Written By: Isabella
Edited By: Grace
ASCs (Advisor-Student Conferences): They’re an integral part of any ISM student’s school experience. It gives teachers a good gauge of where each student is and what they feel needs to be done, and gives them a place to slow down and reflect on the progress they’ve made throughout the year. Although the experience is intended to be beneficial, the student body has raised several concerns, mainly about the process’s overall effectiveness.
To put it simply, ASCs are meant to be a structured time for students to look back on their semester and evaluate how things have been going, consisting of both a short talk with our advisors and some shared reflective questions that students answer before the talk. “ASCs help students reflect on their academic performance, helping them recognize what went well and what they can improve on for the semester,” says Gian. This reflective space that ISM creates allows students to see progress as more than just grades on a report card and as something gradual built through effort and growth over time.
“It’s also an opportunity for advisors to check in with the progress of their students,” says Mr. Sutton. And since advisory is usually focused on announcements and general updates, ASCs give advisors a rare chance to sit down one-on-one and actually get a clearer understanding of how each student is doing, both academically and personally.
And while the experience can definitely be beneficial, many students still feel that ASCs fall short in one major way—actually helping them apply those “solutions” in real life, rather than just talking about them.
A big reason for this is that, for some students, ASCs don’t feel like they add anything new. Emma explains, “No, I do not think that they’re effective because I think that the majority of people know the strategies to achieve their goals, such as a better life balance, consistent study schedule, etc.” This is a sentiment many students share, since ASCs can sometimes feel repetitive, just restating goals and strategies that are already cemented. She also points out that “ASCs take up both the advisor and students’ time,” and that it ”takes away tutorials for a whole week that could be learning opportunities for students in critical times,” which makes the process feel disproportionate and can even prevent students from getting urgent academic help when they need it.
Jacob shares a similar perspective, saying, “I think they’re good from time to time, but not worth dedicating a whole week to.” He also mentions that if a student wants to discuss their grades, “it can also be a counselor or a subject teacher,” and that ASCs should maybe be more of an optional choice. And honestly, it makes a lot of sense; most students don’t need broad, general advice. Most of the time, they just need support in one specific subject, which would be much more efficiently handled by the teacher they actually need. Making the process more flexible could also take pressure off students, since they would have more choice and could receive help that actually feels relevant to them.
Another major concern students brought up is the lack of follow-through. Dania explains, “However, I feel that they may lack accountability, because after ASCs there aren’t really any check-ins to see the student’s progress.” Since ASCs only happen twice a year, there’s a lot of time in between, which makes it easy for students to forget the goals they set.
Mr. Sutton also acknowledges this gap, saying, “A lot of students feel that they don’t get the advice that they need, as ASCs now focus more on goal setting.” ASCs are supposed to be a space where students get the support they need, but as it stands, students may feel pressured to come up with their own solutions on the spot. Instead of walking away with practical guidance, they end up leaving with a goal that sounds good in theory, but doesn’t feel realistic or actionable in practice.
Taking all of this into account, it is clear that the ASC program has significant potential but also some key areas for improvement. So what exactly could make ASCs more meaningful and effective?
One suggestion is to make the process more structured and consistent. “If I could change one factor, I would make it more formal, with more check-ups and a longer discussion about the goal,” says Ananth. This matters because it directly addresses one of the biggest weaknesses that students pointed out: accountability. Having check-ins would encourage students to actually build on their goals over time instead of treating them like a one-time reflection that gets forgotten a week later.
Gian also suggests a change that could make the process feel more intentional: “Maybe having them complete the questions during advisory time would make their answers more meaningful.” Doing this could help them because students wouldn’t be rushing through the questions at home or treating them like another task to finish. If it happens during advisory, the advisor is right there to guide them, clarify questions, and help them think more deeply. Plus, a more structured, classroom-like setting might make a student take it more seriously, and a quieter environment could help them actually focus and reflect holistically instead of giving quick answers just to get it done.
In a nutshell, ASCs are meant to give students space to reflect and give advisors a better understanding of how their students are doing, but many students feel the process doesn’t always translate into real, practical change. Between repetitive conversations, lost tutorial time, and a lack of follow-ups, ASCs often feel more like a formality than a meaningful support system. So, what do you think? Do ASCs really help students grow, or could we just be getting better at talking about improvement?
