in college, departments, and other units across campus.
Institutions such as the University of South Carolina and Georgia Southern University have developed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between central advising leadership and college-level leadership to outline the details of their advising models in writing and ensure that all units on campus agree on their responsibilities and ownership. The MOUs state the goals and purpose of advising design and codify pay scales, caseloads, and funding splits between central and distributed units. They also set a cadence for ongoing discussion and revision to the advising model.
EAB created the Advising MOU Template Builder to help higher ed leaders inform, write, and self-audit advising memoranda of understanding. Use our self-audit to understand the information that should be included in each section of an MOU template and view example language from the University of South Carolina and Georgia Southern University.
Learn more about the nine elements of MOUs below, or download the full template. To see an example MOU from an institution, download the University of South Carolina’s MOU template.
9 elements of MOUs
1. Context and Mission Alignment
Before establishing specific advising and unit expectations, MOUs should begin by establishing a connection to the institution’s higher-level priorities and goals. While the reasons for standardizing advising may seem obvious to central leadership, they can be opaque to unit leaders. Establishing context ensures that advising transformation stays focused on student success and avoids concerns that the institution is primarily seeking to cut costs or graduate more students at the expense of academic rigor.
2. Standard Staffing Ratios
A common barrier both to consistent student experiences and advisor retention is advisor caseload size. In highly decentralized advising models, advisors often have very different numbers of assigned students between units. When caseloads vary widely, so does the amount of time advisors can spend with each assigned student, building personal connections.
Advising MOUs establish standard advisor-to-student staffing ratios by academic unit, reducing or eliminating disparities in caseload between units. The MOU template should include specific information about the staffing ratio (advisors per student and/or advisors per college, school, or division).
3. Expectations of Advisors
One of the most common reasons that institutions initiate advising transformation is to address inconsistency. Students often share concerns that advisors in different units have very different approaches to advising; for example, one advisor might meet with students regularly for substantive discussions while another might simply use meetings as a check-the-box signoff on a student’s course schedule.
With shared standards and expectations—and a system of accountability and incentives—students know they will have consistent experiences with advisors regardless of their chosen area of study. Shared standards also ensure that advisors understand where to focus their finite time and effort to have the greatest impact on student success.
4. Responsibilities of Central Advising Unit
In addition to the responsibilities of individual advisors, MOUs also establish the responsibilities of central advising leadership. A Director or AVP of advising (or similar role) does the ongoing work of upholding shared advising standards through communication, training, and assessment of advising. The central advising unit also helps to ensure continual communication among advisors in different units to discuss shared challenges and solutions.
Rather than centralizing all advising staff in one unit (and expend political capital on a typically painful period of transition) or creating no central unit (and forgoing any accountability for shared standards), a central unit that oversees distributed advisors is typically the easiest way to find compromise in the centralization vs. decentralization debate.
5. Responsibilities of Academic Units
In addition to the responsibilities of advisors and central advising units, MOUs also establish the responsibilities of academic units and their leaders. In signing the MOU, unit leaders confirm they have read and fully understand their expectations.
To build buy-in with unit leaders, this section should also include benefits of the advising model for academic units. For example, an MOU might codify that academic unit leaders or their delegates can continue to participate in advisor hiring, so they can have confidence that new hires have the right skills to support their students.
6. Dual Reporting Structure
Because MOUs establish supervisory or managerial roles in both a central advising unit and distributed academic units, the MOU must clarify how these two roles are distinct. If they do not distinguish these roles, institutions risk creating a structure where advisors receive duplicative, overlapping, or even conflicting directives from their supervisor and their manager.
In most cases, the unit-level advising supervisor is responsible for daily oversight of and feedback on advisors’ work, while the central advising manager provides higher-level career support, assessment, and communication to align advisors’ work across units.
7. Funding Model
In most distributed models of advising, funding for advising positions are split between the central advising unit and academic units. While the exact funding split for each institution will depend on its resources and budget model, the MOU should codify that split in writing.
8. Advising Position Audit
When advising roles, titles, and pay scales are standardized, many advising staff will see their titles and salary change to align with the institutional standard. The MOU template provides space to calculate these changes so that unit leaders have complete transparency on any changes to their expenses.
9. Conditions of the MOU
The last element that should be included in the MOU template relates to the MOU document itself. The MOU is a contractual agreement and should include provisions for how and when units and central leadership can revisit its terms as priorities and needs change. Establishing a cadence and frequency for review also ensures that leaders (re)familiarize themselves with the MOU’s terms regularly, especially in a decade when academic and administrative leaders’ average time in seat is decreasing.
This resource requires EAB partnership access to view.
Access the tool
Learn how you can get access to this resource as well as hands-on support from our experts through Strategic Advisory Services.
Learn More