Transcript .pptx
TRANSFER ARTICULATION MAINTENANCE BUG-MI CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 JON DAVIDSON, DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS LEE CRUPPENINK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT BACKGROUND: General: • ~7,100 undergraduate students • ~2/3 of new degree-seeking undergrads are transfers • Banner institution since 1998 • Transfer evaluation performed in Admissions • Implemented transfer articulation in 2005 Transfer Evaluation Stats: • 3,200 applicants/year with 5,100 transcripts • 9,000 new courses/year on average (22,000 so far this year) • Total database: 108,400 courses from 1,514 institutions • In the past year: 47,068 courses for 142,023 credits. 73% the size of institutional work BACKGROUND: A FEW SPECIFICS ABOUT OUR PRACTICES • We don’t articulate based on the term the course was taken – all done on the term the evaluation is being performed. • We use attributes on equivalencies to satisfy gen-ed requirements • We grant credits equivalent to the original earned (rather than how many our institutional course carries). BACKGROUND: ACCUMULATED PROBLEMS • Unrolled work in SHATAEQ • Unarticulated work that had been rolled to SHATRNS • Not being able to differentiate courses that had been reviewed from those that had not (SHATATC transfer review indicator) – over 6,000 unknown • Countless clerical errors • Bad attributes from botched gen-ed conversion • Aspirations for more: e.g. proactive building, automated auditing/continuous maintenance OUR PROCESS: CHALLENGES • Requires both strong understanding of business processes, as well as data/table structure in Banner. • Limited availability of IT programmer time • Lack of direct table access • Lack of time to do it all at once • Lack of organization to remember where we left off OUR PROCESS: MAPPING PROJECTS • Creating a spreadsheet and common workspace • Rating by difficulty, priority, sorting by the sum • Identifying related or pre-requisite projects • Categorizing as one-time or on-going • Determining whether to change in-place, or with new effective term • Linking to scripts or other work from the spreadsheet OUR PROCESS: MAPPING PROJECTS • Identify inter-dependencies on projects • Start with easy cleanup, eventually move to complex, aspirational projects OUR PROCESS: TABLES/FORMS OUR PROCESS: ACTUAL WORK, TOOLS • Incremental work done in spurts • Documentation through continuous email thread • Actual work accomplished through: • 75% SQL Scripts • 20% Access/Excel • 5% Manual work directly in Banner forms MAJOR PROJECTS ACCOMPLISHED • Clean up of unrolled work: 322 active students • Clean up of unarticulated work • 1,800 courses • 666 students affected • 233 courses with bad grades • Clean up, and use of transfer review indicator - started with 6,000 with “null” indicator • Storage and maintenance of comprehensive rejection reasons • Use of status indicator for ease of identifying the current equivalency record MAJOR PROJECTS ACCOMPLISHED • Clean up of unmatched credit hour between transfer course and equivalent • Redesign of UM-Flint transfer equivalency website • Import and proactive evaluation of community college catalogs: • Requested digital catalogs of all 28 Michigan community colleges • Received 15 • Scraped an additional 5 from websites • Matched course level on departmental credit (1XX, 2XX, 3XX, 4XX) for ~13,000 equivalencies. • Repaired and automatically maintain gen-ed attributes OUR NEXT PROJECTS: • Synchronizing equivalencies with our institutional catalog: • Titles • Attributes • Deprecated/converted courses • Automate daily audits • Proactively identify missed groupings • Receipt/processing of electronic transcripts (XML/EDI) Questions, Discussion Thank you. Jon Davidson Director of Admissions, University of Michigan-Flint [email protected] Lee Cruppenink Assistant Director of Admissions, University of Michigan-Flint [email protected]