developing an online admission review system rich rutty software developer/analyst

Student Information Systems

Developing an Online Admission Review System

Rich Rutty

Software Developer/Analyst


Enrollment and admissions

Summer / Fall 2010 Enrollment:

38,420 Undergraduate

11,582 Graduate

1,193 Law

51,195 Total

2010 Admissions:

7,275 First-Time Freshmen (Summer / Fall)

2,400 Undergraduate Transfer (Fall only)

3,300 New Graduate (Summer / Fall)


Freshman admissions

Fall 2010 Freshman Admission Statistics:31,022 Applied14,583 Admitted

7,275 Enrolled

• Comprehensive application and document review for those not automatically admitted (via Texas House Bill 588 - “Top 10% Rule”)

• Applicants eligible for certain scholarships also get reviewed.

18,964 Freshman applicants scored

• Schools of Architecture and Fine Arts also review applicant files.

~600 More freshman applicants reviewed

• Honors program applicants are not necessarily “scored,” but reviewed.

3,226 Honors applications completed


Personnel and timelines

Fall 2010 Freshman Reviewer Roles:

23 Full file reviewers, 825 applicants per reviewer

27 Essay readers, 702 applicants per reader

106 Viewers

• Most of the reviewers and readers worked off-campus.

Fall 2010 Freshman Review Deadlines:

12/15/2009 Application deadline

02/15/2010 Review deadline


Printing files

Mailing files to reviewers

Reviewing paper files

Mailing files to Admission Office

Entering review scores

What were we doing?


How much paper was used?

Printouts for Fall 2009 Freshman review used about 90 boxes of paper.

90 boxes → stack of paper 150 feet high


What we could do...

Create electronic files

Distribute to reviewer inboxes

Review files online

Reviewer enters scores


What we could do...

Create electronic files

Review files online

Reviewer enters scores

Distribute to reviewer inboxes


• Read files almost anywhere we please. (portable)• Scribble notes about the applicant directly on paper. • Stacks of files give a sense of how much work has been

accomplished and how much work is left to do. (visual of work status)

What we can do with paper


What can be better than paper?

• Reviewers can score files immediately.• Each reviewer can customize the order in which the

documents are viewed.• The pending files can be easily prioritized by date of

application materials completed.• Distribution of files is automatic. • Easier to track files assigned to reviewers.• Reviewers can still choose to print their files.


Inspiration for a document reader


Perspiration for a document reader

1) Applicant files abound.2) Applicants may or may

not have certain documents.

3) Some documents are imaged, some are separate web pages, others are raw text.

4) Different reviewer roles should only be able to view certain document types.

5) Documents must be secure.


• Sufficient servers to handle traffic.• Try to keep document size small.

– Generate raw text when feasible: applications, essays

• Try to limit database access and updates.– Retrieve only the documents necessary for review.– Eliminate “notes.” Update scores only.

• Make online document review as efficient as possible.– Emphasize the document in the viewer.– Score entry should be quick and easy.– Inbox management should be automatic.

What we have done


First attempt at a document viewer


Better document viewer


• Based upon role, retrieve only the documents allowed to be viewed for the role.

Build document list for each applicant

Role Can update scores Document families

Freshman - PAI Reviewer PAI, Essay1, Essay2 WRELTHNM

Freshman - Essay Reader Essay1, Essay2 E

Freshman - Manager PAI, Essay1, Essay2 WRELTHNM

Freshman - Viewer HNWRELTM

Graduate - Manager WARELTSFGM

Graduate - Viewer WARELTSFGM


Documents for Freshman PAI ReviewerDocument Family Document Format

Essays (E) Freshman essay E, I

Honors Application (H) Honors Application E

Letters of Recommendation (L) generic Freshman letter of recommendation H

generic letter of recommendation I

Business Honors recommendation H

Plan II recommendation H

Natural Sciences Honors recommendation H

Engineering Honors recommendation H

Turing Scholars recommendation H

Liberal Arts Honors recommendation H

Miscellaneous documents (M) Miscellaneous admissions documents I

Miscellaneous admissions application documents I

Honors essays (N) Honors application essay E

Resumes (R) Freshman resume H

generic resume I

Transcripts (T) U.S. high school transcript H, I

U.S. college transcript H, I

Foreign college transcript I

Foreign high school transcript I

Miscellaneous transcript document I

Review worksheet (W) Freshman review worksheet E

Document formats:

E = electronic

H = HTML

I = imaged


Document Customization

Sort inbox in date order (reviewers and essay readers) or name order (viewers).

Sort document families within a file.


Document formats

• Electronic – comprises raw text which was originally designed for our printing process

• HTML – a structured web page to display information• Imaged – scanned documents retrieved by our image

servers

• We added another web page to display electronic documents (electronic → HTML). The system now only needs to handle HTML and imaged documents.

• HTML documents are displayed within the viewer (iframe).• Imaged documents are embedded into the viewer (object).


Security considerations

• Authentication occurs with every page view.• Roles limit which applicants and which documents can be

viewed.• Roles also limit who can submit review scores.• Login through a Virtual Private Network (VPN) is required

if accessed off-campus.• Each link to an imaged document can only be used once.• Audit all input and encode (almost) all output.• Scripts (client and server) are used to prevent many web-

based attacks.


Inbox for Freshman PAI Reviewer


Manager functions - Authorization


Manager functions – Score report


Manager functions – Inbox spoofing


Questions?


Acknowledgements

• Marilyn Galvan – Sr. Systems Analyst• Brent Heustess – Sr. Systems Analyst• Michael Caldwell – Assistant Director – Admissions• Susan Kearns – Associate Director – Admissions• Steve Rung – Assistant Director – SIS• Michael Orr – Associate Director – Admissions• Angela Svoboda – Director - SIS


Rich Rutty – [email protected]

Contact: