One Year Under Our Belt:
Self-Reported Academic Record
Session A4
Gregg Perry, Thomas Skottene & Nancy Walsh
Office of Undergraduate Admissions
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Agenda
• Introduction
• History
• Reasons for Moving to SRAR
• Technical Aspects
• User Experience/Common Errors
• 2013 Enhancements
• Pros/Cons
• Verification Process
• Summary
• Feedback/Q & A
Introduction
Gregg Perry
Associate Director, Recruitment
Thomas Skottene
Associate Director, Data Services
Nancy Walsh
Senior Associate Director, Operations
Historical Perspectives of the SRAR
SRAR Background
TM
• Self-Reported Academic Record
– Used by University of California system, Georgia
Tech, Rutgers, and others
– Freshman applicants self report their academic record
– Self-reported data is used to process & review
applications
– Once applicants accept their offer, final transcripts are
checked for discrepancies
Why SRAR?
• Staffing issues
• Large administrative savings
– 7,000 vs. 30,000+ transcripts, automation possibilities
• Enhanced Customer Service
SRAR Timelime
• Trial Run, 2011
– All freshman applicants with international credentials &
applicants from Glenbrook North High School
• All In, 2012
– All freshman applicants required to submit SRAR
Technical Perspectives of the SRAR
High Level
Technical Considerations
• Easy to use
– Our applicants
– Internal users
• Integrate with our systems
– Banner – our Student Information System (SIS)
– eAdmitTM
• Volume/Load
– Handle current and expected future volume, including peaks around deadlines
• Security Concerns
• Utilize new possibilities
– Automation
– Transparency
– Archiving
Ease of Use
• The SRARTM is a web form
– Familiar Design
• applicants are used to it
– Flexible
• able to make changes quickly
– The Regular Application Form is also a web form, though separate
– Applicants need no special system requirements
• Some schools reported very old browsers and could not submit
– Warnings
• When applicants do something unexpected such as not filling in all four
years for coursework
– Errors
• When applicants make errors such as leaving required fields blank
User Testing Results
• Our initial approach was too process-centric
– i.e. what Admissions needed to get our process done
• Applicants will guess and make (false)
assumptions if they are not allowed to choose
exactly what they expect/want
– Drop downs have more options now
• Even if we internally strictly don’t need it
– Places for information we don’t really need
• Applicants will find a way to give it to us anyway
Integration with our Systems
• Banner
– Illinois has used Banner as our main university wide data
repository and student information system since 2003
– Banner is a 3rd party tool made by Ellucian (Previously Sungard,
previously SCT, etc…)
– Banner is housed and controlled by Central IT
– Gives Admissions very limited power over functionality and look
and feel
• eAdmitTM
– eAdmitTM - Internal application processing system
– Workflow and data repository for most internal admissions
processes
How It Was Before
Banner
(our Student
Information
System)
Print out
relevant materials
Paper manila folder
Enter decision
back when
review was done
Online Web
Application
Form
Test Scores
Electronic
Other paper
forms
Paper
Transcripts
How It Is Now
Import relevant data
Banner
(our Student
Information System)
eAdmitTM
Push back data
Online Web
Application Form
Other electronic
forms
Test Scores
Electronic
SRARTM
TM
SRAR
Banner (SIS) Integration
• Pulling Data
– Identity
• Login & PIN
• Pre-logged-in credentials
– Previous Schools information from application
• Push Data
– Academic calculations such as GPA
– Language Other Than English (LOTE)
– Pattern
Screenshot of
Banner Status Page
– With open SRAR link
Message box telling
applicants items are missing.
Link directly to SRAR form.
Pre-logged in.
No need for username or PIN
Self-Reported Academic
Record
Two Servers
Central IT
Admissions
Passes the Applicant’s
Identify Securely
Volume/Load
• A very large portion of applicants
procrastinate and submit very, very close
to the deadlines
• 10,000 applications in one week prior to November 1
• We received no complaints of slow or nonresponsive SRARTMs during the peak
times
Unintended Consequences
• The Urbana admissions office releases the
decisions twice a year
– Mid-December
– Mid February
• In the last two years the Central IT’s Status
Page crashed during the December decision
release
• Admissions Status page stayed up
– creating an alternative way for users to see their
decision
Two Interfaces
Server 1
(Crashed)
Data
Central IT
Server 2
Admissions
Security Concerns
• Concerns
– Physical damage
• Fire
• Tornadoes
– Electronic break-in attempts
• None have been successful
• Solutions
– Data is backed up daily and in different locations
• Not possible or practical with paper
– Data is stored in a server room with heightened security
procedures
• Our paper files were not as safe as we would have liked
Automation
• Identify matched based on application ID
– We now know which “John Smith” logged in
• Data as data and not text!
– Academic calculations
– Pattern analysis
• Aggregate information
– Number of As, Bs, Cs, etc.
• Sorting
– Subject
– Chronological
– By grades, requested
Transparency
• Stored in database – not paper
• Audit points
– Who did what when?
• Users
• Tasks
• Date stamps
• Reporting
– Data as data
• Avg amount of As
Functional Perspectives of the SRAR
User Experience
• User-friendly form; dropdown menus
• Very important that applicants read ALL
the instructions
• Must have transcript with them when
completing
• More work, 60-90 minutes
• Can log back in to review submitted SRAR
Common User Errors
•
•
•
•
•
Ignoring directions
Not entering senior year courses
‘Creating’ their own grades by averaging semesters
Did not convert number grades to letters
Entering all grades available (quarter, semester,
year)
• Not entering grades at all when present on transcript
• Incomplete SRARs
2013 Enhancements
•
•
•
•
•
Tweaking directions
Designated area for senior year courses
Edit option in extreme situations
Academic credentials site
Internal view improvements
Advantages
• Easier application process for applicants &
counselors
• Applications complete much sooner
• Solved some staffing issues
• Automation of data
Disadvantages
• Need to get the word out better; received
too many high transcripts
• Applicants not following SRAR directions;
manual follow-up needed
• Some technical issues on applicants’ end
• Verification/rescind process?
Verification Process
•
•
•
•
Official final transcripts needed by July 10th deadline.
If final not available by deadline, 9-11 transcript is required.
Staff will verify transcripts against SRAR.
Suspected embellishment will be reported to review chair.
Poor senior year performance will also be reported.
• Chair will review information & determine if offer should be
rescinded. Student will be notified if offer is rescinded.
• If no documentation is received by deadline, admission offers
will be rescinded. Students will be notified by end of July.
Summary
• History – why we moved to SRAR
• Technical – how was it created?
• Functional – how did it work from user &
Admissions perspective?
• Pros/Cons
• Verification Process
Feedback/Questions & Answers
Gregg Perry
gperry@illinois.edu
Thomas Skottene
tskotten@illinois.edu
Nancy Walsh
njwalsh@illinois.edu