One Year Under Our Belt: Self-Reported Academic Record Session A4 Gregg Perry, Thomas Skottene & Nancy Walsh Office

1. 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

2. Agenda • Introduction • History • Reasons for Moving to SRAR • Technical Aspects • User Experience/Common Errors • 2013 Enhancements • Pros/Cons • Verification Process • Summary • Feedback/Q & A

3. Introduction • Gregg Perry • Associate Director, Recruitment • Thomas Skottene • Associate Director, Data Services • Nancy Walsh • Senior Associate Director, Operations

4. Historical Perspectives of the SRAR

7. SRARTM Background • 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

8. Why SRAR? • Staffing issues • Large administrative savings • 7,000 vs. 30,000+ transcripts, automation possibilities • Enhanced Customer Service

9. 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

10. Technical Perspectives of the SRAR

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. How It Was Before Banner (our Student Information System) Paper manila folder Print out relevant materials Enter decision back when review was done Online Web Application Form Test Scores Other paper forms Transcripts Electronic Paper

16. How It Is Now Import relevant data Banner (our Student Information System) eAdmitTM Push back data Online Web Application Form Test Scores Other electronic forms SRARTM Electronic

17. SRARTMBanner (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

18. 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

19. Two Servers Passes the Applicant’s Identify Securely

20. 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 non-responsive SRARTMs during the peak times

21. 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

22. Two Interfaces

23. 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

24. 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

25. Transparency • Stored in database – not paper • Audit points • Who did what when? • Users • Tasks • Date stamps • Reporting • Data as data • Avg amount of As

26. Functional Perspectives of the SRAR

27. 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

28. 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

29. 2013 Enhancements • Tweaking directions • Designated area for senior year courses • Edit option in extreme situations • Academic credentials site • Internal view improvements

30. Advantages • Easier application process for applicants & counselors • Applications complete much sooner • Solved some staffing issues • Automation of data

31. 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?

32. 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.

33. 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

35. Feedback/Questions & Answers Gregg Perry gperry@illinois.edu Thomas Skottene tskotten@illinois.edu Nancy Walsh njwalsh@illinois.edu