Student Information Systems, Collection of Grades, Application for Degree, and Degree Audit Functions

Transcription

1 Student Information Systems, Collection of Grades, Application for Degree, and Degree Audit Functions We thank the Office of the Registrar at Georgia Tech and the Georgia Tech Athletic Association for their permission to publish this report. The survey was done at their request by AACRAO Consulting in summer 00. One of two reports from the survey, this report summarizes results for all 09 institutions for which we received responses. (The other report summarizes results of the special section exclusively for those respondents from institutions that belong to the NCAA; that is also posted on the AACRAO Web site.) STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS USED When asked what student information system they currently use, respondents indicated the following, in descending order of frequency: Sungard SCT (9 or.%), Jenzabar (8 or 9.%), Datatel ( or.9%), In-house/Homegrown ( or.%) Oracle/PeopleSoft ( or 9.%). CAMS ( or.%) (Note that these were written in by respondents who marked other. Scholastic Online Information System (SONIS) or SONIS Web (0 or.%). (Note that these were written in by respondents who marked other. CampusVue (8 or.8%) (Note that these were written in by respondents who marked other. (89 or 8% of respondents marked other. ) SAP () Student Information Systems Used, by Institution Size Sungard SCT Jenzabar Datatel In-House/ Homegrown 0 0 (.%) (.%) (.%) 0 0 (.%) (9%) (.%) 9 8 Under,000 (%),000-,999 (.%),000-9,999 (.8%) 0,000-9,999 (8%) 0, (.9%) (.8%) (%) (%) (%) (.%) (.%) (%) (9.%) Oracle/ People Soft (.%) (.8%) (.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (.%) CAMS 0 (.%) (.%) SONIS/ SONIS Web 0 (.%) Campus Vue (.8%) (%)

2 Student Information Systems Used, by Institution Type FP, -yr FP, -yr NFP, - yr NFP, - yr Public - yr Public - yr Sungard SCT (.9%) (.%) 0 (8.%) 0 (0.8%) (.9%) Jenzabar Datatel In-House/ Homegrown (.%) (%) (8.%) (.%) (.9%) (.9%) 0 (0.%) 9 (%) (0%) (.%) (.9%) (.%) (9.%) Oracle/ People Soft (.%) (%) (.%) (8.%) CAMS (0%) (.9%) SONIS/ SONIS Web (.8%) (.%) (.%) (%) Campus Vue (0%) (.%) (.%) Eighty-nine respondents indicated that they use a system not mentioned in the given choices. Some of these appear above, if they were mentioned frequently. Others are listed as follows: Blackbaud () Empower () Scan () TOLEMAC () Campus Management () CARS () Champlain () FX Scholar () Grad Pro () ISRS () POISE () SIS Plus () Ala Quest () APECS () but is moving to SCT CMDS () COCO () Computing Options () Comspec/Empower () PowerCampus (, converting to it) ECAMS () EDC-Univers () Education Edge () Empower by Comspect International () GradPro by RobinSoft Inc () IA () Informix () local system () Modified Information Associate () Pre-SIS Plus IDMS Database () SMS () state-sponsored system () Thoroughbred Alaquest () Universe ()

3 USE OF AN ELECTRONIC PROCESS TO COLLECT GRADES When asked if they use an electronic process to collect grade changes, 9 institutions (8%) answered yes. The majority ( institutions, or 8% of respondents) do not use an electronic process for grade changes. Of those 8 institutions that answered yes : institutions (%) indicated that the module was written by their SIS vendor; institutions (8%) indicated that their module was written on campus; and institutions (%) indicated that their module was a consultant s custom solution. Use of an Electronic Process to Collect Grades, By Type of Institution Type of Institution Yes No for-profit, - (0%) (0%) yr () for-profit, - (.8%) (.%) yr+ () not-forprofit, 0 (00%) -yr () not-forprofit, (.%) (8.%) -yr+ (8) Public -yr (9) 9 (.%) 0 (8.%) Public -yr+ () 0 (.%) 0 (.8%) Use of an Electronic Process to Collect Grades, By Size of Institution Size of Institution Yes No Under,000 (0) (.%) 0 (8.%),000-,999 (0) (.8%) 8 (8.%),000-9,999 () 9 (.%) (8.%) 0,000-9,999 () 8 (.%) (.%) 0,000+ () (8.9%) (.%)

4 USE OF AN ELECTRONIC PROCESS TO COLLEGE MAJOR AND/OR MINOR CHANGES When asked if they use an electronic process to collect major and/or minor changes, the majority of institutions (, or 8%) said no, and 8 institutions (%) said yes. Of those that use an electronic process to collect major and/or minor changes: institutions (%) had their module written on campus; institutions (9%) had their module written by their SIS vendor; and institutions (.8%) indicated their module was a consultant s custom solution. Use of an Electronic Process to Collect Major and/or Minor Changes, by Type of Institution Type of Institution Yes No for-profit, - (0%) (0%) yr () for-profit, - (8.%) (.%) yr+ () not-forprofit, 0 (00%) -yr () not-forprofit, (.%) (8.9%) -yr+ (80) Public -yr (9) 0 (.9%) 9 (8.%) Public -yr () (%) 0 (%) Use of an Electronic Process to Collect Major and/or Minor Changes, by Size of Institution Size of Institution Yes No Under,000 (9) (.%) 0 (8.%),000-,999 (0) (.%) 9 (88.%),000-9,999 () 9 (.%) (8.%) 0,000-9,999 () (.9%) 8 (.%) 0,000+ () 0 (.%) (.%)

5 USE OF AN ELECTRONIC PROCESS TO COLLECT APPLICATIONS FOR A DEGREE When asked if they use an electronic process to collect applications for degree, the majority (8 institutions, or %) said no, and institutions (%) answered yes. Of those institutions that do use an electronic process to collect applications for degree: (%) had their module written on campus; (%) had their module written by their SIS vendor; and institutions (%) indicated their module was a consultant s custom solution. Use of an Electronic Process to Collect Applications for a Degree, by Type of Institution Type of Institution Yes No for-profit, - (0%) (0%) yr () for-profit, - (.8%) (.%) yr+ () not-forprofit, (8.%) (.%) -yr () not-forprofit, (9.%) (80.%) -yr+ () Public -yr (9) 0 (.9%) 9 (8.%) Public -yr () (.%) 9 (.9%) Use of an Electronic Process to Collect Applications for a Degree, by Size of Institution Size of Institution Yes No Under,000 (8) (.%) 0 (8.%),000-,999 (9) (0%) (80%),000-9,999 () 0 (8.%) (.8%) 0,000-9,999 (0) (%) (8%) 0,000+ () 0 (.%) (.%)

6 USE OF AN ELECTRONIC PROCESS TO COLLECT COURSE GRADES The majority of institutions (88, or %) use an electronic process to collect course grades; 9 institutions (%) do not. For the schools that do use an electronic process to collect course grades: 0 (8%) had their module written by their SIS vendor; institutions (%) had their module written on campus; and institutions (.%) indicated that their module was a consultant s custom solution. Use of an Electronic Process to Collect Course Grades, by Type of Institution Type of Institution Yes No for-profit, - (0%) (0%) yr () for-profit, - 8 (8.%) (.%) yr+ () not-forprofit, (8.%) (.%) -yr () not-forprofit, 00 (.%) 80 (8.%) -yr+ (80) Public -yr (9) (8.%) 8 (.%) Public -yr () (8.%) 0 (.8%) Use of an Electronic Process to Collect Course Grades, by Size of Institution Size of Institution Yes No Under,000 (9) 0 (0.%) 9 (9.%),000-,999 (0) 8 (8.%) 9 (.%),000-9,999 () (88.%) 8 (.%) 0,000-9,999 () (90.%) (9.%) 0,000+ () (8.%) 8 (.8%)

7 Degree Audit USE OF AN ELECTRONIC DEGREE AUDIT SYSTEM When asked if they are live with an electronic degree audit system, most schools (0, or 0%) answered yes, while 0 schools (0%) answered no. Use of an Electronic Degree Audit System, by Type of Institution Type of Institution Yes No for-profit, -yr () (0%) (0%) for-profit, -yr+ () (.%) 0 (.%) not-for-profit, -yr () (.%) (8.%) not-for-profit, -yr+ 9 (.%) 0 (.%) (9) Public -yr (9) (%) (9%) Public -yr () 0 (%) (%) Use of an Electronic Degree Audit System, by Size of Institution Size of Institution Yes No Under,000 (9) (.%) (.9%),000-,999 (0) 8 (8.%) 9 (.8%),000-9,999 () 0 (0.%) (9.%) 0,000-9,999 () (8.%) 9 (.%) 0,000+ () 0 (90.9%) (9.%) Of the 0 schools that are live with an electronic degree audit system: institutions (%) use CAPP 0 institutions (%) use Datatel (These were marked as Other and written in the following forms: Datatel, Datatel s Degree Audit, Degree Audit, Datatel Colleague, DA module within Datatel, Datatel Program Eval, Datatel s Product, Degree Audit Module in Colleague, Datatel vendor) institutions (%) use DARS; institutions (%) use Jenzabar (These were marked as Other and written in the following forms: Jenzabar. Jenzabar CX, Jenzabar Advising Module, Jenzabar POISE Degree Audit, Jenzabar PX, Jenzabar s Built-In System, Jenzabar CX Degree Audit, Jenzabar Degree Audit, Jenzabar Software that includes Degree Audit in its Advising module) institutions (0%) use an In-house/Homegrown system;

8 institutions (%) use PeopleSoft/Oracle (These were marked as Other and written in the following forms: PeopleSoft/Oracle, PeopleSoft, PeopleSoft Academic Advisement, Oracle 0 institutions (%) use a consultant s custom solution; institutions (%) use CAMS/Three Rivers (These were marked as Other and written in the following forms: CAMS, CAMS Enterprise, Three Rivers, Three Rivers/CAMS Windows institutions (%) use Sungard/SCT (These were marked as Other and written in the following forms: OnCourse (Sungard Plus system not Banner yet), Sungard SCT, Sungard SCT Power CAMPUS, SungardHE PowerCampus, a program within SCT PowerCampus.) institutions (%) use DegreeWorks; institution (0.%) uses Pace; and In addition to the 0 institutions who marked Other and that we have included in the list above, additional institutions (%) marked Other. Systems Used by the 0 Schools That are Live With an Electronic Degree Audit System, by Size of Institution Under,000,000-,999,000-9,999 0,000-9,999 0,000+ CAPP (.%) 0 (9.%) 0 (.%) Datatel 0 (.%) (%) (9.8%) (.%) DARS 8 0 (.%) (.%) (.%) Jenzabar 0 9 (.%) (.%) (.9%) (.%) In-House/ Homegrown (.%) (9.%) (.9%) (%) PeopleSoft/ Oracle (.%) (.%) (.9%) (%) Consultant s custom solution (.%) (.%) (.8%) (.%) CAMS/ Three Rivers (.%) (.%) Sungard/SCT (.%) (.%) (.%) DegreeWorks (0.8%) (%) (%) Pace (.%) Other (9.%) (.8%) (.%) (.%) (.%) (.%) (.%) (.%) (.%) (.%)

9 Systems Used by the 0 Schools That are Live With an Electronic Degree Audit System, by Type of Institution FP, -yr FP, -yr NFP, -yr NFP, -yr Public -yr Public -yr CAPP (.%) (0%) (.%) Datatel (.8%) (0%) (.%) DARS (.%) (.%) (%) Jenzabar 9 (9.%) (.9%) (.9%) In-House/ Homegrown (%) (.%) 0 (9.%) PeopleSoft/ Oracle (%) (.9%) (0.%) Consultant s custom solution (.%) (.%) (.9%) CAMS/ Three Rivers (.8%) Sungard/SCT (.%) (%) DegreeWorks (.%) (.%) (%) Pace (%) Other 9 (.9%) 8 (.9%) 0 (9.%) 8

10 YEAR INSTITUTIONS WENT LIVE WITH ELECTRONIC DEGREE AUDIT When asked when their degree audit went live, institutions answered as follows: Number of responding institutions that went live with Year degree audit 00 (.%) 00 (8.8%) 00 (.%) 00 (.%) 00 0 (.9%) 00 9 (.%) 00 9 (.%) 000 (.%) 999 (.%) 998 (.%) 99 8 (.%) 99 (.%) 99 (.%) The remaining 8 institutions that responded went live between 98 and 99. USE OF A WHAT IF FUNCTION FOR STUDENTS TO REVIEW THEIR COURSES IN RELATION TO POSSIBLE PROGRAMS When asked if they were using a what if function for students to review their courses in relation to possible programs, (%) answered no, and 09 (%) answered yes. Of the schools that are using the what if function: (8%) are using a module written by the vendor; 8 (.%) are using a module written on campus; and (%) are using a consultant s custom solution. 9

11 STAFF FTE FOR SUPPORTING THE DEGREE AUDIT ON CAMPUS When asked for the number of full-time-equivalent staff FTE their campus had for supporting the degree audit, responses ranged from to 0. The averages by size of institution are listed below. Average FTE Staff Who Support Degree Audit, by Size of Institution Size of Institution Average FTE Under,000 (0).9,000-,999 ().8,000-9,999 (). 0,000-9,999 () 0,000+ ().9 0