Thematic Sub-Committees

When students think about their time at UCSC, our hope is that their academic journey feels clear and connected, not a series of unrelated stops. This theme explores how students move from entry to graduation, what helps that journey feel coherent, and where it becomes confusing or disjointed. The group is interested in when the path feels smooth, when it feels fragmented, and how students come to know who to reach out to (and who they'd want to hear from) as their needs and plans change over time.

For this theme, it is especially helpful to understand specific moments when you or your students felt supported, lost, or bounced around while seeking help. We invite examples of handoffs that worked well, times when it was unclear which office to approach, and ideas for key milestones where proactive outreach or timely reminders would have made a difference. Feedback about how students find information (web, email, appointment systems, peers) and how they learn “who to go to” will directly inform the work.

The way advising roles are defined and supported has a direct impact on students and on the people doing advising work every day. This theme looks at how responsibilities are currently organized, how advising time is spent, and what shared expectations might make advising more consistent, developmental, and sustainable across campus. The group is exploring where responsibilities are clear or overlapping, how workload and caseload shape the type of support students receive, and which common practices could help align the student experience.

Input is especially valuable from advisors, department managers, and staff who see how advising work happens day to day. Examples of tasks that pull advisors away from student support, practices that help teams coordinate care, and ideas for sustainable caseloads and service expectations are all welcome. Feedback on training, coaching, and supervision needs, as well as how current tools and metrics do or do not reflect the real work and impact of advising, will guide recommendations in this theme.

Feeling connected to a field of study often grows out of meaningful contact with curriculum, faculty, research, internships, and other experiences beyond the classroom. This theme considers how those connections are built and how information about opportunities flows between departments, advisors, and students. The group is examining when and how students learn about majors, research, internships, and other pathways, and how partnerships might support earlier, clearer, and more equitable access to these experiences.

For this theme, feedback from students, faculty, staff, and campus partners is especially important. We hope to hear how students currently discover research, internships, and other experiences, and where those pathways feel unclear or inequitable. Examples of strong faculty–advisor partnerships, as well as areas where information about curriculum or opportunities arrives late, is inconsistent, or is hard to find, will help shape better collaboration models. Input on how to ensure that students in all majors, and from all backgrounds, whether they enter UCSC as first-years or as transfer students, can access high-impact experiences is particularly valuable. 

The overall structure and funding of advising shapes how easy it is for students to find support and how realistic it is for advisors and staff to sustain that support over time. This theme examines how responsibilities, budgets, and decision-making are organized across departments, colleges, divisions, and central units, and what long-term investments in staffing, technology, training, and space are needed. The group is asking how a student-centered advising landscape can be organized so that goals and outcomes are uniform, accountability is clear, resources and caseloads are consistent, and the model remains feasible within campus resource constraints.

For this theme, feedback about infrastructure and accountability from all parts of campus is especially important. We invite observations about where accountability for advising feels clear or unclear, where there are discrepancies in caseloads or resourcing across units, and where processes or implementation differ in ways that create confusion or inequity for students or staff. Suggestions for how to address these gaps, whether through shifts in reporting lines, shared service models, common processes, new technology, or other ideas, will directly inform how the future structure is designed.