MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
October 5, 1995
Present: Sarah Moore, Ann Ekes, Jeanette DiScala, Ron Van Enkevort, Tanya Stambuk, Jack
Roundy
Guests: Raney Ellis, Brad Tomhave
1. Minutes: The minutes of the September 21 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Moore announced that Raney Ellis would be joining the committee for
discussions about the new computerized records and registration system currently under
development. She also welcomed Brad Tomhave, who was standing in for Mary Morgan and
John Finney. Moore has asked Grace Kirschner to find out whether additional members can be
found for ASC this fall, as the load of committee work is heavy. Kirschner will get back to us
after she looks into it. Kirschner also mentioned that a full set of charges to ASC is not yet ready
from the Faculty Senate, but she is quite sure that further review of the withdrawal issue will be
among those charges. Finally, Moore announced that Droge will join the Petitions Committee in
the spring term, as requested.
3. Petitions: Tomhave submitted a report for the October 3 meeting of the Petitions
Subcommittee without further comment:
Date
Approved
Denied
No Action
10/3/95
14
3
0
YTD
51
7
0
4. Computerized, Decentralized Academic Records and Registration System: At the request
of the committee, Roundy had prepared an opening analysis of the issues concerning this
upcoming change (a copy is attached to these minutes). Moore asked that Roundy open the
discussion before the committee.
Roundy suggested that the dimensions of the new system could be approached in several ways:
chronologically, inquiring as to how students might experience it from the the point of admission
to the point of graduation; inventively, inquiring what features faculty and students might want to
see in a new system; or categorically, inquiring how the program might be designed element by
element.
Van Enkevort suggested that we begin by formulating the "big picture," then circulate to faculty
a memo seeking their input. He added that he thought questions about who was to have access to
student records was a key consideration. DiScala mentioned that she had worked in an
electronic records environment, and was familiar with the ways in which systems could be
designed to conform with confidentiality policy, as well as to control who could modify records.
Moore suggested she preferred to proceed by breaking the elements of a new system down into
categories, and then addressing them each in turn. She expressed the hope that ASC could
complete a preliminary review relatively quickly, so as to follow through on Van Enkevort's
suggestion of submitting our views to the full faculty. Roundy added that he hoped we could get
student input at an early stage, as well (perhaps from student members of the ASC?).
Ann Ekes inquired whether a new system would allow faculty to receive all the advising records
they now receive, including academic data on entering students (like high school GPA, SAT
scores, major of interest, etc.). Roundy replied that this would be among the easier advising
needs to supply, since it would be simply a matter of creating a screen to bring together data the
University already collects. The advising file as we now know it, however, might change, in that
the majority of materials provided in it could be provided electronically. Only the History of
Advising form, on which advisors keep their own records, might need to remain in the advising
file, unless the advisor preferred to keep paper records there.
One new feature of the system currently under development by the Registrar is the ability to
check for prerequisites, according to Tomhave. This will relieve advisors and instructors of
come of the clerical work they now find themselves doing.
Moore, speaking more globally, noted that there are likely to be faculty who resist our change to
an electronic environment for student records and registration. Ellis seconded the notion.
Roundy suggested that for them there are two very important keys: 1) sustain the "old ways" of
doing things (including paper records) through the transition period, and 2) work hard to make
the new, electonic systems as simple and easy to use as possible. Ellis suggested that there are
ways of using a World Wide Web browser that will make faculty contact with the new system
much friendlier, and that he would explore those possibilities in the design phase.
Moore then asked Roundy if he would build a list of topics for discussion for the next meeting.
Roundy agreed, suggesting that he could convene a group including Registrar's and Information
Systems' representatives to build the list. The list will be distributed before the next meeting.
Moore then adjourned the meeting at 8:56, noting that we would reconvene in Library 134 at 8
AM on Thursday, Oct. 19th, with Brodey's report on the Honor Code being the first item of
business.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
Computerized, Decentralized Academic Records and Registration System
Possibilities and Policy Implications for Puget Sound
September 30, 1995
Jack Roundy
Introduction
Colleges and universities nationwide are rapidly undergoing a new computer revolution these
days. Having already computerized their major administrative functions in a central computer
"warehouse," they are beginning to decentralize some of these functions, putting them in the
hands of the clients they serve. In the case of student academic records and registration, they are
making it possible for students and their advisors to view transcripts and academic progress
reports and to register and add/drop from remote locations, over campus networks.
In a very short time, Puget Sound will join her sister institutions in this revolution. What are the
implications of these changes? How will they affect the academic culture of Puget Sound? How
will they influence they way students plan and implement their academic programs? How will
they affect the way academic advisors advise? These and many other questions must be
answered before a new system is designed and implemented.
The Art of the Possible
Several models of computerized, decentralized records and registration systems are already in
place at other institutions, so we know what they can do. Essentially, they adapt computer
screens already in use by registrar's offices for use by students and advisors. These adaptations
subtract much of the "machinery" the registrar needs to build records systems or enrollment
databases and add instructions that allow students and faculty to navigate and interact with the
registrar's files in as friendly a manner as possible. In the process, two major advantages are
gained for students and their faculty advisors: 1) they have access to essential academic
information electronically and instantaneously, reducing paper waste and delay, and 2) they can
perform important functions themselves (checking departmental enrollments, reviewing student
academic progress, registering for classes) from any desk on which a computer sits, either on
campus or on the shores of the Mediterranean. The changes put new power in the hands of
faculty and students, the former as overseers of departmental curricula and student advisors, the
latter as independent planners of their own futures.
2
In some cases, registrar's information can be delivered essentially unchanged to advisors and
students. For example, the student transcript can be viewed and an unofficial copy of it printed
from a remote location in just the way it would be in a records office. In other cases, however,
the screens a student or faculty member view may be considerably different. For example, a
degree progress report may be greatly simplified for easy reading, with many of the "either/ors,"
qualifications and exceptions hidden unless relevant. In the case of Puget Sound, for example, a
student or faculty member might view a student's degree progress report as a screen on which 12
lines appear for the core and 9 lines appear for the major. The computer would fill in some of
those lines with coursework already taken. Blank lines might indicate coursework remaining,
with instructions saying that by moving the cursor to those lines, information about what
coursework meets those requirements will be provided. Additional features, like those that could
calculate a needed GPA, or predict the number of terms needed to complete a degree, or allow a
student to work out a four-year plan, or allow a student or advisor to "try on another major for
size," might easily be added. All such features already exist in systems used on college campuses
today. And in each case, their devising has involved a simplification of registrar's already
existing information so it can be easily understood and used by students and faculty without
technical training. Also in each case, their devising has involved enhancements that give
students and faculty new power for understanding and planning academic programs.
The viewing of academic records is but one innovation made possible by new technology, and it
is a relatively safe and neutral one, given that the system is only modified to display in new ways
information already housed in its databases. A more dynamic innovation is the decentralized
registration system, by which students can register for (and in some systems, add/drop) courses
from remote locations. Because these systems are dynamic, they require very careful design,
embodying the academic policies of the university while allowing secure student interactions
with its records system. They must be created with very careful instructions so that students and
faculty can learn easily how to use them, they must have features that provide information
students typically receive from registration staff or advisors, and they must be "hack-proof."
Typically, students enter these systems after their advisors have talked with them and "cleared"
them to enter, and on entry they find a screen welcoming them and explaining procedures. Once
these procedures have been explained, the student will be invited either to enter a course he or
she wishes to register for or to scroll through a department's offerings and hit an enter key when
the cursor reaches the course of choice. The system will tell the student whether the course is
open, whether the course has a prerequisite the student has yet to meet, whether the course
requires instructor permission, and once the student has already signed up for other courses,
3
whether this course conflicts in time with other courses on the schedule. The student will then
manipulate choices, adding and dropping and tinkering, until he or she has an attractive schedule.
System enhancements can add an advisory element to the student's registration experience. For
example, one feature might identify core or major requirements the student has yet to meet.
Another might display open courses by core area or meeting time. Another might display a
weekly time grid showing the student the times to which they have committed in a given
schedule. These features provide information the student receives currently from advisors and
registration staff. They must be designed carefully so that the student sitting alone in a remote
location doesn't find him- or herself lacking a vital piece of information with no one alongside to
help. The best systems in place today do have these features.
Students who use these systems at other institutions love them, as do faculty. Because the sytems
are dynamic and instantaneous, all parties (students, faculty advisors, department chairs,
registrar's staff) always have current information with which to work. Students always have
complete information on their academic progress and can register for classes according to their
own convenience (within limits) from anywhere there is a computer. Advisors always have their
advisees' most recent transcripts and progress reports at hand, as well as current lists of advisees
and their course schedules. Department chairs can watch enrollment patterns as registration
unfolds and phone adjustments in to the registrar as often as needed. Registrar's staff can invest
their energies in keeping records and enrollment information current and accurate and in
personalizing service to students with questions and concerns while the majority of students
transact their records and enrollment business painlessly in their rooms or in campus computer
labs.
In some places, the decentralization process has been expanded beyond academic records and
registration. Financial aid, work study, campus activity, student accounts, housing, library and
myriad other forms of information are mounted on the same system students enter to view
academic records or enroll for classes. Perhaps some day Puget Sound will move to a completely
computerized student service system of that kind. But before we do, we'll have to ask how we
plan to keep the personal touch, the individualized interaction a part of our human environment.
Academic and Advising Policy Implications of a Change to a New System
It is a commonplace that changes in culture accompany changes in technology, and undoubtedly
the transition to a decentralized records and registration system will mean a change in our
4
culture. I have discussed its advantages: greater currency of information, instantaneous access,
more independence for students in planning their academic lives.
There are also cultural hazards implicit in such a change. In the current system, messy and
inefficient though it may sometimes seem, students are obliged to interact regularly with faculty
and staff as they do their academic planning and registrations. In the course of those interactions,
students exchange important pieces of information with us. On one hand, we ask them to give us
information: a current and accurate address, reasons for taking particular classes, instructions on
the release of directory information, choice of major, graduation date, grading preference. On the
other hand, we give them vital information: course prerequisites, core sequencing information,
changes in requirements, degree progress information, and many other more detailed items. Our
infamous registration line, for example, as much as it looks like a cattle chute to the untrained
eye, is a place where advising staff, peer advising staff, registration staff, financial aid staff and
student accounts staff exchange enormous amounts of information with students, and where the
"personal touch" of the institution has an important place. As we eliminate these interactions
with students, we must ask ourselves how and where we will exchange the information we have
always exchanged in these ways, and we must ask ourselves how and where we will offer the
"personal touch" that connects us in vital ways to our students.
Here are some academic policy issues we must address in light of these questions:
Shall academic advising remain "mandatory," and if so, how will its mandatory character be
implemented?
In an attachment to this document I have argued the case for mandatory advising. I think that
particularly in an environment where routine academic planning contacts are being reduced
(theoretically, students could go through their entire academic careers without ever speaking to a
member of the registrar's staff), we must sustain regular advisor contacts. Oberlin College,
which recently installed a system similar to the one we are considering, has continued their
mandatory advising system for just this reason. Instead of mailing registration forms to advisors,
Oberlin mails FACs (Faculty Advisor Codes). Students pick these codes up from their advisors
when they meet to discuss registration for the coming term. After advising meetings, students go
to computer terminals, enter an identification number and a personal code followed by the FAC,
and then are permitted to register. I would strongly argue for a similar model at Puget Sound.
Who shall we allow to have access to student records, and how can we protect that access?
5
Once student records become available over the campus network, a good many security questions
will have to be addressed. The technical details of security must be left to Information Systems
staff, but the faculty and administration must decide the policy. Currently, only students
themselves and their faculty advisors are routinely allowed access to academic records, with a
few exceptions based on a "need-to-know" clause in the Family Education Rights and Privacy
Act. I would propose that current practice be maintained, with one change for the following
reasons.
Under our current system, student academic records are kept by the registrar and by academic
advisors. When advisors depart the university, take leaves, or are otherwise unavailable,
departmental colleagues "pinch-hit" for them, using the advisor's set of records. Since these
records will be kept on a computerized system in the future, and since our current policy would
restrict electronic access (allowing it only to student and advisor), pinch-hitting colleagues would
be prevented from seeing the records.
I would propose that department chairs be allowed electronic access to the advisee records of all
their colleagues. Chairs would also be sent the FACs for all students whose advisors were
unavailable, so as to assure that they would be able to get the advising and registration access
they needed. In addition, the Registrar or the Director of Advising could authorize advisor
changes and print out new FACs when student access to a faculty advisor became a problem. A
subidiary benefit of allowing chairs access to student records would be that they could view
departmental trends for all their majors (GPAs, graduation rates, enrollments by emphasis, etc.)
from their own desks.
How might freshman advising be handled under the new system?
Technically, there is no reason that freshman could not register from their homes before ever
coming to Puget Sound, but I think that would be a terrible mistake. Before freshmen arrive on
our campus they are essentially ignorant of our academic system. Our orientation program is
designed to teach them how the system works, and our freshman advising program is designed to
give them intensive support, from advisor and peer advisor alike, in the process of deciding on
classes. Years of experience have taught us that the schedules freshmen think they'd like to take
on arrival more often change when they receive advising than remain the same. Myriad
considerations drive these changes: academic readiness, diagnostic testing results, math and
language placement advice, AP, IB and transfer coursework, and the "inside scoop" provided by
advisors, peer advisors and advising assistants. Were we to allow freshmen to register before
coming to campus, advisors would have to change more schedules than they left alone, and those
6
changes would often be made difficult both by freshman intransigence and course availability
problems. I would recommend that we continue to have freshman registration follow advising.
But how should we handle freshman registration once they are here? First of all, most of the
academic information we now provide freshman advisors should be easy to deliver electronically.
This will eliminate much of the paper we now distribute except for advisors who continue to
want it. But since registration can be done from remote locations, should we ask freshman
advisors to register their students in their offices? Many of us have thought about this and
recommend against it. Instead, we recommend that advisors accompany freshmen to a central
registration area as they do now, with the difference that staff would use the occasion to teach
freshmen how to use the registration system themselves, for the future. Advisors would remain
on hand on this occasion to help their advisees with course alternatives when courses close or
course conflicts arise.
For their second registration, freshmen would register in the same way as upperclassmen, except
that registration and peer advising staff would be available in computer labs around campus to
help them become comfortable with the system. After a second experience with the system, they
would be "veterans," and could register from anywhere.
How might transfer students be registered?
I believe our general policy should be the same for transfer students as it is for new freshmen.
Though transfers are often "veteran" students, they usually find our system surprisingly different
from what they are used to, and discover that it's hard to judge at what level to begin in our
curriculum and how heavy a load to take. Further, many complex credit transfer questions must
be answered for them before they choose a set of classes. It is critical, therefore, that they have a
thorough advising session before they register for classes.
For those who cannot come to campus, however, we might arrange such advising sessions by
telephone or e-mail and then allow them to register from a distance. Though it would be
impractical to consider handling 700 freshmen in this way, we could manage the necessary
advising and registration of what would be at most 40 or 50 transfer students who could not
come to campus in person before classes began. And for those without access to the internet,
either their advisor or Academic and Career Advising could complete the registration.
How might students on study abroad or leaves of absence be registered?
7
Once again, there is no technical reason why they could not register from a distance if they had
access to the internet. They could exchange e-mail messages with their advisor or with the
Director of International Programs, who could serve as an intermediary. By e-mail, once
advising had taken place, they could be sent their FAC, and then they could enter the system as
though they were sitting in a campus computer lab. Oberlin has had good luck with these
arrangements; they have connected their registration system to their World Wide Web home
page, which makes it easy to get to for their students (http://www.oberlin.edu to "Inside Oberlin"
to "Student Services" to "Registration").
Will paper be replaced by electronic data in all academic advising and registration matters?
Though technically the advising file could become a thing of the past, I would not recommend
making that transition all at once. Faculty and students will have to learn the new system and
become comfortable with it, so a certain amount of redundant paperwork will be necessary.
After everyone has become adjusted to the new system, paper records will only have to be
generated for advisors and students who prefer to work with paper, with one exception: any
records of advisor meetings with advisees should be kept in writing in the event that charges of
misadvising or other such problems should arise later. These records can continue to be kept, as
they are currently, on the "History of Advising" form.
If registration can be done electronically, can adding and dropping be done that way also?
There is no technical reason why they can't, but I would not recommend it. Our current policy is
that instructors control enrollments from the first day of classes onward. Were we to allow
students to add and drop classes electronically, faculty would lose the chance to decide who
should be admitted into their classes, and how large they should be allowed to be. I would
recommend that adding and dropping continue to be done with paper forms and signatures.
How might the new system change declarations of major or changes of advisor?
The answer to this question offers an excellent microcosm of the kinds of decision we'll need to
make in the new environment. Declarations of major or minor should be part of the
computerized system, particularly since the system will very likely include a feature that allows
students to "try on" majors from their desktops. But changes of advisor, I would argue, should
continue to be done in person, because they are changes in human relationships. Though
allowing students to change advisors by computer might offer a slight advantage of convenience,
8
it would be at the expense of the personal touch, and I would argue that the loss would be greater
than the gain.
Might the new system change the way in which we work with students under academic sanction?
It might. At the very least, the system should the designed to notify any student on academic
warning or probation that they are under that sanction, and it should tell them what the sanction
means. In cases of students who have been suspended or dismissed, it should tell them that they
cannot register and explain the steps they must take before being permitted to reregister. Other
academic standards information might also be included, such as midterm grades and GPA
warnings when the student's GPA has fallen below what is required in the major or for
continuation of merit scholarships.
How should "permission of instructor" and independent study courses be handled?
Oberlin has devised an elegant system. For "permission" courses they have developed "Consent"
codes which must be entered into the system in order to register. Course instructors give students
the codes when they give their consent to register, thereby controlling who may enroll.
Independent study could be handled with "Consent" codes as well, if we wish. Oberlin, wishing
to monitor independent study a bit more carefully, registers all independent study students by
hand.
Other more minor issues, like registrations for audit courses or pass-fail, will also have to be
addressed. In most cases, we'll be able to sustain our current policies, but we'll need to provide
considerable information in the registration program itself, so that students are aware of the
consequences of their choices. These details are the kind we have heretofore explained in person
.
Conclusions
The system we are soon to devise will change dramatically the ways in which we work with our
students. If the system Puget Sound adopts affects us in the way similar systems have affected
other institutions, it could change academic advising in two ways here, one attractive and one
quite worrisome.
We shall all be relieved if the new system delivers on the promise to reduce the "clerical" tasks of
academic advising, and it should. Hereafter, advisors and students shouldn't have to sit down
9
together to count cores, or to pencil out prospective four-year plans, or to bury themselves in the
minutia of major requirements. Computers are very good at handling minutia. Students and their
advisors shouldn't have to guess any more, either, because they lack the most recent transcript or
student schedule or other vital piece of information. Instead of discussing how many of these or
which ones of those to register for, students and their advisors can meet for real advising
sessions, in which they can discuss why to take this class or how that class might enrich their
lives. Academic advising can be an occasion to probe the purposes of education and to discuss
academic goals, rather than to count beans.
We shall be a bit sorry, on the other hand, if the new system causes us to abdicate some of our
advisory responsibilities. Because students and advisors alike are very busy people, the
elimination of clerical tasks in advising can sometimes come to mean the elimination of
meaningful dialogue altogether. If the computer answers the nitty-gritty academic planning
questions, the student may be inclined to seek only perfunctory advising, the hand-off of a
permission code to register. And if the advisor is busy, he or she may be inclined to give the
student only what he or she wants.
Because Puget Sound is blessed with a faculty committed to the best educations for our students,
I believe that academic advising will thrive when the new system is in place. I believe that we
will all be relieved of drudgery, and that advising will only become better. That is why I am so
eager to see us put a new system in place.
10
Addendum: The Case for Mandatory Advising
Why "mandatory" advising? The glib answer would be that the educating of our students is our
mandate, and we abdicate it by failing to insist on meaningful, periodic interactions with them in
which they are obliged to articulate their goals and how they intend to meet them.
The real answer, I would suggest, is not far wide of the glib one. Academic advising, in its best
sense, is a form of teaching. As we do not fear to call upon students in the classroom to offer,
elaborate and defend their ideas and arguments, we should not fear to call upon them to offer,
elaborate and defend their plans for achieving a meaningful college education in our offices as
we advise them. Though indeed many students and faculty alike would find their lives more
"convenient" in the absence of this sort of intellectual and moral challenge, such convenience
would not conduce to the best education, either in the classroom or in the advisor's office. For
such convenience both student and teacher should make their way to a large public institution,
where it is condoned.
Is mandatory advising consistent with "cultivating students' independence." Frankly, I find the
"independence" shibboleth current on our campus often obscures rather than clarifies reasoned
argument about how we ought to be working with our students.
On the one hand, I fully support an ethos in which much is expected of students. I favor and
routinely defend faculty who are demanding, serious and constructively critical of their students'
work. If we do not challenge our students, they will not develop the intellectual discipline or
nimbleness they will need in their lives beyond college.
On the other hand, I believe that we must insist upon remaining engaged with our students,
"cultivating" them. I particularly like that word, because it suggests consistent attention
achieving the best conditions for growth. Cultivating students is damned hard work, and seen
from one perspective it might look much like "handholding" (another of our current shibboleths).
But I insist that it is not. It is a conscientious, dedicated attentiveness in which challenges are
laid down and student responses are carefully weighed and evaluated. It is consistent
engagement. It is not the "hands off," "sink or swim" ethos that seems to cling to the coattails of
our recent conversations about student independence.
On their face, mandatory advising sessions, currently enforced by the brute mechanism of the
faculty signature, may appear to be counter-productive to the cultivation of independence. But if
11
they are seen as teaching opportunities (and I see them just that way), then they should appear
exactly otherwise. For the freshman, such sessions offer the opportunity to learn how the
university's curriculum is organized, what we mean by liberal education, how the coursework he
or she takes might meet his or her educational goals. We cannot suppose that students enter
capable of reading our Bulletin transparently any more than we can suppose that they enter
capable of reading a college textbook transparently. We must help them to read our academic
programs intelligently.
For sophomore students, the challenge changes. Their work is to winnow out a meaningful
curricular choice from among the many we offer. The advisor becomes for them a consultant, a
sounding board. The advisor also becomes someone to whom to articulate the reasons for
choices, someone who can respond critically to those reasons. For junior students, the challenge
changes again. For them, the advisor becomes an expert in the field to which they have been led
by their abilities and interests. The advisor resumes the role of teacher, opening up that field to
fuller and deeper understanding. For senior students, the advisor becomes a consultant both on
capstone experiences in college and on choices for their future. Advisors need not be career
counselors, but they should be ready to make a meaningful contribution to students' thinking
about their place in the world beyond academe, particularly if they intend to go to graduate or
professional school. Throughout students' careers, then, the advisor has a meaningful role to
play, a role more in the line of "cultivation" than in the line of "handholding."
I confess that the mandatory signature we now use is a crude device. So perhaps also is the due
date, the grade, the final exam. Each of the latter has been instituted as a sign post, a reckoning
point, a system of measure to allow meaningful review of student growth. The mandatory
signature, similarly, exists to ensure meaningful contact between advisor and student, contact that
in the midst of busy lives might not otherwise occur. Admittedly, hasty mandatory signatures
can become as meaningless as unobserved due dates or "gift" grades, for the same reason-student and faculty have entered into an agreement to abdicate responsibility. But in a healthy
advising system, the mandatory signature should offer the occasion for meaningful dialogue.
When we enter the era of the computerized, decentralized academic records and registration
system, the crude device by which mandatory advising is enforced will have to change, but I
hope we don't abandon it altogether. I would regard such abandonment as an abdication of
pedagogical responsibility. But I am optimistic. I believe that the majority of Puget Sound
faculty will agree with me and endorse our continued commitment to mandatory advising.
JR - 9/30/95