Back to the Future: Crookston and O'Banion Revisited

Crookston made points that are every bit as relevant today as they were in 1972. Two of his main ideas stand out. First, he emphasized that schooling or training should fit within a life plan from which educational plans can emerge. Second, he stressed that the student cannot simply be a passive receptacle of information. Instead, the student should be a partner in the teaching and learning process. Related to the second point, Crookston differentiated between prescriptive and developmental advising. I experienced a growing sense of discomfort when I reread Crookston's description of prescriptive advising because I saw it still being applied in large measure today. In far too many advising settings the advisor merely imparts information; the student is responsible for receiving that information. At the end of the advisor1 student interaction, the advisor's responsibility has been discharged, irrespective of whether the information actually applied to the student o r whether the student "got" what was being imparted. In my view, there a r e f a r too many times when accurate answers are given to questions that are not asking for these answers. Additionally, Crookston contrasted the dimensions of prescriptive and developmental approaches by using McCregor's X and Y theories of management. This was especially forward looking in light of what is known today about effective human relations. His point that students must be full participants in the advising process is more t rue today than ever. T h e troubling question is whether students have been made full partners in that process. Crookston raised a troublesome point that faculty d o restrict the definition of teaching to subject matter presented in the classroom or the laboratory. Most faculty, he stated, do not view advising as teaching but rather as an added burden, an extracurricular, nonteaching activity. From my perspective, the discouraging truth is that this is still the case today in far too many settings. Finally, I was struck by Crookston's reference to "an intellectual learning community within which individuals and social systems interact in and out of the classroom." The idea of learning communities has only recently taken root in our colleges and universities. Once again, Crookston has proved visionary. O'Banion's article made a major contribution to academic advising on several levels. Most importantly, he clearly proposed the key elements that should comprise the process of academic advising: (a) exploration of life goals, (b) exploration of vocational goals, (c) program choice, (d) course choice, and (e) scheduling courses. Right there he helped alter the way people who were responsible f o r delivering the service thought about academic advising. O'Banion brought forth a major idea in his landmark article: the position of the professional advisor. That is, he proposed a team approach that involved teaching faculty, the counse lor , a n d the profess ional advisor . T h i s recommendation has been well received, and professional advisors are commonplace nowadays. Clearly O'Banion was on target when he enumerated the conditions that must be present if advising is to flourish as a core service to students. Who can now argue with his statement that academic advising must be recognized as an important activity within the institution? Higher education institutions have generally given serious consideration to his recommendation regarding teachingladvising loads for faculty. Admittedly, modifications had to be made. T h e need for advisor selection and training, which O'Banion proposed, has become an operational reality a t most inst i tutions (Gordon , 1984; Raushi, 1993). In fact, much of the ACT1 NACADA Advisor Tra ining Institute has its roots in the O'Banion model of the advising process. O'Banion's deceptively modest little ar-