1. TRANSFER ARTICULATION MAINTENANCE BUG-MI CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 JON DAVIDSON, DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS LEE CRUPPENINK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT

2. BACKGROUND: Transfer Evaluation Stats: 3,200 applicants/year with 5,100 transcripts 9,000 new courses/year on average (22,000 so far this year) Total database: 108,400 courses from 1,514 institutions In the past year: 47,068 courses for 142,023 credits. 73% the size of institutional work General: ~7,100 undergraduate students ~2/3 of new degree-seeking undergrads are transfers Banner institution since 1998 Transfer evaluation performed in Admissions Implemented transfer articulation in 2005

3. BACKGROUND: A FEW SPECIFICS ABOUT OUR PRACTICES We don’t articulate based on the term the course was taken – all done on the term the evaluation is being performed. We use attributes on equivalencies to satisfy gen-ed requirements We grant credits equivalent to the original earned (rather than how many our institutional course carries).

4. BACKGROUND: ACCUMULATED PROBLEMS Unrolled work in SHATAEQ Unarticulated work that had been rolled to SHATRNS Not being able to differentiate courses that had been reviewed from those that had not (SHATATC transfer review indicator) – over 6,000 unknown Countless clerical errors Bad attributes from botched gen-ed conversion Aspirations for more: e.g. proactive building, automated auditing/continuous maintenance

5. OUR PROCESS: CHALLENGES Requires both strong understanding of business processes, as well as data/table structure in Banner. Limited availability of IT programmer time Lack of direct table access Lack of time to do it all at once Lack of organization to remember where we left off

6. OUR PROCESS: MAPPING PROJECTS Creating a spreadsheet and common workspace Rating by difficulty, priority, sorting by the sum Identifying related or pre-requisite projects Categorizing as one-time or on-going Determining whether to change in-place, or with new effective term Linking to scripts or other work from the spreadsheet

7. OUR PROCESS: MAPPING PROJECTS Identify inter-dependencies on projects Start with easy cleanup, eventually move to complex, aspirational projects

8. OUR PROCESS: TABLES/FORMS

9. OUR PROCESS: ACTUAL WORK, TOOLS Incremental work done in spurts Documentation through continuous email thread Actual work accomplished through: 75% SQL Scripts 20% Access/Excel 5% Manual work directly in Banner forms

10. MAJOR PROJECTS ACCOMPLISHED Clean up of unrolled work: 322 active students Clean up of unarticulated work 1,800 courses 666 students affected 233 courses with bad grades Clean up, and use of transfer review indicator - started with 6,000 with “null” indicator Storage and maintenance of comprehensive rejection reasons Use of status indicator for ease of identifying the current equivalency record

11. MAJOR PROJECTS ACCOMPLISHED Clean up of unmatched credit hour between transfer course and equivalent Redesign of UM-Flint transfer equivalency websitetransfer equivalency website Import and proactive evaluation of community college catalogs: Requested digital catalogs of all 28 Michigan community colleges Received 15 Scraped an additional 5 from websites Matched course level on departmental credit (1XX, 2XX, 3XX, 4XX) for ~13,000 equivalencies. Repaired and automatically maintain gen-ed attributes

12. OUR NEXT PROJECTS: Synchronizing equivalencies with our institutional catalog: Titles Attributes Deprecated/converted courses Automate daily audits Proactively identify missed groupings Receipt/processing of electronic transcripts (XML/EDI)

13. Questions, Discussion

14. Thank you. Jon Davidson Director of Admissions, University of Michigan-Flint jdavidso@umflint.edu Lee Cruppenink Assistant Director of Admissions, University of Michigan-Flint leecrupp@umflint.edu