DOCSLIB.ORG

Substantial Agreement – Academic Credential Assessment in Canada: Implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention and Preparation for the UNESCO Global Convention

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Substantial Agreement – Academic Credential Assessment in Canada: Implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention and Preparation for the UNESCO Global Convention Cambridge Professional Development Substantial Agreement Academic Credential Assessment in Canada: Implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention and Preparation for the UNESCO Global Convention September 8, 2020 Mr. Nigel Lloyd CamProf Inc. Dear Mr. Lloyd, The Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC) welcomes the report authored by CamProf Inc. and titled Substantial Agreement – Academic Credential Assessment in Canada: Implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention and Preparation for the UNESCO Global Convention. Using data collected through CICIC-led consultations with assessment services and competent recognition bodies in Canada in 2018, CamProf Inc. subsequently provided in this report a comprehensive data analysis on Canada’s implementation of the 1997 Lisbon Recognition Convention. The report was produced, as well, in preparation for the newly adopted 2019 Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education. Although this analysis does not necessarily reflect the official policies, positions, or views of CICIC, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), provincial and territorial governments in Canada, or assessment services and competent recognition bodies in Canada, it does provide useful insight into the implementation of conventions related to qualification recognition in Canada. You will recall that assessment services and competent recognition bodies in Canada maintain broad autonomy with respect to the implementation of conventions related to qualification recognition. Postsecondary institutions in Canada determine what qualifications they will accept for typical entry to various programs of study. Legislation also confers some autonomy on professional governing bodies in setting the content of regulations under which earned credentials, competencies, and training are recognized. Professional governing bodies therefore enjoy broad autonomy in recognizing credentials, whether obtained in Canada or abroad, for the purposes of registration or permission to practise a profession in Canada. Given the above and as per CICIC’s mandate as Canada’s National Information Centre, the information contained in this report will be transmitted to assessment services, competent recognition bodies, as well as provincial and territorial governments for their respective consideration. CICIC will continue to encourage assessment services and competent recognition bodies to apply principles of the conventions while also improving the implementation of these principles. The aim of such continued improvement is to maintain a quality assurance process and to promote qualification recognition policies and procedures that are fair, transparent, timely and consistent in Canada. We thank you for your collaboration throughout the data analysis process and the resulting work. Sincerely, Michael Ringuette CICIC Coordinator Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC) /2 Authors This report was authored by CamProf Inc. It was funded by the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC) at the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). Disclaimer The opinions, interpretations, findings, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy, positions, or views of the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC), the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), provincial and territorial governments in Canada, or assessment services and competent recognition bodies in Canada. Acknowledgements We wish to thank the assessment services and competent recognition bodies in Canada that provided valuable data through CICIC-led consultations, which enabled CamProf to perform the detailed analysis captured in this report. This report has undergone a peer-review process with key stakeholders from all six assessment services as well as from recognition bodies in Canada, mainly the Alliance of Credential Evaluation Services of Canada (ACESC) and the Pan-Canadian Quality Assurance Framework for the Assessment of International Academic Credentials (QAF) Steering Committee. We wish to thank the following committee members and their organizations for their contributions: • Association of Registrars of the Universities and Colleges of Canada (ARUCC) • Canadian Network of Agencies for Regulation (CNAR) • Comparative Education Service (CES) • International Credential Assessment Service of Canada (ICAS) • International Credential Evaluation Service (ICES) • International Qualifications Assessment Service (IQAS) • Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et Intégration du Québec (MIFI) • Office of the Manitoba Fairness Commissioner • Université de Montréal • World Education Services (WES) Canada Ce document est également disponible en français sous le titre : Entente substantielle Évaluation des diplômes au Canada : Mise en œuvre de la Convention de Lisbonne sur la reconnaissance et préparation à la Convention mondiale de l’UNESCO © August 2020 CamProf Inc. Table of Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Purpose of report ............................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Context in Canada .......................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Evolution of UNESCO Regional Conventions and the Global Convention .................... 6 1.4 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Structure of report ........................................................................................................... 9 2 Access to Assessment ............................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Lisbon Recognition Convention requirements and interpretation in Canada ................ 10 2.2 Assessment and recognition responsibilities in a decentralized system ....................... 14 2.3 Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC) ................................ 15 2.4 Alliance of Credential Evaluation Services of Canada (ACESC) ..................................... 16 2.5 Volume of assessments .................................................................................................. 17 2.6 Fairness legislation and commissioners ......................................................................... 20 2.7 Fees to undertake an assessment .................................................................................. 22 2.8 Access to information ..................................................................................................... 23 2.9 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 23 3 Criteria and Procedures .......................................................................................................... 25 3.1 Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) .............................................................................. 25 3.2 Sources of criteria and procedures ................................................................................. 28 3.3 Criteria for assessment and recognition ......................................................................... 30 3.4 Elements of assessment procedures .............................................................................. 32 3.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 34 4 Time Limit ................................................................................................................................ 36 4.1 Reasonable time limit ...................................................................................................... 36 4.2 Regulation at the provincial and national level ............................................................... 36 4.3 Policies on time limits ..................................................................................................... 39 4.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 40 5 Right to Appeal ........................................................................................................................ 42 5.1 Legislation, policies, and availability of information........................................................ 42 5.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 46 6 Substantial Differences ........................................................................................................... 47 6.1 What are “substantial differences”? ............................................................................... 47 6.2 Adoption of learning outcomes and substantial differences in Canada ....................... 49 6.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Globalization of Foreign Academic Credential Placement
    GLOBALIZATION OF FOREIGN ACADEMIC CREDENTIAL PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRADUATE STUDY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1932- 2015 by George F. Kacenga Bachelor of Arts, Saint Vincent College, 2002 Master of Science, Saint Vincent College, 2005 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2017 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF EDUCATION This dissertation was presented by George F. Kacenga It was defended on March 23, 2017 and approved by Dr. Michael Gunzenhauser, Associate Professor, Department of Administrative and Policy Studies Dr. Maureen McClure, Associate Professor, Department of Administrative and Policy Studies Dr. Martin Staniland, Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs Dissertation Advisor: Dr. John C. Weidman, Professor, Department of Administrative and Policy Studies ii Copyright © by George F. Kacenga 2017 iii GLOBALIZATION OF FOREIGN ACADEMIC CREDENTIAL PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRADUATE STUDY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1932- 2015 George F. Kacenga, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2017 Foreign educational credential assessment is responsive to assessors’ social, economic, and cultural stimuli. Academic institutions, industries, and governmental bodies treat placement specialists’ recommendations as signals of cross-cultural productive capacity, giving significance to the methodology of foreign education-system analysis. A conceptual framework incorporating globalization, internationalization, massification, and marketization (GLIMM) helps explain how and why paradigms have shifted. GLIMM forces can help explain changes in international higher education and illustrate the fluidity of education in an evolving global society. This study employs a naturalistic qualitative research design with a two-step analysis of the target resource documents, constructivist typological study and substance analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Brochure-2018-Conference.Pdf
    OCTOBER 1-4 2018 4th ANNUAL CONFERENCE PHILADELPHIA, PA WORKING TOGETHER TO ENSURE INTEGRITY IN INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIAL EVALUATION PRESIDENT’S WELCOME PLENARY SPEAKER Greetings, friends and colleagues! Rajika Bhandari is Head of Research, Policy and Practice at the In preparing this welcome letter for our Philadelphia conference, I found myself first turning to our TAICEP Institute of International Education (IIE) where she provides website for inspiration. It’s there that we can see how far we’ve come from our humble beginnings in 2013. In strategic oversight of research, evaluation, and thought the five years that have passed since then, together we’ve built a thriving association of international credential leadership activities and leads the Open Doors and Project Atlas evaluation professionals that had never before come together in such numbers and from such a variety of projects on international higher education mobility. Dr. Bhandari countries (nineteen, at last count!). If you’re at all like me, this is a positive development, as you might have felt is a frequent speaker and widely published author on global somewhat isolated in your job. We’re a small industry, and collaborating with others in your own office, much Rajika Bhandari student mobility with six books on the subject, including one on less with international credential evaluators around the world, seemed like something that probably would educational exchanges between the U.S. and India. She holds a happen only seldom, if at all. Head of Research, Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology from North Carolina State Policy and Practice But now there’s TAICEP.
    [Show full text]
  • Globalization of Foreign Academic Credential Placement Recommendations
    Credentials Evaluation Service Globalization of Foreign Academic Credential Placement Recommendations Understanding the Globalization of Foreign Academic Credential Placement Recommendations for Graduate Study in the United States, 1932-2015 Supported by IERF's Sepmeyer Research Grant (2016-17) Author: George Kacenga, Director of International Enrollment Management at University of Colorado Denver This research focuses on the relationship between the increase in international student enrollment in the US and changes in the approaches to the analysis of foreign academic credentials over the past half century. Understanding the Globalization of Foreign Academic Credential Placement Recommendations for Graduate Study in the United States, 1932-2015 George Kacenga, PhD University of Colorado Denver As this research came to its conclusions, the 2016 presidential campaign was just getting underway and the current challenges faced by many higher education institutions (HEI) in the form of fallout from the current administration’s travel bans, proposed changes to STEM-OPT, and the real or perceived threats sometimes called the ‘Trump-effect,’ were not realized. Although some HEI’s have reported a decrease in international student enrollment, the commitment by U.S. colleges and universities to the international student community remains potent and steadfast. In 2013/14, international student enrollment in U.S. post-secondary institutions rose 8.1% to 886,052 (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2015). A variety of factors contributes to the continuing influx of international students. Some foreign governments (e.g., Brazil, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) sponsor overseas study in the U.S. Moreover, the quality of U.S. STEM education—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics—has produced a 2013/14 spike of 6% in students from India (IIE, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Evaluating International Professional Degrees
    Welcome! Evaluating International Professional Degrees TAICEP Conference October 2019 Vancouver BC Canada Presenters: Ann M. Koenig Associate Director, AACRAO International [email protected] https://www.aacrao.org/ Margaret (Meg) Wenger Senior Director of Evaluation, ECE [email protected] https://www.ece.org/ECE Our Topics • Evaluation best practice and methodology • Characteristics of professional degree programs • Identifying official and reliable resources • Case studies led by the presenters: Law - Physical Therapy • Case studies discussed in breakout groups: Pharmacy – Veterinary Medicine – Human Medicine • Discussion of approaches to evaluation Standards for the Profession https://www.taicep.org/taiceporgwp/about/standards-for-the-profession/ Professional Competency Profile (PCP) for Credential Evaluators https://www.taicep.org/taiceporgwp/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Professional-Competency- Profile-PCP-for-Credential-Evaluators-4.pdf Guide to Credential Evaluation https://www.taicep.org/taiceporgwp/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Guide-to-Credential- Evaluation-5.pdf Evaluation Methodology: Confirm and Compare General This Credential Evaluation Characteristics Considerations Country, Oversight authority Institution (name, status) Program (name, status) Credential (name, type) Function of credential in the country Level of program (admission, access in the country) Structure (length, components) Content Grading/assessment Professional Degrees “Professional” vs. “Academic” Degrees Professional Degrees: Academic Degrees: • Prepare for licensure
    [Show full text]
  • TOEFL International English Test of English Language Testing System As a Foreign Language
    Essential Considerations Pertaining to the Evaluation of International Graduate Applications Dr. David L. Di Maria Associate Provost Office of International Programs Overview • International Graduate Students at MSU • Contingent Admission • Tests of English Language Proficiency • Credential Evaluation INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE APPLICATION TRENDS International Graduate Enrollment Level USA MSU Master’s 165,978 67 Doctoral 117,779 59 TOTAL 311,204 126 Top Five Sending Countries to the U.S. Level USA MSU China 103,587 17 India 54,607 19 South Korea 19,916 0 Canada 10,982 4 Saudi Arabia 9,379 6 International Contingent Admission • Academically qualified applicant: Lacks GRE/GMAT scores or English proficiency scores below department minimum Possible Countries of Origin • Brazil- Science Without Borders • Iraq- Students may not have access to testing centers • Indonesia and Vietnam- Government funds PhD students accepted into degree program • Saudi Arabia- King Abdullah Scholarship Program GRE Hardship Locations Taking the GRE presents significant hardship in the following locations: • Andorra • Guinea- Bissau • San Marino • Aruba • Holy See • Sao Tome and Principe • Belarus • Korea-North • Seychelles • Brunei • Laos • Sint Maarten • Burundi • Lesotho • Solomon Islands • Cape Verde • Liechtenstein • Somalia • Central African Republic • Maldives • South Sudan • Cuba • Monaco • Swaziland • Curacao • Montenegro • Tuvalu • Equatorial Guinea • Nauru • Vanuatu • Gabon • Saint Vincent and the • Gambia Grenadines GMAT Hardship Locations Taking the GMAT
    [Show full text]
  • International Credential Evaluation in Educational Institutions
    Patrick Leahy – Michigan State University Maxine Reimer – University of Saskatchewan Kelly Sharp – Columbia College Kaja Schiotz – University of Oslo Global Perspectives Description of each educational institution and the way international credentials are processed at the undergraduate and graduate levels. What are our credential policies? Basic approaches to secondary and tertiary credentials from China, India, and European (Bologna) Countries? How are exceptions made to policies? Examples? Michigan State University MSU Founded 1855 - first land-grant institution in the US, model for subsequent land-grant colleges. Global Institution – 50,543 total students including 7,568 international students as of 2015, among top study abroad universities in the US. Major Countries - China (5,000+), India, Taiwan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia Includes undergraduate and graduate students MSU Undergraduate – Official transcripts mailed in a sealed, official envelope to our admissions office from school or examination board. We do accept electronic transcripts from schools globally via Parchment/Docufied. Graduate – Official transcripts mailed in official envelope from college/university to the department of intended study. Forwarded to our office if department wishes to admit. Office of Admissions – Organization, roles and my role. Credential Policies for Admission Undergraduate – Completion of (at least) twelve years of primary/secondary schooling. Graduate – Completion of equivalent of a four year US bachelor’s degree. China (and CDGDC) India Europe/Bologna Process Exceptions Process - confer with applicant or student, director of international admissions, processing staff, and/or graduate departments. Then make a decision that is recorded in student’s file. Undergraduate Admission – secondary school transcripts vs. national examination scores from Africa (esp. West Africa).
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT AICE 2018 Orlando Symposium
    REPORT AICE 2018 Orlando Symposium “SETTING STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING INSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION & ACCREDITATION” Association of International Credential Evaluators, Inc. Orlando, FL March 29, 2018 CONTENTS Page Preface ........................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................2 Module 1 .....................................................................................................................................5 Module 2 .....................................................................................................................................8 Module 3 .....................................................................................................................................9 Summary ....................................................................................................................................13 Panelists/Speakers ....................................................................................................................14 Appendices Appendix A: Results of the AACRAO – AICE January 2018 60-Second Survey ..................................17 i PREFACE The Association of International Credential Evaluators (AICE) held its third annual Symposium in Orlando, FL on March 29, 2018. Each year, AICE sets out to tackle a topic that is both challenging and pertinent to the field
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Foreign Educational Credentials in the United States: Perspectives on the History of the Profession
    EVALUATING FOREIGN EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS IN THE UNITED STATES: PERSPECTIVES ON THE HISTORY OF THE PROFESSION James S. Frey Founder Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc. 2014 CAddopyŝƟriognalht© copies2014 ofby thisEdu publicacationaƟl oCnremaydent beial Eorderedvaluato fromrs, In cEduca. Ɵonal CredenƟal Evaluators, Inc., PPOO BBoxox 5514070,14070, MilwaukeeMilwaukee WIWI 53203-347053203-3470 USA.USA. hƩp://publicaƟons.ece.org/. TCopyrighthis public ©at i2012on m abyy aEducalso beƟovnaliew eCredend on-liƟnael.Evaluators,http://pub Inc.licat ions.ece.org/ All rights reserved. ReproducƟon by any means of the enƟre contents or any poƌƟon of this publicaƟon without prior permission is prohibited. ISBN 978-1-883971-25-0 (print) ISBN 978-1-883971-26-7 (PDF) ii EVALUATING FOREIGN EDUCATIONAL CREDENTIALS IN THE UNITED STATES PERSPECTIVES ON THE HISTORY OF THE PROFESSION by James S. Frey, Founder of Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc. History of Foreign Educational Credential Evaluation 2 Historical Context 2 Development of the Profession 3 The Role of Credential Evaluation 3 The Credential Evaluation Process 4 Necessary Resources 6 U.S. Office of Education 6 United States Network for Education Information 9 American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers 9 NAFSA: Association of International Educators 11 National Liaison Committee on Foreign Student Admissions 13 Office of Student Support Services, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State 14 National Council on the Evaluation of Foreign Educational Credentials 15 Joint Committee on Workshops [JCOW] / Projects in International Education Research [PIER] 17 Milwaukee Council on Foreign Student Affairs 18 Private Foreign Educational Credential Evaluation Services 18 International Education Research Foundation, Inc. [IERF] 19 World Education Services, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Skills in Credential Evaluation
    • DEVELOPINGDEVELOPING SKILLS ININ IC CREDENTIAL EVALUATION:EVALUATION: et t orl A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION TOTO THETHE CRITERIACRITERIA & PROCEDURES JESSICA STANNARD POLICY ADVISOR -- NUFFICNUFFIC BERNARDBERNARD RAMOS VP/DIRECTORVP / DIRECTOR OF EVALUATIONS - EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVESPERSPECTIVES THE ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIALCREDENTIJ.,L EVALUATION PROFESSIONALS /TAICEP// TAICEP / ANNUAL CONFERENCECO~ RP~CE Educational® PHILADELPHIAPHILADELPHIA 20182018 Perspectives TAICEP / NUFFIC / EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVES / PHILADEPHIA 2018 Introduction Basics of Comparative Education / Goal of Credential Evaluation \. Accreditation & Recognition Information Resources Documentation Security & Fraud Secondary School Credentials ... Post-Secondary Credentials _... u TAICEP / NUFFIC / EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVES / PHILADEPHIA 2018 OBJECTIVES Basic principles of credential evaluation Recognition & accreditation Major characteristics of educational systems Grading & credit conversion u TAICEP / NUFFIC / EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVES / PHILADEPHIA 2018 G COMPARATIVE EDUCATION uv TAICEP / NUFFIC / EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVESu / PHILADEPHIA) 2018 Steps in the procedure for the assessment of a foreign qualification Step 2 ifno AD necessa,y infoonation supplied? (Check file and educational history) Step 3 ifno Is lhe quaflfication authentic? Step 4 ifno Are lhe institution and/or programme recognized/ accredited? crilana.-~­ dammN if....., ---------.J -.,, the fare;gn ---q..-and ... -----~in your country pama/ recognition TAICEP / NUFFIC / EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches to International Degree Recognition: a Comparative Study
    APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL DEGREE RECOGNITION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY November Emily Tse 2012 International Education Research Foundation, Inc. e Study NOTE: Approaches to International Degree Recognition is copyrighted and may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. No part of this publication can be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any meanswithout permission in writing from the author. APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL DEGREE RECOGNITION: A Comparativ 2 THE PIONEER FUND This resource was supported in large part by the Pioneer Fund. With the help of donations, this grant was established in 2003 to honor the memories of those individuals who contributed to the field of international admissions and credentials evaluation. The funds are used to encourage research as well as professional development in this area. I am very honored and grateful to be a beneficiary and particularly wish to thank the members of the Steering Committee for their guidance and patience. They are Rebecca Dixon, Christine Kerlin and Leo Sweeney. For other publications sponsored by the Pioneer Fund, please see www.ece.org. FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would also like to express my appreciation to International Education Research Foundation (IERF) for its support of this research project. In particular, I am grateful to Susan Bedil, the Executive Director, and to the Board. I am also fortunate to have benefitted from the feedback and assistance of Traci Wells and Amy Santiago at IERF. I am also thankful to Kay McIntosh, Patricia Arinto, and Mami Umayahara at the Institute of Education in London for their encouragement and counsel. e Study I also wish to express my thanks to the European Association of International Education (EAIE) for allowing me to sit in and observe their workshop on international credentials evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • The U.S. Perspective on the Three-Year Bologna-Compliant Bachelor’S Degree September 18, 2017—Washington, D.C
    The U.S. Perspective on the Three-Year Bologna-Compliant Bachelor’s Degree SEPTEMBER 18, 2017—WASHINGTON, D.C. Fall Symposium Report The U.S. Perspective on the Three-Year Bologna-Compliant Bachelor’s Degree AACRAO INTERNATIONAL FALL SYMPOSIUM Background On September 18, 2017, AACRAO hosted the 2nd symposium focused on the U.S. perspective on the three-year Bologna-compliant bachelor’s degree. This gathering brought together leaders from across U.S. higher education including representatives from institutions, professional credential evaluators, and other key stakeholders. Participants reflected on past events that set the stage for this symposium. Bologna Declaration (1999) In June 1999, 29 European Ministers signed the Bologna Declaration with the goal of establishing the European Area of Higher Education by 2010 and promoting the European system of higher education worldwide. 1st AACRAO Symposium (2006) In 2006, to assess the impact of the Bologna Declaration in the U.S., AACRAO hosted a symposium, “The Impact of Bologna and Three-Year Degrees on U.S. Admissions.” Participants included represen- tatives from Germany, the UK, and Australia, as well as several sectors of the U.S. higher education community. The context in 2006 included: • The U.S. was just beginning to see more graduates applying to U.S. graduate schools with three- year Bologna-compliant degrees. • U.S. institutions were grappling with nuts and bolts issues like the numbers of years a degree rep- resents and differences in degree structures from country to country within Europe. • Some in the U.S. higher education community thought discussions of three-year degrees should not just focus on Europe, but should also include countries such as India and Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • International Credential Evaluation Guidelines
    INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES The following information is intended as a GUIDELINE ONLY and is to be used as a reference for admission purposes only. Graduate Program Services (GPS) evaluations will be considered as the acceptable evaluation in cases of discrepancy. When referencing this guide please note carefully the following: ¾ This guide has been compiled using a variety of sources and is by no means complete. ¾ Additional grading systems may exist in any country. ¾ Transcript legends should be used when possible. ¾ Course contents will be compared and considered within the context of the level of study. ¾ For admission to a Master’s program, the qualifications listed are normally recognized as equivalent to a University of Guelph 4-year Honours Bachelor’s degree. ¾ The minimum requirement for admission of 70% grade average is calculated on the last 2 years of full-time equivalent study, when possible. (For Canadian degrees, we interpret this as the last 20 semester courses, however we do not split a semester and we will not consider any less than 16 courses. For all other degrees where the last 20 courses are not defined, we determine the last 2 years or 4 semesters of study.) ¾ Departments/Schools may have higher requirements and/or may require additional documentation (e.g. Portfolio, sample of written work, etc.). ¾ Transcripts and letters of recommendation will be verified for authenticity. ¾ Normally, only students who are graduates of accredited or other wise approved universities are eligible for admission to Graduate Studies. Students may be required to provide us with documentation to support the accreditation of the institution.
    [Show full text]