MOCC Discussion
Second Degree vs Second Major
March 16, 2007:
MCR #27:
The Registars’ Module has requested that MOCC revisit the procedural guidelines included in this document – specifically, those relative to pursuit of a second major following completion of a degree.
Link to document:
Registrars’ Position Paper: please see attached.
Sandy: The only issue pertains to completion of a second major at a later date or different institution. Original creation of the MCR was driven by financial aid. Over time, issues have arisen. Here is what is happening: a student earns a BS in Physics. He/she later returns, completes roughly one semester of work, and adds second major in Chemistry. This is an extension of the original degree – this student shouldn’t be eligible for financial aid. However, to confer eligibility, the student is documented as degree seeking. Ultimately, a second degree is conferred. The resulting problem to this situation is that the transcript doesn’t accurately reflect the work completed; it is very misleading. This practice also distorts IPEDS reporting. We need to separate those who truly earn a second degree from those who merely complete a second major attached to the first degree. This scenario has been troubling to the Registrars since MCR 27 was crafted and implemented.
AAC agenda item:
AAC discussion
Discussion and next step
We must differentiate between similar majors/one degree and disparate majors/two degrees. Direction from AAC will be critical.
There is some professional judgment as to whether a student is pursuing a 2nd major or a 2nd degree. When deciding, you need to consider things like are the majors similar, is it a different institution, how long has the student been out of school, and under what catalog did the student graduate.
Sometimes, students graduate one semester and continue coursework the very next semester. Because Web Advisor permits pre-registration prior to graduation, these students are allowed to enroll in courses, and the absence of an active program is not apparent until later. This semester, SDSU detected ten such students. As a result, we had to go back and contact the impacted students, require completion of applications, determine intentions and financial aid eligibility, etc.
There are very few students who return to complete a second major attached to the original degree. The Registrars' recommendation of a new degree type (ie, pseudo-degree) is only one suggestion – the group members are open to other ideas. Don will ask the tech group to review the recommendation and brainstorm options.
True statement: a student must be enrolled in a program leading to a degree or certificate in order to be eligible for federal financial aid. There is a lack of consistency in application among campuses; this should be addressed. Regarding the crafting of MCR 27, the group became bogged down with strategizing ways to make these students aid-eligible. In reality, outcome should reflect intent. We need to distinguish between students who truly earn a second degree from those who complete a second major from those who are spec.spec. The Financial Aid module needs to make sure that students are informed of the various options and the consequences of each.
The Registrars are okay with the procedures for a student pursuing two majors at once. The group wants to change only those procedures for a student completing a 2nd major in a later term. If we attach the 2nd major to the first program, then the date is wrong for the 2nd major. The 2nd major must have a degree program to transcript correctly with a different date. Ranny indicated that degree + major is needed in order to transcript the information. How can we get Colleague to work for our purposes?
One common scenario: students who complete their programs in December, but don’t immediately receive job offers. They decide to complete their programs and receive degrees – to assist with employability – but also start working on a second major during the job hunt. To their thinking, this keeps all options open.
With MCR 27, we didn’t do things right the first time.
Before MCR 27 was implemented, campuses were inconsistent. Some were using a comment. Lesta said we couldn't use a comment because it was difficult to easily see on the bottom of the transcript.
Would a student who graduated 20 years ago and came back now for a 2nd major receive a new degree?
This should be determined by campus evaluation using professional judgment to determine whether the student gets a new degree. Students can come in under an old catalog even if they graduated. Once the gen ed requirements are met, they do not need to be met again ever, even if gen ed changes. Most likely, the student would be attached to a new degree program.
What happens if we're audited by the feds?
We should be okay having the students in a degree seeking program if we actually do confer a degree. The Financial Aid module gets uncomfortable with the meaning of a second degree. Just completing a second major dilutes the meaning of the word degree.
Several campuses do not print new diplomas – there is confusion with this. Some students have inquired as to why they did not receive second diplomas.
Are we posting information that isn’t valid? Do the mechanics of Colleague force us into this practice?
Accuracy of the transcript is what really matters to the Registrars’ module…transcripts should be correct.
How do we get the 2nd major to print on a transcript without attaching it to a degree?
Don suspects that this transcripting issue would be a challenge, but not impossible. Trudy will confer with Carla and Suzanne to determine whether the Data Administrators or ASCC is the logical party to brainstorm this.
If the Registrars’ recommendation is approved, we will have to rewrite many rules.
Can it be SPEC with a new major? How would it transcript since SPECs don't graduate? Would we have to have a new degree ADDMAJ that could graduate? Could we add the major to the existing ACAD credentials, but find a way to track the date and print it on the transcript? Then the student could be a SPEC.SPEC.
The situation was discussed at AAC. Sam summarized the group’s discussion by indicating an inclination toward the change proposed by the Registrars. AAC asked for more details on the numbers of students involved.
April 5, 2007:
MCR 27:
Report from Technology Module: Don
The DA’s initiated discussion of this complex topic. The group identified two primary questions:
What is the impact of adding a new degree type (example: ADDMAJ)?
Can completion of additional majors be recorded at the top of transcripts (that is, with the pertinent date)?
The most significant concern relates to modifying financial aid rules to create a fit. This facet requires additional investigation. We may need to incorporate spec in order to effectively communicate with the financial aid folks.
Transcripting presents another rigorous challenge. The DA’s can’t figure out the perfect fix to the problem. This may require a change to the program that prints transcripts. Such a modification would surpass the capabilities of South Dakota programmers; we would need to involve Datatel experts.
Did the group consider the proposal delineated by ASCC on page 20 of MCR 27?
No, but it looks like it could work.
A concern expressed by our campus DA is that a pseudo-degree remains on the student’s record forever. Is there another way?
We should revisit the comment option.
Lesta Turchen didn’t support this method of transcripting. She felt that the array of comments used by universities would be too variable. In addition, no reports could be generated based on the comment field.
Registrar concerns include IPEDS reporting, BOR reporting, and transcript format. What the student accomplished must be clear.
Trudy will touch bases with Sam to see if his thoughts/preferences coincide with Lesta’s. Don will continue discussions with the DA’s.
Update from Financial Aid Module: Sharon
The group consensus is that it really is a registrar decision. However, it is important to give the student both options - 2nd major or 2nd degree. It is also important for the student to understand the differences - 2nd major is NOT aid eligible, 2nd degree is. It is also imperative that there is a coding scheme established to differentiate between the two groups to allow for rule writing in financial aid to exclude the 2nd major students from aid eligibility.
We realize this is an extremely complicated issue and there are other areas affected as well - degree audit, graduating, transcripting, etc etc etc. However, we concur with the registrars that it needs to be cleaned up so we truly are doing what we say we are.
As a module, we decided that we should keep our hands out of the final decision. Our chief concern is effective communication with students: we must make sure to keep the two options open and clear cut. Colleague documentation will be critical; SPEC.ADDNL is a viable option from which to key off.
Feedback from Registrars’ Module: details on numbers of students who return to pursue a second major attached to the original degree: Sandy
The registrars estimate a total of 25 to 30 students for the regental system over the last couple of years.
April 27, 2007:
MCR #27:
Colleague options and recommendations: Don
The UDA group discussed this in detail. At this point, the membership is leaning toward the recommendation that ASCC extended during the crafting of MCR #27 (x.SPEC.ADDNL). This option would permit use of degree audit, but not graduation processor. Completion of the second major would be documented on transcripts with a comment line at the top. Avoidance of the comment format would necessitate a custom program in South Dakota. This is costly and problem prone (for example, patches and upgrades are included in the Datatel maintenance fee. For custom programs, fixing glitches is not included – as a result, maintenance would be costly and time consuming for the technology and registrars’ modules). Understandably, the DA’s are not excited about this prospect.
One previously stated concern relates to Lesta Turchen’s stance on the matter; she did not support use of the comment format. Trudy followed up with Sam to ascertain his feelings – he is okay with the comment function. Does this alleviate the registrars’ concern? No, not exactly. What about inevitable inconsistency of comment entry among campuses? Could we standardize the comment format? Yes. However, standardization does rely on end users.
Sandy is sensitive to Don’s comments; she doesn’t want to pursue an option that solves one problem and creates another. The Registrars’ module posted a question to their peers in other states; RogerWilliamsUniversity in Rhode Island provided a response that mirrors the group’s ambition. The program is called additional major – the second major is attached to the first.
Don and Carla looked at potential transcript formats. One in particular looked good. Don will send out the options for review by MOCC and the Registrars’Module.
Whatever option emerges as the first choice, the impact to financial rules must be assessed. Agreed.
System guidelines for second degree and second major
This facet has been mentioned at both AAC and MOCC meetings. We must clearly establish definitions for a second major versus a second degree. Sam indicated that in his experience, other schools require that at least 50% of the coursework attached to the second degree must be new. MOCC supports this idea. Members will forward any additional thoughts or recommendations to Trudy. Hopefully, this will be another agenda item for the May meeting.
Communication with students/determination of intent
What is the most effective way to clearly communicate options to interested students? They need to make informed decisions. The registrars are not positioned to interpret students’ intentions. We need clear cut feedback from the students.
What about using the readmission form as a tool for communication? There could be special instructions for those students who already possess a degree…possibly directing communication with a designated office at the university.
Registrars could do queries to look for previous degrees of the same type. The numbers of students pursuing a second major will be small. Really, it will encompass only those regentally degreed students who return to the same institution for completion of the second major. Regental students who cross universities will be required to also complete institutional requirements.
Some universities already have policies in place. For example, School of the Mines does not work with returning students on completion of a second major. Interested students must complete all requirements for a second degree.
May 24, 2007:
MCR #27:
Technology module recommendation: please refer to Carla’s email (attached)
Don indicated that this topic has generated a number of lively conversations on the Tech calls and via email exchanges. Group consensus was elusive until option #4 emerged (delineated in Carla’s email). This option gives flexibility – there are two different ways to code students, and each campus can choose the method that best fits its particular needs. MOCC needs to consult with the Financial Aid module members to verify that no changes to their rules are needed. Denise will follow up on the next call, and the group will extend a recommendation to MOCC.
Carla Reihe joined the call to answer questions pertaining to appearance of the transcript. She confirmed that completion of a second major will print on the transcript – not as a comment, but rather as part of the degree information at the top of the transcript (note: information will print in a time sequence).
Carla and Don both stressed the need to create a status code that indicates completion of the second major, but doesn’t trigger IPEDS reporting. It can’t be C – that is already in use. After this decision has been made, MOCC will need to forward the information to AAC for its approval. Trudy indicated that this topic is slated for inclusion on the June agenda; she will visit with Sam to expand the discussion to include this element.
Next step for technology recommendation:
Refer to Financial Aid Module
AAC discussion of distinction between second major and second degree: due to time constraints, this dialogue was deferred until the June meeting; please refer to this link to review Sam’s introduction to the topic.
The next meeting will be held on June 27th at SDSU.
Recommendations from the Registrars’ module
Registrars support Option #4 as recommended by the UDA module.
June 21, 2007:
MCR #27:
Financial Aid response to Technology Module’s recommendation: Sharon
Including spec in the program is the key; to date, these programs have been excluded from financial aid consideration. As discussed at the previous MOCC meeting, option#4 accommodates this need, effectively eliminating the need to revise financial aid rules. If option #4 remains the option of choice, then it’s all systems go from the financial aid perspective!
M status code: new code to designate completion of the second major
Pertinent information submitted by the UDA’s:
Entered in TEST (R17 & 18) on 6/7/07:
M – Major Completed;Special Processing Code of 3?
One of the status values must have a special processing code of 3. The value with the special processing code of 3 is the value that will be assigned to the student program record when the record is moved to the person's academic credentials (ACAD.CREDENTIALS file). The special processing code of 3 is also used to designate completion. When an end date is entered for a student academic program, a check is done of the student academic credit entries to see if Degree Audit has flagged the entry as belonging to an academic program. If the student's participation in the program is ended prematurely, the academic program is removed from the student academic credit list. However, this is only done for student programs that are ended with a status that does NOT have a special processing code of 3.
Request from Carla:
Please have the module members test, especially with the M program status because it has the same special processing as the G, so I’m not sure that will work.
SDSU has already initiated testing efforts. Additionally, Sandy will convey this request to the entire membership of the Registrars’ module.
AAC discussion: June 27th (SDSU)
Discussion related to this topic was deferred from the May meeting to the June meeting. Trudy will attend the meeting at SDSU next week.
July 26, 2007:
MCR #27:
AAC discussion: Conversation was favorable, but the group members did not put the matter to a vote. Several AAC members recalled earlier construction of guidelines to be used in distinguishing between second majors and second degrees. Sam and Jodi volunteered to locate that information and distribute it for consideration at the next meeting.
Trudy has asked Sam for two votes at the August meeting: the basic concept and the Colleague codes. If AAC votes yes to the concept, then Trudy will revise the relevant section of MCR #27 and submit the procedural document to the MOCC membership for review.