student information systems transcripts - jm … transcripts bpr report.pdf · student information...

ÆVOARBOR

VELUT

University of TorontoStudent Information Systems

February 19, 1998

TRANSCRIPTSBUSINESS PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING

FINAL REPORT

Transcripts Business Process Re-engineering Final Report

ii Student Information Systems

© 1998 University of Toronto

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the University of Toronto

ÆVOARBOR

VELUT

University of TorontoStudent Information Systems

Student Information Systems iii

Report of the TranscriptsBusiness Processing Re-engineering Team

CONTENTS

Summary of Recommendations v

Main Recommendations.................................................... v

Other Recommendations ................................................. xi

Major Benefits of the Re-Design xii

Client Focus ..................................................................... xii

Institutional Integrity .................................................... xiii

Divisional Roles & Identity ............................................. xiii

Institutional Benefits ...................................................... xiii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 The Team..................................................................... 1

1.2 Focus, End Results & Constraints ................................ 2

A) End Results ............................................................ 2

B) Constraints ............................................................ 2

C) SRS Vision ............................................................. 3

D) Team Goals ............................................................ 3

E) Focus ...................................................................... 4

1.3 Overview of the Re-Design Process ..............................4

A) Mapping the Current Process ................................ 4

B) Brainstorming ........................................................ 5

C) External Research.................................................. 5

D) Re-Design .............................................................. 5

E) Walkthrough and Verification ..............................5

F) Development of Team Report and

Recommendations .............................................. 6

1.4 Definitions ................................................................... 6

1.5 Clients ......................................................................... 7

1.6 End-Users ..................................................................... 7

2. Current Process 8

2.1 Overview...................................................................... 8

2.2 The Current Process..................................................... 8

A) Step 1: Information............................................... 8

B) Step 2: Request ....................................................... 9

C) Step 3: Verification of Request and Student

Record Data ........................................................ 9

D) Step 4: Production................................................. 9

E) Step 5: Distribution/Issuance (Send/Pick Up)...... 10

F) Step 6: Information ............................................. 10

2.3 Transcript Data .......................................................... 12

A) Admission............................................................ 12

B) Transfer Credit and Credit Elsewhere ..................13

C) Individual Grade ................................................. 13

D) Individual Average .............................................. 13

E) Course Average .................................................... 14

F) Course Information ............................................. 14

G) End of Session Data ............................................. 14

H) Degree Information ............................................ 15

I) Miscellaneous ....................................................... 15

J) Production Information....................................... 15

2.4 Other Credentials and Documents ............................19

2.5 Fees ............................................................................ 19

2.6 Analysis of the Current Process ................................. 20

A) Problems.............................................................. 20

B) What is Right with the Current Process .............. 23

3. Research 24

3.1 Other Institutions...................................................... 24

3.2 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) ............................25

3.3 Kiosks ......................................................................... 26


iv Student Information Systems

4. The New Design 27

4.1 The Foundation ......................................................... 27

A) The Report of the Commission on Grading........27

B) Assumptions......................................................... 28

C) Principles ............................................................. 29

D) Authenticity ........................................................ 30

E) Data & Document Integrity ................................. 33

4.2 The “Document” ....................................................... 33

4.3 Design Elements ........................................................ 34

A) The “Diploma Card” ............................................ 35

B) Public Domain Information ................................ 35

C) Request, Production & Issuance of Hard Copy

Documents ....................................................... 36

D) The “Electronic Transcript” for Internal End-

Users ................................................................. 43

4.4 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) ............................45

4.5 Physical Design & Output .......................................... 46

A) Data ..................................................................... 46

B) Layout .................................................................. 52

C) The Guide ............................................................ 53

4.6 Fees ............................................................................ 54

4.7 Old Paper Records ...................................................... 56

4.8 Old Electronic Records ............................................... 57

5. Implementation 59

5.1 Institutional Culture ................................................. 59

5.2 Focus on Client Need................................................. 60

5.3 Impact on the Community....................................... 61

6. Other Issues 62

6.1 Other Recommendations .......................................... 62

7. Appendices 63

7.1 Walkthrough Interviews ........................................... 63

7.2 Special Guests............................................................. 64

7.3 Other End-Users Consulted ....................................... 64

7.4 Verification Letters .................................................... 65

7.5 Number of Degree Certifications by Year of

Graduation ............................................................... 67

7.6 Client Surveys ........................................................... 68

7.7 Document Mock-ups ................................................. 79

Figures

Figure 2-A – Transcripts and Documents Process ...............8

Figure 2-B – PRS Transcript .............................................. 21

Figure 2-C – Local Database Transcript ............................21

Figure 2-D – Card Record/Label Transcript.......................22

Figure 4-A – Seal ............................................................... 31

Figure 4-B – The Document Spectrum .............................34

Figure 4-C – Diploma Card Mock-up ...............................35

Figure 4-D – Online Degree Verification Mock-up...........36

Figure 4-E – Web Request Mock-up.................................. 37

Figure 4-F – Electronic Transcript Mock-up...................... 44

Figure 4-G – Paper ............................................................ 53

Figure 7-A – Degree Certifications (1997) ........................67

Figure 7-B – Consolidated Transcript (2 divisions) ...........79

Figure 7-C – Transcript Including Detail from 1

Division.................................................................... 84

Figure 7-D – Confirmation of Registration...................... 88

Figure 7-E – Confirmation of Admission .........................89

Tables

Table 2-A – Current Process ............................................. 10

Table 2-B – Transcript Data .............................................. 17

Table 4-A – Data on the New Consolidated Transcript .... 47

Survey Results

Survey 1 – Recent Participants in the Process ................. 68

Survey 2 – Current Participants in the Process ................ 73

Survey 3 – General Distribution....................................... 77

Final Report Transcripts Business Process Re-engineering

Student Information Systems v

Summary of Recommendations

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations relate directly to the End Results (see page 2)

assigned to the team by the Executive Steering Committee for the Student

Record System Replacement project.

Authenticity (see page 30)

1. The team recommends that authenticated documents display a “printed

seal” as opposed to an “embossed seal” (which is currently used by various

divisions within the University of Toronto).

Page 31

2. The team recommends that the official University seal be printed only on

documents produced and issued through the institutional production

facilities (see Institutional Production Facilities on page 41).

Page 31

3. The team recommends that documents produced in an institutional

production facility (see Institutional Production Facilities on page 41)

include a printed signature of one senior University officer.

Page 32

4. The team recommends that the paper adopted for production be tamper-

proof (i.e. in a way that assures end-users that the document has not been

altered). As well, the paper should be unique to the University and of high

quality so as to allow for quick recognition and identification by end-users.

The paper should also help enhance the image of the University.

Page 32

5. While the team does not have a specific recommendation with respect to

the practice of producing “security” paper which reveals “copy” when

photocopied, the team does recommend that at no time should the word

“void” be revealed on a photocopy of a transcript. If “copy” is included, it

should appear only once when photocopied.

Page 32

Data & Document Integrity (see page 33)

6. The team recommends that the SRS include a provision for divisions to

“flag” student record data for “non-release.” This might be a manual

operation in less frequent cases or an automatic operation in situations

which are much more common.

Page 33


vi Student Information Systems

Design Elements (see page 34)

The “Diploma Card”

7. The team recommends that the University issue a wallet sized Diploma

Card bearing the usual signatures and University seal on the back. The card

should be a good quality durable document which includes features which

make it difficult to produce counterfeit copies.

Page 35

Public Domain Information

8. The team recommends that “public domain” information be made available

on the World Wide Web in a searchable database. If student name and other

relevant data (e.g. degree conferred or year of graduation) were entered in

an online form, registration and degree information should be made freely

available.

Page 36

In developing the online searchable database, the design should prevent the

possibility that the information could be exploited for inappropriate uses

(e.g. it should not be possible for a user to compile a complete list of

graduates for a particular discipline and/or year). The focus of an online

search should be on a person, not a program or year of study.

Page 36

Request, Production & Issuance of Hard Copy Documents

Requesting Documents

9. The team recommends taking an “anytime-anywhere” approach to allowing

clients to request documents. Students and alumni should be able to make

requests in person, by mail, over the phone, via fax, via email, and through

the World Wide Web.

Page 36

10. In accordance with the recommendations made by the Access to Student

Record Information BPR Team, clients should be able to request any type of

document via a Web interface.

For detailed recommendations regarding Web-enabled requests, see page 36.

Page 36

11. Online request systems must be available 24 hours a day. Page 40

12. A client should be able to make a request for a document at any office

which performs registrarial functions at the University. The team

recommends that a public access computer running a Web browser should

be available in as many of these locations as possible in order to permit

clients to load their own requests for documents.

Page 40


Student Information Systems vii

13. Clients should be able to make a request for pick up or delivery to a

common recipient via the University’s Student Telephone Service.

Page 40

14. The team recommends that one office be established to handle written,

telephone and email requests for documents.

Page 40

15. The team recommends that a signature or Personal Identification Number

(PIN) be required from the client in order to authorize release of record data.

Page 41

16. When a request for a document is loaded on the system, it should be

immediately queued for production. Clients should be provided with an

estimate of the time when a document will be ready for distribution or pick

up.

Page 41

Producing Documents

17. The team recommends that one production facility be established on each

of the three main campuses where the fully “authenticated” document is

produced.

Page 41

18. The team recommends that clients and University staff be given the option

of producing these documents locally on their own printers without any of

the institutional authentication devices (i.e. special paper and seal).

Page 42

Issuing Documents

19. The team recommends that when a client requests documents for pick up,

he or she should have the choice of picking it up at any campus, in any

divisional office, or in the case of cash payment, at the Student Accounts

Receivable Office.

Page 43

20. When a client requires a fully authenticated document on a rush basis, he or

she could load the request at any location on campus (or at the campus

production facility) and then contact the production facility for pick up.

Staff in the production facility should have the option of changing the

queue order for production of particular documents for rush requests.

Page 43

21. For documents issued through the mail or by courier, the team recommends

that the campus production facility handle issuance and distribution of

these documents.

Page 43


viii Student Information Systems

The “Electronic Transcript” for Internal End-Users

22. The team recommends that a special SRS screen and/or Web-enabled

“electronic transcript” be designed for internal University of Toronto end-

users of documents.

Page 43

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)

23. The team recommends that the University continue to work with other

Ontario post-secondary institutions to agree upon and develop a single

standard for EDI in Ontario.

Page 45

24. The team recommends that the EDI system adopted, at the very least,

should provide an interface with which the University might exchange data

with universities and colleges using the SPEEDE system.

Page 45

Physical Design & Output (see page 46)

Data

25. The types of data the team recommends for inclusion in a comprehensive

consolidated transcript is summarized in Table 4-A – Data on the New

Consolidated Transcript on Page 47.

Page 47

Layout

26. Although the team feels that the final design of the transcript should be left

in the hands of professional designers, it recommends that certain

directions be observed with respect to the organization of the data blocks

and features of the transcript paper.

Page 52

The team recommends that an “Enrolment History”, which traces

chronologically the student’s entire participation at the University of

Toronto, be included on a transcript.

Page 51

The “Enrolment History” should be distinct from the main body of the

document data; ideally as brief notes down the left margin of the

document. The enrolment history is always present and complete (whether

or not a client has requested a transcript which omits detailed results from a

particular division).

Page 52

“Admission Notes”, “Transfer Credit and Credit Elsewhere”, “Course

Information”, “Grades”, “End of Session Data”, “Degree Requirements Met”,

“Honours, Scholarships and Awards” and “Special Notes” data blocks should

be organized by division.

Page 52


Student Information Systems ix

The divisions should be arranged in the chronological order of first

registration.

Page 52

To promote divisional identity, the team recommends that divisional logos

and banners be used to highlight the beginning of each divisional section.

Page 52

The “Student Identification” data block should begin the main body of the

transcript. This should then be followed by the “Issued To” data block,

which should be printed on the page so as to allow for the use of a window

envelope.

Page 52

All degree conferral information (including date conferred and, if applicable,

the level of achievement, e.g. Distinction) should appear at the beginning

of the transcript data (above any and all divisional results detail).

Page 52

Additional degree information such as program, thesis title and supervisor,

should appear at the beginning of divisional data.

Page 53

Document Paper

27. To promote the uniqueness of the transcript to the University, the team

recommends: that the paper used be unique (in order to reduce the

possibility that counterfeit documents could be produced) and of very high

quality; that a blue tint field be part of the paper design (the blue tint

should be light enough so as not to overwhelm the text when printed and

when the transcript is photocopied); that the text of verification letters and

divisional transcript data be printed on the blue field; that an institutionally

significant and recognizable image (which is not division-specific) be

embedded in the blue field (e.g. Convocation Hall, Hart House, etc.); that

the University crest, name and address be pre-printed on the paper on a

white field across the top of the paper; and that the Enrolment History be

printed on a white field to the left of the blue field and below the University

crest.

Page 53

The Guide

28. The team recommends that full text, as opposed to codes and abbreviations,

be used on transcripts as much as possible.

Page 53

29. The team recommends that a context-sensitive guide be designed. The guide

should include information relevant only to the data printed on the

document.

Page 54

30. The team recommends that a more comprehensive guide should be made

available on-line.

Page 54


x Student Information Systems

31. The team recommends that a single phone number be established for end-

users in order to assist them with interpretation of document data.

Page 54

Old Records (see page 56)

Old Paper Records

32. There should be no general undertaking to transcribe information on paper

records, microfilm or microfiche, into an automated transcript system.

Page 56

33. The team recommends that divisions be given the option of: retaining

archival records and continuing to issue transcripts based on those records

(on the understanding that in some cases, the institutional production

facility may coordinate the request if multiple registrations are involved); or

transferring old archival records to the central production facility (with the

understanding that their special knowledge and expertise about the archival

records must also be transferred).

Page 57

34. The team recommends that records for programs no longer offered by the

University, along with all relevant program and grading practices

information, expertise and special knowledge should be transferred to the

relevant campus production facility and transcripts based upon those records

should be issued from that office.

Page 57

Old Electronic Records

35. The team recommends that the output of older electronic records be

accompanied by a context sensitive guide (see The Guide on page 52) for

the older data.

Page 58


Student Information Systems xi

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the following do not relate directly to the End Results (see page 2)

assigned, the team makes the following recommendations to the University.

Fees (see page 54)

1. The team recommends that the University continue charging for document

issuance and production on a per document basis.

Page 56

2. The team recommends that the fee charged should cover the costs of

document request, production and distribution only.

Page 56

3. The team also recommends that there not be an additional fee for rush

service.

Page 56

Other Issues (see page 62)

4. Given that University sanctioned academic honours, scholarships and

awards (i.e. merit based awards) are to be included on transcripts, the team

recommends that the University review the list of awards to ensure that

those that are merit based are clearly identified as such (i.e. the names of

some scholarships and academic honours may give the impression that they

are awards based solely on financial need).

Page 62

5. Documents, artwork, portfolio submissions, letters of recommendation and

other hard copy information provided to the University which ultimately

become part of a student’s academic record should be scanned and stored

within the SRS.

Page 62

6. The team recommends that when a student’s grade is amended as a result of

a review or resolution of a deferral, there should be no special mention of

these facts on a transcript.

Page 62

7. When a University of Toronto student’s academic record and/or degrees

from another institution are assessed by the Comparative Education Service,

this data should be included in the student’s University academic record.

Page 62


xii Student Information Systems

Major Benefits of the Re-Design

CLIENT FOCUS

1. The new process was designed from the point of view of students and

former students. Clients’ needs with respect to transcripts and other

documents were given the highest priority in the re-design.

2. The new design will be extremely convenient for clients. Requests can be

made from virtually any place around the world and many campus

locations. Clients picking up documents can choose the campus and/or

divisional office from which they obtain their transcripts or letters. The

team believes that many clients will continue to request and pick up

documents from their “home” registrarial office while others will choose

online request systems.

3. By acknowledging that the process is, in effect, driven by third parties who

require transcripts and other documents relating to student records (e.g.

other post-secondary institutions, employers, licensing boards, etc.) the new

design has the potential to enhance students’ abilities to achieve their

academic and career goals. The needs of these third parties were carefully

examined and are addressed in the new design.

4. The establishment of an online database of publicly available information

and the issuance of diploma cards will make it easier for students and former

students to verify their participation at the University and degree conferral.

This will also benefit the University by reducing the number of verification

letters produced and issued by the University.1

5. The physical design of documents will be attractive, unique and easy to

understand. In turn, this will benefit students applying to other post-

secondary institutions and those requiring documents for employment

applications.

6. The new process will be less confusing and more efficient than our current

practices. The new design will benefit clients by simplifying the interactions

with the University concerning transcripts and other documents that reflect

their academic records. In turn, because requesting transcripts occurs many

times in some students’ lives, the new design will also enhance the

University’s relationship with alumni/ae.

1

Instead of simply designing a process which streamlines document issuance, the new design results in a

reduction in number of documents produced.


Student Information Systems xiii

INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY

7. The new consolidated transcript will be a complete record of a student’s

participation at the University. Third parties receiving these documents will

be assured that the University of Toronto is supplying a complete record

about students.

DIVISIONAL ROLES & IDENTITY

8. Data security and integrity will be preserved. Each faculty, school or campus

will continue to have the responsibility of maintaining complete and

accurate student record data. Divisions will also have the opportunity to

block data output on transcripts and, therefore, continue to be responsible

for the release of record data on transcripts.

9. Divisions will continue to have a prominent and clearly visible identity on

transcripts. While the consolidated transcript will be a University of Toronto

document, divisional logos and banners will precede blocks of academic

results for each faculty, school, or campus.

10. Because many alumni/ae will naturally return to their “home” faculty,

school, college or campus in order to request documents, divisions will

continue to have the opportunity to interact with former students through

this process. In addition, the simplification of the process will also have a

positive effect on how alumni/ae feel about the institution and its divisions.

11. Verification of completeness and accuracy of transcript data is no longer

part of the document production and issuance process. Divisions and the

student record system will undertake this verification in a separate process.

INSTITUTIONAL BENEFITS

12. For most divisions, the new design will be a dramatic and significant change

and improvement compared to current practice. For divisions currently

using the Permanent Record System, the document request, production and

issuance process has essentially been streamlined.

13. An improved and unified document issuance process together with the

diploma card, the online public information database and an impressive

design for hard copy documents will undoubtedly improve the University’s

image with alumni/ae, other post-secondary institutions and with the

community at large.


xiv Student Information Systems

14. Consolidation of transcript data from multiple divisions, issuance of

diploma cards, making publicly accessible information more available, and

encouraging the use of electronic transcripts and electronic data

interchange will, in combination, result in a dramatic reduction in the

number of documents produced by the University.

15. Having a single, University-wide, approach will be less confusing, more

efficient, and more cost effective.

16. The University of Toronto will be a leader in Canada in the issuance of

transcripts and other documents that reflect students’ academic records.


Student Information Systems Page 1

1. Introduction

The membership of the team represented

a broad range of expertise and experience

1.1 The Team

he Transcripts Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) Team consisted of 12

members drawn from various areas of the University of Toronto. The membership

of the team represented a broad range of expertise and experience in matters related

to transcripts (both as producers and end-users of transcripts) and other documents

prepared by the University. A list of team members follows:

Jim Delaney, Office of Student Affairs

Barbara Patterson, Faculty of Arts & Science

Peter Leeney, Office of Statistics, Records & Convocation

Barbara Ablett, Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering

Betty Lam-Clarke, Woodsworth College

Maymie Howe, School of Graduate Studies

Tony Ngimat, Admissions & Awards

Silvia Rosatone, Faculty of Medicine

Marcia Beach, Admissions & Awards

Margaret Acquaviva Bell, JM Associates

Agnita Pal, Undergraduate Student, Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering

Steve Kishewitsch, Student Information Systems (scribe)

In addition to the guidance and support provided by Margaret Acquaviva Bell (as a

member of the group), the team also received valuable assistance from John Marrazzo

and his associate Kevin Ciotta from JM Associates. Finally, members of the Student

Information Systems office, including Eva Swenson, David Perry, Kathy Tseu, Teresa

Chan, Mary Binette, Mike Ryall and Baljeet Bhachu were extremely supportive and

helpful throughout the work of the team.

It should be noted that, in addition to the large time commitment to the BPR project,

many members of the team were also doing some or all of their normal duties (during

evenings and weekends) throughout the duration of the project.

T


Page 2 Student Information Systems

The team members would also like to acknowledge the support, understanding and

contributions of their respective supervisors and colleagues in their home offices.

Colleagues in each team member’s home office were also asked to take on additional

duties and responsibilities during the project. Without this support, the team would not

have been successful in its work.

1.2 Focus, End Results & Constraints

A) End Results

As approved by the Executive Steering Committee for the Student Record System

project, the following End Results guided the team in its work.

1. Provide a consolidated University transcript that contains the results, including

transfer credits granted, of all programs of study from within the University of

Toronto with which the student has been associated.

2. Transcripts, both official and unofficial, should clearly present a student’s

academic record and be easily understood by all internal and external users of the

transcript.

3. Allow for the provision of transcripts containing detailed information pertaining

to a student’s registration in a specific program of study, provided that such

transcripts also include a concise description or summary of all the programs of

study from within the University of Toronto with which the student has been

associated.

4. Valid requests for transcripts, and transcript data, should be easily obtained in a

secure and efficient manner, in a way that supports the recommendations of the

Access to Student Record Information Team, where appropriate, including an

interface that will support electronic data interchange.

5. Clarify the distinction between, and determine the need for official and unofficial

transcripts, certificates of attendance, letters of verification and diplomas.

6. Provide transcripts (and other documents which reflect students’ academic

records) in a manner which enhances the relationship between the students and

alumni/ae and the divisions and the University.

7. University transcripts should be made available in convenient locations, either

faculty, school, campus, or University office.

B) Constraints

In the determination of the re-design, the Executive Steering Committee also

established the following constraints.



1. The currency and accuracy of student academic records, and the authority to

release them for inclusion in the University transcript will be the responsibility of

the respective faculty, school or campus.

2. The completeness and authenticity of the consolidated University transcript and

the determination of the organizational structures for issuing and distributing the

transcript shall be the responsibility of the University.

3. Integrity and security of data must be maintained.

4. Initial implementation should be focused on instances where electronic data is

available.

5. The new process should relate to the output of student record data only (i.e.

grading practices and degree assessment are not considered part of this business

process).

In effect, the team was also constrained by the recommendations of the three

previous business process re-engineering teams for the Student Record System project

(with particular attention to the recommendations made by Access to Student

Record Information BPR team).

C) SRS Vision

The team was also guided by the established Vision for the new Student Record

System project.

1. The New SRS will be a fully functional and integrated system that enhances the

ability of academic and administrative divisions to provide services of exceptional

value to students.

2. The system will encourage the adoption of streamlining and best practices in

administrative procedures. The system will be built on solid and flexible

technology that will support the highly changing, multidisciplinary nature of the

University environment.

D) Team Goals

Finally, the team set the following goal for its work.

The goal of the Transcripts BPR Team is to design a documents production and

issuance process that will:

1. enhance students’ ability to achieve their academic and career goals;



2. represent a bold and revolutionary improvement to how students’ academic

participation is captured and reflected;

and

3. support the University’s mission and enhance our institutional image and

reputation.

E) Focus

During its work, the team approached the re-design with a definite and determined

client focus. Institutional and administrative needs were considered and had an

important impact on the re-design. Ultimately, however, clients’ needs dominated the

rationale in support of the new design. In all cases, client need and convenience were

the most important assessment criteria for the development and verification of all

elements of the new design.

1.3 Overview of the Re-Design Process

The team began its work on October 14, 1997, and continued until the end of January

1998 in Room 23 at Convocation Hall. Except for one week in November, the December

break, and the final two weeks of the project, the team worked on the project from

Monday to Thursday each week.

The team followed a six step “Business Process Re-engineering” (BPR) methodology

adapted for our use by John Marrazzo and his associates Kevin Ciotta and Margaret

Acquaviva Bell.2

BPR is an approach that allows the team to identify existing processes,

analyze how they work, then re-design them from the ground up using best practices.

The team analyzed the current processes, determined the most appropriate and effective

methods of accomplishing the various tasks, and based the re-design on these methods.

A) Mapping the Current Process

The initial phase of the team’s work was an exercise in understanding the current

processes related to the production of transcripts and other documents that reflect

students’ academic records (e.g. letters of verification of attendance). A detailed

understanding of each process was obtained by defining the inputs and outputs

related to the process, mapping each step, and noting at each step whether forms or

approvals were required, which departments were involved, and recording when

information became available to a client. In addition, the team considered whether or

not the process functioned successfully in terms of service, client feedback, cost of

output, the time for each step to be completed (and backlogs), duplication, delivery of

output and other information made available to the team. The team also listed in

2

The same methodology was used in each of the previous SRS BPR projects.



detail the various fields of student record data which are included on transcripts by

each division of the University. Section 2 (Current Process on page 8) of this report

details the current practices for the request, production and issuance of transcripts and

other documents at the University of Toronto.

B) Brainstorming

During brainstorming, a comprehensive list of all possible options for requesting,

producing and issuing transcripts and other documents was established that might

play a role in the re-design of the processes. At this stage, the aim was to develop a list

of options that the team would explore (exhaustive evaluation and developing a

detailed understanding of the feasibility of the various options was undertaken during

the “re-design” phase of the project). Technologies that the University and clients

could adopt in order to request information and technologies that could be utilized to

deliver information were discussed. Section 4 (see The New Design on page 27) of this

report provides detail on the options that eventually became part of the team’s re-

design. While not all of the options considered are discussed in Section 4, some

significant options, which were not favoured by the team, are analyzed in the text.

C) External Research

The team examined many technologies and processes (related to document request,

production and issuance) used at other institutions, agencies and companies. Section 3

(see Research on page 24) details the team’s findings. The team also examined

transcripts from several dozen North American universities.

D) Re-Design

Based upon the research findings and a set of principles and assumptions developed by

the team, four main components formed the basis of the new design. Several

objective and analytical tools were used to assist the team in determining the best

options for both the clients and the University. Section 4 (see The New Design on

page 27) of this report provides details of the team’s re-design.

E) Walkthrough and Verification

During this period, the team conducted approximately 30 interviews involving over

50 individuals (including administrative staff and faculty, transcript recipients at

other institutions and employers) to determine the accuracy of the initial mapping of

current processes and to test the effectiveness and acceptability of the new processes

as they were designed by the team. The list of walkthrough interviews is included in

Appendix 7.1 on page 63.

In addition to the input provided by the student member of the team, the team

surveyed approximately 250 students to determine the needs of clients with respect to



documents and to test effectiveness and acceptability of the re-designed processes (see

Appendix 7.6 on page 68).

The team also consulted a number of other organizations as end-users of transcripts

and/or other information about students. These organizations provided important

insight about the information and student record data about which they are

interested. See Appendix 7.3 on page 64 for a list of these organizations.

This stage confirmed for the team that they had a sound understanding of the

processes and that the re-design, as it was proposed at this point, was realistic, feasible

and necessary.

F) Development of Team Report and Recommendations

The development of this report and the team recommendations began early in the re-

design phase. As the team progressed through the walkthrough and verification

phase, the report and the recommendations were affirmed or revised to reflect the

additional information gathered.

1.4 Definitions

In this report, the following abbreviations and terms are used.

SRS The University’s Student Record System. When applicable,

current SRS refers to the existing IMS database, and

replacement SRS or new SRS refers to the new system

which is currently in development.

PRS The University’s “Permanent Record System.” An electronic

system first introduced in the late 1980s and used by

Applied Science & Engineering, Arts & Science, the School

of Graduate Studies, and the University of Toronto at

Scarborough to maintain student records and to request,

produce and issue transcripts.

Web World Wide Web.

IVR/STS An Integrated Voice Response system including the

University’s Student Telephone Service.

BPR Business Process Re-engineering (the methodology by

which the team conducted its work).

Transcript An electronic or paper document which summarizes a

student’s (total) academic participation (including grades)

at the University and other relevant data (e.g. transfer



credits, etc.). At present, each academic division of the

University of Toronto is responsible for the production and

issuance of transcripts for students with current or previous

registrations in that division. Currently, transcripts reflect

participation only in the division which produces the

document.

Verification Letter An electronic or paper document which provides

information about a student’s academic participation or

other student record data. Verification letters are normally

less detailed than transcripts and often include information

which is available to the public. The University also

completes many types of forms (prepared by outside

agencies) which, more or less, provide similar information.

Certificate of Degree A document produced by the University which confirms

conferral of a degree.

Authenticity The University’s guarantee that a document is a true

reflection of student record information and assurance that

the document and/or data has not been altered or tampered

with.

Statement of Results The document issued to students at the end of each

academic session reporting grades and other academic

results for that session (sometimes referred to as “grade

report”).

1.5 Clients

A “client” with respect to this business process refers to any person that requires

verification for a third party (an “end-user” – see below) of his or her participation at the

University of Toronto, academic results (including degree conferral), or other student

record data. Clients include currently registered students, former students and alumni/ae

(including graduates).

1.6 End-Users

An “end-user” refers to a person and/or organization which requires a “client” to provide

verification of his or her participation at the University, academic results, or other student

record data. At present, the University prepares transcripts and other documents, on

behalf of clients, for a diverse group of end-users including employers, academic

institutions, certification boards, government agencies, etc. The University of Toronto,

itself, is also an end-user of transcripts and documents prepared by the University (for a

variety of purposes including admissions, academic evaluation, program and degree

assessment and awarding scholarships).



2. Current Process

The team discovered that the process followed a

similar pattern across the University

2.1 Overview

he team investigated the transcript/letter processes

currently used by the academic divisions of the

University. Depending on the type of document

needed, some requests were very simple and could be

issued without a great deal of interpretation of the data on

the record, while, at present, other versions of the

document require the special knowledge available only in

divisions.

In order to ascertain how document production was

handled in other divisions, team members conducted

interviews on the telephone or in person with those

divisions issuing transcripts who were not represented by

the BPR team membership. A summary of the transcript

process across divisions was compiled and is presented in

the following table.

2.2 The Current Process

Although there was some degree of variation among the

divisions, the team discovered that the transcript/letter

process followed a similar pattern across the University.

A) Step 1: Information

This is the step where information about how to order

a transcript/letter is given to the client. Information is

currently available in calendars, in some cases, on the

Internet, and from the divisional and home offices.

Figure 2-A – Transcriptsand Documents Process

Step 1

PPPPrrrroooovvvviiiiddddeeee IIIInnnnffffoooorrrrmmmmaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

AAAAbbbboooouuuutttt tttthhhheeee PPPPrrrroooocccceeeessssssss

Step 2

EEEEnnnntttteeeerrrr RRRReeeeqqqquuuueeeesssstttt

Step 3

VVVVeeeerrrriiiiffffyyyy IIIInnnnffffoooorrrrmmmmaaaattttiiiioooonnnn aaaannnndddd////oooorrrr

DDDDaaaattttaaaa

Step 4

PPPPrrrroooodddduuuucccceeee DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnntttt

Step 5

IIIIssssssssuuuueeee DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnntttt

((((SSSSeeeennnndddd////PPPPiiiicccckkkk uuuupppp))))

Step 6

IIIInnnnffffoooorrrrmmmmaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

((((IIIInnnntttteeeerrrrpppprrrreeeettttaaaattttiiiioooonnnn))))

T



B) Step 2: Request

In order to receive a transcript/letter the client must make a request. Requests may be

made at divisional or home offices, depending on the nature of the document

specified. For most divisions, these requests are made by completing a form. For some

types of documents this involves the use of a multi-copy form, while for simple

letters, a single sheet is often used.

C) Step 3: Verification of Request and Student Record Data

Personnel in the divisional offices check the request for a number of different factors

including the following:

1. that the client has provided the correct personal information so that the correct

record will be retrieved;

2. that the information provided will ensure that the correct letter will be issued;

3. that the timing of the issuance of the letter/transcript will be correct (e.g. after

grades are available or after degree conferral);

4. that the request has the appropriate signature or authorization;

and,

5. that the request has been submitted to the appropriate office.

D) Step 4: Production

All academic divisions produce transcripts. Some divisions use a computer generated

record in the Permanent Record System (PRS)3

; by photocopying cards to which

sessional results labels have been affixed, or a combination of both, depending on

either the date of first registration or the most recent registrations. Some divisions

also have records on microfilm and microfiche, and produce transcripts for divisions

which no longer exist. It is at this stage that transcripts are “sealed” (if appropriate),

marked “Issued to Student”, etc. Finally, some divisions, including Medicine and Law,

maintain their own student record database from which transcripts are produced on-

site.

Another verification is made of the transcript as it relates to the request, i.e. has the

correct record been retrieved, does the typed address on the PRS transcript match the

address on the request, have the correct number of copies been produced, has the

transcript been produced at the correct time according to the request, is the

3

Applied Science & Engineering, Arts & Science, University of Toronto at Scarborough, and the School of

Graduate Studies



information on the record up-to-date and complete, have all pages of the record been

produced, are the pages complete (i.e. does “Continued on Following Page” or “End of

Transcript” appear at the end of the data on each page of a PRS transcript?).

E) Step 5: Distribution/Issuance (Send/Pick Up)

In addition to mailing documents, divisions enable clients to pick up their

documents. Depending on the type of document, this may mean they are marked

“Issued to Student”, “Copy”, etc.; or, if the document has an ultimate destination

other than the student, the document and the envelope may be treated in such a way

as to inhibit tampering with the contents of the envelope.

F) Step 6: Information

An explanation of the document is provided by the division. This may be explained in

the contents of a letter, or, in the case of a transcript, in a guide to the terms and

symbols used on the record. Occasionally, additional interpretation is provided over

the phone or in person (usually initiated by an end-user).

Table 2-A – Current Process

Step Components Examples of D ivisional Variation(s)

1 Information Information is distributed via phone *, printed

materials *, end-users, word of mouth,

information officers *, Web site *, email,

instructor s, etc. Some students do not know

how to find the info rmation.

Client indicates desired timing of release.

The process is driven by end- users’ needs.

Clients must meet those needs by finding the

correct and accurate information. Clients

sometimes assume that they require

transcripts when other documentation will

satisfy the need(s) of end-users.

(* University has a reasonable assurance of accuracy of this form

of information dissemination )

2 Request Requests are submitted on forms, letters, via

fax, email, and phone *

Authorization ( PIN, student number, and/or

signature ) and consent are required for

issuance.

Payment of transcript fee is usually by cash or

cheque. Some divisions will release transcripts

prior to payment.

Request stage can be very labour intensive

(open ing and processing written request ,

double check ing accuracy and legibility).

Many clients request v erification of issuance.

Time required for this stage is highly variable.

Some transcript requests arrive requiring

completion of other forms (at no additional

charge).

(* in cases of urgent need — requires immediate follow-up with

signature).

General : In some divisions, f orms are available after hours. Letters

requesting transcripts may be transcribed to forms.

A rts & Science : Conditions of release are printed on back of request

form. Forms have pre-printed order numbers. No concern over missing

order numbers.

Applied Science & Engineering : Requests are numbered manually.

Sorted to pre and post PRS.

Nursing : Prepares a list of all students expected to graduate in October.

In March, the Faculty sends back list for revisions. In June , the final list of

graduates is prepared.

OISE/UT (undergraduate) : Student identifies the sessions in which he or

she has been enrolled .




3 Verification Determine type of record (IMS/PRS ,

computer microfilm, microfiche, card

records ).

Determine if data located on more than one

type of medium.

Verify that record is complete.

Determine whether client has made request

at the right location.

Determine timing of release — immediate, end

of session , upon degree conferral, etc.

For old (non-electronic) records, determine if

name and other data is current.

Check for financial holds, etc. (PRS or manual)

General : There may be different personnel assigned to handling Pre- and

post- computerized records

Most divisions exercise some discretion as to what holds are waived

(residence and tuition fees owing). Some divisions will issue transcripts if

total owed to the University is under $100.

Applied Science & Engineering : Immediate verification for financial holds

— (except library fines) . Any account over $2 is flagged.

Medicine : not on IMS. Card records (pre 1978) or computerized system

School of Graduate Studies : Check on holds and incompleteness before

loading requests . Data is uploaded from IMS to PRS 3 times a year. Mid-

June, mid-Feb ruary, and mid-October. Manual additions at other times

(labour intensive). Fall statements issued in mid-Feb ruary, full year

statement issued in mid-June. Grades that come in late go on next

regular statement. Summer grades and amended grades are issued on

the October statement.

Arts & Science : relies on error reports (for PRS processing/printing) for

financial holds, academic holds, no record match, incomplete records.

(It is less labour intensive to wait for error reports than to check records

while requests are loaded). Arts & Science will issue up to two transcripts

without immediate payment. However, failure to pay results in no

issuance of transcripts in future without prepayment.

Phys ical & Health Ed ucation (and several other divisions) : must manually

recalculate averages in the case of amend ed grades — no automatic

procedure, no procedure to produce a new label for record cards.

4a Select Data Data printed on transcripts may include a

variety of information. There is great variation

in practice across the University. (See Section

2.3)

Arts & Science : If a grade is amended the student must inform the

Faculty and request re-issuance of transcripts .

Applied Science & Engineering : Amended grades are marked with an

asterisk. New transcript generated when a mark is re- assessed.

Music : Transcript includes specialties ( instrument, etc.)

Nursing : Notification of graduation typed on after degree is conferred.

Some certification boards require very detailed information about

participation in hospital rotations (number of beds, hours, etc.) .

Scarborough : When a student is writing a deferred exam, a temporary

grade is recorded. After the exam, the grade is amended manually and a

note is added indicating that the student has written a deferred exam.

Exchange programs are recorded manually.

Physical & Health Education : no updated labels — use whiteout and do

manual recalculation.

4b P roduction Retrieve record or load request . Transcripts are

usually produced by the PRS (overnight, in

batch), photocopied from old record s, or

produced by a local database.

Some end-users require different forms of

authenticity (seals, signature, special

envelopes, special treatment of envelopes

etc.).

Once the transcript is printed, each output is

matched to the transcript.

Divisions using the PRS are able to load

common recipient addresses by code.

Some divisions produce transcripts on-site.

Divisions using the PRS use the existing

central production facility (except

Scarborough).

Arts & Science : Uses PRS, cards, etc. Will print rush requests on-site.

Offers regular same day services (in by 11:00 a.m. / out by 2:00 p.m.)

during non-peak periods.

Woodsworth : Photocopy cards (s tick on labels for each session) . Type

recipient ’s address on envelope .

Applied Science & Engineering : Order number entered manually.

Medicine : Separate MD and post graduate medicine transcript s.

Transcripts are printed from a local database.

Law : Transcripts are printed from a local database.

Scarborough : Prints PRS transcripts locally .

School of Graduate Studies : Does not show that degree requirements

have been met. Another office produces that statement, if desired. SGS

issues graduate transcripts for OISE /UT.

Theology : Each college handles its own transcript production and

issuance . Transcripts are signed by college officers. ‘Degree conferred ’ is

added manually.

Nursing : Final labels are placed on top of interim labels.

OISE/UT (undergraduate) : Separate transcripts are issued for additional

qualifications.




4c Authentication One or more of the following authentication

devices may be used: embossed seal,

signature (manual or printed), special paper.

Some documents may be marked “original”,

“issued to student ”, etc.

Envelopes may be stamped, sealed, or signed

depending upon client/end-user need.

A signature/sealing machine may be used for

transcript and/or envelope.

Applied Science & Engineering : Do not currently initial documents after

putting on seal.

Medicine : no ‘issued to student ’ stamp.

Phys ical & Health Ed ucation : transcript to students has ‘copy ’ printed on

it, no seal. Official transcript has ‘original ’ printed on it, envelope has

sticky seal on flap. No embossing or signature on transcript or envelope.

5 Send / P ick Up Transcripts are mailed, picked up, or sent by

courier *.

Some divisions use TNT Mailfast if destination

is out of country. TNT is less expensive and

faster than Canada Post.

Some end-users want to receive a fax followed

by mail delivery. Some are happy with only a

fax. Hard copies are sometimes sent even if

not required .

Divisions usually know the requirements of

their common end-users.

(* Generally, if the client wants the transcript to be sent via

courier, he or she must make the arrangements.)

PRS Users : Pick up transcripts from PRS production facility and seal

documents at the division. Scarborough prints their own PRS

transcripts.

School of Graduate Studies : Clients picking up transcripts sign a book

and show authorization.

Arts & Science : Sends bulk packages of transcripts to common

recipients .

Nursing : Attaches a confirmation note with transcripts which details

who ordered them, when and to whom they were issued.

6 End-user

Interpretation

End-users sometimes want explanations —

missing data, interpretation of data,

explanations of some notations, value of

degree (3 year vs. 4 year, etc.), status of

student, and comparisons to other

institutions.

An explanatory “ guide” is usually printed on

the back of transcript or attached .

End-user c omprehension depends on division (special understanding of

types of data), thoroughness of the “guide” , etc.

2.3 Transcript Data

Transcript samples were obtained from each division and team members conducted

interviews with divisional registrars. A careful scrutiny was made of these transcripts in

order to summarize specific information recorded on each divisional transcript. Although

many fields were common to a number of divisional transcripts, there were some

significant differences. A table was developed in order to compare the similarities and

differences (see page Table 2-B on page 17).

An explanation of the fields on the table follows.

A) Admission

AAAAddddmmmmiiiitttttttteeeedddd FFFFrrrroooommmm indicates the basis of admission to the division (e.g.

admitted from OAC) and/or previous education

AAAAddddmmmmiiiitttttttteeeedddd TTTToooo indicates the program of study to which the student has

been admitted (e.g. admitted to a Doctor of Philosophy

Program in the Department of Geography)

AAAAddddmmmmiiiitttt DDDDaaaatttteeee is the session or specific start date of the session (i.e.

month and year) to which the student was admitted



B) Transfer Credit and Credit Elsewhere

AAAA

dddd

mmmm

iiiissssssssiiiioooo

nnnn

NNNN

oooo

ttttaaaattttiiiioooo

nnnn

includes the specific transfer credit awarded and the

institution from which that credit was awarded

CCCC

oooo

nnnn

ccccuuuu

rrrrrrrreeeennnn

tttt SSSSttttuuuu

dddd

iiiieeeessss includes transfer credit for work completed elsewhere/at

another institution while the student was registered in the

division (e.g. Study Elsewhere Program, letters of

permission, Professional Experience Year)

VVVV

iiiissssiiiittttiiiinnnn

gggg

////SSSSpppp

eeeecccciiiiaaaallll SSSSttttuuuu

dddd

eeeennnn

ttttssss who first register as non-degree students but become

degree students and may receive transfer credit for some

or all of their earlier work in the division

C) Individual Grade

AAAA

llllpppp

hhhh

aaaa GGGG

rrrraaaadddd

eeee

refers to final alphabetical grade earned by the student in a

specific course (e.g. B+)

%%%% ((((1111----111100000000)))) refers to the final mark earned by the student in a specific

course expressed as a percentage

PPPPaaaassssssss////FFFFaaaaiiiillll or CCCCrrrreeeeddddiiiitttt////NNNNoooonnnn----CCCCrrrreeeeddddiiiitttt refers to courses offered by the division for which students

do not receive a specific mark or grade, but merely

pass/fail or credit/non-credit

NNNNoooonnnn----GGGGrrrraaaaddddeeee refers to the use by the division of non-numeric and non-

alphabetical course results (e.g. incomplete — INC,

standing deferred — SDF, withdrawn — WDR)

MMMMiiiisssscccceeeellllllllaaaannnneeeeoooouuuussss notes are used to indicate special situations, particularly

supplemental examinations

D) Individual Average

SSSSGGGGPPPPAAAA is the sessional grade point average for the student, based

on a 4.3 scale

CCCCGGGGPPPPAAAA is the cumulative grade point average for the student,

based on a 4.3 scale

SSSS----%%%% ((((1111----111100000000)))) is the sessional average of the student, expressed as a

percentage

CCCC----%%%% ((((1111----111100000000)))) is the cumulative average of the student, expressed as a

percentage

SSSS----AAAAllllpppphhhhaaaa AAAAvvvveeeerrrraaaaggggeeee is the sessional average of the student, expressed as an

alphabetical result

CCCC----AAAAllllpppphhhhaaaa AAAAvvvveeeerrrraaaaggggeeee is the cumulative average of the student, expressed as an

alphabetical result

AAAAllllpppphhhhaaaa CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeee GGGGrrrroooouuuupppp AAAAvvvveeeerrrraaaaggggeeee refers to the grouping of courses into specific areas (e.g.

activity average, academic average) and determining an

alphabetical average grade for these courses



%%%%

((((1111

----1111

0000

0000

)))) CCCC

oooo

uuuu

rrrrsssseeee GGGG

rrrroooo

uuuu

pppp

AAAA

vvvveeeerrrraaaagggg

eeee refers to the grouping of courses into specific areas (as

above) and determining a percentage average for these

courses

E) Course Average

AAAA

llllpppp

hhhh

aaaa GGGG

rrrraaaadddd

eeee

refers to the average grade for the course (not class or

section) given as an alphabetical grade (e.g. B-)

%%%%

((((1111

----1111

0000

0000

))))

refers to the average for the course (not class or section)

expressed as a percentage

F) Course Information

CCCC

oooo

dddd

eeee ((((WWWW

eeeeiiiigggg

hhhh

tttt,,,, TTTTeeeerrrrmmmm

)))) refers to the departmental designator, number, and suffix

indicating weight/term of the course (e.g. ANT100Y)

TTTTiiiittttlllleeee refers to the descriptive course title, often limited to

twenty characters

CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeee SSSSiiiizzzzeeee refers to the total number of students enrolled in the

course (i.e. not the specific section in which the student is

enrolled)

LLLLeeeeccccttttuuuurrrreeee HHHHoooouuuurrrrssss refers to the number of hours of lectures in the course

LLLLaaaabbbb HHHHoooouuuurrrrssss refers to the number of laboratory hours in the course

WWWWeeeeiiiigggghhhhtttt refers to a field (separate from the course suffix) indicating

the weight/number of units of the course

IIIInnnnssssttttrrrruuuuccccttttoooorrrr ’ssss NNNNaaaammmmeeee indicates if the instructor of the course is identified on the

transcript

CCCCaaaammmmppppuuuussss indicates that the campus on which the course was taken

has been noted

FFFFuuuunnnnccccttttiiiioooonnnn CCCCooooddddeeee refers to an additional notation which may appear beside a

course which explains its relationship to the student’s

program (e.g. extra — XTR or X)

OOOOtttthhhheeeerrrr DDDDeeeeggggrrrreeeeeeee RRRReeeeqqqquuuuiiiirrrreeeemmmmeeeennnnttttssss refers to notes which may be included on a record to

indicate the completion of other non-course aspects of the

requirements (e.g. language requirement)

G) End of Session Data

RRRRaaaannnnkkkk refers to the academic rank of the individual student in

relation to other students in the program

SSSSttttaaaannnnddddiiiinnnngggg////SSSSttttaaaattttuuuussss refers to the student’ s status based on academic

performance at the end of a session (e.g. On Probation)

SSSSeeeessssssssiiiioooonnnnaaaallll CCCCrrrreeeeddddiiiittttssss indicates the number of credits taken/passed in the session



FFFFuuuu

llllllll----ttttiiiimmmm

eeee////PPPPaaaarrrrtttt----ttttiiiimmmm

eeee refers to the specific mention of the full-time or part-time

status of the student

H) Degree Information

RRRReeeeqqqq

uuuu

iiiirrrreeeemmmm

eeeennnn

ttttssss MMMM

eeeetttt is a specific line on a transcript at the end of the sessional

results indicating that the degree requirements have been

met

DDDD

eeeegggg

rrrreeeeeeee CCCC

oooo

nnnn

ffffeeeerrrrrrrreeeedddd

is the line on the transcript which indicates the name of

the degree conferred

DDDD

aaaatttteeee CCCC

oooo

nnnn


refers to the line on the transcript which indicates the date

of degree conferral

DDDD

iiiissssttttiiiinnnn

ccccttttiiiioooo

nnnn

,,,, eeeettttcccc.... refers to specific academic recognition granted at the time

of graduation

TTTThhhheeeessssiiiissss TTTTiiiittttlllleeee is the title of the thesis completed by the student

TTTThhhheeeessssiiiissss SSSSuuuuppppeeeerrrrvvvviiiissssoooorrrr is the name of the faculty member who supervised the

student while preparing his or her thesis

I) Miscellaneous

SSSScccchhhhoooollllaaaarrrrsssshhhhiiiippppssss,,,, AAAAwwwwaaaarrrrddddssss,,,, DDDDeeeeaaaannnn’ssss LLLLiiiisssstttt,,,, eeeettttcccc.... refers to the notation of scholarships and academic awards

on the transcript

SSSSppppeeeecccciiiiaaaallll NNNNoooottttaaaattttiiiioooonnnnssss refers to the listing of participation in special programs,

joint programs, exchanges, work terms etc.

WWWWiiiitttthhhhddddrrrraaaawwwwaaaallll////TTTTeeeerrrrmmmmiiiinnnnaaaattttiiiioooonnnn refers to the notation of the date of withdrawal from a

session/program by a student

SSSSttttuuuuddddeeeennnntttt IIIIddddeeeennnnttttiiiiffffiiiiccccaaaattttiiiioooonnnn name and student number

OOOOtttthhhheeeerrrr PPPPeeeerrrrssssoooonnnnaaaallll DDDDaaaattttaaaa (current practice only) refers to the inclusion of other

personal data on the transcript, e.g. social insurance

number

J) Production Information

DDDDaaaatttteeee IIIIssssssssuuuueeeedddd is the date of the production of the transcript

OOOOrrrrddddeeeerrrr NNNNuuuummmmbbbbeeeerrrr is the number given to the transcript order for PRS

transcripts

SSSSiiiiggggnnnnaaaattttuuuurrrreeee refers to a full signature of a divisional officer on the

transcript

SSSSeeeeaaaallll is the embossed or printed seal of the division

SSSSppppeeeecccciiiiaaaallll PPPPaaaappppeeeerrrr////LLLLeeeetttttttteeeerrrrhhhheeeeaaaadddd indicates whether special paper is used by the division in

the production of a transcript



NNNN

uuuu

mmmm

bbbb

eeeerrrr oooo

ffff PPPPaaaagggg

eeeessss refers to the notation on the transcript of the total number

of pages in the transcript

DDDD

iiiissssttttrrrriiiibbbb

uuuu

ttttiiiioooo

nnnn

MMMM

eeeetttthhhh

oooo

dddd

refers to the “mail” and “pick up” codes (P, M) used on

PRS transcripts

EEEEnnnn

dddd

oooo

ffff TTTTrrrraaaannnn

ssssccccrrrriiiipppp

tttt

line refers to a line at the bottom on the transcript data

indicating that the record ends at that point

CCCC

oooo

nnnn

ttttiiiinnnn

uuuu

eeeedddd

oooo

nnnn

FFFFoooo

lllllllloooo

wwww

iiiinnnn

gggg

PPPPaaaagggg

eeee line refers to a line at the bottom of the transcript data on

any page of a PRS transcript that is not the final page of

the transcript.

IIIIssssssssuuuu

eeeedddd

TTTToooo

is the field for the recipient of the transcript

OOOO

ffffffffiiiicccciiiiaaaallll////OOOO

rrrriiiigggg

iiiinnnn

aaaallll refers to the practice of marking the transcript with a

stamp

DDDDeeeeffffiiiinnnniiiittttiiiioooonnnn ooooffff OOOOffffffffiiiicccciiiiaaaallll refers to a note on the transcript itself as to what is an

official transcript

GGGGuuuuiiiiddddeeee refers to an explanation as to how to interpret the

transcript (i.e. a legend)

“IIIIssssssssuuuueeeedddd ttttoooo SSSSttttuuuuddddeeeennnntttt” ((((oooonnnn ttttrrrraaaannnnssssccccrrrriiiipppptttt)))) refers to when transcripts are so stamped when they are

sent or given to the students and are not in special security

envelopes

SSSSppppeeeecccciiiiaaaallll TTTTrrrreeeeaaaattttmmmmeeeennnntttt ooooffff EEEEnnnnvvvveeeellllooooppppeeee refers to special steps taken with the envelope to prevent

the contents from being altered



Table 2-B – Transcript Data

A

R

T

S

&

S

C

I

E

N

C

E

E

N

G

I

N

E

E

R

I

N

G

G

R

A

D

U

A

T

E

S

T

U

D

I

E

S

M

E

D

I

C

I

N

E

N

U

R

S

I

N

G

W

O

O

D

S

W

O

R

T

H

P

I

P

4

L

A

W

A

R

C

H

I

T

E

C

T

U

R

E

D

E

N

T

I

S

T

R

Y

O

I

S

E

/

U

T

5

M

U

S

I

C

O

C

C

U

P

A

T

I

O

N

A

L

T

H

E

R

A

P

Y

P

H

A

R

M

A

C

Y

P

H

Y

S

I

C

A

L

&

H

E

A

L

T

H

P

H

Y

S

I

C

A

L

T

H

E

R

A

P

Y

S

C

A

R

B

O

R

O

U

G

H

T

H

E

O

L

O

G

Y

ADMISSION

Admitted From ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Admitted To ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Admit Date ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

TRANSFER CREDIT & CREDIT ELSEWHERE

Admission Notation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

C oncurrent S tudies ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Visiting /Special S tudents ✓ ✓ ✓

COURSE AVERAGE

Alpha Grade ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

% (1-100) ✓

INDIVIDUAL GRADE

Alpha Grade ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

% (1-100) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Pass/Fail or Credit/Non-Credit ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Non-G rade ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Miscellaneous ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

INDIVIDUAL AVERAGE

SGPA ✓ ✓ ✓

CGPA ✓ ✓ ✓

S-% (1-100) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

C-% (1-100) ✓ ✓

S-Alpha Average ✓

C-Alpha Average ✓

Alpha Course Group Average ✓ ✓ ✓

% (1-100) Course Group Average ✓ ✓ ✓

COURSE INFO

Code (Weight, Term) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Title ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Course Size ✓ ✓

Lecture H ours ✓

Lab Hours ✓

Weight ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Instructor’ s Name ✓

C ampus ✓ ✓

Function Code ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Other Degree Requirements ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

4

Professional and International Programs

5

Undergraduate Education



A

R

T

S

&

S

C

I

E

N

C

E

E

N

G

I

N

E

E

R

I

N

G

G

R

A

D

U

A

T

E

S

T

U

D

I

E

S

M

E

D

I

C

I

N

E

N

U

R

S

I

N

G

W

O

O

D

S

W

O

R

T

H

P

I

P

6

L

A

W

A

R

C

H

I

T

E

C

T

U

R

E

D

E

N

T

I

S

T

R

Y

O

I

S

E

/

U

T

7

M

U

S

I

C

O

C

C

U

P

A

T

I

O

N

A

L

T

H

E

R

A

P

Y

P

H

A

R

M

A

C

Y

P

H

Y

S

I

C

A

L

&

H

E

A

L

T

H

P

H

Y

S

I

C

A

L

T

H

E

R

A

P

Y

S

C

A

R

B

O

R

O

U

G

H

T

H

E

O

L

O

G

Y

END OF SESSION DATA

Rank ✓ ✓✘

Standing / Status ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✙

✓

Sessional Credits ✓ ✓ ✓

Full-time/Part-time ✓

DEGREE INFO

Requirements Met ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Degree Conferred ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Date Conferred ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Detail (Specialist, Major/Minor, Program Name, etc.) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Distinction, etc. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Thesis Title ✓ ✓

Thesis Supervisor ✓ ✓

MISCELLANEOUS

Scholarships, Awards, Dean ’s List etc. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Special Notations ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Withdrawal/Termination ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✑✐

Student Identification ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Other Personal Data ✓ ✓ ✓

PRODUCTION INFORMATION

Date Issued ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Order Number ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Signature ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Seal ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Special Paper/Letterhead ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Number of Pages ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Distribution Method ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

End of Transcript ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Continued on Following Page ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Issued To ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Official/Original ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Definition of Official ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Guide ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Issued to Student/Copy (on transcript) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Special Treatment of Envelope ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

6


7


8

Upon Graduation

9

Only if Not Passed

10

Termination Only



2.4 Other Credentials and Documents

In addition to transcripts, the University provides a variety of documents for clients and

third parties.

Divisional offices and the Office of Statistics, Records and Convocation often receive

inquiries concerning clients and information about degree conferral. Other questions are

often put forward but may not be answered as the University’s policy on access to student

records is very specific about information available to third parties.

Clients themselves request a wide variety of letters. These include, but are not limited to

confirmation of dates of attendance, confirmation of current courses, confirmation of

degree conferral, confirmation of current registration, confirmation of full-time/part-time

status, statement of fees paid, confirmation of admission/acceptance into the program,

confirmation of withdrawal from a session, confirmation that the degree requirements

have been met, confirmation that a degree has been requested at the end of the current

session, confirmation that upon successful completion of current courses the degree

requirements will be met, etc. A list of the standard letters requested by clients from a

large undergraduate division appears in the Appendices (see Verification Letters on page

65).

Although many individual letters are written for clients, fewer than ten seem to be

requested frequently. Often these letters concern “public” information (i.e. dates of

attendance, name and date of degree conferred). The other letters in high demand

pertain to confirmation of full-time/part-time status, confirmation of current course

enrolments, confirmation that degree requirements have been completed/will have been

completed at the end of the session, and confirmation that a degree has been requested.

Frequently clients submit forms which must accompany the transcripts and are to be

completed by the division. These forms often require a summary of information already

provided on the transcript (e.g. degree, date of degree conferral, grade point averages,

etc.). In other cases, interpretation of the information on the record is required.

2.5 Fees

The team discovered that there are a number of different fee structures for transcripts and

verification letters at the University. While many divisions charge the standard $6.00 per

document (as set out in the University’s schedule of non-compulsory incidental fees),

some do not charge any fee (which is more common with the preparation of verification

letters than with the issuance of transcripts), others charge different fees and/or provide

discounts for additional copies.

The team also discovered that more or less similar documents could be obtained by clients

for free from some departments while other offices charge a fee (e.g. a Certificate of Degree

is provided free of cost by the Office of Statistics, Records & Convocation while a



“verification letter” including the same basic information prepared for the same student

by some divisions would not be free).

2.6 Analysis of the Current Process

A) Problems

About two hundred and fifty clients were surveyed (see Appendix 7.6 on page 68) in

connection with transcript/letter requests. (Unfortunately this survey was conducted

during the recent strike by Canada Post and, apart from just under a dozen individuals

who responded via electronic means, only those clients able to come in person could

be questioned.)

Although there was general satisfaction with the time required to process a transcript

request, some students believed that the time should be shorter than the usual two to

three days, and in some cases, that their transcripts should be produced on the spot,

while they waited. Other clients were concerned about the hours of operation and

wished that there were other means of requesting transcripts. Our surveys indicated

that students were interested in being able to request transcripts by fax, email,

telephone and over the Web, as well as in person.

In general, clients frequently raised concerns about two specific issues: the time it

takes for transcript production and the ordering process. Approximately a third of

respondents also made comments about the transcript fees.

Clients also wished for some changes as far as the method of payment for

transcripts/letters was concerned. While some divisions required that the fee for these

requests be paid in full in the form of cash, cheque or money order before issuance,

other divisions were more flexible. None, however, was able to offer all the methods

of payment suggested by our clients which included by credit card, over the Internet,

and by debit card, among others.

Many clients expressed a desire to receive confirmation of the sending of the

transcript. Clients frequently inquire as to whether or not a transcript request (which

has not been submitted in person) has been received, what date the transcript was

sent to various recipients, and/or if a transcript is ready to be picked up.

Some clients who have been registered in multiple divisions were confused about the

information on the transcript and assume that it included their entire record at the

University. Even where students move from one arts and science division to another

(e.g. from the University of Toronto at Scarborough, to the Faculty of Arts & Science),

two transcripts are required.



Figure 2-B – PRS Transcript

Figure 2-C – Local Database Transcript



As far as transcript production itself is concerned, the current system has many

difficulties, since most divisions do not have a fully computerized record system.

Divisions with records which are kept on cards to which adhesive labels with sessional

results are attached have many problems when it comes to producing a transcript.

Retrieving the record, photocopying it, stamping, sealing and then returning it to

files is a very labour-intensive process. The record itself deteriorates over time as the

glue discolours (making the reading of the copy more difficult) and dries out. If

changes have been made to the record (e.g. a mark is amended) frequently there are

several labels for the same session, or there will be “white-outs”/erasures on the record.

Information which is added to the record is not in the same type face as the original

labels and leads to an unattractive presentation of the record. Divisions using the

Permanent Record System for the production of their transcripts no longer face these

problems as a result of moving to an automated process.

Although the PRS has non-release indicators to prevent the release of transcripts for

students with financial obligations or incomplete records, these indicators are not

always used. Clients’ names are still being checked against a list of those individuals

with “holds” on their record.

Figure 2-D – Card Record/Label Transcript



B) What is Right with the Current Process

In order to ensure that the team retained desirable aspects of the current process in

the new design, a detailed understanding of the effective and useful features of the

process was undertaken.

Many clients indicated general satisfaction with the procedures in place to order

letters and transcripts. Most appreciated the ability of the division to show some

flexibility concerning the manner in which requests were received and payment

made. Although there was some concern about the processing time, clients generally

believed the time to be reasonable, particularly where divisions were able to

accommodate rush and on-the-spot orders.

Clients, including the end-users with whom the team had contact, believed there to

be a high level of accuracy currently exhibited on the transcripts. They appreciated

the steps taken by the University to ensure the authenticity of the document,

particularly as it applied to documentation to be enclosed with self-administered

applications. Our survey also elicited many positive comments about the staff at the

divisions involved in these procedures.



3. Research

External research provided the team with

confirmation that our design of a consolidated

transcript should focus on the needs of clients and

end-users, the University and the divisions

3.1 Other Institutions

fter reviewing the transcript process of divisions within the University of Toronto

the team looked at other post-secondary institutions in terms of: information

about ordering transcripts, including fee charges (if any) and method of payment;

transcript information/details; and transcript production (specifically, method of

delivery).

Canadian universities examined include Alberta, British Columbia, Concordia, Dalhousie,

Guelph, McGill, McMaster, Memorial, New Brunswick, Queen’s, Ryerson, Simon Fraser,

Waterloo, Western Ontario, Windsor, and York.

American universities examined include Arizona State†

, University of California (San

Diego), Columbia, Colorado, Delaware, Florida (ISIS), Harvard, Indiana, Maryland,

Michigan†

, Minnesota†

, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), University of

Pennsylvania, Rochester, Wisconsin, and Yale.

The team found that most institutions use the Web to disseminate information about

definitions of official vs. unofficial transcripts, holds and sanctions on release of

transcripts, fee charges, and instructions on how to order transcripts. Some institutions

provide a request form on the Web. Few institutions enable students to view their

transcripts. For security reasons, it was not possible to access information on actual

transcripts.

†

These institutions are considered “peer” institutions of the U of T.

A



In mapping the transcript process, the team found that our practices did not vary greatly

from other institutions. The team found that the consolidated transcript was an

established practice at many institutions including Delaware, McGill, Memorial,

Wisconsin, and Waterloo.

3.2 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), with respect to student record data, is a means by

which transcript information can be transmitted between institutions electronically.

In this province, the Ontario Universities Electronic Transcript Service (OUETS) makes

EDI transmissions possible through a number of the Ontario university application

centres. At present, however, only a handful of institutions are fully capable of sending

and receiving EDI transmissions. Some institutions will only send information in the EDI

format while other institutions will receive information only. The University of Toronto

has varying participation in EDI transmissions with respect to undergraduate admissions

processes.

Currently, the most prominent and popular EDI standard for transferring portions of a

student’s permanent academic record is SPEEDE ( S tandardization of P ost-Secondary

E ducation E lectronic D ata E xchange). Information in a student’s record that can be sent

by EDI ranges from verification of enrolment or registration to his or her course

inventory to the delivery of a transcript.

Some of the advantages that have been cited for using EDI are:

1. automatic computer transfer of information thus ensuring reliable and consistent

interpretation of student records;

2. cost-effective practices: savings in resources of paper, labour and postage;

3. faster transfer of student records;

and

4. better service to students in timing and delivery of relevant portions of students’

academic records.

The major steps involved in Electronic Data Interchange are:

1. extracting the data from the institution’s files;

2. translating the data into a common or standard format;

3. sending the data in acceptable forms of transmission (e.g. via File Transfer

Protocol (FTP) or by email via MIME);



and,

4. receiving the information by other institutions.

There are disadvantages to Electronic Data Interchange with its emphasis on a consistent,

standard and uniform translation of information into a universal and agreed-upon

format.

From an institutional perspective:

1. EDI will require a very high level of cooperation and consistency in grading

practices within the institution. It will also require an equally high level of

agreement and cooperation among post-secondary institutions in order to make

the practice a viable and effective means of transmitting student record data.

2. While EDI is an effective means of transmitting information, it limits the

institution’s control over the presentation of student record data.

3. The emerging reliance on the “self-administered application”11

process for some

post-secondary institutions (including the U of T) has placed new importance on

the production of hard copies of transcripts. Many academic end-users of

transcripts will be reluctant to accept one portion of an application on paper and

then retrieve transcript information in an additional step (which, in turn, could

disadvantage our students applying for admission at other institutions).

Notwithstanding these challenges, EDI is still relatively new and will undoubtedly figure

prominently in the future admissions processes carried out by post-secondary institutions

in North America. With this in mind, the team has made several recommendations

concerning institution to institution EDI in the re-design (see Electronic Data

Interchange (EDI) on page 45).

In particular, because the Applications BPR team recommended that the University

move towards the provision of an electronic application system, EDI transcripts will

undoubtedly become important piece of the online application system.

3.3 Kiosks

The team examined the establishment of “kiosks” on campus which, in a single step,

might handle the request, production and issuance of transcripts on the spot. In effect,

these kiosks would handle document requests and issuance in the same manner that an

automated teller machine (ATM) handles bank transactions. Although the team

continues to have an interest in pursuing this technology further, because of the cost of

developing such a system, the team does not have a specific recommendation.

11

A means by which an applicant is responsible for the gathering and submission of all documentation related

to an application for admission together in a single package.



4. The New Design

All documents produced by the University are

“official.” It is the authenticity of the document that

is critical to the University and our end-users.

4.1 The Foundation

A) The Report of the Commission on Grading

n part, the team was guided by the Report of the Commission on Grading. The team

acknowledged that an agreement with respect to grading scales and related

processes will facilitate the production of a “consolidated transcript.” Moreover, a

number of University community members told the team that it was their opinion

that an agreement on grading scales is necessary before a consolidated transcript can

be produced.

While a number of issues raised by the commission were important factors in

determining the new design, the team took specific direction from the commission’s

recommendations with respect to transcripts:

The commission endorses the proposal to provide a consolidated University transcript that

contains the results, including transfer credits granted, of all programs of study from within

the University of Toronto with which the student has been associated.12

The commission recommends that the “grade point average” be included on student

transcripts.13

The commission recommends that all divisions adopt the practice of including the average

grade for the course expressed using the refined letter grade scale, along with individual

student grades on transcripts. While the commission recommends that the calculations be

12

Recommendation #1.

13

Recommendation #3(iv)

I



restricted to courses of a specific size, it does not recommend that course size also be

displayed.14

The commission recommends that grade reports and transcripts include both the numeric

mark and its letter grade equivalent, where possible, for all courses.15

The commission recommends the adoption of a uniform system of assigning weight values to

courses and other academic units of study to be used by all divisions of the University. The

system adopted must allow for the relative values needed by all divisions. The commission

recommends that course weights for each course always be included on grade reports and

transcripts.16

The commission recommends that all divisions adopt a uniform practice of listing academic

honours, scholarships and awards sanctioned by the University on transcripts.17

B) Assumptions

In the course of working together, the team formulated the following working

assumptions (some of which are based upon end results and constraints approved by

the Executive Steering Committee):

1. It is the responsibility of the division, faculty, school or campus to ensure that

student record data is accurate and reflects all clients’ current standing.

2. Once data has been made available in the system (and after all necessary approvals

and related processes have ceased), academic results data is “frozen” in the system.

Subsequent changes in grading scales and program requirements do not

necessitate changes in historical data.

3. The “rules” (i.e. degree and program requirements) of the faculty, school or

campus have been captured in the SRS and are applied correctly and that these

rules and policies will be continually upgraded by the faculty, school or campus.

4. All student record data available in the system will be accurate and current.

5. The system design is sound and that the development of the system will take into

account the various divisional differences with respect to degree and/or program

requirements.

6. The system will be dependable and reliable with respect to the capture and output

of data.

14

Recommendation #4

15

Recommendation #6

16

Recommendation #7

17

Recommendation #8



7. The number of documents (transcripts and letters) produced by the University will

decrease dramatically. This assumption is based upon the following factors:

a) The need for verification letters and certificates of attendance will be reduced

by several elements of the team’s own re-design: publicly accessible

information (e.g. degree conferral) will be more readily accessible by end-users

on the Web (see Public Domain Information on page 35); and a new

“diploma card” will be issued to all graduates (see The “Diploma Card” on

page 35).

b) The need for hard copies of transcripts will be reduced for a number of reasons.

Students will have electronic access to their grades (see the Access to Student

Record Information BPR report) and may print unauthenticated copies of

transcripts on their own (see Unauthenticated Printing on page 42).

Students who choose to communicate with the University via Canada Post

(see the Access to Student Record Information BPR report) will receive the

“consolidated transcript” instead of a statement of results at the end of each

session (see the Collecting & Reporting Grades BPR report). University of

Toronto end-users (i.e. those processing applications from students currently

or previously enrolled at the University) will have access to an electronic

transcript in the re-design (see The “Electronic Transcript” for Internal End-

Users on page 43).

c) The consolidated transcript as designed by the team (see Physical Design &

Output on page 45) will decrease the total number of documents currently

produced by various divisions if a client has had multiple registrations (e.g. a

student that has been enrolled in Arts & Science, OISE/UT and then School of

Graduate Studies will require only one transcript instead of three).

C) Principles

The team also developed a set of principles upon which the design was based.

1. All documents produced by the University are “official.” It is the authenticity (see

Authenticity on page 30) of the document that is critical to the University and

our end-users.

2. It is the University’s duty to take reasonable precautions to assure that the

integrity and authenticity of documents produced by the University (including

any department or division) are protected.

3. The vast majority of our clients are honest and have integrity.

4. The organizational structure of the University should not hinder service to clients

and end-users.



5. The end-users’ needs drive the process. It is the needs of the end-user that

determine the layers of data reflected on the document requested by the client as

well as the method of delivery and the timing. End-users also determine the level

of authenticity required (e.g. while one end-user might be satisfied with an

unauthenticated transcript printed by a client, another might require a higher

level of authenticity).

6. There should be no need for paper exchange within the University itself. The

transactions within the new SRS should be easy to use, fast, convenient and secure

in order to encourage University end-users to access the information directly.

7. The “Document” (see The “Document” on page 33) can reflect only the currently

available academic data and status of the client. The system cannot anticipate

outcomes (e.g. the system cannot anticipate grades or predict that a student will

be “in good standing” at the end of the current session).

8. Clients (based upon the needs of end-users) decide whether or not a document

should be issued immediately, at the end of the current session, once grades are

available, or after degree conferral.

9. While processes that affect students’ “standing” result in the creation of student

record data, these processes are separate and independent from the process of

requesting, producing and issuing transcripts and letters.

10. An on-going collaboration and partnership between the academic divisions and

the central administration (including senior academic administrators, Student

Information Systems and the University Registrar) is essential to the success of the

re-design.

D) Authenticity

Many (if not all) end-users are concerned about authenticity of documents. End-users

need to be satisfied that a document is an accurate and complete representation of a

student’s academic record. End-users also want to be assured that the data printed on a

document produced by the University has not been tampered with.

After extensive research on our diverse group of end-users, it became evident that

several features of the document are essential to ensure authenticity.

These include:

♦ seals;

♦ signatures;



♦ special paper (or letterhead);

and,

♦ the means of delivery.

SSSSeeeeaaaallllssss

The University should maintain the current practice of placing a seal on transcripts

and other documentation verifying a client’s status and/or record. The majority of

end-users do not consider transcripts and other documents to be authentic without a

University of Toronto seal of some sort. End-users report that they feel that the seal

adds assurance that the document was indeed issued directly by the institution—

leaving little opportunity for tampering with the document or the data printed on it.

The team recommends that authenticated documents display a “printed seal”18

as

opposed to an “embossed seal” (which is currently used by various divisions within

the University of Toronto).

After evaluating approximately three dozen transcripts

from North American universities and colleges, the team

observed that some institutions’ transcripts include seals

which are actually part of the special transcript paper

while others include a message that indicates that “no seal

is required” on their transcripts. A growing number of

institutions, and a majority of those examined by the

team currently use a printed seal.

The team also noted that the embossed seals in use can

sometimes be difficult to see. A printed seal would be

easier to locate and identify on authenticated documents. Printed seals are less costly

and less of an impediment to the document production process.

The team recommends that the official University seal be printed only on documents

produced and issued through the institutional production facilities (see Institutional

Production Facilities on page 41).

SSSSiiiiggggnnnnaaaattttuuuurrrreeeessss

For many end-users, a signature of an appropriate University official on a transcript,

even one that is printed rather than original, is perceived to have great value with

respect to the authentication of record data. Various letters of confirmation also

require signatures.

18

The seal would be printed along with and at the same time as the document data.

Figure 4-A – Seal



The team recommends that documents produced in an institutional production

facility (see Institutional Production Facilities on page 41) include a printed

signature of one senior University officer (even though recipients of a transcript are

rarely in a position to confirm its authenticity).

The presence of a signature implies some legal authority and helps to reinforce the

perception that a senior administrator within the University has faith in the reliability

of the student record system and in the process of document production. While a

signature on a transcript does not make the document more difficult to falsify (given

modern scanning and printing technologies), it does make the consequences of

falsification more serious.

PPPPaaaappppeeeerrrr

The paper on which the document is printed is an indicator to end-users that a

document is authentic. It also can enhance the University’s image and reputation.

The team recommends that the paper adopted for production be tamper-proof (i.e. in

a way that assures end-users that the document has not been altered). As well, the

paper should be unique to the University and of high quality so as to allow for quick

recognition and identification by end-users. The paper should also help enhance the

image of the University.

The team noted that, when photocopied, the paper currently used by the PRS and a

number of other North American institutions reveal the word “copy” (in order to

indicate to the end-user that the document was not produced by the institution).

Some institutions use paper which reveals the word “void” when photocopied. At the

same time, the team noted that many end-users are happy to accept copies of

documents (even if they know that they are simple photocopies). With that in mind,

the team feels that the word “void” and/or “copy” appearing on a photocopied

document might disadvantage our students when an end-user is happy to accept

simple photocopies of documents.

While the team does not have a specific recommendation with respect to the practice

of producing “security” paper which reveals “copy” when photocopied, the team does

recommend that at no time should the word “void” be revealed on a photocopy of a

transcript. If “copy” is included, it should appear only once when photocopied.

MMMMeeeeaaaannnnssss ooooffff DDDDeeeelllliiiivvvveeeerrrryyyy

End-users can be satisfied that a document is authentic when it is sent to the end-user

directly by the University. Many academic end-users require this. In fact, many end-

users may accept a document printed on plain white paper without a seal or signature

if they are certain that the data has not been tampered with (i.e. the means of

delivery is secure).



When end-users prefer to receive credentials via the client (e.g. “self-administered

applications”), end-users can be satisfied that a document is authentic if there is

special treatment of the envelope (e.g. signatures, seals, and labels over the flap of an

envelope).

Electronic data interchange via a secure transmission mechanism is another method

to distribute record data in a way in which end-users can be satisfied that the data is

authentic and tamper-proof.

E) Data & Document Integrity

Because the academic divisions will continue to have responsibility for the data

concerning students registered in those divisions, data integrity continues to be a

responsibility of the divisions. The re-design of document request, production and

issuance is an entirely independent process.

The output of that data (whether it is done by an office within the University or the

client) is a simple matter of reflecting information which originates from a division

on a screen or printer. Document integrity, therefore, depends upon the divisions

maintaining accurate and up-to-date student record data.

However, for a variety of reasons, divisions may choose not to release particular

portions of a record and will continue to have authority to withhold data for output.

The team recommends that the SRS include a provision for divisions to “flag” student

record data for “non-release.” This might be a manual operation in less frequent cases

or an automatic operation in situations which are much more common.

4.2 The “Document”

After examining the various transcripts, verification letters, diplomas, certificates of

attendance and other documents issued by the University which reflect students’

participation and records, the team concluded that, in general, they are slightly different

forms of output of the same data.

While traditionally referred to as “transcripts” and “letters of verification”, the team

adopted the concept of the “document” as the product of the re-designed process. Each

document includes various “layers” of data:

A. Admission Information

B. Enrolment History (sessions and divisions)

C. Grades and Results

D. Degree Conferral



E. Program Detail

The document is merely a spectrum of student record data that includes a range of

information from simple confirmation of enrolment (at one end) to complete and

detailed academic results from all programs of study at the University (at the other end).

Any layer of detail in the document spectrum can be easily and efficiently produced. The

level of detail required on the document is determined by the end-user and requested by

the client.

Figure 4-B – The Document Spectrum

Public

Domain

Threshold

↓

Academic

Results

Threshold

↓Client Consent Not Required Release Requires Client Consent

Public Domain Information Enrolment Information Results Information

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑Sessional

enrolment

history

Diploma

card *

Diploma Certificate of

attendance,

confirmation

of degree

conferral

Fees

account

(expenses

incurred,

expected

expenses,

information

for visa

students)

List of

courses

taken and/or

courses in

progress

Misc.

enrolment

information

(e.g.

instructors,

thesis

supervisor)

Misc.

verification

letters

(e.g.

“student

has asked

to

graduate ”,

confirmation

of

enrolment

changes,

etc.)

“Traditional ”

U of T

divisional

transcript (no

information

on other

U of T

participa-

tion)

New

transcript

reporting

results

related to

participation

in one (or

more)

division(s)

with

minimal

detail about

other

divisional

participa-

tion *

New

consolidated

transcript

reporting

results

related to all

programs of

study in all

divisions *

All

student

record

data

* Proposed in the new design (see below)

4.3 Design Elements

There are four main components of the new design;

A. issuance of “Diploma Cards” to graduating students;

B. publishing public domain information;

C. request, production and issuance of documents;

and,

D. the “Electronic Transcript” for internal end-users



A) The “Diploma Card”

At present, the University issues a diploma (10

x 13 inches) to each graduate which has three

or four signatures and the embossed seal of the

University.

The Office of Statistics, Records and

Convocation also issues a “certification of

degree.” This is a 5.5 x 8.5 inch form issued to

graduates to confirm that a particular degree

was awarded. This form is embossed with the

Office seal and carries the signature of the

Director or Records Supervisor.

University graduates entering the United

States on temporary work assignments are

often required to provide immigration officials

with evidence of their academic qualifications.

People do not generally carry a diploma with

them, nor, without some foresight, will they

have a certification of degree.

The team recommends that the University

issue a wallet sized Diploma Card bearing the usual signatures and University seal on

the back. The card should be a good quality durable document which includes features

which make it difficult to produce counterfeit copies.19

The production and issuance of these documents should reduce requirements for

other academic documents such as transcripts and letters of confirmation.

B) Public Domain Information

The University of Toronto Policy on Access to Student Academic Records (1991) states,

“By the act of registration, a student gives implicit consent for a minimal amount of

information to be made freely available to all inquiries: the academic division(s),

degree program(s) and the session(s) in which a student is or has been registered,

degree(s) received and date(s) of convocation.”20

19

If there is concern over issuing a second “official” diploma to each graduate, a reasonable alternative would be

a wallet sized Certification of Degree (which could be produced in essentially the same format as the current

document).

20

Section 4(e) of the Policy on Access to Student Academic Records (1991)

Figure 4-C – Diploma CardMock-up

Front

Back



The Policy does not permit access by

others to lists of students registered in

a program nor to lists of students

enrolled in a course.

The team recommends that “public

domain” information be made

available on the World Wide Web in a

searchable database. If student name

and other relevant data (e.g. degree

conferred or year of graduation) were

entered in an online form, registration

and degree information should be

made freely available. (again, reducing

the need for particular individual

documents). It is acknowledged that,

in some cases, additional assistance

might be required to help end-users

determine the identity of individuals

with common names.

Notwithstanding the above, the team

has some hesitation or reluctance in

allowing enterprising inquirers using

Web access to compile lists of students

in particular disciplines such as Law or

Management. This also appears to be a

grey area in the Policy. Therefore, in

developing the online searchable database, the design should prevent the possibility

that the information could be exploited for inappropriate uses (e.g. it should not be

possible for a user to compile a complete list of graduates for a particular discipline

and/or year). The focus of an online search should be on a person, not a program or

year of study.

C) Request, Production & Issuance of Hard Copy Documents

RRRReeeeqqqquuuueeeessssttttiiiinnnngggg DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnnttttssss

The team recommends taking an “anytime-anywhere” approach to allowing clients to

request documents. Students and alumni should be able to make requests in person,

by mail, over the phone, via fax, via email, and through the World Wide Web.

Web Requests

In accordance with the recommendations made by the Access to Student Record

Information BPR Team, clients should be able to request any type of document via a

Figure 4-D – Online DegreeVerification Mock-up

m



Web interface. As the use of the

Internet grows, it is expected that

this may become the most utilized

method by which documents will be

ordered.

In this scenario, a client would

access the system via the Web and

enter his or her student number and

personal identification number (a

former student could use his or her

old student number and PIN if

remembered by them) to identify

himself or herself to the system. In

cases when these numbers are

forgotten, the system could ask for

the client’s name and birth date

and/or other verification data.

Once a client has successfully logged

on to the system, he or she would

be presented with a list of options

corresponding to the various types

of information that could be

included in the document. A set of

templates of commonly produced

documents (including traditional

transcripts and common verification

letters) should be available to assist

the client in determining which

layers of information are required by

the end-user for which the

document is being prepared.

Once the client has selected the type

of document to be produced, an

online rendering of the final output

should be displayed to the client.

The client should then have the

option of proceeding or going back

to change his or her options.

After the client has confirmed that

he or she has requested the right

type of document, the system

should ask the client for other

Figure 4-E – Web Request Mock-up

m

✄--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

m(Continued on Page 38)



relevant details concerning the

request.

The system should provide a table

or series of pop-up menus with

address information for common

recipients of documents. The client

should be able to select the recipient

of the document, or by means of a

postal code database search, the

system could assist the client in

entering the recipient data. Manual

entry of recipient information

should also be possible.

Having entered the recipient

information, the system should first

ask for the number of copies

required by this end-user and then

ask the client if there are other

recipients of the document in

question. If so, the system would

return the client to the recipient

data entry page.

For each recipient, the client should

have the choice of picking up the

document (in which case, the

document should be addressed to

the end-user care of the client21

) at

any one of the available pick up

locations (see below), sending the

document through the mail, or, at

an additional charge, sending the

document via courier.

The system should then provide the

client with the option of ordering other types of documents. If the client chooses to

do so, the system would bring the client back to the document options selection page.

Clients should also select the point in time that the document(s) should be sent (e.g.

immediately, after degree conferral, etc.). The system should be context sensitive to

the timing of requests and remind clients that there are certain pieces of information

that may be missing (e.g. grades for courses in progress, degree conferral, etc.).

21

Eliminating the need to indicate on these documents that it was “issued to student.”

Figure 4-E (Continued from Page 37)

m

m(Continued on Page 39)



In order to assist the University in

issuing documents to common end-

users, the system could recommend

to the client that he or she should

wait to have the document sent

along with batches of other

documents destined for particular

end-users on specific dates. The

client should always have the choice

of not taking this option.

The system should check the status

of the client’s fees account (in order

to confirm that there are no

financial holds) and provide the

client with the cost of producing

and sending the document(s) in the

same way as an online store sells

products.

If there is a financial hold on the

client’s account, he or she should be

given the option of clearing their

fees account by paying the balance

online with a credit card, cancelling

the order, or parking the order

pending payment. It is anticipated

that other Web-enabled access for

students to the SRS will provide

similar options for students to clear

debts when they log on to the

system (see the Access to Student

Record Information and Student

Accounts Receivable BPR reports).

Currently enrolled students should

be able to charge document requests

to their fees account (as

recommended by the Student

Accounts Receivable BPR Team) or

pay for the services online with a

credit card, bank debit card (or with

a campus “smart card” if one is introduced by the University). If it is desired, the

University could allow clients to pay by cash—in which case, the student would be

limited to the option of picking up the document at the Fees Department (the

Figure 4-E (Continued from Page 38)

✄--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

m



Student Accounts Receivable BPR Team also recommended that only the Fees

Department should be handling cash).

Former students (i.e. those who no longer have active fees accounts) would not have

the option of charging the fee to their account.

Once the payment is validated, the client should be presented with a confirmation of

the order along with a transaction number. The client should also receive an

automatic verification (via email or fax) that the document has been sent or is ready

for pick up. Clients should also have the option of logging back into the system to

check on the status of his or her order.

Online request systems must be available 24 hours a day.

In Person Requests

A client should be able to make a request for a document at any office which performs

registrarial functions at the University. The team recommends that a public access

computer running a Web browser should be available in as many of these locations as

possible in order to permit clients to load their own requests for documents. In cases

when a computer is not available or when a client is unable to use a computer,

registrarial staff should load the request for the client (preferably while the client is

present).

IVR (STS) Requests

Clients should be able to make a request for pick up or delivery to a common recipient

via the University’s Student Telephone Service. The request system on the STS should

be similar to the Web-enabled request system. However, because of the limitations of

the IVR technology, the client will likely have fewer options to choose from and

might be limited to pick up or delivery to a common recipient. The technology

currently in use by the University should be able to handle less complex requests for

documents made via IVR.

Fax, Email, Telephone and Mail Requests

The team recommends that one office be established to handle written, telephone

and email requests for documents. This would not preclude the possibility that any

office which performs registrarial functions could also handle these requests (if they

are sent directly to those offices). However, from a client perspective, it would be

preferable to have a single mailing address, telephone number, fax number and

electronic mail address (e.g. <[email protected]>) to which requests should be

sent.

This “credentials” office should not be required to prepare and distribute request forms

for documents—but they may be a convenient way to ensure that all the necessary



information is obtained from the client. The team noted, however, that at present,

forms provide a convenient and relatively quick means of tracking specific orders.

The following information must be provided in order to process the request: student

number, name, birth date, dates of attendance/graduation, former name (if

applicable) recipient(s) of documents, number of copies, when the document should

be sent (e.g. wait for degree conferral), method of delivery, type(s) of documents, and

other contact information (in case the University needs to contact the client

concerning the order, etc.).

The team noted that while we generally have a practice of requiring signatures for

transcript requests at present, there is never (or rarely) an occasion when signatures

are verified. The team recommends that a signature or Personal Identification Number

(PIN)22

be required from the client in order to authorize release of record data.

This office would load written requests. The system would then send confirmation of

the orders to clients. Staff in this office would interact with the clients in a manner

which parallels the Web request system.

Hard copies of written requests and forms should be retained for a short period of time

(in order to assist in tracking document production and issuance if necessary).

Written requests should be scanned (or downloaded in the case of email requests) and

retained in the system for a specified period of time in order to provide an auditable

log when tracking down problems.

When a request for a document is loaded on the system, it should be immediately

queued for production. Clients should be provided with an estimate of the time when

a document will be ready for distribution or pick up.

PPPPrrrroooodddduuuucccciiiinnnngggg DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnnttttssss

Institutional Production Facilities

After considering an array of options for the production of documents, the team

recommends that one production facility be established on each of the three main

campuses where the fully “authenticated” (see above) document is produced.

After agreeing that there should be at least one production facility on each of the

three main campuses, the team considered and analyzed four options for production

facilities on the St. George Campus: one central production facility, regional facilities

(approximately 2 or 3), divisional production facilities (approximately 18), and

“home” registrarial offices (i.e. the offices in which students perform registrarial

activities and/or receive academic advising—approximately 30 to over 100 if graduate

departments are included).

22

The Access to Student Record Information BPR team established that the PIN is equivalent to a signature.



The criteria used to evaluate the options included start-up costs (amount of space

needed and the cost of equipment required), operating costs (staffing and space

costs—on an overall institutional level), security concerns, administrative

convenience, and ensuring document integrity. Client convenience was not an

evaluation criterion at this stage because clients are not concerned about where

documents are produced, only how and where documents are requested and

distributed.

The establishment of one office on the St. George Campus to carry out production of

documents was the most favoured option (followed, in order of preference, by the

establishment of regional facilities and then divisional facilities). Establishing

production facilities in “home” offices was considered impractical for each evaluation

criterion.23

Unauthenticated Printing

In addition to the production of fully authenticated documents in the three campus

production facilities, the team recommends that clients and University staff be given

the option of producing these documents locally on their own printers without any

of the institutional authentication devices (i.e. special paper and seal).

For many end-users, a “fully authenticated” (see above) document is not necessary.

For example one employer might be satisfied with any document produced with a

summary of academic participation and/or results while another might insist upon

receiving a sealed document printed on special paper.

If an end-user has any doubt about the authenticity of the data printed, he or she can

simply ask the student or former student to obtain an authenticated document from

the University. Since end-users determine the authenticity that they require, it is up

to the client to satisfy that need.

IIIIssssssssuuuuiiiinnnngggg DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnnttttssss

The team also used a number of objective evaluation criteria to determine how

documents should be issued and distributed: client convenience (i.e. ease of pick up),

security, administrative convenience (organizing the work, coordination of

distribution for pick up, etc.), start-up costs, and operating costs.

The team evaluated client pick up separately from distribution by mail or courier.24

23

The team noted that using these criteria, the evaluation method affirmed the decision to establish a single

production facility for the current Permanent Record System (which serves several divisions).

24

While “pick up” is a very important issue for clients, mail and courier distribution should be transparent to

the client.



The team recommends that when a client requests documents for pick up, he or she

should have the choice of picking it up at any campus, in any divisional office, or in

the case of cash payment, at the Student Accounts Receivable Office.

Each day, the campus production facility would produce and sort documents for pick

up and then deliver them to the appropriate offices along with a check-list of all

clients that made the requests for pick up orders at those offices. The divisional offices

need only to confirm that the client identifies himself or herself in order to obtain

the document(s).

When a client requires a fully authenticated document on a rush basis, he or she could

load the request at any location on campus (or at the campus production facility) and

then contact the production facility for pick up. Staff in the production facility

should have the option of changing the queue order for production of particular

documents for rush requests.

Although allowing pick up at any “home” registrarial office was clearly the most

convenient for clients, the other evaluation criteria, especially cost and coordination

of a distribution network between the production facility and these offices, made the

option impractical from an administrative point of view.

For documents issued through the mail or by courier, the team recommends that the

campus production facility handle issuance and distribution of these documents.

Because client convenience is not a factor affecting mail and courier distribution, the

cost and administrative convenience of dealing with a minimum number of offices

was preferred by the team.

D) The “Electronic Transcript” for Internal End-Users

Portions of student academic records are required at various stages of students’

participation in the University ( e.g. admission, transfer credit assessment, scholarship

consideration, admission to programs, academic counselling and degree assessment).

The current practice of requesting transcripts in various formats (official transcripts,

transcript facsimile, Student Academic Records (SARS)) should be simplified.

Moreover, direct access to the student database, including printing facility, should be

provided to administrative and academic staff in their official capacity.

The team recommends that a special SRS screen and/or Web-enabled “electronic

transcript” be designed for internal University of Toronto end-users of documents.

The electronic transcript should include all of the information that is included in hard

copies of the new consolidated transcript. The output should be as simple to read and

interpret as a hard copy transcript. It should also be extremely easy to access (i.e. as

simple as entering a student’s identification number and pressing an F-key).



Figure 4-F – Electronic Transcript Mock-up



While a number of internal end-users of transcripts indicated that this type of output

would be useful, they cautioned that unless it is easy to access, they would be reluctant

to use it. In addition, with many divisions adopting a “self-administered application”

process for people applying for admission, there may be some unwillingness among

some internal end-users to accept part of an application on paper and then do the

work necessary to access an online transcript. Finally, the team discovered that a

number of departments depend upon the ability to physically transfer hard copies of

applications and supporting documentation from person to person as part of the

admission process.

Notwithstanding this, the team believes that the electronic transcript will gain

acceptance over time. Moreover, when the University begins accepting applications

via a Web-enabled interface (see the Applications BPR report) the electronic

transcript for internal end users will become a natural and necessary component of

the applications process.

In order to overcome the limitations of managing and assessing electronic data, it was

suggested that in cases when committees are involved in processing applications, it

would be conceivable that all of the application and transcript data might simply be

projected on a screen in front of the committee while decisions are being made—thus

reducing the need for hard copies of these documents.

4.4 Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)

Two key elements will provide the University greater flexibility in utilizing EDI as a viable

means of transferring information of student academic records:

1. The new SRS will enable all divisions to have access to the system thus ensuring

responsibility in maintaining academic records/history on the database. Universal

involvement is key to ensuring data integrity (which is crucial with respect to the

provision of complete and accurate information).

2. A consolidated transcript, based upon a common set of grading practices, is a

prime requisite in providing students’ academic records in a standard, consistent

and uniform format for all programs of study at the University. Common features

reflecting transcript details such as admission information, registration history,

course titles, weights, grades and/or marks, grading scale establish the basic

requirements required in EDI.

The team recommends that the University continue to work with other Ontario post-

secondary institutions to agree upon and develop a single standard for EDI in Ontario.

Because SPEEDE (see Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) on page 25) is the most

common standard among institutions in North America, the team recommends that the

EDI system adopted, at the very least, should provide an interface with which the

University might exchange data with universities and colleges using the SPEEDE system.



4.5 Physical Design & Output

A) Data

Although there are significant differences between divisional transcripts, as evident to

the team during the “current mapping” exercises, there is much in common in the

types of data found on transcripts across the University. The high frequency of

occurrence of particular types of data across the University indicates the significance

of such data for inclusion in the consolidated transcript. Questions posed to end-user,

both internally and externally, during walkthrough interviews have confirmed the

usefulness of such data.

The types of data the team recommends for inclusion in a comprehensive

consolidated transcript is summarized in the following table. Descriptions of the data

fields appear after the table.



Table 4-A – Data on the New Consolidated Transcript

CURRENT PRACTICE

A

R

T

S

&

S

C

I

E

N

C

E

E

N

G

I

N

E

E

R

I

N

G

G

R

A

D

U

A

T

E

S

T

U

D

I

E

S

M

E

D

I

C

I

N

E

N

U

R

S

I

N

G

W

O

O

D

S

W

O

R

T

H

P

I

P

25

L

A

W

A

R

C

H

I

T

E

C

T

U

R

E

D

E

N

T

I

S

T

R

Y

O

I

S

E

/

U

T

26

M

U

S

I

C

O

C

C

U

P

A

T

I

O

N

A

L

T

H

E

R

A

P

Y

P

H

A

R

M

A

C

Y

P

H

Y

S

I

C

A

L

&

H

E

A

L

T

H

P

H

Y

S

I

C

A

L

T

H

E

R

A

P

Y

S

C

A

R

B

O

R

O

U

G

H

T

H

E

O

L

O

G

Y

NEW

DESIGN

ADMISSION

Admitted From ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Admitted To ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Admit Date ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

TRANSFER CREDIT & CREDIT ELSEWHERE

Admission Notation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

C oncurrent S tudies ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Visiting /Special S tudents ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

COURSE AVERAGE

Alpha Grade ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

% (1-100) ✓

INDIVIDUAL GRADE

Alpha Grade ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

% (1-100) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Pass/Fail or Credit/Non-Credit ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Non-G rade ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Miscellaneous ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

INDIVIDUAL AVERAGE

SGPA ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

CGPA ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

S-% (1-100) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

C-% (1-100) ✓ ✓

S-Alpha Average ✓

C-Alpha Average ✓

Alpha Course Group Average ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

% (1-100) Course Group Average ✓ ✓ ✓

COURSE INFO

Code (Weight, Term) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Title ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Course Size ✓ ✓

Lecture H ours ✓

Lab Hours ✓

Weight ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Instructor’ s Name ✓

C ampus ✓ ✓

Function Code ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Other Degree Requirements ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

25


26




CURRENT PRACTICE

A

R

T

S

&

S

C

I

E

N

C

E

E

N

G

I

N

E

E

R

I

N

G

G

R

A

D

U

A

T

E

S

T

U

D

I

E

S

M

E

D

I

C

I

N

E

N

U

R

S

I

N

G

W

O

O

D

S

W

O

R

T

H

P

I

P

27

L

A

W

A

R

C

H

I

T

E

C

T

U

R

E

D

E

N

T

I

S

T

R

Y

O

I

S

E

/

U

T

28

M

U

S

I

C

O

C

C

U

P

A

T

I

O

N

A

L

T

H

E

R

A

P

Y

P

H

A

R

M

A

C

Y

P

H

Y

S

I

C

A

L

&

H

E

A

L

T

H

P

H

Y

S

I

C

A

L

T

H

E

R

A

P

Y

S

C

A

R

B

O

R

O

U

G

H

T

H

E

O

L

O

G

Y

NEW

DESIGN

END OF SESSION DATA

Rank ✓ ✓✒✙

Standing / Status ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓✐

✓ ★

Sessional Credits ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Full-time/Part-time ✓

DEGREE INFO

Requirements Met ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Degree Conferred ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Date Conferred ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Detail (Specialist, Major/Minor, Program Name, etc.) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Distinction, etc. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Thesis Title ✓ ✓ ★

Thesis Supervisor ✓ ✓ ★

MISCELLANEOUS

Scholarships, Awards, Dean ’s List etc. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Special Notations ✓ ? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Withdrawal/Termination ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓✑

★

Student Identification ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Other Personal Data ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

PRODUCTION INFORMATION

Date Issued ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Order Number ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Signature ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Seal ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Special Paper/Letterhead ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Number of Pages ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Distribution Method ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

End of Transcript ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Continued on Following Page ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Issued To ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Official/Original ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Definition of Official ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Guide ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

Issued to Student/Copy (on transcript) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Special Treatment of Envelope ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ★

27


28


29

Upon Graduation

30

Only if Not Passed

31

Termination Only



SSSSttttuuuuddddeeeennnntttt IIIIddddeeeennnnttttiiiiffffiiiiccccaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

NNNN

aaaammmm

eeee,,,, SSSSttttuuuu

dddd

eeeennnn

tttt NNNN

uuuu

mmmm

bbbb

eeeerrrr &&&&

BBBB

iiiirrrrtttthhhh

DDDD

aaaatttteeee The transcript, of course, should carry the student’s name

and number. As an additional identifier, the team suggests

that the birth day and month (but not year) also be

included.

32

DDDDiiiivvvviiiissssiiiioooonnnnaaaallll LLLLooooggggoooo aaaannnndddd NNNNaaaammmmeeee

DDDD

iiiivvvviiiissssiiiioooo

nnnn

aaaallll BBBB

aaaannnn

nnnn

eeeerrrr

The divisional logo and the name of the faculty, school or

campus should be printed at the beginning of the block of

data pertaining to that particular division.

AAAAddddmmmmiiiissssssssiiiioooonnnn

BBBB

aaaassssiiiissss oooo

ffff AAAA

dddd

mmmm


nnnn

Notation indicating the bbbb

aaaassssiiiissss oooo

ffff aaaadddd

mmmm


nnnn

to the division.

PPPPrrrrooooggggrrrraaaammmm ooooffff SSSSttttuuuuddddyyyy Notation indicating the pppprrrrooooggggrrrraaaammmm ooooffff ssssttttuuuuddddyyyy to which the

student has been admitted.

DDDDaaaatttteeee ooooffff AAAAddddmmmmiiiissssssssiiiioooonnnn Statement indicating the aaaaccccttttuuuuaaaallll ddddaaaatttteeee ooooffff aaaaddddmmmmiiiissssssssiiiioooonnnn or the

date of first registration in the division (month/year or

session/year).

TTTTrrrraaaannnnssssffffeeeerrrr CCCCrrrreeeeddddiiiitttt aaaannnndddd CCCCrrrreeeeddddiiiitttt EEEEllllsssseeeewwwwhhhheeeerrrreeee

TTTTrrrraaaannnnssssffffeeeerrrr CCCCrrrreeeeddddiiiittttssss List of ttttrrrraaaannnnssssffffeeeerrrr ccccrrrreeeeddddiiiittttssss aaaawwwwaaaarrrrddddeeeedddd on admission.

SSSSttttuuuuddddyyyy EEEEllllsssseeeewwwwhhhheeeerrrreeee List of ccccrrrreeeeddddiiiittttssss eeeeaaaarrrrnnnneeeedddd tttthhhhrrrroooouuuugggghhhh ssssttttuuuuddddiiiieeeessss eeeellllsssseeeewwwwhhhheeeerrrreeee while

registered in the division.

SSSSppppeeeecccciiiiaaaallll////VVVViiiissssiiiittttiiiinnnngggg SSSSttttuuuuddddeeeennnnttttssss List of actual UUUUnnnniiiivvvveeeerrrrssssiiiittttyyyy ooooffff TTTToooorrrroooonnnnttttoooo ccccoooouuuurrrrsssseeeessss ttttaaaakkkkeeeennnn aaaassss aaaa

ssssppppeeeecccciiiiaaaallll oooorrrr vvvviiiissssiiiittttiiiinnnngggg ssssttttuuuuddddeeeennnntttt, subsequently awarded as

degree credits. Courses taken in the division in this

manner but, for one reason or another, are not awarded

as degree credits should be appropriately noted as such

(under the course “ function code”).

UUUUnnnniiiiffffoooorrrrmmmm PPPPrrrraaaaccccttttiiiicccceeee ooooffff RRRReeeeppppoooorrrrttttiiiinnnngggg As recommended by the Commiss ion on Grading, a

uniform practice of reporting such credits should be

adopted by all divisions.

IIIInnnnddddiiiivvvviiiidddduuuuaaaallll GGGGrrrraaaaddddeeee

AAAAllllpppphhhhaaaa GGGGrrrraaaaddddeeee The final grade earned by the student in a specific course,

expressed as an alphabetical grade.

%%%% ((((1111----111100000000)))) The final grade earned by the student in a specific course,

expressed in percentage.

32

This can be very helpful to end-users like admissions staff if they receive applications from students with the

same name.



PPPPaaaassssssss////FFFFaaaaiiiillll or

CCCC

rrrreeeedddd

iiiitttt////NNNN

oooo

nnnn

----CCCC

rrrreeeedddd

iiiitttt

The final standing obtained in a course offered for which

no actual mark, but pass/fail or credit/non-credit standing

is awarded.

NNNN

oooo

nnnn

----GGGG

rrrraaaadddd

eeee

An indicator in the place of an alphabetical or a numerical

grade portraying either the final or current standing in a

specific course (e.g. INC for incomplete, SDF for standing

deferred, NGA for no grade available or WDR for

withdrawn).

IIIInnnnddddiiiivvvviiiidddduuuuaaaallll AAAAvvvveeeerrrraaaaggggeeee

SSSSGGGG

PPPP

AAAA

The sessional grade point average based on the grading

scale used; which will be based on the 0-4 scale when the

new standardized grading scale is adopted by all

divisions.

33

CCCC

GGGG

PPPPAAAA

The cumulative grade point average based on the grading

scale used; which will be based on the 0-4 scale when the

new standardized grading scale is adopted by all divisions.

The Commission on Grading recommends that this be

made optional.

CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeee GGGGrrrroooouuuupppp AAAAvvvveeeerrrraaaaggggeeee An alpha grade expression of the student’s average in a

group of courses. The groupings are determined by the

division. The new SRS has made provisions for the

recording of such information for participating divisions.

CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeee AAAAvvvveeeerrrraaaaggggeeee

CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeee AAAAvvvveeeerrrraaaaggggeeee An average grade for a course expressed as alpha grade,

calculated only for courses with a minimum size of 12

students.

CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeee IIIInnnnffffoooorrrrmmmmaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeee CCCCooooddddeeee A departmental code which begins as a series of letters

(identifying the department) and numbers (indicating the

level of the course), followed by a letter (indicating

weight) and ends with a number (indicating the campus).

CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeee TTTTiiiittttlllleeee A full-text, though brief descriptive title.

CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeee WWWWeeeeiiiigggghhhhtttt A field independent of the course code indicating the

weight of the course expressed in some form of numerical

value (see the report of the CCCCoooolllllllleeeeccccttttiiiinnnngggg &&&& RRRReeeeppppoooorrrrttttiiiinnnngggg

GGGGrrrraaaaddddeeeessss BPR team)

OOOOtttthhhheeeerrrr DDDDeeeeggggrrrreeeeeeee RRRReeeeqqqquuuuiiiirrrreeeemmmmeeeennnnttttssss A notation indicating the completion of other non-course

aspects of the program requirements (e.g. language

requirements).

33

The new SRS provides for three sessions per year. Sessional GPA, in this case, refers to the GPA for courses

taken in both terms (e.g. fall and spring, first and second) in what the University currently refers to as a

“session.” If data is available for the calculation of GPAs at the end of the first and second terms, these averages

should be included on the transcript. In the new system, “annual GPA” is the terminology used to describe the

GPA for all courses taken in the first and second terms of each session.



EEEEnnnndddd ooooffff SSSSeeeessssssssiiiioooonnnn DDDDaaaattttaaaa

SSSSttttaaaannnn

dddd

iiiinnnn

gggg

////SSSSttttaaaattttuuuu

ssss

A notation citing the student’s status, as a reflection of

academic performance, at the end of the session, e.g. “On

Probation” , “In Good Standing.”

SSSSeeeessssssssiiiioooo

nnnn

aaaallll CCCC

rrrreeeedddd

iiiittttssss The number of credits earned in the session

DDDDeeeeggggrrrreeeeeeee IIIInnnnffffoooorrrrmmmmaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

RRRReeeeqqqq

uuuu

iiiirrrreeeemmmm

eeeennnn

ttttssss MMMM

eeeetttt

A statement at the end of the appropriate session verifying

that the dddd

eeeegggg

rrrreeeeeeee rrrreeeeqqqq

uuuu

iiiirrrreeeemmmm

eeeennnn

ttttssss hhhh

aaaavvvveeee bbbb

eeeeeeeennnn

mmmm

eeeetttt.

DDDD

eeeegggg

rrrreeeeeeee CCCC

oooo

nnnn


A statement declaring that a dddd

eeeegggg

rrrreeeeeeee hhhh

aaaassss bbbb

eeeeeeeennnn

ccccoooo

nnnn


,

including the conferral date, the program detail and as to

whether the student graduated with “Distinction.” The

team recommends that all degree conferral statements

appear at the beginning of the transcript (i.e. before

divisional results sections).

TTTThhhheeeessssiiiissss IIIInnnnffffoooorrrrmmmmaaaattttiiiioooonnnn Where appropriate, the tttthhhheeeessssiiiissss ttttiiiittttlllleeee aaaannnndddd ssssuuuuppppeeeerrrrvvvviiiissssoooorrrr.

MMMMiiiisssscccceeeellllllllaaaannnneeeeoooouuuussss

SSSScccchhhhoooollllaaaarrrrsssshhhhiiiippppssss aaaannnndddd AAAAccccaaaaddddeeeemmmmiiiicccc AAAAwwwwaaaarrrrddddssss Notations referring to University-sanctioned sssscccchhhhoooollllaaaarrrrsssshhhhiiiippppssss

aaaannnndddd aaaaccccaaaaddddeeeemmmmiiiicccc aaaawwwwaaaarrrrddddssss , including academic mentions such

as “Dean’ s Honours List.”

SSSSppppeeeecccciiiiaaaallll NNNNoooottttaaaattttiiiioooonnnnssss Reference to participation in ssssppppeeeecccciiiiaaaallll pppprrrrooooggggrrrraaaammmmssss such as

student exchanges, clinical practices, comprehensive

examinations, electives (or any other special divisional

notations) , etc.

EEEEnnnnrrrroooollllmmmmeeeennnntttt HHHHiiiissssttttoooorrrryyyy

EEEEnnnnrrrroooollllmmmmeeeennnntttt HHHHiiiissssttttoooorrrryyyy Students often move from one division to another in the

middle of programs, or enrol simultaneously in more than

one division. Academic end-users often need to have clear

understanding of students’ chronological enrolment

activities.

The team recommends that an “EEEEnnnnrrrroooollllmmmmeeeennnntttt HHHHiiiissssttttoooorrrryyyy” ,

which traces chronologically the student’s entire

participation at the University of Toronto, be included on a

transcript.

An entry is added to the summary when a student enrols

in a another division and/or when there is concurrent

registration in two or more divisions. Continuous

enrolment in a division need only be depicted by a single

summary remark.

PPPPrrrroooodddduuuuccccttttiiiioooonnnn IIIInnnnffffoooorrrrmmmmaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

PPPPaaaaggggeeee NNNNuuuummmmbbbbeeeerrrr An indication of the page number as a reflection of the

total number of transcript pages.



DDDD

aaaatttteeee IIIIssssssssuuuu

eeeedddd

The date on which the transcript has been issued should

also be included on the transcript.

IIIIssssssssuuuu

eeeedddd

TTTToooo

The name and full address of the recipient of the transcript

to be printed on the page so as to allow for the use of a

window envelope. When a document is picked up by the

client for ultimate delivery to an end-user, the recipient

will be listed “care of” of the client.

EEEEnnnn

dddd

oooo

ffff EEEEnnnn

ttttrrrryyyy

Notations to indicate the end of data on each page and

the end of the transcript, should there be more than one

page.

OOOO

rrrrdddd

eeeerrrr NNNN

uuuu

mmmm

bbbb

eeeerrrr

A number assigned by the system to each document

order.

B) Layout

Every effort should be made to produce a transcript that is easy to read and visually

attractive. Documents produced should help enhance the image and reputation of the

University. Although the team feels that the final design of the transcript should be

left in the hands of professional designers, it recommends that certain directions be

observed with respect to the organization of the data blocks and features of the

transcript paper. See Appendix 7.7 on page 79 for “mock-ups” of documents

incorporating the recommendations of the team.

DDDDaaaattttaaaa BBBBlllloooocccckkkk OOOOrrrrggggaaaannnniiiizzzzaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

The “Enrolment History” should be distinct from the main body of the document

data; ideally as brief notes down the left margin of the document. The enrolment

history is always present and complete (whether or not a client has requested a

transcript which omits detailed results from a particular division).

“Admission Notes”, “Transfer Credit and Credit Elsewhere”, “Course Information”,

“Grades”, “End of Session Data”, “Degree Requirements Met”, “Honours, Scholarships

and Awards” and “Special Notes” data blocks should be organized by division. The

divisions should be arranged in the chronological order of first registration34

. To

promote divisional identity, the team recommends that divisional logos and banners

be used to highlight the beginning of each divisional section.

The “Student Identification” data block should begin the main body of the transcript.

This should then be followed by the “Issued To” data block, which should be printed

on the page so as to allow for the use of a window envelope.

All degree conferral information (including date conferred and, if applicable, the level

of achievement, e.g. Distinction) should appear at the beginning of the transcript

data (above any and all divisional results detail).

34

When a student begins his or her enrolment in two divisions at the same time, the divisions should be

ordered alphabetically.



Additional degree information such as program, thesis title and supervisor, should

appear at the beginning of divisional data.

The “Order Number” and “Page Number” should not be visually perceived as part of

the transcript data.

DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnntttt PPPPaaaappppeeeerrrr

To promote the uniqueness of the transcript to the University, the team recommends:

1. that the paper used be unique (in order to reduce

the possibility that counterfeit documents could

be produced) and of very high quality;

2. that a blue tint field be part of the paper design

(the blue tint should be light enough so as not

to overwhelm the text when printed and when

the transcript is photocopied);

3. that the text of verification letters and divisional

transcript data be printed on the blue field;

4. that an institutionally significant and

recognizable image (which is not division-

specific) be embedded in the blue field (e.g.

Convocation Hall, Hart House, etc.);

5. that the University crest, name and address be

pre-printed on the paper on a white field across the top of the paper;

and

6. that the Enrolment History be printed on a white field to the left of the blue field

and below the University crest.

C) The Guide

The team, in its deliberation, was mindful of the fact that good design reduces the

demand for explanation. Towards that end, it recommends that full text, as opposed

to codes and abbreviations, be used on transcripts as much as possible. A guide will still

be necessary for the purpose of interpreting unavoidable use of codes, abbreviations

and grading scales. Confidence in the authenticity of transcripts can be promoted by

the inclusion of pertinent information in the guide.

Figure 4-G – Paper



Converting the record of a student whose academic participation involves more than

one grading scale to a common scale is impractical. The guide should be designed to

explain such records.

CCCCoooonnnntttteeeexxxxtttt----SSSSeeeennnnssssiiiittttiiiivvvveeee GGGGuuuuiiiiddddeeee

Because of the existence of numerous grading scales, abbreviations and codes in the

University system, the production of a standardized guide would be complex and

cumbersome. The team, therefore, recommends that a context-sensitive guide be

designed. The guide should include information relevant only to the data printed on

the document (e.g. there is no need to provide information about grading and

programs in the School of Graduate Studies, when the document includes

information only about a student’s participation in an undergraduate program in

Physical & Health Education).

In addition, a more comprehensive guide should be made available on-line.

The system should be programmed to produce a guide only when a document

consisting of course grades (i.e. traditional transcript data) is requested. Other

documents, such as verification letters, would not normally require the production of

a guide.

To promote confidence in the authenticity of a transcript, the guide should include a

description of the seal. It should also describe the envelope and its treatment;

indicating the distinction between those sent directly to end-users from those sent

through the hands of the clients (students). A portrayal of the treatment of self-

addressed envelopes provided by students or end-users should also be included.

The team recommends that a single phone number be established for end-users in

order to assist them with interpretation of document data. This phone number (or

hotline) which end-users can call for clarification or verification, if they so choose

after receiving the document, should be printed on the document.

4.6 Fees

The team considered a number of options related to fees and the cost of producing

document

On one end of the spectrum, the team considered not charging any fee for documents.

Here, the primary concern was that this might lead to frivolous requests for documents.

With this in mind, the team examined the experiences of two institutions (Memorial

University of Newfoundland and the University of Wisconsin) that recently eliminated a

fee for transcripts. Both institutions reported that the change did not result in an increase

in the number of requests.



Memorial University, at one time, charged a fee and decided that the cost of collecting

the fee, plus the goodwill bestowed by issuing free transcripts, outweighed the revenue

from a transcript fee.

The University of Wisconsin reported that transcript requests averaged 3 to 4 per student.

However, they do require students to provide an addressed and stamped envelope.

Wisconsin operates a centralized transcript office and issues a consolidated transcript.

Our research indicated that at many institutions the transcript fee is discounted for

additional copies ordered at the same time. However, the team concluded there is little or

no saving in producing additional copies of documents if all copies are produced from a

computerized record system as originals. (i.e. as opposed to photocopies of a master

document).

If a fee is to be charged it might be a specific fee for each transcript (the University’s

current practice), or a per student flat fee might be part of a general incidental fee and

transcripts themselves are issued without charge.

With respect to charging an incidental fee to students and eliminating the per document

fee, several concerns were raised. In particular, the team noted that introduction of this

sort of fee would be politically sensitive among student leaders and might lead to

concerns about how equitable the system would be between students and alumni (i.e.

why would students pay for document production for alumni?). In addition, while this

would probably have a positive effect on alumni relations, the opposite question of

whether graduates (who are more likely to be able to afford paying the per document fee)

should be supporting the cost of student transcripts would also be raised. Finally, the team

also noted that there are practical difficulties in determining exactly when a student

becomes an alumnus/a.

If a fee is to be charged, we believe all of the following methods of payment should be

acceptable: charge to student fee account as recommended by the Student Accounts

Receivable (StAR) BPR team (this would be the most convenient method for all current

students), credit cards, debit cards, as well as cheques, money orders, and cash (the latter

only if the client chooses to pick up his or her transcript at the StAR office (see Issuing

Documents on page 42).

Because the team anticipates that the need for transcripts and production costs will go

down with the new system, a financial analysis may be necessary to determine an

appropriate transcript fee.

We examined different payment options on the basis of the following criteria:

A. the cost of collecting the fee;

B. equity among current and former students;



C. meeting operating costs (including predictability of cost vs. revenue);

D. student relations;

and

E. alumni/ae relations.

In the end, the team concluded that a per document fee (as in current practice) is the

most viable option for the University. The other options considered ranged from

providing free documents to charging a sessional incidental fee to students or a

“graduation” (or “exit”) fee.

Therefore, the team recommends that the University continue charging for document

issuance and production on a per document basis.

A decision on the level of the fee should be left to the implementation phase, including

the first-copy cost, with a recommendation to do a cost analysis. Additional copies could

be offered at a lower price if the cost analysis supports it. The team noted that while some

clients complained about paying anything for a transcript (i.e. transcripts should be free),

among others, there was general acceptance that some sort of fee would be charged.

Notwithstanding this, the team recommends that the fee charged should cover the costs

of document request, production and distribution only (i.e. document production, on an

institutional level, should be revenue neutral).

The team also recommends that there not be an additional fee for rush service. It is much

better to simply provide premium service in those instances where it is required.

Nonetheless, if special delivery service is requested, the client should pay that cost.

Similarly, when specialized letters are required the client should expect to pay a suitable

fee, similar to that for a transcript.

4.7 Old Paper Records

At present, the Permanent Record System, which is used by Arts & Science, the School of

Graduate Studies, Applied Science & Engineering and the U of T at Scarborough has

complete machine readable data for years since 1987.

The School of Graduate Studies has transcribed data from paper records for students who

were registered when the PRS was introduced in 1987 or subsequently. Data is also

transcribed for students who were registered before 1987 and are now resuming their

studies.

It is our conclusion that there should be no general undertaking to transcribe

information on paper records, microfilm or microfiche, into an automated transcript



system. The format of earlier academic standing information is often quite different from

current course and grade data.

When a transcript request received by the central office requires the production of a

document based upon archival data (held by the division) the transcript should be routed

to the division which holds the paper records. The transcript can be produced on

divisional forms and issued by the division. This practice will wither away as time passes.

If a client requires a transcript based on paper records from more than one division, we

suggest that the central office co-ordinate issuance of the document.

In some cases, it may be desirable for a division to simply move all old archival records to

the central production facility. In these cases, the divisions must acknowledge that their

special knowledge and expertise about the archival records must also be transferred and

that there must be an ongoing commitment to provide relevant historical program and

grading practices information when necessary.

Therefore, the team recommends that divisions be given the option of:

1. retaining archival records and continuing to issue transcripts based on those

records (on the understanding that in some cases, the institutional production

facility may coordinate the request if multiple registrations are involved);

or,

2. transferring old archival records to the central production facility (with the

understanding that their special knowledge and expertise about the archival

records must also be transferred).

We believe that the number of document requests is dramatically higher for current

students and recently-enrolled students and recent alumni. See the graph in Appendix 7.5

(page 67) which summarizes certifications of degree issued in 1997 by the Office of

Statistics, Records and Convocation.

The team noted that some divisions continue to issue transcripts for programs that are no

longer offered at the University of Toronto (e.g. undergraduate forestry, bachelor of social

work, diploma programs in business, etc.). The team recommends that records for

programs no longer offered by the University, along with all relevant program and

grading practices information, expertise and special knowledge should be transferred to

the relevant campus production facility and transcripts based upon those records should

be issued from that office.

4.8 Old Electronic Records

While a great deal of older electronic data will be available in the new student record

system, it will remain in its current state—grade values will not be converted to be

comparable to current practice and program requirements are time sensitive. In effect,



end-of-term student record data is frozen and is never changed except in rare

circumstances.

The team recommends that the output of older electronic records be accompanied by a

context sensitive guide (see The Guide on page 52) for the older data. For example, while

the academic record of some students might be subject to a single set of program

requirements and grading scales, other students’ records might span many years and a

number of changes in program requirements and grading practices. In the case of the

second set of students, a guide printed with a document would help the end-user make

sense of the data with respect to the time at which the data was created.



5. Implementation

The University is a community defined

by the individual characteristics of each

division and its environment

5.1 Institutional Culture

he team, throughout its work, frequently returned to issues related to institutional

culture and divisional identity and autonomy within the University of Toronto.

The University is a community defined by the individual characteristics of each

division and its environment. Implementing the new design will require attention to the

institutional culture.

The team discussed several issues that reflect varying degrees of change to time-honoured

practices in the transcript process from the point of view of students ordering transcripts

and their issuance.

For the divisions currently using the Permanent Record System (Faculty of Arts & Science,

Applied Science & Engineering, School of Graduate Studies and the University of Toronto

at Scarborough), minimal changes will be made. Transcript production will not change

drastically since transcripts for the most part are printed at the facility in the McLennan

Physical Laboratories building. The proposal to have three centres for transcript

production: St. George, Scarborough and Mississauga will have some impact.

The issuance of transcripts will undergo some changes depending on the method of

delivery: mail, courier, fax, pick up, email, Web access, EDI. Students’ preferences will be

the driving force in how transcripts will be delivered to the recipients.

For many divisions, automation will have a major impact in both the production and

issuance of transcripts. Several divisions (including the Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of

Law) that already have their own internal databases which produce transcripts will need

to adjust to a new system. The remaining divisions currently provide either the “patchy”

transcript which is composed of affixing transcript labels to cardboard stock then

photocopying the “transcript card” or “typing” a transcript on letterhead from

T



information in student records maintained at the division. The transcript process will be

greatly streamlined and efficient for those divisions currently involved in the “manual”

production of transcripts.

The team recognizes the importance of divisional representation on the consolidated

transcript. With this in mind, the re-design provides for the following:

1. Context-sensitive divisional output (including divisional banners and logos) on

the transcript will reflect students’ participation in divisions.

2. Allowing for variations on transcript detail for each division while defining key

and consistent elements across all divisions. At present, there are many details that

are common to all divisional transcripts (e.g. course titles and grades). However,

there are other details that are currently entered “manually”, or not recorded at all

(e.g., scholarships and awards).

3. The transcript is a portion of the academic record which is ultimately forwarded to

end-users for their use. Transcripts are also requested by students for their own use.

The academic record (stored on the student database or maintained in paper files)

reflects the total academic history. It is crucial that the transcript display this

information in a manner which, while being complete and accurate, does not

disadvantage clients.

and,

4. The provision of enrolment history will offer a brief synopsis of students’

complete participation in any division at the University. Information about

detailed participation and academic results in each division will provide a complete

record of students’ involvement.

5.2 Focus on Client Need

The team recognizes the importance of the transcript as an assessment of academic

performance. Completeness, accuracy and data integrity are crucial to the document’s

integrity and, in turn, affect the image and reputation of the University. As an historical

record of students’ participation in the University, these documents play an important

role for clients in gaining employment and admission to second entry and graduate

programs, and in obtaining professional certification. By offering many options to

request documents, a variety of delivery mechanisms, and a number of locations at which

documents may be picked up, the University will be responsive to clients’ and end-users’

needs. Consistency in the presentation of transcript details will provide a comprehensive

and complete academic reflection of performance that is easy to read and interpret by

recipients of the document.



5.3 Impact on the Community

The transcript is viewed as an important document that could “make or break”

relationships, and possibly, future plans and career development. Clients will request

transcripts for admission purposes, scholarship assessment, and confirmation of degree

conferral (either for employment or for professional certification). End-users expect to

receive a complete and accurate student record. Clients expect a variety of methods to

order transcripts and fast, efficient delivery of their transcripts to the required recipients.

Requests for other documents in the spectrum provide clients with confirmation to end-

users that will assist students in continuing the pursuit of their academic and career goals.

The “document” is more than a piece of paper that reports a student’s academic grades—it

is a statement about the student, his or her instructors, the quality of life as a student at

the University of Toronto, and the institution itself.

With this in mind, the team has re-designed the documents request and issuance process

at the University of Toronto—always focusing on the client and the institution’s role and

importance to the community.



6. Other Issues

uring the course of the team’s work, it was determined that a number of other

issues should be examined by the University. In addition to the

recommendations made above, the following are recommendations which are

outside the explicit scope of the team. However, because they in some way relate to issues

directly examined by the team, it is strongly felt that they are equally deserving of

attention in this report.

6.1 Other Recommendations

1. Given that University sanctioned academic honours, scholarships and awards (i.e.

merit based awards) are to be included on transcripts, the team recommends that

the University review the list of awards to ensure that those that are merit based

are clearly identified as such (i.e. the names of some scholarships and academic

honours may give the impression that they are awards based solely on financial

need).

2. The team noted that several divisions report on transcripts the fact that a

student’s academic results in a course are deferred (e.g. pending a deferred exam)

and then later record the result without amending the earlier entry. In other

cases, the team noted that some divisions mark grades with an asterisk when the

grade has been amended.

It was the general feeling of the team that these practices might give an end-user

a wrong perception about the student which, in turn, might affect how the

student’s application is judged. The team recommends that when a student’s grade

is amended as a result of a review or resolution of a deferral, there should be no

special mention of these facts on a transcript.

3. Documents, artwork, portfolio submissions, letters of recommendation and other

hard copy information provided to the University which ultimately become part

of a student’s academic record should be scanned and stored within the SRS. In

turn, any or all of this record data could be output as part of documentation issued

by the University.

4. For the convenience of both clients and University staff members, when a

University of Toronto student’s academic record and/or degrees from another

institution are assessed by the Comparative Education Service, this data should be

included in the student’s University academic record.

D



7. Appendices

7.1 Walkthrough Interviews

Name(s) Department/Division/Organization Date

Hung Sun Chan

Rosemary Cameron

Admissions & Awards January 21, 1998

Bev Nicholson

Carol Allen

Wendy Loat

Admissions & Awards January 14, 1998

Barbara McCann

†

Applied Science & Engineering January 20, 1998

Pat Telford Architecture January 22, 1998

George Altmeyer Arts & Science January 22, 1998

Elaine Ishibashi Arts & Science January 9, 1998

Mona Fanous

Kirstin Cirulis

Arts & Science January 8, 1998

Donna Crossan

Lynda Sellars

Dentistry January 12, 1998

Molly Schneeberg Dupont Canada Inc. January 27, 1998

Sarah Cherian Electrical & Computer Engineering

(Graduate)

January 6, 1998

Margaret Grisdale

Wanda Chin

Iona Mitchell

Emmanuel College / Theology January 16, 1998

Sharon Walton English (Graduate) January 7, 1998

Carolyn Johnston

†

Graduate Studies January 22, 1998

Joanne Jones Institute of Chartered Accountants January 22, 1998

Bonnie Croll

Celia Genua

Law January 15, 1998

Chris Wilhelm Management Studies January 7, 1998

Elmira Mun Management Studies January 15, 1998

Judy Irvine

Bill Gregg

Medicine January 21, 1998

Jeannie Wang

Nalayini Maheswaran

Music January 20, 1998

Paul Russell

Ruth Norton

Norma Bliss

New College January 15, 1998

†

Full team interview



Jamie Jones

*

Northern Telecom January 29, 1998

Sue Tripathi

Gail Donner

Nursing January 14.1998

Angie Jovanovic OISE/UT (Undergraduate) January 20, 1998

Merrylee Greenan

Sandra Parna

Vivien Hwang

Dorothy Hall

Sylvia Beilin

Pharmacy January 15, 1998

Merrily Stratten

Eleonora Agustino

Physical Education & Health January 15, 1998

Sherilyn Biason

Shelley MacLarty

Political Science (Graduate) January 14, 1998

Nancy Haggerty Ryerson Polytechnic University (Admissions) January 21, 1998

Karen McLeister

†

U of T at Scarborough January 26, 1998

Angie Ferrando Statistics, Records & Convocation January 19, 1998

Karel Swift University Registrar January 19, 1998

Susan MacDonald

Anna Warchulska

Victoria College January 21, 1998

Susan Salusbury

Kathryn Massey

York University (Admissions) January 23, 1998

7.2 Special Guests

Name(s) Topic Date

Mary Giamos Needs of Corporate End-users November 25, 1997

David Perry

Marie Gerrard

Overview of the new SRS November 25, 1997

7.3 Other End-Users Consulted

Organization

Federation Credentials Verification Service (FCVS) — a credentialing agency in the U.S.

Massachusetts Board of Medicine

Medical Board of California (Licensing Program)

Ontario Law School Application Service (OLSAS)

Ontario Medical School Application Service (OMSAS)

Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation (OSSTF)

Ontario University Application Centre (OUAC)

Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

Qualifications Evaluation Council of Ontario (QECO)

*

Interview conducted by telephone

†

Full team interview



7.4 Verification Letters

The University of Toronto produces an enormous number of verification letters each year

(in fact, it is probably not possible to compile reliable data about numbers). In addition to

this, various University offices complete a huge number of forms from third parties on

behalf of students (e.g. GO, Via Rail, Travel Cuts, insurance companies, scholarship fund

providers, Canada pension plan documents, varsity athletics authorizations, banks, credit

rating services, etc.).

The following is a catalog of frequently requested letters which are prepared and issued by

one large division. While different divisions around the University produce a wide array

of letters (many which are similar to those listed below as well as other types of letters),

this list is a good illustration of the number of types of letters that are currently produced,

in large numbers, by the University. The Colleges within the Faculty of Arts & Science

also produce a number of different types of letters.

1. Projected Expenses – Non-Visa Students

2. Projected Expenses – Visa Students

3. Confirmation of Acceptance and Pre-Registration

4. Confirmation of Pre-Registration

5. Confirmation of Current Registration for Full-Time Students (All Years)

6. Confirmation of Current Registration for Part-Time Students (First Year)

7. Confirmation of Current Registration for Part-Time Students (2nd, 3rd, and 4th Year)

8. Confirmation of Current Registration and Fee Payment – Visa Student

9. Confirmation of Current Registration and Fee Payment – Non-Visa Student

10. Confirmation of Registration in a Past Session

11. Confirmation of Past Registration and Fee Payment

12. Confirmation of Past Registration and Expenses Incurred – Non-Visa Student

13. Confirmation of Past Registration and Expenses Incurred – Visa Student

14. Confirmation of Current Registration and Expected Expenses – Visa Student

15. Confirmation of Pre-Registration – First Year Visa Student

16. Confirmation of Current Registration and Expected Expenses – Non-Visa Student

17. Confirmation of Past Registration, Expected Registration in Next Session, & Expected

Expenses – Visa Student

18. Confirmation of Past Registration, Expected Registration in Next Session, & Expected

Expenses – Non-Visa Student

19. Confirmation of Past Registration, Pre-Registration. & Expected Expenses for the Next

Session – Visa Student

20. Confirmation of Past Registration, Pre-Registration. & Expected Expenses for the Next

Session – Non-Visa Student

21. Confirmation of Current Registration & Eligibility for Registration in Next Session,

Pending Results of Exams

22. Confirmation of Current Registration, Pre-Registration, Eligibility to Proceed on

Successful Completion of Current Year



23. Confirmation of Past Registration, Pre-Registration, Eligibility to Proceed Pending

Successful Completion of Current Year

24. Confirmation of Past Registration, Pre-Registration, Eligibility to Proceed to the Next

Session

25. Confirmation of Past Registration and Expected Registration in the Next Session

26. Confirmation of Admission – First Year Student

27. Successful Completion of Past Session, Pre-Registration, Eligibility to Proceed to the

Next Session

28. Confirmation of Past Registration, Current Summer Registration, and Pre-Registration

in the Coming Session

29. Confirmation of Current Registration and Expected Graduation for U.S. Visa

Application

30. Confirmation of Registration in Past Session and Expected Graduation

31. Successful Completion of Degree Requirements & Expected Graduation

32. Confirmation of Graduation and Dates of Attendance

33. Confirmation of Graduation

34. Confirmation of Withdrawal – With or Without Penalty

35. Hours of Practical Experience

36. Confirmation of Past Sessions and Present Registration

37. Special Student Letter

38. Jury Duty Letter

39. Greek Letter

40. Iran Letter



7.5 Number of Degree Certifications by Year of Graduation

In 1997 the Office of Statistics, Records & Convocation issued about 550 “degree

certification” forms to University of Toronto graduates. The graph shows the cumulative

per cent of confirmations issued for graduates from a particular year or earlier. For

example, about 8% of certifications issued in 1997 were to confirm graduations in 1966 or

earlier; about 27% were for graduations in 1980 or earlier. Or, looking at it from the

opposite perspective, 73% of certifications were for 1980 or later, 40% were for 1992 or

later.

The graph reflects only actual degree certification forms issued. It does not include the

many degree certifications that are indicated directly on forms supplied by employers.

Figure 7-A – Degree Certifications (1997)

DDDDeeeeggggrrrreeeeeeee CCCCeeeerrrrttttiiiiffffiiiiccccaaaattttiiiioooonnnnssss IIIIssssssssuuuueeeedddd iiiinnnn 1111999999997777

((((bbbbyyyy tttthhhheeee OOOOffffffffiiiicccceeee ooooffff SSSSttttaaaattttiiiissssttttiiiiccccssss,,,, RRRReeeeccccoooorrrrddddssss &&&& CCCCoooonnnnvvvvooooccccaaaattttiiiioooonnnn))))

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

19

26

19

28

19

30

19

32

19

34

19

36

19

38

19

40

19

42

19

44

19

46

19

48

19

50

19

52

19

54

19

56

19

58

19

60

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

YYYYeeeeaaaarrrr

CCCCuuuu

mmmmuuuu

llllaaaattttiiiivvvveeee PPPP

eeeerrrrcccceeeennnn

tttt



7.6 Client Surveys

Three different surveys were distributed to clients: one survey for those who have recently

participated in the transcript request process (distributed by mail), a second survey for

those who were currently in the process of ordering transcripts (distributed at the time a

request was made), and one general survey (distributed electronically). As an incentive to

improve response rates on the surveys, several divisions offered free transcripts in return

for a client’s participation in the survey. Unfortunately this survey was conducted during

the recent strike by Canada Post and, apart from just under a dozen individuals who

responded via electronic means, only those clients able to come in person could be

questioned.

Although the responses are not summarized here, the comments and advice received

from clients were incorporated into the team’s re-design.

The questions asked in each survey are listed here.

Survey 1 – Recent Participants in the Process

55 Arts & Science Respondents (A&S)

30 Applied Science & Engineering Respondents (APSC)

3 Medicine Respondents (MED)

45 School of Graduate Studies Respondents (SGS)

133 Total Respondents

How did you know where to place your transcript / letter request?

AAAA&&&&SSSS AAAAPPPPSSSSCCCC MMMMEEEEDDDD SSSSGGGGSSSS

Home office / “registrar” 11115555 6666 0000 11113333

Told by another office or general info line 7777 2222 1111 7777

Posted information 4444 0000 0000 0000

Asked a student / friend / Word of mouth 7777 7777 0000 3333

Told by professor 0000 1111 0000 0000

Info desk off campus 0000 1111 0000 0000

“Asked” 0000 0000 0000 1111

Experience 11113333 6666 2222 8888

Calendar / handbook / directory 1111 1111 0000 5555

Earlier visit to office 0000 0000 0000 2222

Assumed / guessed 1111 0000 0000 2222

Miscellaneous 2222 1111 0000 3333



Why did you order the transcript / letter?

AAAA

&&&&

SSSS

AAAA

PPPPSSSSCCCC

MMMM

EEEEDDDD

SSSSGGGG

SSSS

Scholarship / grant / fellowship application 2222

0000

1111

11115555

Non-specific application 3333

2222

0000

4444

Application to professional / another school / further studies 44440000

11110000

2222

11113333

work exchange / internship 0000

7777

0000

0000

‘To update copy in department file ’ 0000

0000

0000

1111

Personal / R sum 1111

1111

0000

2222

Employment 4444

8888

0000

11110000

professional certification 4444

0000

0000

2222

international student card 0000

1111

0000

0000

visa for immigration elsewhere 0000

1111

0000

0000

exemption in another program 1111

0000

0000

0000

other 1111 0000 0000 0000

When ordering, did you have any questions or concerns?

YYYYEEEESSSS NNNNOOOO ((((bbbbllllaaaannnnkkkk))))

A&S 11115555 44440000 0000

APSC 5555 22225555 0000

MED 0000 3333 0000

SGS 11112222 33332222 1111

If yes, please comment

AAAA&&&&SSSS AAAAPPPPSSSSCCCC MMMMEEEEDDDD SSSSGGGGSSSS

Processing or delivery time 6666 2222 0000 5555

Charges for extra copies 2222 0000 0000 1111

Wanted courier option 0000 0000 0000 1111

Wanted transcript in a sealed envelope 0000 0000 0000 3333

Needed a letter confirming graduation, before convocation 0000 0000 0000 1111

Wants non-official transcripts for personal records 0000 0000 0000 1111

Inconvenience of getting downtown to order 0000 1111 0000 0000

Is hand delivery to PEO

35

OK? 0000 1111 0000 0000

Type of info included on transcript 0000 1111 0000 0000

Postal strike 3333 1111 0000 0000

How are grade updates handled? 1111 0000 0000 0000

Uncertain if documents are delivered sealed 3333 0000 0000 0000

Is SES

36

accepted by other universities? 1111 0000 0000 0000

35

Professional Engineers of Ontario

36

Sealed Envelope with Stamp



Did the transcript or letter provide all the information needed?

YYYYEEEESSSS

NNNN

OOOO

((((bbbb

llllaaaannnn

kkkk))))

A&S 44447777

6666

2222

APSC 22226666

1111

3333

MED 3333

0000

0000

SGS 44441111

2222

2222

Comments:

• Wants Instructors ’ names, comprehensives

• All courses taken as a grad student were included in one. Would have preferred separate sections for different programs

• End-user wanted additional info

• Did not include current courses / complete history

• Needed addressing to a particular institution

• Needed courses and grades only

• More detailed course titles / course descriptions

Was the method of ordering convenient for you?


A&S 44443333 11112222 0000

APSC 22225555 5555 0000

MED 2222 1111 0000

SGS 33334444 7777 4444

Comments:

• Usual processing time is too long

• Prefer ordering by other means (see below)

• Prefer payment by visa, etc.

• Would like office to open earlier

• Getting request forms

• Coming in from a distance to order (coming in again to pick up)

• Misplaced order

• Favourable comments

Note: simple preferences for other means of ordering, expressed in the next question,

have not been included here.



What other means of ordering would you like to see? Please check all that apply

AAAA

&&&&

SSSS

AAAA

PPPPSSSSCCCC

MMMM

EEEEDDDD

SSSSGGGG

SSSS

Web 33331111

11118888

3333

22225555

Fax 33337777

9999

2222

22224444

Email 33336666

22224444

3333

33333333

Phone 33335555

11116666

3333

22222222

From other campus locations 11113333

4444

1111

7777

other (please specify)

(credit card; one or more offices for all transcripts from any department )

1111

1111

0000

0000

Was the fee reasonable?

YYYYEEEESSSS

NNNN

OOOO

((((bbbb

llllaaaannnn

kkkk))))

A&S 33339999

11116666

0000

APSC 11114444 11114444 2222

MED 1111 1111 1111

SGS 22227777 11110000 8888

Was the time required to process your request reasonable?


A&S 55551111 4444 0000

APSC 11118888 9999 3333

MED 2222 0000 1111

SGS 33334444 4444 7777

Do you believe our service to students or alumni with respect to transcripts or

letters could be improved?


A&S 22222222 22226666 7777

APSC 11117777 9999 4444

MED 1111 0000 2222

SGS 22221111 11113333 11111111

Please comment:

(General concerns already indicated above – phone orders, timeliness, cost etc. are not

repeated here)

SGS

• Use just the name and year of graduation. After a few years people forget student numbers.

• For my purposes it was immaterial whether a course was required or optional. But instructors ’ names and possibly ‘number of

units ’ corresponding to each course would not harm. Also comprehensive exams.



• If close to NSERC application it takes about 10 days which is too much.

• Pay by credit card. (2 )

• Print transcript on the spot.

• Reduced rate for additional copies. (3)

• McGill no longer charges for transcripts.

• Make yourselves known more — Internet, printed matter etc.

• Free access to what is in the transcripts sent out.

• The service is fine as it is. Please don’t change it in any way. I only wish that the entire University was run as efficiently.

APSC

• Fax to end-user

• Pay by credit card

• Pay by Internet

• Reduced rate for multiple orders

• Reduced rate for subsequent orders

• Particular concern over timeliness related to job application deadlines (2)

• Waive the fee for graduate school application

• If order form is lost it ’s hard to get the transcript.

• Would be prepared to pay a rush charge

• Favourable comments (3)

• System is lacking

• Make students aware that unofficial transcripts are available and may be acceptable

A&S

• Processing time (3)

• Favourable comments (9)

• Free transcripts for personal use

• Special rates to those applying to graduate school

• Provide some number of transcripts free

• Smaller charge for pickup

• Fax to end-users

• Immediate access to other divisions

• Advertise in U of T magazine for alumni

• Eliminate special request form



Survey 2 – Current Participants in the Process

50 Arts & Science Respondents (A&S)

14 Applied Science & Engineering Respondents (APSC)

44 School of Graduate Studies Respondents (SGS)

108 Total Respondents

Have you ever ordered a transcript before?

YYYYEEEESSSS

NNNN

OOOO

A&S 33331111

11119999

APSC 11110000 4444

SGS 33332222 11112222

Are you a currently registered student?

YYYYEEEESSSS NNNNOOOO

A&S 22229999 22221111

APSC 11110000 4444

SGS 22220000 22224444

What do you expect to see on a transcript?

CCCCoooouuuurrrrsssseeeessss &&&&

GGGGrrrraaaaddddeeeessss

RRRReeeeccccoooorrrrdddd ooooffff

RRRReeeeggggiiiissssttttrrrraaaattttiiiioooonnnn

MMMMiiiisssscccc.... ////

BBBBllllaaaannnnkkkk

A&S 44447777 2222 1111

APSC 11111111 1111 2222

SGS 44442222 2222 0000



What is the transcript needed for?

AAAA

&&&&

SSSS

AAAA

PPPPSSSSCCCC

SSSSGGGG

SSSS

Scholarship / grant / fellowship application 1111

1111

6666

Non-specific application 0000

1111

0000

Application to professional / another / grad school 33335555

5555

22223333

work exchange / internship 0000

2222

0000

visiting student, send to home institution 3333

0000

0000

Personal / resume 1111

0000

3333

Employment (incl. academic employment) 7777

6666

11114444

Professional certification (e.g. CPA exam) 1111

0000

2222

Visa for immigration elsewhere 0000

1111

0000

Ontario university application centre 0000

1111

0000

Othe r 1111

0000

1111

How did you find out where to come?

AAAA&&&&SSSS AAAAPPPPSSSSCCCC SSSSGGGGSSSS

Home office / “registrar” 11118888 2222 11110000

Told by another office or general info line 7777 1111 7777

Posted information 1111 0000 1111

Word of mouth 9999 2222 5555

Professor 1111 0000 0000

Trial & error 0000 0000 1111

Experience 2222 1111 8888

Calendar / handbook / directory 3333 2222 5555

Internet 1111 1111 0000

Assumed / guessed / observation / ‘common knowledge’ 1111 2222 5555

How much time have you allowed for delivery of the transcript?


“ASAP” 0000 2222 1111

1 day 1111 1111 1111

2 days 2222 0000 4444

3 — 4 days 9999 3333 9999

1 week / 5 days 22224444 4444 11114444

>1 — 2 weeks 9999 1111 8888

> 2 weeks (up to 4 weeks) 3333 1111 6666



In your opinion what is the best way to order a transcript?

AAAA

&&&&

SSSS

AAAA

PPPPSSSSCCCC

SSSSGGGG

SSSS

Pre-Pay 1111

0000

0000

In Person 11115555

1111

11115555

‘By Form’ 0000

1111

0000

Mail 0000

1111

4444

Phone 11110000

2222

11113333

Fax 2222

0000

2222

As Is 11110000

3333

6666

Internet 4444

3333

8888

From Home Division 2222

1111

0000

Ontario Application Centr e 3333

0000

0000

Send Out Automatically 1111

0000

0000

“By Computer” (Kiosk?) 1111 0000 1111

Pick Up 2222 0000 0000

How important is it for you to see your transcript information before deciding to

order it?


Not 22220000 8888 22225555

(because marks are already known, e.g. on statement) 4444 2222 4444

Slight / not very 11115555 1111 8888

Somewhat (or some desired detail mentioned) 4444 1111 2222

“important” / very 8888 3333 9999

Want to access unofficial grades anytime, free 1111 0000 0000

When a transcript has been requested for a party other than yourself, do you want

to have confirmation it was sent?


A&S 44446666 4444

APSC 11113333 1111

SGS 33339999 5555

Do you think the charge for the transcript reasonable?


A&S 33333333 11117777

APSC 4444 11110000

SGS 22226666 11118888



How would you prefer to pay for the transcript(s)?

AAAA

&&&&

SSSS

AAAA

PPPPSSSSCCCC

SSSSGGGG

SSSS

Cash 22226666

8888

22221111

Cheque 4444

2222

4444

Credit Card 11116666

1111

11112222

Debit Card 3333

0000

1111

Interac 3333

0000

3333

Internet 0000

0000

1111

After Confirmation Of Timely Delivery 0000

0000

1111

How much detail would you like to see? (Courses, Courses and grades, Special

credits, Full or part-time status, Progress towards your degree, Non-academic

information of some kind, Other (please specify).


Courses 11119999 8888 11112222

Courses and grades 44447777 11113333 44441111

Special credits 11119999 5555 11119999

Full or part-time status 22229999 9999 22221111

Progress towards your degree 22221111 4444 11113333

Non-academic information of some kind 8888 4444 5555

Other (please specify) 2222 0000 3333

A&S

• Final exam mark for each course so we don ’t have to order a copy of final.

• Course description.

SGS

• In the PhD program, whether I have passed the general and special field exams and if that was with distinction. Also, name of

supervisor, standing in dept.

• Courses in progress. (2)

• Prefer to have a choice between detail on last degree only and on all degrees.



Survey 3 –General Distribution

(Posted Electronically and Forwarded to Alumni37

)

12 Respondents

Have you ever ordered a letter or transcript? If so, why?

• Scholarships, Awards, etc. 3

• Graduate S chool, etc. 2

• Internship 1

• Employment 5

• R sum 1

What do you expect to get?

• A one page summary of the courses I have taken and the grades I received in each. Basically a listing of my academic history at

U of T up to the date of request. A document very similar to the transcript sent at the end of each semester (if applicable), or

year, with some form of authenticity, (e.g., seal, registrar ’s signature, etc.)

• An official document showing courses taken, letter and/or numerical grades, class averages, dates courses were taken (so that

the reader can tell how many courses were taken in each year) and awards received from the University / college). (This is what

I wish I would get when I order a transcript, not what I expect to get.)

• A listing of all academic marks for courses taken at U of T

• Some places require that the transcript be directly sent to them, so I get nothing. Otherwise, I get (constantly) a most

up -to -date transcript for myself. This way, I can photocopy them and sent them in with applications which allow this.

• Transcript: a piece of paper that lists courses with letter and numeric grades and class average. Letter: not sure what it is.

• Gee, I ’d like to get my transcript in a brief period of time.

• Prompt service.

• For a transcript, I expect to get a piece of paper with a listing of my grades and courses.

• A record of my work completed and current status.

Would you like to see it before it goes out?

• Yes 12

• No 0

Do you know how to get a transcript?

• Divisional office 9

• Will ask someone 1

37

Unfortunately, we did not receive any responses from alumni/ae to this particular survey. However, a large

number of respondents to the other 2 surveys are alumni/ae.



How would you like to order these documents?

• In person 4

• Phone 4

• Fax 3

• Internet 7

At what points in your life do you think you will need a transcript?

• Scholarship, awards etc. 2

• Application to another school / program 5

• Employment 8

Do you have any comments about the process?

• Cost (including cost for extra copies) 3

• Speed 3

• Produce an automatic transcript faster/easier 2

• Automatic transcripts 1

• Dropped courses due to petitions remain

on the record 1



7.7 Document Mock-ups

Figure 7-B – Consolidated Transcript (2 divisions)

Page 1 of 5

Name: SMITH, John Record as of: 15/01/1998Student Number 890000000 Birth Day/Month: 06/12Issued to: The University of Unknown

123 Real Street, Rm. 45Toronto, ON A1A 1A1

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE THREE YEAR CONFERRED – JUNE 1992GRADUATED WITH DISTINCTIONHONOURS BACHELOR OF SCIENCE COMPLETED – WINTER 1996

1989 Fall – University of Toronto Scholars Program – National Scholarship

Faculty of Arts and Science

1992 Winter – Major Program in Chemistry completed1996 Winter – Specialist Program in Chemistry completed1996 Winter – Minor Program in Biology completed

1990 Winter – Dean’s Honours List1992 Winter – Dean’s Honours List1992 Winter – Dupont Chemistry Award1996 Winter – Dean’s Honours List1996 Winter – Graduation Prize in Chemistry

BASIS OF ADMISSION: ONTARIO UNIVERSITYCRS CODE TITLE WGT GRD FNCTBIO1**Y Transfer Credit

McMaster University1.00 CR

HIS1**Y Transfer CreditMcMaster University

1.00 CR

HUM2**Y Transfer CreditMcMaster University

1.00 CR

PHL2**Y Transfer CreditMcMaster University

1.00 CR

SOC101Y5 Transfer CreditMcMaster University

1.00 CR

Credits earned: 5.00

1989 FALL – ERINDALE COLLEGECRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTANT100Y5 Introduction to Anthropology 1.00 IPRBIO250Y5 Cell and Molecular 1.00 IPRPHL200Y5 Ancient Philosophy 1.00 IPRPSY100Y5 Introductory Psychology 1.00 IPRSOC200Y5 Introduction to Social Research 1.00 IPR


------------------------------------------------------ end of page --------------------------------------------------------

ENROLMENT HISTORY

1989-90 Faculty of Arts andScience (Degree)

1990-91 Faculty of AppliedScience and Engineering (Degree)

1991-92 Faculty of Arts andScience (Degree), B.SC. 3-YearConferred, June 1992

1994-96 Faculty of Arts andScience (Degree), B.SC. 4-YearRequirements Met




Page 2 of 5

Name: SMITH, John Record as of: 15/01/1998Student Number 890000000 Birth Day/Month: 06/12

1990 WINTER – ERINDALE COLLEGE

SESSIONAL GPA: 3.88 ANNUAL GPA: 3.88 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.88STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTANT100Y5 Introduction to Anthropology 1.00 8 5 A CBIO250Y5 Cell and Molecular 1.00 8 9 A C-PHL200Y5 Ancient Philosophy 1.00 8 0 A- B-PSY100Y5 Introductory Psychology 1.00 9 0 A+ C+SOC200Y5 Introduction to Social Research 1.00 8 4 A D+


1990 SUMMER – ERINDALE COLLEGECRS CODE TITLE WGT GRD FNCTANT203Y5 Letter of permission

University of Western Ontario1.00 CR


1991 FALL – NEW COLLEGECRS CODE TITLE WGT GRD FNCTCHM1**Y Transfer credit

Faculty of Applied Science andEngineering

1.00 CR

MAT1**Y Transfer creditFaculty of Applied Science andEngineeringCalculus

1.00 XTR


1991 FALL – NEW COLLEGE

SESSIONAL GPA: N/A CUMULATIVE GPA: N/ACRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTBIO260H1 Genetics 0.50 8 0 A- C-BIO301H1 Marine Biology 0.50 8 5 A DCHM217H1 Analytical Chemistry 0.50 9 2 A+ CCHM238Y1 Introduction to Inorganic 1.00 IPRCHM240Y1 Introduction to Organic 1.00 IPRCSC148H1 Introduction to Computer Science 0.50 IPR XTR


------------------------------------------------------ end of page --------------------------------------------------------



Page 3 of 5


1992 WINTER – NEW COLLEGE

SESSIONAL GPA: 3.88 ANNUAL GPA 3.87 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.87STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTBIO306H1 Inter-University Field Course 0.50 8 5 A DCHM229H1 Quantum Mechanics 0.50 8 1 A- D+CHM238Y1 Introduction to Inorganic 1.00 8 4 A- B-CHM240Y1 Introduction to Organic 1.00 8 9 A B-CSC148H1 Introduction to Computer Science 0.50 9 5 A+ B XTR


1994 SUMMER – NEW COLLEGE

SESSIONAL GPA: 3.70 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.86STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTBIO320Y1 Introductory Biochemistry 1.00 8 0 A- BCHM338H1 Intermediate Organic Chemistry 0.50 WDR



SESSIONAL GPA: N/A CUMULATIVE GPA: N/ACRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTCHM314Y1 Instrumental Methods of Analysis 1.00 IPRCHM327Y1 Thermodynamics & Mechanics 1.00 IPR XTRCHM338H1 Intermediate Inorganic Chemistry 0.50 7 9 B+ B-CHM348H1 Organic Reaction Mechanism 0.50 9 0 A+ DCHM428Y1 Research in Physical Chemistry 1.00 IPR



SESSIONAL GPA: 3.95 ANNUAL GPA 3.88 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.86STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVGFNCTCHM314Y1 Instrumental Methods of Analysis 1.00 8 5 A CCHM327Y1 Thermodynamics & Mechanics 1.00 8 3 A- C- XTRCHM379H1 Biomolecular Chemistry 0.50 8 9 A+ D-CHM428Y1 Research in Physical Chemistry 1.00 8 8 A+ BCHM441H1 Applications of Spectroscopy 0.50 8 0 A- B+


------------------------------------------------------ end of page --------------------------------------------------------



Page 4 of 5


Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering

1990 Winter – Dean’s Honours List

BASIS OF ADMISSION: FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE

RETAINED GPA: 4.0SESSION CRS CODE TITLE WGT GRD FNCT1990 WinterPSY100Y5 Introductory Psychology

Faculty of Arts and Science1.00 CR


1990 FALL – BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE –MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SESSIONAL GPA: 3.80 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.86STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVGFNCTAPS100H1 Computer Programming 0.50 8 0 A- D-CIV100H1 Applied Mechanics 0.50 9 5 A+ DHPS182H1 History of Technology & Engineering 0.50 9 0 A+ CMAT186H1 Calculus I 0.50 8 6 A DCHE111H1 Chemistry I 0.50 7 9 B+ D-ENGLISH Facility 0.00 CR


1991 WINTER – BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE –MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SESSIONAL GPA: 3.80 ANNUAL GPA 3.80 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.83STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVGFNCTAPS181H1 Writing as Effective Communication 0.50 9 0 A+ CCHE112H1 Chemistry II 0.50 9 4 A+ C-ELE110H1 Electricity Fundamentals 0.50 8 1 A- D+MAT187H1 Calculus II 0.50 7 8 B+ DMEC100H1 Dynamics 0.50 8 5 A D-ENGLISH1 Facility 0.00 CR


------------------------------------------------------ end of page --------------------------------------------------------



Page 5 of 5


1997 FALL- BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE –MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SESSIONAL GPA: 3.60 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.76STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVGFNCTMIE210H1 Thermodynamics 0.50 7 5 B DMIE231H1 Probability & Statistics 0.50 8 5 A B-MIE230H1 Engineering Analysis I 0.50 8 8 A+ BMIE240H1 Human Centred Systems Design 0.50 7 7 B+ CMMS270H1 Materials Science 0.50 8 1 A- C+


1998 WINTER – BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE –MECHANICAL ENGINEERINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVGFNCTMIE232H1 Differential Equation 0.50 IPRMIE233H1 Applied Science 0.50 IPRMIE241H1 Engineering Design and Graphics 0.50 IPRMIE234H1 Numerical Methods 0.50 IPRMIE265H1 Modelling Integrated Systems 0.50 IPR

------------------------------------------------------ end of record --------------------------------------------------------



Figure 7-C – Transcript Including Detail from 1 Division

Page 1 of 4

Name: SMITH, John Record as of: 15/01/1998Student Number 890000000 Birth Day/Month: 06/12Issued to: The University of Unknown

123 Real Street, Rm. 45Toronto, ON A1A 1A1

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE THREE YEAR CONFERRED – JUNE 1992GRADUATED WITH DISTINCTIONHONOURS BACHELOR OF SCIENCE COMPLETED – WINTER 1996

1989 Fall – University of Toronto Scholars Program – National Scholarship

Faculty of Arts and Science

1992 Winter – Major Program in Chemistry completed1996 Winter – Specialist Program in Chemistry completed1996 Winter – Minor Program in Biology completed

1990 Winter – Dean’s Honours List1992 Winter – Dean’s Honours List1992 Winter – Dupont Chemistry Award1996 Winter – Dean’s Honours List1996 Winter – Graduation Prize in Chemistry

BASIS OF ADMISSION: ONTARIO UNIVERSITYCRS CODE TITLE WGT GRD FNCTBIO1**Y Transfer Credit

McMaster University1.00 CR

HIS1**Y Transfer CreditMcMaster University

1.00 CR

HUM2**Y Transfer CreditMcMaster University

1.00 CR

PHL2**Y Transfer CreditMcMaster University

1.00 CR

SOC101Y5 Transfer CreditMcMaster University

1.00 CR


1989 FALL – ERINDALE COLLEGECRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTANT100Y5 Introduction to Anthropology 1.00 IPRBIO250Y5 Cell and Molecular 1.00 IPRPHL200Y5 Ancient Philosophy 1.00 IPRPSY100Y5 Introductory Psychology 1.00 IPRSOC200Y5 Introduction to Social Research 1.00 IPR


------------------------------------------------------ end of page --------------------------------------------------------

ENROLMENT HISTORY

1989-90 Faculty of Arts andScience (Degree)


1991-92 Faculty of Arts andScience (Degree), B.SC. 3-YearConferred, June 1992

1994-96 Faculty of Arts andScience (Degree), B.SC. 4-YearRequirements Met




Page 2 of 4


1990 WINTER – ERINDALE COLLEGE

SESSIONAL GPA: 3.88 ANNUAL GPA: 3.88 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.88STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTANT100Y5 Introduction to Anthropology 1.00 8 5 A CBIO250Y5 Cell and Molecular 1.00 8 9 A C-PHL200Y5 Ancient Philosophy 1.00 8 0 A- B-PSY100Y5 Introductory Psychology 1.00 9 0 A+ C+SOC200Y5 Introduction to Social Research 1.00 8 4 A D+


1990 SUMMER – ERINDALE COLLEGECRS CODE TITLE WGT GRD FNCTANT203Y5 Letter of permission

University of Western Ontario1.00 CR


1991 FALL – NEW COLLEGECRS CODE TITLE WGT GRD FNCTCHM1**Y Transfer credit

Faculty of Applied Science andEngineering

1.00 CR

MAT1**Y Transfer creditFaculty of Applied Science andEngineeringCalculus

1.00 XTR



SESSIONAL GPA: N/A CUMULATIVE GPA: N/ACRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTBIO260H1 Genetics 0.50 8 0 A- C-BIO301H1 Marine Biology 0.50 8 5 A DCHM217H1 Analytical Chemistry 0.50 9 2 A+ CCHM238Y1 Introduction to Inorganic 1.00 IPRCHM240Y1 Introduction to Organic 1.00 IPRCSC148H1 Introduction to Computer Science 0.50 IPR XTR


------------------------------------------------------ end of page --------------------------------------------------------



Page 3 of 4



SESSIONAL GPA: 3.88 ANNUAL GPA 3.87 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.87STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTBIO306H1 Inter-University Field Course 0.50 8 5 A DCHM229H1 Quantum Mechanics 0.50 8 1 A- D+CHM238Y1 Introduction to Inorganic 1.00 8 4 A- B-CHM240Y1 Introduction to Organic 1.00 8 9 A B-CSC148H1 Introduction to Computer Science 0.50 9 5 A+ B XTR


1994 SUMMER – NEW COLLEGE

SESSIONAL GPA: 3.70 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.86STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTBIO320Y1 Introductory Biochemistry 1.00 8 0 A- BCHM338H1 Intermediate Organic Chemistry 0.50 WDR



SESSIONAL GPA: N/A CUMULATIVE GPA: N/ACRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVG FNCTCHM314Y1 Instrumental Methods of Analysis 1.00 IPRCHM327Y1 Thermodynamics & Mechanics 1.00 IPR XTRCHM338H1 Intermediate Inorganic Chemistry 0.50 7 9 B+ B-CHM348H1 Organic Reaction Mechanism 0.50 9 0 A+ DCHM428Y1 Research in Physical Chemistry 1.00 IPR



SESSIONAL GPA: 3.95 ANNUAL GPA 3.88 CUMULATIVE GPA: 3.86STATUS: GOOD STANDINGCRS CODE TITLE WGT MRK GRD CRS AVGFNCTCHM314Y1 Instrumental Methods of Analysis 1.00 8 5 A CCHM327Y1 Thermodynamics & Mechanics 1.00 8 3 A- C- XTRCHM379H1 Biomolecular Chemistry 0.50 8 9 A+ D-CHM428Y1 Research in Physical Chemistry 1.00 8 8 A+ BCHM441H1 Applications of Spectroscopy 0.50 8 0 A- B+


------------------------------------------------------ end of page --------------------------------------------------------



Page 4 of 4


Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering

1990-91 Degree Studies, Mechanical Engineering, Year I

1997-98 Degree Studies, Mechanical Engineering, Year II

------------------------------------------------------ end of record --------------------------------------------------------



Figure 7-D – Confirmation of Registration

January 16, 1995

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This confirms that John SMITH is registered for the 1995-96 WinterSession, September 1995 to June 1996, in the Faculty of Arts and Science.The registration record is a follows:

College: NewDegree: Bachelor of ScienceStatus: Full-time

His tuition fee, based on the number of courses he has registered in for theperiod, is $8,000.00.

John DoeShadow Registrar, Transcript DepotPhone: (416) 978-1234Fax: (416) 978-4321Email: <[email protected]>



Figure 7-E – Confirmation of Admission

August 29, 1990

RE: Student: JOHN SMITH Student Number: 890000000

This is to certify that Mr. John Smith has been admitted as a full-timestudent to the first year of the four year B.A.Sc. degree program inMechanical Engineering in the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineeringfor the 1990-91 academic session.

Mr. Smith has completed pre-registration for the session whichcommences on September 4, 1990, and must now pay fees to complete theregistration process.

Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have furtherquestions.

John DoeShadow Registrar, Transcript DepotPhone: (416) 978-1234Fax: (416) 978-4321Email: <[email protected]>