Is Academic Advising Fair? A New Study Questions Its Impact
Academic advising has long been considered a cornerstone of student success in higher education. Advisers guide students in course selection and career preparation, theoretically leveling the playing field for all students. But as universities have increasingly emphasized diversity and inclusion, some new questions have arisen: Are advising meetings truly effective for every student? Or do systemic disparities persist, leaving some behind despite those efforts?
A recent study published in Educational Researcher, titled “Is Meeting Enough? Differences in Frequency and Consequences of Academic Advising Appointments Between Marginalized and Mainstream College Students,” challenges common assumptions about who benefits most from academic advising. The findings reveal a complex reality, one that educators and administrators cannot afford to ignore.
Educators in an advising role might assume that simply offering advising appointments is enough to support student success. But marginalized students—including first-generation, low-income, ethnic minority, and international students—often face unique barriers that their mainstream counterparts do not. If advising does not address these differences, even well-intentioned support systems may fall short.
The study’s findings highlight some key disparities. First-generation students (those whose parents are immigrants) attend fewer advising sessions overall than their continuing-generation peers, possibly due to unfamiliarity with academic norms or discomfort with institutional authority. Other marginalized groups (like racial or ethnic minority, low-income, and international students) attend advising at equal or higher rates than mainstream students, but they don’t always seem to reap the same rewards. While all students see GPA improvements from advising, White students gain stronger graduation benefits when compared to non-White minorities: they tend to graduate more quickly, and are more likely to graduate overall.
This raises a critical question: If marginalized students are showing up, why aren’t they getting the same long-term advantages?
The study suggests that merely increasing advising appointments is not enough. Academic institutions should begin to examine how advising is being delivered. Are advisers trained to address cultural differences or implicit biases? Are follow-up supports in place in order to ensure that marginalized students translate advice into success?
For those of us in education, the conclusion is clear: equity requires more than access—it demands intentional, tailored support. Otherwise, even the best intentions may inadvertently widen the gap that they seek to close.
What changes could make academic advising truly transformative for every student, regardless of their background? The answer may determine whether higher education lives up to its promise of equal opportunity.