In ISM’s experience, the most frequently expressed administrative concern about the advisory program is unevenness in the quality of adviser functioning. Teachers’ motivation, skill, “buy-in,” and overall professionalism in this role often vary considerably. Clarity about the role—its purposes, priorities, limits, and sources of assistance—provides focus. This clarity and focus, for those with less affinity for the role of adviser, instills a sense that the job is “do-able” (i.e., not an “all-things-to-all-people” set of responsibilities). These boundaries also “rein in” any faculty who tend to overdo (i.e., become over-involved in the lives of their advisees). On a broader level, this kind of clarity implicitly makes advising more professional and contributes to a culture that values professional development in this role on behalf of students.