Professional Advising Awards

USU has two categories of advising awards: Outstanding Professional Advisor of the Year and the Outstanding New Advisor. Winners of the institutional awards are nominated for additional awards through the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) and Utah Advising Association (UAA).

Nomination Process

Students receive an email in November with an invitation to nominate their advisor for advisor of the year. Deans, Department Heads, faculty, and staff are also invited to make nominations.

Nominations are reviewed by the awards committee and award finalists are selected. Finalists submit a portfolio for review by the awards committee. The winner is selected based on alignment with the NACADA excellence in advising criteria.

Nominate an Advisor

Outstanding New Advisor Award Criteria

An Outstanding New Advisor Award is given to recognize and emphasize excellence in academic advising. Anyone affiliated with the University (i.e. Deans, Department Heads, faculty, staff, or students) may nominate a professional advisor to receive this award. The winner of the New Advisor of the Year award will receive a token representing the award.

The selection committee will evaluate nominations based on the evidence of effective advising qualities and practices distinguishing the nominee as an outstanding academic advisor. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  1. Strong interpersonal skills
  2. Availability to advisees, faculty or staff
  3. Use and dissemination of appropriate information sources
  4. Advisee or unit evaluations (summary data)
  5. Meeting advisees in informal settings
  6. Monitoring of student progress toward academic/career goals
  7. Mastery of institutional regulations, policies and procedures
  8. Ability to engage in, promote and support developmental advising
  9. Frequency of contact with advisees
  10. Appropriate referral activity
  11. Evidence of student success rate by advisor or department
  12. Caring, helpful attitude toward advisees, faculty and staff
  13. Participation and support of intrusive advising to build strong relationships with advisees
  14. Participation in and support of advisor development programs
  15. Perception by colleagues of nominee's advising skills

Outstanding Professional Advisor of the Year Eligibility, Portfolio, and Criteria

The Professional Advisor of the Year Award is given to recognize and emphasize excellence in academic advising. Individuals affiliated with the University (i.e. Deans, Department Heads, faculty, staff, or students) may nominate a professional advisor to receive this award. The winner of the Professional Advisor of the Year award will receive a $750 cash award.

Eligibility

  • The selection committee will consider any USU Professional Academic Advisors who have not received this award within the past five years.
  • Winners of the National Academic Advising Association Outstanding Advisor of the Year are not eligible to receive this award.
  • Must serve as an academic advisor at least 50% of role and/or caseload of 150 students (Logan) or 100 (Statewide).
  • Must demonstrate evidence of student success rate defined by:
    • Percent of students with a fall semester advising appointment as evidenced by Advising Matters Dashboard.
    • Percent of students with modified Degree Works plans in fall semester as evidenced by Advising Matters Dashboard.
    • Percent of student satisfaction with fall advising appointments as evidenced by post-appointment survey results.
    • Percent of caseload nominated by students through a survey.
  • Participation in and support of advisor development programs evidenced by
    • Attendance at University Advising sponsored professional development events the previous year.
    • Volunteer work on committees supporting academic advising.
    • Mentoring and/or training USU advisors in advising practices aligned with CAS Standards and NACADA core values.

Finalist Portfolio

Finalists are notified of their status and are invited to submit a portfolio. If a finalist declines, the committee may add another finalist. Finalists for the award are invited to submit portfolios by March 1 at 8 am. The portfolio includes:

  1. Percent time spent in academic advising, academic advising programming, administrative duties, and other responsibilities
  2. Caseload details including number of students served as primary major advisor, secondary major advisor, and minor advisor
  3. Short bio
  4. Professional photo
  5. Resume or CV which includes a list of relevant professional development activities
  6. Advising philosophy statement (2 pages maximum)
  7. Letter of support from supervisor
  8. Supplemental material demonstrating how the advisor meets the criteria. Great portfolios include information about the advisor's caseload, percent of caseload served in a year/semester, summary of student satisfaction results, and summary of advising programming effectiveness in persistence, completion, or other interventions. (4 pages maximum)

Evaluation Criteria

The committee will evaluate nominations based on the evidence of effective advising qualities and practices distinguishing the nominee as an outstanding academic advisor. USU evaluates portfolios utilizing rubrics from the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) for Outstanding Professional Advisor and New Advisor awards.

Criteria may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  1. Strong interpersonal skills
  2. Availability to advisees, faculty or staff
  3. Use and dissemination of appropriate information sources
  4. Advisee or unit evaluations (summary data)
  5. Meeting advisees in informal settings
  6. Monitoring of student progress toward academic/career goals
  7. Mastery of institutional regulations, policies and procedures
  8. Ability to engage in, promote and support developmental advising
  9. Frequency of contact with advisees
  10. Appropriate referral activity
  11. Evidence of student success rate by advisor or department
  12. Caring, helpful attitude toward advisees, faculty and staff
  13. Participation and support of intrusive advising to build strong relationships with advisees
  14. Participation in and support of advisor development programs
  15. Perception by colleagues of nominee's advising skills