MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
October 10, 1996
Present: David Droge, John Finney, Betsy Kirkpatrick, Melissa Wiens, Barry Bauska, Jeanette DiScala,
Perry Fizzano, Tanya Stambuk, Martins Linauts, Sarah Moore, Jack Roundy, Peter Greenfield
1. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes of the September 12, 1996 ASC meeting were approved as
submitted. Not all committee members had reviewed the Minutes of the September 26 meeting, therefore
approval was deferred until the next meeting.
2. Petitions Committee: In the absence of Mary Morgan, the printout of the Petitions Committee report
was submitted to the ASC with no discussion.
The following actions were taken at the 10/2/96 Petitions Committee meeting;
7 approved
0 denied
0 no actions
Year-to-date actions;
42 approved
3 denied
1 no action
3. Prioritization of agenda items: The six (6) major agenda items enumerated at the 9/12/96 ASC
meeting were prioritized as follows:
1. Review of Computerized Records and Registration summary
2. Policy on transfer of college credits
3. Response to plagiarism policy
4. Class attendance policy
5. Academic Honesty Policy / Integrity Code document
It was decided to defer the issue of grade inflation/academic rigor to Spring term.
4. Action taken: It was motioned (Finney), seconded (Stambuk) and unanimously passed by the
committee to declare the print version of the Bulletin as the official document (versus the electronic
version).
Droge will forward this decision to the Faculty Senate.
5. Discussion of Faculty Survey on Computerized Records and Registration : Roundy and Droge
presented the first draft of the "Faculty Survey" regarding the design for computerized records and
registration. Discussion ensued regarding the two sets of survey questions;
Question set I (Records); Moore asked whether the first question ("Should the university move to an
electronic records system...?") was not already a "done deal." Brief discussion led to the decision that
indeed this is a moot point - the university IS moving to an electronic system. Question #1 was therefore
eliminated. Question #2 ("Should paper records be eliminated..?) will remain as stated. On the subject of
"What features are important..." (question #3 ), Kirkpatrick and Moore, with additional member input,
suggested that examples of "features" be given to guide the faculty in responding to this issue. Roundy
stated that he knows there are faculty out there who have experience with electronic records and might
have good ideas to relate. Roundy will rework this question to direct faculty to consider "components" of
the system (transcript, degree progress report, etc.) as well as "things the system can do for you" (clerical
issues, check pre-requisites, etc.).
Question set II (Registration); Five survey questions were proposed and discussed ("Congressional
Record" of discussion was not recorded by the secretary). Revisions in wording and emphasis for clarity
were suggested by various committee members. Roundy will make the changes which he recorded as
the discussion progressed, and the committee agreed that Roundy send will send out the survey to the
faculty without further approval.
Roundy questioned whether the document to be sent out was too long. Consensus of the committee was
that the document is both a summary report and a survey, therefore its three page length is appropriate.
Bauska suggested that the list of ASC members be included on the survey
so that faculty could contact committee members if needed for clarification or other discussion.
Finally, the question of method of distribution arose. Moore suggested both e-mail and paper. Droge
suggested, and the committee agreed, that the survey be sent as e-mail to the faculty as a whole, with
hard-copy being sent only to department chairs, who may then share the copy with faculty who so request.
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 2:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Martins Linauts
Summary of Academic Standards Committee Deliberations
on
Design for a Computerized Records and Registration System
Academic Year 1995-96
In the course of academic year 1995-96, the Academic Standards Committee considered a wide range of
policy and implementation issues associated with the development of a computerized academic records
and registration system to be used by students and faculty over the campus network. The foundations for
these deliberations were laid: through a visit to Oberlin College by Mary Morgan and Jack Roundy in the
spring of 1995 to see such a system in operation; through participation in an annual conference on
technology in higher education in the summer of 1995 by John Finney, Mary Morgan, Jeff Strong and Jack
Roundy; through an overview of what a system might look like prepared by Jack Roundy for the ASC in
September of 1995 (attached as Appendix I); and through a set of "Topics for Discussion" developed by
John Finney, Raney Ellis and Jack Roundy in October of 1995 to focus the ASC discussion through the
academic year (attached as Appendix II).
From October to May, the ASC considered each of the topics in turn and developed consensus views on
important elements of design and implementation for a new system at Puget Sound. At the conclusion of
these deliberations, the committee voted to ask that the Faculty Senate forward the following charge to the
1996-97 ASC: that the ASC solicit faculty input on the new computerized, decentralized academic records
and registration system we have begun to design, with a timetable for implementation within the next two
academic years.
What follows is a summary of ASC recommendations, organized by topic.
Should advising remain mandatory in the new system?
If the answer to this question is yes then further questions will have to be answered.
Should all transactions currently requiring signatures continue to be mandatory?
How should all an electronic "signature" be requested and given
Some institutions with computerized registration systems require students to meet with advisors before
beginning self-registration, while others make such meetings optional. If Puget Sound wishes to maintain
its current "mandatory" system (where signatures are required for registration), it could do so by issuing
registration "codes" to advisors, who would give them to students after advising. This code would
constitute an advisor's electronic signature.
In discussion, several committee members resisted the phrase "mandatory advising." They preferred to
promote an ethic of "voluntary advising," including a greater emphasis on student responsibility for
academic planning. Two faculty described their current advising practice as variable depending on the
student. Freshmen, for example, often need a good deal more direction than upperclassmen, whom
many advisors trust to handle academic planning decisions rather independently.
One faculty advisor, while she approved the notion of voluntary advising, added that she was concerned
about students who don't make the most of their educations, seriously exploring the liberal arts and doing
significant upper division work. She argued that advisors need to engage such students and challenge
them to be more serious. A student member was asked for his views, and replied that he did not feel
advisors at Puget Sound actively promote exploration in the liberal arts, though he would be glad to be
challenged in that way. He added that advisors act as "a second set of eyes" for their advisees, and that it
would be "horrible" if students didn't receive their advice regularly. When asked whether a change from
mandatory to voluntary advising would affect his relationship with his advisor, the student member said he
didn't know.
In the end, consensus was reached that using registration "codes" in the future as we use advisor
signatures today would allow advisors the flexibility of deciding how much direction to give their advisees.
Rather than a "mandatory" system, it could be described as a "gatekeeping" system. When registration
codes are sent to advisors, they can decide how thoroughly to scrutinize their advisees' academic plans
before offering students the codes that allow them to register.
Having discussed advisor codes for registration, the committee then turned to adding and dropping
classes electronically, which proved a trickier matter. The conservative approach would be to require
advisor codes for these transactions as well. Another approach, supported by some, would be to permit
students to add and drop courses freely, without advisor "permission," but to generate electronic
messages to advisors whenever such transactions take place. Advisors, in turn, could void transactions
they considered inappropriate (eg, registration for a course without prerequisite, freshman registration in
Comparative Values course). One member expressed concern that important conversations (about
course sequencing, major requirements, etc.) might not occur if the adding and dropping of courses were
done this way. Another member replied that the computerized system itself could be designed to warn
students of problems that might arise as a consequence of the adds or drops they propose. In the end,
the committee did not reach a consensus view of how advisor approval should be secured for "adds" and
"drops", if at all, in the new electronic environment. We left the issue at this point, with the provisional
assumption that advisor permission should be required only prior to registration and after the add and
drop-without-record periods.
The committee did reach consensus on instructor approval for "adds" and "drops," however. All agreed
that electronic adds and drops should be permitted without instructor approval before classes begin (as
they are now). It was also agreed that drops should be processed electronically even after classes begin,
without instructor permission, a departure from current practice. As things currently stand, instructors
don't "approve" drops, they merely note them in order to keep track of enrollments in their classes. In an
electronic environment, instructors will always have access to up-to-the-minute enrollment information, in
the form of electronic class lists, and therefore won't need to "track" drops.
On the other hand, instructors will wish to continue to control "adds" once classes have begun. For adds,
special electronic codes can be generated, and the instructor can provide these codes to students they
have admitted into their courses. These codes can be made unique, so they don't become a "commodity"
for trade among students. After add period is over, adds would require both instructor permission and a
petition, as is now the case; drops would remain free until the end of the drop-without-record period, when
instructor and advisor signatures would be required.
One member did not want to leave these issues without first sharing her concern that by making adding
and dropping classes too electronically easy we might encourage the "consumer" mentality already too
disturbingly present among our students. We need to be sure that important conversations about the
demands, expectations and commitment required in our intellectual community are taking place between
students and faculty.
What will be included in an electronic advising file, and in what form will it appear?
Many (if not all) of the paper advising resources currently distributed to advisors could be replaced by
electronic ones in the new system. What pieces of information should be provided electronically? In what
form will they be easiest to use?
A new distributed electronic environment will make it possible to provide student academic records both to
advisors and to the students themselves over the network. Among the academic records we should be
able to provide access to are:
The Freshman Admission Statement (a form bringing together the crucial admission "numbers" such as
SAT scores, as well as diagnostic testing information)
The Degree Progress Report and Major Progress Report (in the future they will be combined into a single
form, probably called the Degree Progress Report)
The Transcript (including current courses and preregistered courses)
Two members requested enhancements to these records. One asked that interpretations and placement
advice be added to the Freshman Admission Statement, so that faculty don't have to master all the
associated intricacies. Another asked that a "try on a major" feature be provided with the Degree
Progress Report, so that advisor and student alike could see how far along toward a variety of prospective
majors a student might be, given the work already done. This latter would be an invaluable academic
planning tool.
One member noted that there are likely to be faculty who resist our change to an electronic environment
for student records. For them it will be important 1) to sustain the "old ways" of doing things (including
paper records) through a transition period, and 2) to make the new, electonic systems as simple and easy
to use as possible. Another member mentioned that mounting the new system on the World Wide Web
might make make faculty (and student) contact with the new system much friendlier. Still another
proposed putting the advisor's manual and its curriculum guides on the Web, as well, as long as an easyto-use format for them can be found.
In the end, the committee concluded that the only part of the current advising file that is likely to remain on
paper for most advisors is the advisor's own set of advising notes (the "history of advising" record). All
other essential records should be available on-line, where they'll always be current and accurate. The
committee completed this portion of the discussion by observing that more thought and planning will have
to go into integrating student records with the registration system. For example, the system might be
programmed to check whether a student attempting to register for a course has taken its prerequisite. Or
it might warn a student attempting to register for a Science in Context course that the course won't meet
the requirement for them, since they haven't completed both Natural World cores. The electronic
environment should provide us the means to help students avoid violations of academic policy or poor
academic planning before they become serious problems.
Once computerized registration is in place, who will be permitted to use it?
Continuing on-campus students will of course be allowed to register themselves. But what about new
freshmen? What about new transfer students? What about students who are on study abroad or other
leaves of absence? How will we register these students in the new system?
While a decentralized system would make it technically possible for any Puget Sound student to register
him- or herself from anywhere at any time, the committee decided that advising and training issues
required us to plan for staging student access to it. For freshman, we concluded that continuing a
centralized freshman registration model made the most sense. Freshmen would complete diagnostic
testing and receive advising before registration as they do now. They would then gather at a registration
center where they would receive both academic planning help and training on how to use the selfregistration system. The committee did consider the idea of having faculty advisors register freshmen in
their offices, but two members spoke vigorously against the idea, one arguing that many faculty are
technophobes and would be unwilling, the other arguing that too much faculty time would be required to
register students in their offices one at a time.
The committee decided that after the first freshman registration, students should be invited to register in
"teaching labs" on campus where students who need help would find registration and advising staff to
assist them. Students will feel a considerable loss when we decentralize registration; all the information
we now pass to them in person when they register may not be available electronically. Staffing
"registration computer labs" could perhaps mitigate that loss. The committee also decided that "veteran"
students could self-register while on study abroad or other leaves, from a distance, so long as they made
contact with their advisors and were given their registration codes. This contact could be by e-mail, mail
or fax.
Transfer students present a somewhat different case from freshman, given that many of them currently
register by telephone or fax over the summer. Several members of the committee argued that transfers,
like freshmen, will need training to use the self-registration system, and should therefore have holds
placed on their registrations until they have been advised and trained. Other members argued that
advising is the key with transfer students; once they have received that advising, they should be allowed to
use the self-registration system, on campus or at a distance. The committee reached no consensus on
this question.
The committee spent some time discussing the registration of graduate students, who do not currently
require advisor approval to register. Representatives of the OT and PT schools argued for placing holds
on their graduate students' registrations; they will want to advise and register all new students as a group
shortly before classes begin. The advisor "codes" for graduate students could be assigned departmentally
rather than faculty member by faculty member; this would permit easy group registrations. Some OT
registrations will continue to be handled over the summer by the program director, however, since many
OT students enter as undergraduate transfer students.
What will be the rules for access to electronic student records?
How will FERPA rules be interpreted for access in an electronic environment? Students and their advisors
now receive copies of academic records, as well as individuals with a "need to know." Who should be on
that list in the new system? Will we need to add department chairs to it? The system will allow us to
assign multiple advisors to students. Should we offer that option? If so, should secondary advisors have
electronic access to students' academic records?
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 guarantees student access to academic records
and protects the confidentiality of those records. FERPA is, however, subject to institutional interpretation
in such matters as a) the definition of educational records, b) the details of students' right of review, c) the
rules for release of records to University officials, and d) the definition of University officials. Puget
Sound's most recent interpretation of these and other critical academic records matters was produced in
June 1995. The committee's interest in its discussions was primarily in the release of records to
"University officials."
Our new electronic records environment will make it possible to offer records access to faculty and staff
who have not had access before. Following the Registrar's advice, however, the committee agreed to
recommend a conservative approach to providing records access, replicating the system already in place.
Those who need grade information to certify athletic eligibility, to certify eligibility to continue in greek letter
organizations, or to make decisions on academic awards, for example, will be provided information on a
"per request" basis, as they are now.
Academic advisors would be provided access to advisee trancripts and DPR's on line, of course. . A
slight change in current practice agreed on by the committee would be to allow chairs to see these records
for departmental majors, as well. While chairs are currently considered "University officials" for purposes
of access, they are not routinely provided with the academic records of all departmental majors. On-line
access would make it easier for chairs to do "pinch hitter" advising for colleagues, to advise majors on
progress toward the degree, and to review DPR's to clear degrees, for example.
The committee also endorsed the Registrar's proposal that FERPA training should be given to anyone
handling academic records before on-line access is granted. One member suggested that this FERPA
training be done on-line, through a sort of mandatory, interactive session preliminary to a user's first use of
the system. The Registrar replied that both on-line and in-service FERPA sessions could be offered to online users.
How will exceptions, waivers, and petitions be handled in an electronic environment?
How will department chairs record and communicate exceptions and waivers of degree requirements?
How will degrees be cleared? Will the petitions process change?
The committee considered whether the new system would lead to changes in how department chairs
posted waivers and substitutions in major requirements and/or approved degrees for their majors. The
on-line system would allow much of this work to be done from the chair's desk, but such a change would
be a historical shift away from the centralizing effect that the automation of the registrar's office has had.
Because the registrar's office has kept major progress reports for all departments in recent years, it has
also done the monitoring and updating of degree requirements. Our new decentralized electronic system
would allow department chairs greater control over their majors' degree requirements.
Representatives of two departments, at least, saw problems with such a shift. One explained that degree
checks and the like are distributed to several members of her department, to lighten the chair's load.
Sending all these checks sent to the chair alone would prove an unreasonable burden. Another worried
that chairs do not have sufficient information at their desks to make some of the decisions envisioned by
this change, particularly decisions on transfer coursework. In the end, the committee did not reach
consensus on whether to support a change in how chairs do their work.
Other Suggestions of Interest
1. One member proposed that student input be solicited early in the design process, since students will
be the principle users of the new system.
2. One member proposed that students be allowed to declare their majors on-line. This should be
possible, so long as the complexities of major emphases and "catalog years" can be properly explained to
students on-line, as well.
3. Given our new capability for students to declare an "advisor of record" as well as "informal advisors,"
one member proposed that the ASC require students to have at least an "informal advisor" in the
department of their major. Faculty often complain of students majoring in their departments who have
retained an advisor in another department; though there are good reasons to allow the student to maintain
his or her relationship with this first advisor, faculty in the major department currently have no way to
monitor the student's progress. Since more than one advisor can now be declared, students should be
able to keep an advisor of record they feel close to while working out their major requirements with
someone in their major department.
In the course of these deliberations, the Associate Vice President for Information Systems gave the
committee some general guidelines to think about as we move forward in the development of the new
system. If it is to be successful, the new system should 1) enhance the strengths of the current system, 2)
shore up weaknesses in it, 3) eliminate the "drudgery" of our ways of doing business, and 4) offer features
that will catch potential problems before they arise (as in checking for prerequisites or major
requirements). He recommended that we assess the system we devise by these measures.
APPENDIX I
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.
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, 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 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?
I have always argued the case for mandatory advising, which I believe serves Puget Sound well.
Particularly at a time when routine academic planning contacts are being reduced by technology
(theoretically, students could go through their entire academic careers under the new system without ever
speaking to a member of the faculty or staff about academic planning), 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?
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-toknow" 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 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?
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, 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 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.
APPENDIX II
Computerized Records and Registration - Topics for Discussion - 10/19/95
What follows is a list of some of the more important decisions that must be made in the transition to a
computerized records and registration at Puget Sound.
Should advising remain mandatory in the new system?
If the answer to this question is yes then further questions will have to be answered. Should all
transactions currently requiring signatures continue to be mandatory? How should all an electronic
"signature" be requested and given?
What will be included in an electronic advising file, and in what form will it appear?
Many (if not all) of the paper advising resources currently distributed to advisors could be replaced by
electronic ones in the new system. What pieces of information should be provided electronically? In what
form will they be easiest to use?'
Once computerized registration is in place, who will be permitted to use it?
Continuing on-campus students will of course be allowed to register themselves. But what about new
freshmen? What about new transfer students? What about students who are on study abroad or other
leaves of absence? How will we register these students in the new system?
What will be the rules for access to electronic student records?
How will FERPA rules be interpreted for access in an electronic environment? Students and their advisors
now receive copies of academic records, as well as individuals with a "need to know." Who should be on
that list in the new system? Will we need to add department chairs to it? The system will allow us to
assign multiple advisors to students. Should we offer that option? If so, should secondary advisors have
electronic access to students' academic records?
How will exceptions, waivers, and petitions be handled in an electronic environment?
How will department chairs record and communicate exceptions and waivers of degree requirements?
How will degrees be cleared? Will the petitions process change?