“AdmitMe” pilot project conference call, 08/12/2011

Attendees:

Arnie Miles  Georgetown University

Ann West    InCommon

Vince Timbers    Penn State

Tim McGraw   CommonApp

Bob Morgan  UWash and InCommon

Randy Strother   College Board

Nirmal Rahi   College Board

Brendan Bellina   USC

Michael Morris   ACT

Agenda:

Questions for group:

  1. Vendors: what is your process now?
    1. ACT: Paper and pencil. Names checked off a roster, comes back to ACT to put into the system.
    2. CollegeBoard: Roughly the same, talked about electronic roster, but not up yet. Data that is collected is pretty much the same
    3. Vendors: What data do you actually keep now?
      1. ACT: ID Checked, type of ID, who checked the ID (all part-time employees of ACT). Don’t know what other information is checked?
      2. CollegeBoard: Who is checked off on rosters, who checked the ID. Would have to do another data integration to pull it together.
      3. Vendors: Is your current data consistent and well maintained?
        1. ACT: Yes, but self reported
        2. CollegeBoard: Yes, but self reported
        3. Is there a big problem with duplicates?
          1. ACT and CollegeBoard: Yes. Matching is very important. Resolving duplicates and having a single ID per person is very important.
          2. CollegeBoard reports pretty good success with matching algorithms employed.
          3. CommonApp has strict matching requirements.
          4. What data elements are collected when students sign up for tests?
            1. ACT: Answer sheets. Will send to me. Core information is what is used for matching.
            2. CollegeBoard: Establishing an account: Name, email, graduation date, gender. To sign up for a test: Residential address, AI Code, a whole bunch of other information.
            3. What data elements are collected when the data takes the exam?
              1. See above
              2. Question for CommonApp: Does a higher level of assurance have value?
                1. There are always concerns about the security of an application, it would be helpful and beneficial for the perception of the users. Whatever solution allows students to do everything in one place would be very interesting.
                2. What data elements would you want to collect in the future?
                  1. ACT: Surveys changes every year, but not information that would be used for identity matching.
                  2. CollegeBoard: Exactly the same. For system accounts, looking to reduce the amount of data collected. The point of opt-in, what information would we have to work with may change depending upon where we “hook in”. Depends upon how far along the admissions process an individual is.
                  3. What percentage of test takers sign up for online accounts first now?
                    1. ACT: Close to 90%, not verified, hallway conversation.
                    2. CollegeBoard: Same

10.  We understand that you don’t want to manage accounts if possible. Is that assumption correct?

  1. CollegeBoard: This would be an opt-in capability, so in the end CB would still be managing accounts with the option of deferring to AdmitMe
  2. CommonApp: We don’t have a preference, we’re happy to defer to another authority. Log in capabilities comprise a large part of our expenses. Don’t want to have to assume customer support. Would want to match one CommonApp account to one AdmitMe account.
  3. ACT: The people I’ve talked to at ACT is concerned about the perception of losing control. Logging on as a 3rd party have to examine the implications. Managing user accounts and authentication would save some. Not a big selling point.

Requirements (continuing to build list from discussions):

  • Vendors (College Board and ACT, all) must be able to maintain branding.
  • Vendors must not have to maintain user accounts, but can if desired.
  • A 3rd party central authority (AdmitMe) must be established to hold credentials of high school students transitioning into higher education, including a unique student identifier.
  • This unique student identifier must be available to vendors, schools, and other potential consumers.
  • Students must be able to initially self-register to this 3rd party authority via vendor portals.
  • The system must allow exam proctors to submit the results of photo ID checks and other vendor activities that validate student identities to improve the levels of assurance of the student credentials.
  • These higher LOA credentials must be accessible to increase the quality of vendor products.
  • The 3rd party identity store must hold what is necessary to identify individuals.
  • Vendor data stores must continue to be able to maintain private details relevant to their needs.
  • Output matching must be possible based upon unique identifier stored at 3rd party
  • There must be policies that address the appropriate management of privacy and defines who sets these policies and monitors compliance with these policies.
  • There must be some level of control at the vendors to provide customer support. Define responsibilities. Must define who is responsible for what. (add more as we continue)

Action Items:

  1. Check what items are checked by proctors.
  2. Naviance, Docufied and National Transcript Center might bring high school students earlier
    1. Some high schools may not want to encourage electronic transcripts
    2. Letter’s of Reference
    3. Naviance schools are pushing towards electronic transcripts.
      1. Naviance
      2. Docufide Delivery mechanism for the Naviance document, also known as eDocs  Docufide uses PESC standards
      3. Tim will send me contact information for Naviance and Docufide
      4. Docufide is Parchment, Parchment is in PESC
      5. UWash uses CollegeNet, Bob will invite
      6. Reinvite Department of Education Michael will contact Mike at DoE
      7. Michael Morris has a conflict XML Registry and Repository, get Michael Sessa to fix this.
  • No labels