MCR 22 and 23 Responses

MCR 22 and 23 responses

Carla to Ranny/Rose 12/02/04 From Tracy Welsh’s e-mail - MCR 22 -- Putting more than one academic program on Colleague for a student is really a decision based on the institution's recruiting philosophy and shouldn't be dictated based on the limitations of technology. I'd like more information on how the AAI is going to work before responding. Will students be selecting a major based on drop down boxes for each university? This is what we are proposing, which is consistent with the common ap. Will they be able to choose more than two majors? The common ap has a place for two majors per university plus USDSU. Could they select as many as 10 at one time? It is possible. Why does it have to be consistent across the board? The AAI will mirror the common ap and SD System Procedures. On the common ap, the applicant can choose multiple programs. The SD System Procedures indicates an APPN should be created for all programs the applicants choose.

Summary Recommendations Received from Universities:

-----Original Message----- From: Hoffman, Michelle Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:06 PM To: Hansen, Rose Subject: RE: New MCRs for discussion

Rose, MCR discussion: #23 - We do not require documentation for the name change when we receive an application. We use that as the accurate information and do not want to see policy change.

#22 - If the student is pursuing three degrees, we would enter all three, more than that we would be calling the student for clarification.

-----Original Message----- From: Moser, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 2:15 PM To: Vining, Jill; WELSH, TRACY; Hansen, Rose; Crissinger, Amy; Hoffman, Michelle; Mueller, Joseph B.; KUEBLER, MICHELLE; Ochsner, Steven; Vlasman, Travis Subject: RE: New MCRs for discussion

MCR 23 - We are in the same boat as SDSU - we use the application as a legal form for a name change as the student has to sign it verifying that all information they provided is accurate. I would not be in favor of asking for more documentation than that.

MCR 22 - currently at USD we enter all majors a student lists on their application. We do that mostly because of scholarships but for other purposes as well as far as notifying academic departments when requests are made. I don’t think we’d want to change that and if we had to, would there be any alternate major fields of interest we could use?

______From: Vining, Jill Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 2:01 PM To: WELSH, TRACY; Hansen, Rose; Crissinger, Amy; Hoffman, Michelle; Mueller, Joseph B.; KUEBLER, MICHELLE; Ochsner, Steven; Moser, Stephanie; Vlasman, Travis Subject: RE: New MCRs for discussion

MCR 23 - NSU requires legal name change documentation before we change any names. We only do this since the Registrar’s Office requires this to be done. I do not hold up processing the application until that form arrives, they just receive all documentation in maiden name. I do agree with Tracy that applicants sign the back of the app to verify all information is correct. It does not really matter to me either way. We don’t receive very many name change requests.

MCR 22 - NSU puts in what ever programs the students requests on their applications. I do feel that after two majors, it get to be to much.

______From: WELSH, TRACY [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:35 PM To: Hansen, Rose; Crissinger, Amy; Hoffman, Michelle; Vining, Jill; Mueller, Joseph B.; KUEBLER, MICHELLE; Ochsner, Steven; Moser, Stephanie; Vlasman, Travis Subject: RE: New MCRs for discussion

Here are my responses to the MCRs:

MCR 23 -- requiring documentation for name changes during the admission process I oppose this change for the following reasons:

1. It is standard practice in the Admissions profession to accept the admission application as a legal document. With a student's signature they verify that all information provided is true and accurate. If any information is found to be false, the university has immediate grounds for dismissal or withdrawal. Not only is this a standard practice in our profession, but Jim Shekleton has also given us the same legal opinion on the issue when we have questioned him in the past on it.

2. Requiring name-change documentation will unnecessarily delay the admit decision for the student, which is contrary to the goals of effective recruitment practices. We need to be able to communicate an admit decision to our applicants as quickly as possible to try and move them from the prospect and applicant stage to being a committed student. From a recruiting standpoint, we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage by erecting one more barrier for the student to overcome just to get in to our schools. We put ourselves at a further disadvantage when our competitors (i.e. Augie, Iowa State, NDSU, Mankato, etc) don't require this documentation because it is an industry standard to accept information on the admission app as being legally binding.

MCR 22 -- Putting more than one academic program on Colleague for a student is really a decision based on the institution's recruiting philosophy and shouldn't be dictated based on the limitations of technology. I'd like more information on how the AAI is going to work before responding. Will students be selecting a major based on drop down boxes for each university? Will they be able to choose more than two majors? Could they select as many as 10 at one time? Why does it have to be consistent across the board? ______From: Hansen, Rose Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:34 PM To: Crissinger, Amy; Hoffman, Michelle; Vining, Jill; Mueller, Joseph B.; Lee, Mark; KUEBLER, MICHELLE; Ochsner, Steven; Moser, Stephanie; WELSH, TRACY; Vlasman, Travis Cc: Hansen, Rose Subject: New MCRs for discussion

Two new MCRs introduced by MOCC attached. Both include issues pertaining to the Admissions module. I know we have had preliminary discussion on MCR #23 and I did forward our recommendation that we did not want to see documentation of name change before the colleague record was updated. If you could provide further comments on that issue, I'd be happy to include with our next MOCC discussion.

MCR #22 came about because of the electronic application mapping that is currently being worked on. Carla Reihe and Carolyn Jensen tell me that in order to accommodate an electronic import, that campuses will need to accept multiple programs during the import process. I know that is a problem for several of you and if you could send me your list of reasons and considerations for not accepting multiple programs, I will need that support for MOCC discussions.

I know that everyone is being pulled many different directions at this time of year and I apologize for adding to your stress level. Since it has been very difficult to find a time when everyone can meet for a call, let's try to do as much as we can by email. I do need to hear from you so that decisions are not made without your input that you will be expected to live with in the future. MOCC meets on December 2nd, so if you can get your responses to me before then, that would be helpful.

Thx for your input. Have a great holiday.