Montana Higher Education Transfer 2002 Steering Committee
October 24, 2002—Meeting Summary
Attending: Amend, Coe, Everett, Gray, Hanson, Jimeno, Kegel, Lund, Martin, Muir, Park, and Scott.
Campus Reports on Student input about transfer.
- MSU-Bozeman – no report
- University of Montana, Western – the campus surveyed 89 transfer students in Fall 02 and had 2 responses, followed up with interviews. Students transferred mainly in business and education. They would like transcript evaluation more quickly and to be allowed into early registration.
- Montana Tech – send a letter to every transfer student and placed ad in campus newspaper to total of 149 transfers; received 18 mixed responses (about 50-50). Comments focused on improved services, evaluation of credit in the major, appeals processes. Canadian students had special issues.
- University of Montana, Missoula – UM conducted a survey in Sp 02 (400 email surveys with 71 returns) with follow-up this Fall. Fall survey went to 1100 students, 22 responses of which ⅔ had problems. Questions dealt with understanding general education, requirements, major credit, courses they want, transcript evaluation.
- FVCC, GFCoT, HCoT, MSU-Northern reported on standard procedures in use, including Student Satisfaction Surveys. Evaluation of individual courses seems primary issue.
Recommendations about regular evaluation of transfer processes: The Steering Committee agreed that it would be a good idea to have a standard MUS survey, to be administered in Fall initially, with every-other-year follow-up thereafter. Campuses will share their surveys and committee will recommend one format as preferred. Members speculated about the degree of difference between the ways campuses do business and if further standardization would be helpful. Other suggestions: a transfer brochure to guide students through the process; common course numbers and rubrics across the MUS.
Research Activity. Members reviewed the Corrected Transfer Audit and data problems as well as the summary of the Wellman Report on State Policy and Transfer. Action items appear below.
Block Transfer of General Education – 301.10 – changes proposed include adding tribal colleges, excluding intermediate algebra and developmental courses from the general education core and requiring grades of C in core for transfer. Lois Muir led discussion. Members concurred with most changes but were divided on the question of limiting acceptance in transfer of courses with grades of C or better.
Members agreed that there would be a need for a formal and regular process for updating/circulating courses accepted under this policy.
In reference to policy 301.5, members recommended addition of National Program on Noncollegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI) from the Board of Regents of the State of NY (NYSED) be added to item 4 under Board policy. It was further suggested that the note on evaluation of college level courses be added to 301.10 for consistency.
To recruiting Tribal College participation in the updating process, members agreed to carry letters to neighboring Tribal Colleges. Greg Kegel will contact Stone Child, Fort Peck, Fort Belknap. Diane Lund will contact Blackfeet CC. Karen Everett will contact Little Big Horn College, and Brenda Hanson will contact SKC and Chief Dull Knife College. Joyce Scott will prepare a formal letter explaining the wish to have most current information.
Updating 100 and 200-level course matching lists from 1993 .
New methodology proposed by Joyce Scott was discussed. Doug Coe, John Amend, Rick Gray and Brenda Hanson agreed to work on the model and format to be used in course matching and the process to update course lists annually.
Recommendation. Considering the problems involved in maintaining an accurate course transfer guide with eight MUS institutions, 3 community colleges and 7 tribal colleges, a majority of the Steering Committee members voted to recommend that a single course numbering system be introduced in the MUS.
Greg Kegel, Karen Everett, and Diane Lund agreed to work on defining standard feedback reports to be used by receiving institutions to give feedback each year to sending institutions about how their students are doing in transfer.
Joyce Scott will contact MACRAO members to request catalog copy describing appeals processes for students and campus contacts for same. Issues to be investigated include the following: What is now in place by campus? Reports from campus representatives—if a student believes the receiving campus has not treated his/her transfer work fairly, what recourse does s/he have on campus? Recourse at the MUS level? What more is needed? Campus or MUS policies? Publicity?
In the context of accountability reporting to the Legislature, members agreed that campuses should prepare a standard transfer report to the Board annually. Joyce Scott will explore with other state higher education entities the models they use for reporting such information.
Transcript evaluation for incoming transfer students. Registrar Karen Everett described the use of the Banner Product called “ CAPP” and indicated the problems involved in updating course changes from sending institutions. She indicated that a CAPP evaluation of a transcript with transfer credit could take 15 minutes. Further discussion about transfer credit evaluation focused on a program that is operational in MSU but not at UM. Members will seek further information and bring it to the next meeting.
Articulating transfer into major programs of study. Members endorsed immediate pursuit of the nursing course matching but suggested waiting until the general methodology is worked out before moving on other disciplines.
Members broke into subcommittee working groups to pursue further study of key issues.