november 05 newsletter - nafsa: association of ... · pdf fileexams in ghana ghanaian school...

Admission and Credential Evaluation

Admissions wRAP-Up Newsletter,November 2005

November 1, 2005

Recruitment, Admissions, andPreparation Knowledge Community

P R O F E S S I O N A L N E T W O R K S

Page Admissions wRAP Up - November 2005

Update from the Recruitment/Admissions/Credential Evaluation Coordinator on the RAP National Team By Marybeth Gruenewald The Annual Conference Committee (ACC) for 2006 met in September in Montreal to review and select session and workshop proposals, set meeting logistics, and to become acquainted with NAFSA’s next National Conference locale. As one of two RAP representatives on the ACC 2006, my work began after the Seattle conference ended. My RAP partner-in-planning, Christa Hansen [Chair-Elect of RAP], and I were given a number of responsibilities to help determine the RAP participation on the 2006 conference program. Let me first report that there were over 600 proposals for sessions, poster fairs, poster sessions, and pre-conference workshops. Out of that total, there were more than 160 RAP-related proposals. Choosing quality sessions and workshops that would begin to encompass all aspects of RAP, with these numbers, was a challenge. Christa and I created a system to rate each proposal that was fair to all RAP networks; we established a small, yet brilliant, team of volunteers to help us review and rate the RAP proposals; and we created a short list of criteria we hoped to use as a guide as we analyzed each proposal. Our RAP Conference subcommittee was composed of NAFSA members who represented all the Networks of RAP: Admissions, Recruitment and Marketing, Credential Evaluation, English Language

Trainers and Administrators, Sponsored Programming Administrators, Overseas Advisers, and Enrollment Managers. I want to sincerely thank the members of the subcommittee for their hard work. The task was awesome. Yet, they dove in with open and unbiased minds. The members of this subcommittee were: Dorothea Antonio of World Learning, Lorey Cross of AMIDEAST, Kathy Conrad-Rutzen of Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc, Beata Schmid of EF International Language Schools, Inc., Milagros (Mila) Tan of Philippine-American Education Foundation, and Susan Whipple of Marquette University. We worked solely via electronic communication, narrowing down the huge initial list to a compact set of high caliber proposals. What criteria did our RAP subcommittee use in rating these proposals? We looked at a number of general issues: Subject matter, format, and presentation staffing. We looked for sessions that held 4 or fewer presenters who could wisely use the time allowed, and still have a question and answer period at the end. Hot topics, such as the new TOEFL iBT, diploma mills, and Bologna-inspired degrees were at the forefront of our selection process. As I mentioned in the September issue of wRAP-Up, many of you shared with me your immediate needs during the Hot Topics session in Seattle. I hope some of you will find those needs addressed in Montreal. We also searched for sessions that included at least one Canadian presenter. Bien sûr! And considering the reorganization of NAFSA, we wanted sessions that combined the networks of RAP, such as US admission officers and overseas advisers who together would speak on a

(Continued on page 13)

Volume 2 , Issue 6

November 2005

I N S I D E T H I S I S S U E :

News You Can Use 2

A View from the Armchair

11

Country Profile: People’s Republic of China

14

Q & A With Jim Frey

25

Ontario’s New Applied Degrees

30

NCEE in China 30

Credentials Evaluation: Bologna Declaration

38

A D M I S S I O N S W R A P U P A N E W S L E T T E R F O R T H O S E I N T E R E S T E D I N I N T E R N A T I O N A L A D M I S S I O N S A N D R E C R U I T I N G

This publication has been developed

by NAFSA members for use by their

colleagues. No part of t his

newsletter may be reproduced

without written permission from

NAFSA: Association of International

Educators.

NAFSA: ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATORS

Featured country for credentials evaluation in

this issue:

Bologna Declaration

Diploma Supplement

Admissions wRAP Up - November 2005

News You Can Use Exams Council to Replace Senior Secondary Exams in Ghana Ghanaian school candidates will be writing the international West African Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) beginning May/June 2006. The WASSCE will replace the current Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination (SSSCE). The WASSCE will be available to private candidates in Ghana from 2007 and the examinations would be conducted in September/October. The GCE Ordinary and Advanced levels were phased out after the 1994 and 1996 examinations, respectively. Each member country of WAEC then adopted its own national examinations with Ghana introduced the SSSCE program. -- Ghana Review International Newsreel, Sept. 27, 2005 National Accreditation Agency of Russia The National Accreditation Agency was established by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation in 1995. The overall aim of the Agency is to support higher education institutions, educational establishments of vocational training, and the educational authorities of the Russian Federation in their state accreditation procedures. It also provides information, analysis and research in the field of quality assurance. At the State level the quality of higher education is implemented by licensing, attestation and accreditation. Their website address is: www.nica.ru/main.en.phtml. On this site, you can find a brief overview of the post-secondary education in Russia, including higher education institutions. You can learn more about the steps needed for accreditation and also find a list of accredited institutes. You may contact the agency at: National Accreditation Agency, 3 Lenin Square, Yoshkar-Ola, Russia, 424000 telephone:+7 (8362) 41-61-94 Fax: +7 (8362) 41-38-84 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] China Cracks Down on Exam Cheats The Chinese government is considering a law calling for sentences of three to seven years for flagrant cases of exam fraud, the official Xinhua news agency reported today. In the past, cheats were merely banned from future tests. But two widely reported cheating scandals last year in the central province of Henan involving

teachers and scores of students prompted calls for harsher punishments. The law would cover national exams, such as the college admission tests, graduate admissions exams and English competency exams, Xinhua said. It would not apply to individual schools' internal exams, professional tests, such as those for accountants, or exams run by overseas bodies, such as TEFL exams. Punishments would depend on the "impact on society" of individual infractions, Xinhua said, citing a draft of the law now before the law and politics committee of the state council, China's cabinet. Relatively minor violations could result in a fine, while large-scale organized cheating could result in the maximum sentence along with additional punishments that were not described. Those involved in last year's cheating incidents in Henan used mobile phones to send answers to students taking the three-day national university entrance exam. Students and teachers used text messages and digital cameras to pass questions to other teachers outside the exam hall who looked up the answers and messaged them to students who paid for them. At least seven teachers and five students were arrested, though details of the charges or punishments they face were not disclosed. Other scams have involved switching exam papers and the use of "hired guns" - clever students paid to take exams for other people. -- Associated PressGuardian Unlimited, September 15, 2005 2,500 Scholarships for Saudis to Study in US Some 2,500 scholarships are available for Saudis wishing to study in the US in different fields. The scholarships are available for bachelor’s, master’s or PhDs in medicine, including nursing, pharmacy, engineering, computer science, basic sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry), law, accounting and e-commerce. The decision to offer the scholarships was a result of Crown Prince Abdullah’s recent visit to the US. Those eligible are Saudis who have been admitted to a recognized American university and have a valid visa. They can either download the application from the ministry’s website or collect it from the ministry. A ministry official indicated that the ministry will pay an amount equal to $1,200 per month for single students, and more for married students. A monthly incentive, depending on the student’s grade point average, is also offered. According to earlier reports, the ministry has also made arrangements to send Saudi students to a number of universities in Canada and Europe for higher education. Official statistics show that the number of Saudi students studying abroad is 15,516. Of that number, 6,744 are on government scholarships while the others are studying at their own expense. -- Arab News, June 26, 2005


Undocumented Students and Eligibility for Enrollment at U.S. Colleges and Universities By Ellen Badger, Stephen Yale-Loehr, Matthew Vernon and Lindsay Schoonmaker Note: This article updates and expands information from earlier articles written by Ellen Badger and Stephen Yale-Loehr that appeared in the February 2002 edition of The Journal of College Admission, published by The National Association of College Admissions Counseling, the Fall 2000 edition of International Educator, published by NAFSA: Association of International Educators, and the May 15, 2000 edition of Bender’s Immigration Bulletin. It contains material used by the authors for presentations at the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) annual meeting, April 2001 in Seattle, Washington and the NAFSA: Association of International Educators Annual Conference, May 2000 in San Diego, California. The views presented in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the authors’ employers and should not be construed as formal legal advice. Introduction It seems that nearly every month, another article appears in the media regarding legislation or court cases in certain states to either permit or deny undocumented students access to that state’s public higher education institutions, with the issue of in-state tuition eligibility for this population frequently taking center stage. An undocumented student is a foreign national who: (1) entered the United States without inspection or with fraudulent documents; or (2) entered legally as a nonimmigrant but then violated the terms of his or her status and remained in the United States without authorization. All of us know of or have read about academically-gifted undocumented students educated in their state’s public school system, but who are denied access to that state’s public higher education institutions due to federal and state tuition and financial aid policies. In 2001, new legislation introduced in Congress provided a glimmer of hope for undocumented students. At about the same time, Mexican President Vincente Fox began to pursue a

Mexican “workers rights” agenda with both President Bush and state leaders that included giving undocumented children of migrant workers who graduate from U.S. high schools the same access as legal residents to higher education. And discussions within the White House hinted at legislation that would “regularize” the status of certain undocumented individuals currently residing in the United States, including some students.

The tragic events of September 11 temporarily moved all pro-immigration legislation to the back burner. However, access to U.S. higher education for undocumented students is an issue that will not go away. The battle continues to be waged in some states, and students, parents, advisors, guidance counselors, and college admissions personnel still have questions: What is the current law in this area? Is an undocumented student eligible to attend a U.S. college or university? We found that most of what was true four years ago, when we last researched this topic, remains true today.

In trying to craft a responsible answer to the question of undocumented students’ eligibility to attend U.S. colleges, there are multiple perspectives, based on an understanding of immigration law, education law, state law, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), ethics, and campus institutional policies. The challenge is to balance all of these considerations in an area that has few real answers. For those of us employed by U.S. colleges and universities, a further challenge is to offer guidance on this subject while maintaining that delicate balance between the quasi-enforcement role required by federal regulations and the helping role that is basic to the relationship between educators and students.

To research this issue we examined pertinent immigration case law, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), written commentary by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS—formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS]), and actual campus practices. We consulted the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), particularly 8 C.F.R. § 214.3(g) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.4; the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) sections 505-507; case law, USCIS memoranda, and various newspaper and law review articles. See the bibliography at the end of this article. The Plight of Undocumented Students A 1999 study estimated the number of undocumented foreign nationals under 18 in the U.S.



as one million. A Los Angeles Times article estimates that about 65,000 of these foreign nationals graduate from U.S. high schools each year.

Lawmakers and the public are divided about what to do about these students. On one side, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has stated that “[m]ost [undocumented students] came to this country with their parents as small children and have been raised here just like their U.S. citizen classmates. Many of them view themselves as Americans and are loyal to our country. . . As illegal immigrants they cannot work legally. They are also effectively barred from developing academically beyond high school because of the high cost of pursuing higher education. We have a choice either to keep these talented young people underground or give them a chance to contribute to the United States.”

On the other side, on October 20, 2004, National Public Radio reported on a Kansas lawsuit challenging legislation that would allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates for state universities in Kansas. The report included the following comment from Kris Kobach, who spearheaded the lawsuit: “Many American citizens are mortgaging their future because they can’t afford to go to college. Meanwhile, we’re handing out a subsidy to illegal aliens, people who are not supposed to be in this country and whose presence here is a violation of federal . . . law.”

As these articles show, the debate continues. We try to clarify some of the issues below. Federal Law, State Law, and the Right to Attend Public Colleges and Universities No federal law prohibits undocumented aliens from attending public colleges or universities. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), held that it was illegal for a state to deny school-aged undocumented aliens the right to a free education. The Supreme Court relied on the equal protection doctrine, which prohibits a state or the federal government from denying equal protection of the laws to any “person” (not just U.S. citizens).

Although post-secondary education is left up to the states, it is possible that the Plyler decision can cover this type of education as well. One could argue that post-secondary education is necessary to get by in today’s world, over 20 years post-Plyler, and that the decision should therefore extend to cover undocumented students’ rights to education. And as of yet, no federal law has overruled Plyler. The closest provision is IIRIRA § 505, which prohibits states from providing a post-secondary education benefit to an alien not lawfully present in the United States on the basis of the alien’s residence in their state unless the state would also provide the same benefit to a citizen or national residing in another state. Translated into plain English, this provision attempts to bar public colleges from

(Undocumented Students — continued from page 3) charging undocumented aliens an in-state tuition rate, since they would be treated more favorably than out-of-state residents who are U.S. citizens. We discuss section 505 in more detail below.

State law is more complicated. According to a 2003-04 survey by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), state legislatures have been “moving toward expanding in-state college opportunities to undocumented students.” Currently, at least nine states allow undocumented students to attend state college at reduced tuition rates: California, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Utah. Similar legislation has been introduced in several other states. Several states decide tuition on a campus-by-campus basis. Only three states have taken steps to restrict college access to undocumented students: Alaska, Mississippi, and Virginia. All these state laws are mentioned in the article by Michael A. Olivas listed in the bibliography.

California, now one of the more forward-looking states, originally tried to prohibit undocumented students from attending public colleges or universities. California’s attempt at barring undocumented students was named Proposition 187. Among other things, section 8 of that proposition would have denied post secondary education to undocumented aliens. A federal court struck down Proposition 187, holding that the state law contradicted federal law and thus was “preempted” by federal law. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. If Congress has effectively regulated in an area, states cannot enact laws that deviate from the federal one.

California’s state education code now allows only the use of admissions requirements as criteria for enrolling students. It should be noted that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) requires that student’s educational records are kept private and social security numbers are not to be required, allowing it to go undiscovered that a student is undocumented. For more information on this, check: www.dese.state.mo.us/schoollaw/freqaskques/undocumentedstudents.htm.

We move next to considering whether public colleges or universities may institute a policy barring undocumented aliens from enrolling, even if no state law exists. Under the preemption doctrine as interpreted by the federal courts, we believe the



answer is probably “no,” based on the Proposition 187 case mentioned above.

Public university officials frequently find themselves challenged by this issue. In some states, it is very difficult to get accurate information about such policies, or to find something in writing in a university publication or web-site. We attribute this to the volatile political nature of the issue. As an official told one of the authors off the record, “The public can accept the enrollment of foreign students when they learn that they pay high non-resident fees. However, the public cannot stomach the idea that the university is enrolling undocumented illegal students, even at inflated fees. No official contacted by the authors was able to share a count of the number of students enrolled on a particular campus who would be considered undocumented. And, there has probably been a deliberate (and probably wise) decision not to maintain records on undocumented students. As far as we are aware, undocumented students continue to be treated as non-resident students by most states. Essentially, this has accomplished the goal of the proponents of Proposition 187 because the financial burden posed by non-resident fees makes it impossible for most undocumented students to afford attending a public college or university. Private institutions may theoretically be able to legally prohibit undocumented aliens from enrolling. But most private institutions nevertheless are subject in some way to state or federal law because they receive state or federal funding, e.g., for financial aid purposes. The question is whether private institutions could become subject to a state or federal challenge if they prohibit undocumented students from enrolling. We must also consider the equal protection provision of the fourteenth amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and your state’s human rights law, which may also apply. It could be argued that even private institutions, if they receive federal funds for financial aid for example, must comply with the laws mentioned here. To comply with federal and state laws, public institutions must provide equal access in all programs and services without regard to race, color, sex, religion, age, disability, marital status, and in some cases sexual orientation or national origin. Employees of private institutions should ask legal counsel to determine whether their institution is subject to any of these laws. Moreover, even if it is, you should consider whether prohibiting undocumented aliens is discrimination on the basis of national origin.

(Undocumented Students - continued from page 4) Undocumented Students and Resident Tuition Benefits at Public Colleges and Universities As mentioned earlier, IIRIRA section 505 provides that no state shall provide a post-secondary education benefit (including in-state tuition) to an alien not lawfully present in the United States on the basis of the alien’s residence in their state unless the state would also provide the same benefit to a citizen or national residing in another state. This provision applies to benefits provided on or after July 1, 1998.

There are no regulations implementing this provision, even though it technically took effect July 1, 1998. Thus, almost ten years after it was written into law, we still do not know whether the term “an alien not lawfully present” is the same, for example, as “unlawful presence” under INA § 212(a)(9)(B). Or it could mean anyone out of status. We will also have to wait until regulations are published to know whether the USCIS will first determine whether someone is not lawfully present, or whether school financial aid administrators are supposed to make that determination on their own.

Most public institutions make their tuition policies available for ready reference. For example, for colleges in the State University of New York (SUNY) system, the SUNY Policy and Procedures Library’s “Financial” section sets forth the SUNY policy on establishing residency for tuition purposes. This policy is probably like many state university policies. It provides that a person whose domicile has been in New York state for 12 months or longer may qualify for in-state tuition as a New York resident. The policy distinguishes between residency and domicile. A person may have many residences, but only one domicile. A domicile is a fixed permanent home to which a person intends to return. Nonimmigrants admitted to the United States in categories that prohibit them from establishing U.S. residence are not eligible for in-state tuition at SUNY. This includes most nonimmigrants, but SUNY makes exceptions for students in the A, E, G, H, I, K, L and V nonimmigrant visa categories who can prove domicile in New York.

Section VI of the SUNY policy “Establishment of Residency for Tuition Purposes” was updated in June 1998 to reflect IIRIRA section 505. Until that time undocumented aliens could qualify for in-state tuition, although many SUNY campuses did not permit it. Section VI states that “students who are unable to present valid documentation of their alien status are not eligible for in-state tuition rates.” The section basically paraphrases IIRIRA section 505. However, in June 2002, the New York State legislature further amended this policy, enumerating certain conditions under which undocumented students could establish



residence. Under this amendment students who cannot prove their immigration status can establish residency if they either have: (1) attended an approved New York State high school for more than two years and have applied for admission to a SUNY school within five years of receiving a diploma; or (2) received a General Equivalency Diploma and applied for admission to a SUNY school within five years of receiving a diploma. In addition, the student must file a notarized affidavit stating that he or she will apply for legal immigration status as soon as possible. This revision is found in Section III C 2 of the SUNY policy statement. Federal and State Legislation That Might Help Undocumented Students There have been two main federal legislative efforts to alleviate some of the legal ambiguity facing universities about how to treat undocumented students. First, in spring 2001, three members of the House of Representatives (Chris Cannon (R-Utah), Howard Berman (D-California) and Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-California)) introduced a federal bill on this issue. Entitled “The Student Adjustment Act,” the bill attempted to return control of state residency for tuition purposes to the states. It also addressed the financial aid issue by permitting certain undocumented students to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents, thereby allowing them to qualify for financial aid. The bill never passed, and has not yet been re-introduced in the current Congressional session.

Second, in 2003 Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. This act would grant conditional permanent residence to undocumented students who: came to the United States before the age of 16 can prove good moral character, have been in the country five years at the time of enactment, and have graduated from high school in the U.S. To lift the conditional status of the legal permanent residence, within six years the undocumented foreign national would have to: (1) graduate from a two-year college or have studied for two years toward a bachelor’s degree; (2) have served in the U.S. armed forces for two years; or (3) have performed a certain amount of volunteer community service. Like the House bill, the Senate bill would do away with the financial aid obstacles facing undocumented foreign national students. Both bills would grant permanent resident status and allow states to determine residency requirements for in-state tuition rates. Although the DREAM Act has received bipartisan support, several senators have vehemently opposed it, expressing concern that the act would “reward lawbreakers” and encourage illegal immigration. It has

(Undocumented Students - continued from page 5) not yet been re-introduced in the current Congressional session.

State legislation to grant certain undocumented students eligibility for in-state tuition rates has either been discussed or introduced in several states. See the Olivas article in the bibliography of this article. However, concern has been expressed in some states that any state-approved legislation granting in-state tuition to undocumented students may violate IIRIRA section 505. Texas officials claim that its law effectively bypasses the matter by using enrollment in and graduation from a Texas high school and years spent living in the state as the basis for in-state tuition, rather than residency.

However, even if granting in-state tuition is determined not to violate IIRIRA section 505, access to higher education remains an issue because the matter of eligibility for state and federal financial aid is not addressed. In 2001, California enacted a law granting in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants. Like the Texas law, the California law permits undocumented students to pay in-state rates at California’s state universities and colleges (but not the University of California campuses) if they have attended California high schools for three years. The students also must sign an affidavit stating their intent to apply for permanent resident status as soon as possible.

The difference between the Texas and California laws, although seemingly small, may decide which states survive a legal challenge. California’s in-state tuition criteria may circumvent any challenges that its law would benefit undocumented students to a greater extent than out-of-state citizens or permanent residents. Thus, just as California schools can grant in-state tuition to a student from another state based on in-state credit hours, an undocumented student can be considered for in-state tuition based on having spent three years in secondary school. In this model the undocumented student becomes an exception to out-of-state tuition, rather than a “resident,” a term that carries considerable legal baggage. A recent law review article notes that “laws modeled after California would likely pass judicial scrutiny in the face of a challenge that they violate Section 505 of IRAIRA.” Utah, New York, and Oklahoma have followed this example, while Illinois and Washington have followed Texas’s lead. A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education notes that although several states have adopted laws to ease the financial burden on undocumented students, relatively few students have exercised this



law. The article lists several reasons for this: “In some cases, immigrant students lack academic preparation needed for college. In others, even the in-state tuition rate is too high for such students and financial aid programs are still largely closed off to them. What’s more, many illegal immigrants are simply unaware of the programs.” Of the states that have passed in-state tuition laws to help undocumented students, only two, Texas and Oklahoma, offer state financial aid. Oklahoma collects data on undocumented students participating under the law, which may contribute to the program’s slow start. Texas is perhaps the only state currently enrolling large numbers of undocumented students. Approximately 6,500 undocumented students have enrolled in Texas institutions of higher learning under that state’s law. Some academic administrators are unconcerned by this slow start to the state programs. Tim Washburn, assistant vice-president for enrollment services at the University of Washington, told the Seattle Times: “The real impact, I think, will be in the future. What this measure does is it affects the way students think of education possibilities. Students who are beginning the eighth and ninth grades now know it’s possible for them. They begin now taking all the right preparatory courses.” Several states are also initiating outreach programs to explain the new undocumented student laws to high school and college officials. On the non-legislative front, a group of Boston colleges is attempting to provide scholarship money to undocumented students. They see this as a “stopgap measure” to provide the necessary funding until legislation can be passed. It is also their way of speaking out against the Massachusetts governor, who is threatening to veto a pending bill to aid undocumented students. Other immigration support groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) also provide scholarships to undocumented students attending college. While these efforts may be laudable, the sad irony is that without federal legislation such as the DREAM Act becoming law, undocumented students now able to enroll in public universities in certain states face a bleak future upon graduation. They are not eligible for employment, so they cannot put their degrees to work in the U.S. Undocumented Students and USCIS Authorization to Issue I-20s Enrolling undocumented students at an institution authorized by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

(Undocumented Students - continued from page 6) (USCIS) to enroll F-1 or M-1 students does not jeopardize that authority. USCIS regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.3(g)(1) require an approved school to keep records containing specific information and documents relating to each F-1 and M-1 student to whom it has issued an I-20 form. No such reporting requirement exists for undocumented students. USCIS regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.4(a) allow the USCIS to withdraw a school’s approval to issue I-20s for a variety of reasons. But none of those reasons relates to having undocumented students on campus. IIRIRA section 507 requires states and higher education institutions to transmit to USCIS copies of documents they accept from individuals verifying the individuals’ citizenship or immigration status, or information from such documents. But this is only for applicants for post-secondary financial assistance. It does not concern enrollment issues, so it is not relevant to the matter of undocumented students. Even so, FERPA protects students from having to give out documentation that they do not wish to give and protects the privacy of the educational records that they do make available to the school. Moreover, like section 505, there are no regulations implementing section 507 yet. Undocumented Students and Intensive English Programs If an English as a second language (ESL) program is part of a public institution, state and federal constitutional law principles apply. See our discussion above. If the intensive English program is at a private school, we would be concerned of a possible state or federal legal challenge if the school prohibited undocumented aliens from enrolling if the school receives any form of state or federal funds.

The Right of an Undocumented Student to Attend School Some would say that denying admission, access to scholarships, or access to an intensive English program denies a moral right to another human being. On the legal side, the public/private distinction may be important here. A public school may be subject to federal and state constitutional and statutory law considerations, such as equal protection. A private school may declare itself exempt from those, although we would question whether that effort would be successful. On the policy aspect of this issue, if the applicant meets the academic requirements for your institution, you should admit. Other than a school’s reporting obligations to F and J status individuals, the student’s immigration status is a matter between the student and the USCIS. To quote from an immigration agency cable of January



14, 1994:

“The effect of Plyler [v. Doe] on post-secondary education is not clear; however, Congress has not adopted legislation which would permit states and state-owned institutions to refuse admission to undocumented aliens or to disclose their records to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.”

That statement is still true today. Some would say that by not permitting an undocumented alien to register for classes, we are denying that person his or her civil right to study. Legally, the question is whether people have a legal right to a university education. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), clearly states that education is not a fundamental right. But Plyler v. Doe held that Texas could not deny undocumented school children an opportunity to attend public elementary and secondary schools. Although Plyler dealt with children and teenagers, not college students, the Court’s reasoning for imposing an intermediate scrutiny test in that case could be applied to a public college barring admission to undocumented aliens. First, you could argue that in today’s high-tech world, where people need an advanced degree for most good jobs, undocumented aliens would be similarly disadvantaged to the school-aged children in Plyler if they cannot attend college. Second, many undocumented college-aged students arrived in the United States when they were small children. Thus, like the children in Plyler, they are here through no fault of their own.

On the other hand, a court could also say that there is a difference between depriving a child a basic education that teaches reading and writing and denying an adult an opportunity to obtain a college degree. So the law on this issue is unclear.

At many institutions, to deny the student admission would be a violation of the school’s equal access policy. Undocumented Students and Criminal Penalties for Those Who Assist Them There are criminal penalties for harboring fugitives, for aiding and abetting persons in violation of laws, and so forth. Admitting an undocumented alien to your school or letting an undocumented alien live on campus is not harboring. INA section 274(a) makes it a crime to bring aliens into the United States and to harbor or shield them from detection. The section also applies to people who aid, abet and encourage aliens in gaining unlawful entry to the United States. We have found no cases involving the harboring of undocumented aliens on a college campus. Colleges are neutral places of learning.

(Undocumented Students - continued from page 7) Allowing undocumented aliens to become students is not the same as taking affirmative steps to conceal their presence.

Conclusion As this article demonstrates, it is not easy to understand when and how undocumented students may attend U.S. colleges and universities. The matter of undocumented students at U.S. colleges and universities is an important policy question. As the number of undocumented students wanting to attend U.S. post-secondary educational institutions grows, the issue has become more acute. Increased attention in the media and possible legislative changes at the state and federal levels may have a positive impact on access to U.S. higher education for these students in the future. In the meantime, if an institution has a policy barring admission based on immigration status or lack thereof, the institution’s legal counsel should review that policy. Research Tools and Bibliography Cases: League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3418 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 1998) League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755 (C.D. Cal. 1995) Leticia A. v. Board of Regents, No. 588-982-5 Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, May 5, 1985, digested in 62 Interpreter Releases 639-41 (July 12, 1985) Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1984) Regents of the University of California v. Bradford, 276 Cal. Rptr. 197, 225 Cal. App. 3d 972 (1990) Regents of University of California v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 3d 972 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1990) Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982) Statutes: IIRIRA §§ 505-507 Regulations: 8 C.F.R. § 214.3(g) 8 C.F.R. § 214.4 Miscellaneous: Karen W. Arenson, CUNY Raises Tuition Rates for Foreigners Here Illegally, The New York Times (November 3, 2001) Associated Press, Mexico Praises Texas Bill to Allow



Immigrants to Attend University, The Associated Press (June 19, 2001) Ellen Badger, Bob Ericksen, and Stephen Yale-Loehr, Betwixt and Between: Undocumented Aliens and Access to U.S. Higher Education, NAFSA International Educator Vol. IX No. 4 (Fall 2000) Ellen Badger and Stephen Yale-Loehr, They Can’t Go Home Again: Undocumented Aliens and Access to U.S. Higher Education, Bender’s Immigration Bulletin Vol. 5 No. 15 (May 15, 2000) Ellen Badger and Stephen Yale-Loehr, Myths and Realities for Undocumented Students Attending U.S. Colleges and Universities, The Journal of College Admission (February 2002) Becky Bartindale, Tuition Bill Gives Hope to Illegal Immigrants, The San Jose Mercury News (August 21, 2001) Louis Caldera, Locked Out of the American Dream, The Washington Post (August 3, 2001) Joni Carrasco, House Bill May Open Door for Undocumented Students to Qualify for In-State Tuition, The Tri-City (Wash.) Herald (July 9, 2001) Leslie Casimir, A Tough Climb to Higher Education. Immigrant Status Makes Financing College Difficult, The New York Daily News (June 26, 2001) John Estrella, A DREAM Deferred is a DREAM Denied: Congress Debates the Bipartisan DREAM Act, AILA Immigration Law Today (January/February 2004) James A. Ferg-Cardima, Survey of Recent State Law and Legislation During the 2003-04 Legislative Term Aimed at Facilitating Undocumented Student Access to State Universities, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (November 18, 2003)

Bruce Finley, Mexican President Heads to U.S., The Denver Post (July 11, 2001)

Karin Fischer, Immigrants Rarely Use Hard-Won Tuition Break, Chronicle of Higher Education (December 10, 2004) Samuel G. Freedman, Behind Top Student’s Heartbreak, Illegal Immigrants’ Nightmare, The New York Times (September 1, 2004) Scott S. Greenberger, GOP Says Democrats Aid Illegal Immigrants, The Boston Globe (October 20, 2004)

Lucio Guerrero, Fox Vows His Support for Bush’s Immigration Proposal, Chicago Sun-Times (June 18, 2004)

Catherine Hausman and Victoria Goldman, Great Expectations, The New York Times Education Supplement (April 8, 2001)

Sarah Hebel, Federal Judge Throws Out Lawsuit that Challenged Tuition Break for Some Illegal Immigrants in Kansas. The Chronicle of Higher Education (July 6, 2005) INS General Counsel Legal Opinion No. 93-74, Documentation and Registration of Nonimmigrant Students (September 21, 1993) INS Memorandum, Revised School Approval Policy and Procedures (Jan. 14, 1994), reproduced in Interpreter Releases Vol. 71, p. 361 (March 14, 1994) Susan Donaldson James, For Illegal Immigrants, a Harsh Lesson, The New York Times (June 19, 2005) Miriam Jordan, Illegal Immigrants’ New Lament: Have Degree, No Job, The Wall Street Journal (April 26, 2005) William A. Kaplin and Barbara A. Lee, The Law of Higher Education: A Comprehensive Legal Guide to Legal Implications of Administrative Decision Making. Third Edition. Jossey-Bass Publishers (1995) Jill Leovy, When No Green Card Means No College, Los Angeles Times (March 24, 2001) Jill Leovy, Bill Seeks to Legalize Immigrant Students, Los Angeles Times (May 21, 2001) Stanley Mailman and Stephen Yale-Loehr, College for Undocumented Immigrants After All? New York Law Journal, p. 3 (June 25, 2001) Mark K. Matthews, Immigration Bedevils State Lawmakers, Stateline.org (September 2, 2005), at /www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=51980 Jennifer Mena, ‘Dream Act’ Offers Hope for Immigrant Students, Los Angeles Times (September 19, 2004)

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Undocumented Students: Guidelines Regarding the Use of Social Security Numbers and the Attendance at School of Undocumented Students, available at: www.dese.state.mo.us/schoollaw/freqaskques/undocu


mentedstudents.htm. (December 4, 2003)

Renee Montagne & Anthony Brooks, Lower In-State\Tuition Right to Children of Undocumented Workers in Kansas Brings About Lawsuit, National Public Radio: Morning Edition (October 20, 2004)

Dan Morain, In-State Tuition Ok’d for Migrants, Los Angeles Times (October 12, 2001)

NACAC Bulletin, Postsecondary Education for Undocumented Students, NACAC Bulletin, Volume 39 No. 7 (August/September 2001) National Immigration Law Center, DREAM Act Reintroduced in Senate, Immigrants’ Rights Update, Vol. 17, No. 5 (September 4, 2003) Michael A. Olivas, IIRIRA, The DREAM Act, and Undocumented College Student Residency, Bender's Immigration Bulletin Vol. 9, pp. 307-329 (March 15, 2004) Jeffrey S. Passel, “The Number of Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.: A Review and New Estimates.” In Illegal Immigration in America: A Reference Handbook, edited by David W. Haines and Karen E. Rosenblum. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press (1999) Teresa Puente, Illegal Immigrants Face Barrier in Pursuit of College Education, The Chicago Tribune (June 5, 2001) Aurelio Rojas, Immigrant Tuition Cut Advancing, The Sacramento Bee (June 24, 2001) Thomas R. Ruge and Angela D. Iza, Higher Education for Undocumented Students: The Case for Open Admission and In-state Tuition Rates for Students Without Lawful Immigration Status, Indiana International & Comparative Law Review Vol. 15, pp. 257-278 (2005) Rebecca Ness. Rhymer, Note, Taking Back the Power: Federal vs. State Regulation on Postsecondary Education Benefits for Illegal Immigrants, Washburn Law Journal Vol. 44, pp. 603-625 (2005) Maria Sacchetti, Some Students in O.C. are Graduating Into Limbo, The Orange County (Ca.) Register (June 6, 2001) Jessica Salsbury, Comment, Evading “Residence”: Undocumented Students, Higher Education, and the States, American University Law Review Vol. 53, p. 459 (2003) Dane Schiller, College Law Benefits Immigrants. Texas Grads Who Aren’t Legal Residents Can Pay In-State

Tuition, The San Antonio Express-News (June 20, 2001) Sarah Schweitzer, Colleges Try to Help Newcomers with Tuition, Schools Aim the Aid at Undocumented, The Boston Globe (July 26, 2005) Edward Sifuentes, Bill Would Lower Tuition for Illegal Immigrant Students, North County (Calif.) Times (July 13, 2001) Carrie Sturrock, Tuition Bill to Assist Immigrants, The Contra Costa (Calif.) Times (June 27, 2001) SUNY, University-Wide Policies and Procedures Establishment of Residency for Tuition Purposes, available at: www.suny.info/policies/groups/public/documents/policies/pub_suny_pp_030752.htm U.S. General Accounting Office, No. GAO/HEHS-97-153, Higher Education: Verification Helps Prevent Student Aid Payments to Ineligible Noncitizens (August 6, 1997) Helen Thorpe, Head of the Class With His Grades and High School Activities, Pablo is an Ideal Candidate for College Except for One Hitch: He’s Illegal, Denver Westword (Colorado) (December 2, 2004) Lornet Turnbull, Others Using Tuition Break Meant for Immigrants, The Seattle Times (November 22, 2004) Twila Van Leer, Immigrants College Cost to Fall? Cannon Offers Bill to Remove Several Barriers, The Deseret (Utah) News (June 4, 2001) Jennifer Yachnin, Bill in 2 States Would Cut College Costs for Some Illegal Immigrants, The Chronicle of Higher Education (April 13, 2001) Laura S. Yates, Plyler v. Doe and the Rights of Undocumented Immigrants to Higher Education: Should Undocumented Students be Eligible for In-state Tuition Rates?, Washington University Law Quarterly Vol. 82, pp. 585-609 (2004) Ellen Badger is Director, International Student and Scholar Services at Binghamton University (SUNY) in Binghamton, NY; Stephen Yale-Loehr is co-author, Immigration Law & Procedure and an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, NY; Matthew Vernon and Lindsay Schoonmaker are research assistants at True, Walsh & Miller, LLP in Ithaca, NY.


A View from the Armchair By Alan Margolis Of all the things that need to be addressed in the “it’s-not-a-science” field of foreign academic credential evaluation, perhaps the most problematic is grade equivalencies. Is there such an entity as a “true” or “accurate” grade equivalency methodology? If so, someone please let me know, as I’ve yet to see one. Perhaps the first problem lies with the assumption that US higher education institutions work with the “same” grade scale. Yes, we do generally use the same symbols: A, B, C, D, F, and whatever additional designations we create to explain why we aren’t using those neat five letters (e.g., INC for Incomplete, or W for Withdrawal). However, institutions use these symbols differently, both in a purely arithmetic way and as an indication of their students’ likelihood to succeed. When I first started working with transcripts and grades, I was told that many institutions used plus and minus grades as well as letters. In all innocence, I created two conversion tables and checked them with my supervisor to determine which to use.

I was told that Table 2 did not represent anyone’s reality and that all grades bearing A, B, C, and D are considered to fall within that category, i.e., Table 1. I then asked if A-, B+ and B all fell into the general 3.nn numeric range—3.67, 3.50, 3.00, should not the default value for plus and minus grades also fall into that range. I was told that the first table represented the “standard method” for presenting these grades. Discussion over. So, if I now seem to obsess, I hope to be forgiven. Grade distribution studies within institutions, if such studies are done, often are not available beyond the confines of the highest level of administrative secrecy. A few years ago, I conducted a study to see if there was sufficient information throughout the US to determine whether institutions were suffering from grade inflation. I called several stand-alone universities as well as the

TABLE 1 TABLE 2 A+, A, A- A A+, A A

B+, B, B- B A-, B+, B B

C+, C, C- C B-, C+, C C

D+, D, D- D C-, D+, D D

F F F F

central offices of public university systems. In general, the responses I received seemed purposefully meant to confuse me. Was the information not shared because I represented another university? Were they afraid to make public the results of their internal studies? Or, as I was told several times, “Grade inflation doesn’t really exist; we gave up doing studies a long time ago.” With our US model ambling towards shambles, comparisons of other educational systems with our own, especially if created with any degree of mathematical precision, are likely to fail, as there are few US institution (if any) that are so similar in their grading that they really can say they are “doing the same thing.” Yet, grade equivalencies are very important, as they are used to determine admissibility of students and the transferability of their credits. We need to ask ourselves, “Do I have a defensible rationale for the creation of these equivalencies?” A response that relates what is done on one campus (or evaluation service) with what is done elsewhere might be comfortable to the evaluator as it indicates some degree of commonality. However, do we really know what the frequency of any grade equivalency system is: how many institutions are using it and from where did it come? First, we have to accept that US grades designations are abstractions. Faculty members generally are left pretty much alone with respect to grading. The “easy markers” exist on most campuses and, within that department may be countered by the “tough grader.” Perhaps not as frequent, is the case where certain academic departments are “known” as generous in their grading. While this is less likely to be said about an institution rather than its constituent parts, the easy v. tough concept still does apply. The larger the unit being considered, the less certain we can be about such grading designation. All of this is, of course, relative: “easy” or “tough” compared to what? When we deal holistically with educational systems, especially as they relate to other systems, such designations are difficult to support. However, there are a few generalities that may be almost universal in their applications: There are grades that represent outstanding achievement and grades that indicate failure. If we accept this, then we now have a grade equivalent to our A and our F. Now the fun begins. How many levels of grades do we “need?” Must we have four levels of passing



grades—A, B, C, D? If so, how do we define B, C, and D? I use a trick with respect to the D grade that, I think, may work. If we define the US C grade as the lowest passing aggregate grade that is sufficient to warrant graduation, then any such grade in a foreign system becomes a C. (At the graduate level, the lowest passing aggregate grade for graduation would be a B, so you can do the same thing for at that level.) There is no absolute need for a D grade. In many foreign systems, the concept of a “D” grade, a level of pass that, in the aggregate is insufficient to result in graduation, does not exist. In systems with relatively few grade designators, like the Russian with its three passing grades (5, 4, and 3), the concept of a D is not an issue as a 3 is a C even though it is the lowest passing grade. The fact that it also is the lowest aggregate grade for successfully completing the program is not articulated as a factor. The Swedish system is similar as there are three passing grades, MVG (high distinction), VG (distinction) and G (Pass). Many of the Latin American countries have an 11 grade scale, with 10 as the highest grade and 0 as the lowest. Wherever the lowest passing grade falls, whether it is 5 or 6, it is difficult to make a case for a D grade. Only if the distinction is clear, such as with the Australian “Conceded/Terminating” Pass, where it is clear that this is passing but not satisfactory, or in the French system where, in many former colonies, grades of 8 and 9 may be passing, but only if the entire year is passed, is the case for the D grade clear. Arguments that indicate that, despite the acceptance of this D grade position, some systems require a D as they are “educationally inferior” strike me as problematic. The designation “inferior” is intuitive, with no objective measurements used. We recognize that not all US institutions are academically equal to all others—and we often have documentation, in the form of transfer student persistence studies to back up this evaluation—yet we accept US grades at face value. Then why should we act differently with respect to foreign systems? The fact that there are more grades in a system does not necessarily complicate matters. The most common foreign grade scales, 0-10, 0-20, and 0-100 all can be dealt with in a similar way once we’ve established the rules of the game. What we have to realize is that regardless of the superficial similarities between systems with the same range of grades, the individual grades may have different meanings and may be used differently. For example, the European Credit Transfer

(Armchair - continued from page 11) System (ECTS) system, where they offer an A, B, C, D, E, FX, F system, but the grades do not correspond with the “American” 4-point system. At least by my count, we now have “settled” three grades by defining what is included (or excluded). The reasons we need As and Fs feel comfortable and the way to decide whether a D is required at least has a rationale. The C grade also falls into line as we use the definition to establish the need for the D. The B grade we can take on faith as a level of pass somewhere between outstanding and getting by. The hardest work still lies ahead. In a list of grades longer than five—the equivalent of one foreign grade for each of the standard US grades—we need to group them in the four or five categories of US grades that we use. French-patterned systems present an interesting challenge. The grading system is 0 – 20 with a minimum passing grade of 10. The grades are traditionally grouped narratively as: 16-20 Très Bien (Very good), 14-15.9 Bien (Good), 12-13.9 Assez-Bien (variously translated as either Good Enough or Almost Good) and 10-11.9 Passable (Satisfactory). While these groupings have value in that they provide in words the general value of the grades, we must take into account the culture of grade assignments and what the administrative values are, i.e., program continuation and graduation. We have eleven passing grades. Starting from the bottom, if a 10 is sufficient in the aggregate, then this is a C. Clearly, 20 is an A. Well, we have only nine more to go. We are told that grades of 16 to 20 are “almost never given.” While this statement may appear in research done by our colleagues, it does not appear with reference to all French- patterned grading systems and, if accepted, must be done so as a matter of faith rather than certified by data. Such data would be most valuable in our assessment of the entire grading system. Are we to generalize about this statement, applying it to all such French-patterned systems or are we to step back and make a more conservative judgment? I do not doubt (don’t ask me why) that 16-20 is the A range; however, what about 14 and 15? We can be conservative, with a grade equivalence of


A 16-20

B 14-15

C 10-13


We can be liberal,

Or, if we are equivocators,

I don’t know which is “right,” assuming one of them is. The reason I don’t know is that I am not able to create the rationale I need to use my independent judgment. Grade distribution information is becoming more common now that Europe has implemented ECTS. For example, the University of Toulouse, for its ECTS grading uses the following scale:

(Ref: http://www.univ-tlse1.fr/international/ECTS/EcoGrading.html)

(Armchair - continued from page 12)

A 14-20

B 12-13

C 10-11

A 15-20

B 13-14

C 10-12

ECTS Toulouse A 14.1 - 20

B 12.1 - 14

C 11.1 - 12

D 10.1 - 11

E 10

FX 8.0 - 9.9

F 0.0 - 7.9

A well-known credential evaluation agency recommends the following conversion from ECTS to US letter grades:

ECTS now provides some grading scales that may prove interesting. However, this “liberal” scale should not be accepted until you have understood (if this is at all possible) the scale both in an absolute sense and also, relative to non-ECTS grading. The fact of its use in the ECTS process does not, in itself, prove its appropriateness in the United States. In the broader sense, this rationale must be consistent across national system lines. We need a consistent approach that both takes into account the grading system in question and how it relates to those used in the US. I need help. If you use a system that “works,” and has a universal rationale, please let us know all about it. Alan Margolis is the editor of Admissions wRAP UP

ECTS US A A

B A

C B

D C+

E C

FX D

F F

topic important to both groups. And so, it is very possible that by the time you are reading this, some of you may have been notified that a proposal you submitted for next year’s conference was or was not chosen. Your RAP conference subcommittee had very many excellent sessions to review, and the other NAFSA Knowledge Communities were vying for spaces on the program schedule as well. I want to thank all of you for submitting a proposal or agreeing to be a part of a session, workshop, or poster fair. I hope the final selection will be beneficial to those

(RAP Update - continued from page 1) who attend next year. Continue to submit proposals for conferences; continue to volunteer; continue to learn and grew within our community. Our RAP community is strong; our networks are filled with incredible, talented professionals who know that when they give…they also receive.


Excerpt from COUNTRY EDUCATION PROFILE, People’s Republic of China (中华人民共和国)

By Haichen Sun

We have included an excerpt below of the country profile of the People’s Republic of China which was recently completed by Haichen Sun, International Qualifications Assessment Consultant to The International Qualifications Assessment Service (IQAS), Alberta Advanced Education. The IQAS evaluates educational credentials from other countries and compares them to educational standards in Alberta and other Canadian provinces. IQAS is developing a data repository of international education systems and credentials. The data repository, consisting mainly of country educational profiles and credential templates that provide placement recommendations in a Canadian context, will not only be used internally but also be made available to outside stakeholders to help them make accurate and informed decisions on the recognition of international credentials. The project is a first in Canada. Announcements will be made when other country profiles or credential templates become available. (The next project will be the Philippines.) For questions and feedback about the China Country Profile, please contact Haichen Sun ([email protected]). For further information about the IQAS research initiative, you may contact Irena Blodgett ([email protected]). You may download a complete copy of the China educational profile from the following link on the IQAS website: http://www.advancededucation.gov.ab.ca/iqas/docs/CountryProfile_China.pdf. It includes detailed information on secondary education, the curriculum (including classroom hours and subjects), school leaving exams, university entrance examinations, higher education and degrees, technical-vocational education, teacher training, and an excellent list of resources. We thank IQAS for graciously agreeing to allow us to share this important information with our readers! DOCUMENTATION Document Types To determine whether a document represents a “recognized” credential in China, the key criterion is whether it belongs to qualification education (学历教育) or non-qualification education (非学历教育). A qualification education program has standardized entrance and exit requirements and is authorized by the Ministry of Education to issues credentials that are recognized all across the country. In contrast, a non-qualification program has flexible entrance and exit requirements, may charge much higher tuition fees, and issues credentials that do not entitle the individuals to further education in qualification programs. Please note many recognized institutions offer certain types of non-qualification programs. For more information, refer to Educational Qualifications. There are three major types of educational documents from China: certificates of graduation (毕业证书), degree certificates (学位证书), and transcripts (成绩单). Other documents include certificates of completion (结业证书), examination results (考试成绩), official proof (证明书/证明信) (for institutional merger, name change, etc.), notary public certificates (公证书), and credentials report (认证报告) from China Academic Degrees & Graduation Education Development Centre.



Table 36. Three Types of Educational Documents

To assess a certificate of graduation, the two major criteria are the level of qualification and the type of issuing body. There are a total of seven levels: primary school, junior secondary school, senior secondary school, zhuanke, benke, master’s program, and doctoral program.

Table 37. Seven Levels of Qualification Education

Schools and institutions are the main issuing bodies of educational credentials in China. Though there are a limited number of vocational junior secondary schools, nine-year compulsory education (six years of primary school plus three years of junior secondary school since the mid-1980s) is mostly provided by general schools. At the senior secondary level, schools fall into two major categories: general senior secondary schools (普通高中) and technical-vocational secondary schools (中等职业技术学校). A certificate of graduation should indicate the type of the school attended, and it is usually easy to tell by the name of the school which category it belongs to. In higher education, only regular higher education institutions and research institutes can award graduate-level credentials. At the zhuanke and benke/bachelor levels, issuing bodies come in three categories: regular higher education (普通高等教育), adult higher education (成人高等教育), and higher education self-study examinations (高等教育自学考试). While all three categories of credentials are recognized, those from regular higher education are the most highly regarded. The zhuanke and benke certificates of graduation and bachelor’s degree certificates should always indicate which of the three categories of higher education they belong to. Based on the level of education and type of issuing body, there are 19 major educational credentials at and above the senior secondary level.

(Chinese education - continued from page 14)


Document Chinese Name Alternate Name

Certificate of graduation 毕业证书毕业文凭

Degree certificate 学位证书

Transcript 成绩单成绩证明/成绩卡/成绩记载表/成绩报告单

学历水平 Level of Qualification Years

小学 Primary school 6

初中 (初级中学) Junior secondary school 3

高中 (高级中学), 中等职业技术

学校 Senior secondary school 3

专科 (大专) Zhuanke 2-3

本科 Benke 4-5

硕士研究生 (研究生) Master’s program 2-3

博士研究生 Doctoral program 3-4


Table 38. 19 Major Educational Credentials



Chinese English

高中毕业证书 Certificate of Graduation from Senior Secondary School

中专毕业证书 Certificate of Graduation from Specialized Senior Secondary School

职业高中毕业证书 Certificate of Graduation from Vocational Senior Secondary School

技校毕业证书 Certificate of Graduation from Technical Workers School

专科毕业证书 (普通高等学校)

Zhuanke Certificate of Graduation (Regular Higher Education)

专科毕业证书 (成人高等教育)

Zhuanke Certificate of Graduation (Adult Higher Education)

专科毕业证书 (高等教育自学考试)

Zhuanke Certificate of Graduation (Self-Study Examinations)

第二专业专科毕业证书 (成人高等教育)

Zhuanke Certificate of Graduation in Second Specialty (Adult Higher Education)

本科毕业证书 (普通高等学校)

Benke Certificate of Graduation (Regular Higher Education)

本科毕业证书 (成人高等教育)

Benke Certificate of Graduation (Adult Higher Education)

本科毕业证书 (高等教育自学考试)

Benke Certificate of Graduation (Self-Study Examinations)

专升本毕业证书 (成人高等教育)

Benke Certificate of Graduation through Upgrading Program (Adult Higher Education)

学士学位证书 (普通高等学校)

Bachelor’s Degree (Regular Higher Education)

学士学位证书 (成人高等教育)

Bachelor’s Degree (Adult Higher Education)

学士学位证书 (高等教育自学考试)

Bachelor’s Degree (Self-Study Examinations)

硕士研究生毕业证书 Certificate of Graduation from Master's Program

硕士学位证书 Master’s Degree

博士研究生毕业证书 Certificate of Graduation from Doctoral Program

博士学位证书 Doctor’s Degree


Grade Conversion

Conversion of Chinese grades to Albertan standards is based on the fact the passing grade is 60% in China and 50% in Alberta. The following conversion tables cover the most commonly used grading scales in China.

Table 39. Grade Conversion: Percentage Scale



Chinese % IQAS %

100 100

99 99

98 97

97 96

96 95

95 94

94 92

93 91

92 90

91 89

90 87

89 86

88 85

87 84

86 83

85 81

84 80

83 79

82 78

81 76

80 75

79 74

78 73

77 71

76 70

75 69

74 68

73 66


Table 40. Grade Conversion: Five-Level Scale

Table 42. Grade Conversion: Four-Level Scale (II)



Chinese % IQAS %

73 66

72 65

71 64

70 63

69 61

68 60

67 59

66 58

65 56

64 55

63 54

62 53

61 51

60 50

Percentage Chinese Descriptor Letter Grade English Descriptor IQAS %

90-100 优秀 or 优 A Excellent 94

80-89 良好 or 良 B Very Good 82

70-79 中等 or 中 C Good 69

60-69 及格 D Pass 57

0-59 不及格 E/F Fail Fail

Percentage Chinese Descrip-tor

Letter Grade English Descriptor IQAS %


76-85 良好 or 良 B Good 75

60-75 及格 or 中 C Pass/Satisfactory 60

0-59 不及格 or 差 D/F Fail Fail


The use of the word “engineering” may serve to demonstrate the complexities involved in translation. When “engineering” appears in Chinese educational credentials, it is the translation of either 工 (industry/technology) or 工程 (engineering). When used in the name of an academic degree such as bachelor’s degree in engineering (工学学士), it is the translation of 工, which has a much broader meaning than 工程 and is often rendered into “industry” (as in 工商银行, Industrial and Commercial Bank) or “technology” (as in 工商大学, Technology and Business University). 工学学士 should therefore be translated as bachelor’s degree in technology. If “engineering”


Table 43. Grade Conversion: Four-Level Scale (III)

Document Formats and Samples Please refer to separate files for sample documents that have been scanned, categorized and annotated. Document Translation English translation of Chinese documents varies greatly in quality and accuracy. It can be done by individuals, schools, notary public offices, credential evaluation services, immigrant-serving agencies, and professional translators. It used to be quite common for Chinese students to prepare their own transcript based on school records, translate it, and have the transcript and translation checked and stamped by the school. Currently, when a higher education institution provides certified copies in Chinese and English of education documents such as degree certificates and transcripts, the translation is mostly done in-house. However, only a small number of secondary schools have such a translation capacity. Translation of secondary documents therefore continues to be done mostly by students and differs greatly in format and quality. It is always a good idea to have a translation verified no matter where it comes from. Some minor translation errors are easy to detect: 计算机基础 (computer basics) may be translated as “computer base”. However, instead of being a literal translation, the English document may use interpretive translation or even be tailor made for the perceived benefits of the student. For example, “advanced mathematics” (高等数学) may be translated as “calculus”. An English transcript may omit courses considered to be irrelevant for further study at a North American institution, such as Marxist Theory (马克思主义理论) and History of the Communist Party of China (中共党史). A certificate of graduation may fail to mention it belongs to the adult higher education sector (成人高等教育) rather than the regular higher education sector (普通高等院校). Occasionally the English document contains added information that may not be true. For example, a certified English copy of a bachelor’s degree in engineering may indicate the recipient is also awarded the professional title of engineer. In fact, educational institutions in China cannot award professional titles. After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in engineering (for which a more accurate translation is bachelor’s degree in technology), an individual usually has to work for at least five years as an “assistant engineer” (助理工程师) before obtaining the title “engineer” (工程师). By their very nature, translations are approximations rather than equivalents of the original text. Furthermore, the use of the “same” terminology may be quite different in China and Canada. Translations, therefore, should not be taken at face value. For example, a Chinese “university” (大学) may only offer education at the zhuanke level, comparable to a Canadian college that only offers certificate and diploma programs, and some Chinese “colleges” (学院, sometimes translated as “institute”) award master and doctoral degrees.


Percentage Chinese Descriptor Letter Grade English Descriptor IQAS %


76-90 良好 or 良 B Good 79

60-75 及格 or 中 C Pass/Satisfactory 60

0-59 不及格 or 差 D/F Fail Fail


appears in the name of the department or major, such as chemical engineering (化学工程), it is the translation of 工程. In 1997 China introduced the Master of Engineering professional degree (工程硕士专业学位). Since the word “professional” (专业) may be inadvertently omitted in the translation, such a degree may easily be confused with the more common 工学硕士 (master of technology, usually translated as master of engineering).

Table 44. Glossary of Educational Terms



Category Chinese English

administration

教务处 academic affairs office/teaching administration section

学位评定委员会 Academic Degrees Assessment Committee

教育部学位与研究生教育发展中心 China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Centre

教育局 education bureau [municipal or county level]

教育委员会/教委 education committee [municipal level]

教育厅 education department [provincial level]

高等教育自学考试委员会 Higher Education Self-Study Examinations Committee

教育部 Ministry of Education

中华人民共和国 People’s Republic of China

中华人民共和国学位条例 Regulations on Academic Degrees of the People’s Republic of China

国务院 State Council [the central government]

credential

学分 academic credit

学位 academic degree

学年 academic year

文科 arts and humanities subjects

本科 benke [“undergraduate course”]

证书编号 certificate number

结业证书 certificate of completion

毕业证书/毕业文凭 certificate of graduation

肄业证书 certificate of incompletion/certificate of attendance

学业证书 certificate of study

主席 chairman



credential

学时 class hours

同等学力 comparable educational competence

课程计划/教学计划 curriculum

课程 course

出生日期 date of birth

毕业日期 date of graduation

发证日期 date of issuance

学士学位证书 degree certificate: bachelor

博士学位证书 degree certificate: doctor

硕士学位证书 degree certificate: master

系 department

学历 educational qualification

研究生 graduate student/graduate study

准予毕业 graduation approved

毕业会考 graduation examination

高等教育自学考试 higher education self-study examinations

成人高等教育 higher education: adult

普通高等学校 higher education: regular

专业/主修 major/specialty

研究生课程进修班/ 硕士研究生课程班

master’s coursework training class [non-qualification program]

全国成人高等学校入学考试/成人高考 National Adult College Entrance Examina-tion

全国普通高等学校入学考试/高考 National College Entrance Examination

院长 president

校长 president/principal

学制 program length

函授 program type: correspondence

夜大学 program type: evening class



credential

全日制 program type: full-time

脱产 program type: full-time (adult)

半脱产 program type: half-time (adult)

业余/非全日制 program type: part-time

理科 science subjects

学期 semester/term

成绩证明/成绩卡/成绩表/成绩记载表/成绩单/成绩报告单/ 记分册

transcript

专科 zhuanke [“diploma course”]

degree name

农学 Agriculture

文学 Arts

经济学 Economics

教育学 Education

工学 Technology [often translated as Engineering]

历史 History

法学 Law

管理学 Management

医学 Medicine

军事学 Military Science

哲学 Philosophy

理学 Science

优/优秀 A/excellent

良/良好 B/good

中/中等 C/fair/average

及格 D/pass

不及格 F/fail

grading: five-level



grading: four-level

优/优秀 A/excellent

良/良好 B/good

及格 C/pass

不及格 D/fail

grading: two-level

合格/通过 pass

不合格/不通过 fail

number

一/壹 one

二/贰 two

三/参 three

四/肆 four

五/伍 five

六/陆 six

七/柒 seven

八/捌 eight

九/玖 nine

十/拾 ten

成人教育学院 college /school of adult education

教育学院 college of education

继续教育学院 college/school of further education

普通高级中学/普通高中 general senior secondary school

高等师范专科学校 junior teachers college

管理干部学院 management cadres’ college

军事院校/军队院校 military institution

师范大学 normal university

广播电视大学 radio and TV university

研究所/研究院 research institute

研究所/研究院 research institute

中等师范学校 secondary teachers school

中等专业技术学校/中专 specialized senior secondary school

职工大学 staff and workers university

中等专业技术学校/中专 specialized senior secondary school

职工大学 staff and workers university

school


Chinese education - continued from page 13 Document Authentication and Detection of Fraud 1. Verify the existence and recognition status of the institution when the credential was issued. If necessary, verify

that the institution by that name did offer that specific program at that particular time period.

Look for the institution in the major references, bearing in mind the possibility of mergers, name changes and translation variations. Refer to the PIER book for a list of military institutions. The most complete and updated lists of recognized higher education institutions are provided by the Ministry of Education website (www.moe.gov.cn). • Chinese Universities and Colleges, 4th Edition (2004). Beijing: Higher Education Press. • Postsecondary Institutions of the People’s Republic of China (1992). NAFSA. • International Handbook of Universities, 16th Edition (2001). International Association of Universities. • The World of Learning, 55th edition (2005). Europa Publications. • The People’s Republic of China (2000), PIER World Education Series. • Country Education Profiles: China (1992). NOOSR • International Comparisons, UK NARIC. <http://www.internationalcomparisons.org.uk/>

Fraudulent case: An applicant submitted a zhuanke certificate of graduation for a “description of coursework” assessment for the purpose of course waiver. The certificate indicates it was issued by Beihua University (北华大学) in July 1999. The assessor grew suspicious when the applicant was able to provide a more detailed transcript within very short notice. Further research revealed that Beihua University was established through a merger of several institutions in September 1999. The file was subsequently confirmed to be fraudulent by the China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Center.

2. Make sure the document belongs to one of the 19 major educational credentials.

A completed credential from China is either a certificate of graduation (毕业证书 or 毕业文凭) or degree certificate (学位证书). Recognized institutions may offer some non-qualification programs, which typically issue certificates of completion (结业证书) or certificates of study (学业证书). There are two kinds of certificates of completion. A certificate of completion may be issued for a non-qualification program, such as graduate coursework training classes (研究生课程进修班), higher education self-study examinations preparation courses, and zhuanke or benke programs not approved by the Ministry of Education. Such a certificate is not accepted for admission into qualification education programs. The only way for holders of such a certificate to obtain recognized educational qualifications is to pass the higher education self-study examinations. A certificate of completion issued for a qualification program indicates the student has completed all the coursework but has not successfully graduated due to disciplinary problems and/or poor academic performance (such as substandard graduation thesis or too many exam retakes for required courses). Though academic credits completed are considered valid, holders of such a certificate of completion cannot gain admission into the next level of qualification education, unless they claim comparable educational competence and take extra exams. They usually have a period of time to make up the deficiencies in order to receive a certificate of graduation. Undergraduate students who fail to get a benke certificate of graduation in the same year they complete their coursework are usually ineligible to receive a bachelor’s degree. The Ministry of Education recognizes credentials issued by military institutions (军队院校). The certificates should bear the names of the General Chief of Staff and General Political Office of the People’s Liberation Army (中国人民解放军总参谋部、总政治部). Most credentials issued by the CPC (Communist Party of China) schools (党校), including zhuanke and benke certificates of graduation through correspondence, are not recognized. Exceptions include CPC programs that recruit students through the NCEE or NACEE



3. Make sure the document conforms to the format and characteristics described and shown in Document Formats and Samples, and refer to the placement recommendations in the appropriate credential template. If the document appears unusual or suspicious, take the necessary steps to authenticate it.

Fraudulent case: An applicant submitted a benke certificate of graduation from the University of International Business and Economics (对外经济贸易大学). One who reads Chinese would easily notice the immature handwriting on the certificate and the words 两年制本科 (two-year benke program) – benke should be four or five years. One can find a few suspicious signs by looking at the English translation alone. For example, it describes the study period as “September 2000 to September 2002”, when in fact the Chinese academic year lasts from early September to mid-July, and certificates of graduation are issued in early July.

Contact the institution. The Chinese Universities and Colleges includes contact information for recognized institutions in China. However, institutions do not always respond to requests for document authentication. The China Higher Education Student Information website (http://www.chsi.com.cn) has been authorized by the Ministry of Education to provide online authentication of certificates of graduation from all higher education sectors, including regular, adult, distance, and self-study examinations programs. Currently it covers certificates issued between 1990 and 2004. Users need to purchase prepaid cards, and it costs ¥ 5 (slightly less than CDN $1) to authenticate one certificate. Please note that the site does not authenticate degree certificates. This is the only website authorized by the Ministry of Education to authenticate higher education credentials. Any other website that has a similar name but different URL is illegitimate. The Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center under the Ministry of Education offers a credential evaluation and verification service. An individual can submit any type of Chinese higher education credential (certificate of graduation, degree certificate, or transcript) to the centre and have “credentials reports” (Chinese, English, or bilingual) forwarded to postsecondary institutions, employers, professional bodies, or evaluation services. The centre has different fee schedules for applicants in China and those who live overseas, and its regular turnaround is 20 workdays.

© 2005 the Crown in right of the Province of Alberta, Alberta Advanced Education, International Qualifications Assessment Service (IQAS), 9th Floor, 108 Street Building, 9942 - 108 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2J5. Pages 63-73 reprinted with permission. Haichen Sun is an International Qualifications Assessment Consultant to The International Qualifications Assessment Service (IQAS), Alberta (Canada) Advanced Education.


Q & A with Jim Frey Question: Will a degree from a three-year program of study at a university in Europe (a "Bologna process" degree) be viewed in the United States as the equivalent of a bachelor's degree from a university in the United States? Response: As you know, each university in the United States is autonomous. Each one can set its own requirements for admission and for graduation, and each one can determine for itself when and under what circumstances those requirements can be waived. The standard requirement for admission to a master's degree program in the United States is a U.S. bachelor's degree or the foreign equivalent thereof. In the United States, a bachelor's degree represents

completion of a four-year or five-year program of full-time university study. Educators in every country in Europe know that. It is likely that some universities in the United States will consider a graduate of a three-year bachelor's degree program in Europe to be eligible for consideration for graduate admission. It is likely that the majority of universities in the United States will not. It is likely that some of those universities that do not will develop a special undergraduate bridge program to replace the missing fourth year. It is likely that educators in Europe will consider universities in the United State that continue to require at least four years of full-time university study for graduate admission to be academically stronger than those that do not.


What a Tangled Web We Weave: Canadian University Recognition and Ontario’s New Applied Degrees By Wendy Loat Recently, a graduate of the University of Toronto who has a son in his final year of high school contacted me regarding a degree program offered at one of Ontario’s colleges. His son wanted to become an airline pilot, and was attracted to the Bachelor of Applied Technology (Flight Program) offered at Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology. While it seemed to make sense, the father was concerned that if he completed this program and decided on a career change, he would have a worthless degree. He doubted that the program was really a recognized degree that would be accepted by Ontario’s universities. In looking at the contents of this program on the Seneca College website www.senecac.on.ca/fulltime/FPR.html), it is clear that this program does have significant theoretical content compared to many I have reviewed, but would it meet the requirements for admission to a graduate program at the University of Toronto, or to a professional program such as medicine or law? Doubtful, especially given that a full twenty-five percent of the four-year program is dedicated to flight training, and even the “academic” courses contain significant content geared specifically to pilot training and aircraft technology. So, now comes the tricky part. In theory, we allow students to qualify for admission to graduate or professional programs by taking additional academic courses as special, or non-degree students as long as they hold a recognized degree. But just what does “recognized” degree mean? Is a degree from one of Ontario’s colleges “recognized”? In the United States, there are a number of accreditation bodies, based on geographic location. Although the quality of institutions may vary significantly within those accredited by, say, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, all universities and colleges accredited by NEASC offer degrees and programs that everyone accepts. In Canada, however, we have no such system.

These days, the right to award degrees is given by legislative approval of the provincial government, but it wasn’t always so. The University of Toronto, for example, was founded in 1827, long before Canada became a nation, and was granted a Royal Charter by the British Parliament. But what does a charter actually mean? Does an institution have to go through an inspection to receive a provincial charter? Recently in Canada, we have seen a proliferation of provincial charters being awarded to privately-funded institutions. Call me a skeptic, but I personally believe many of these “approvals” have been given for primarily political and monetary reasons, and not necessarily to improve the quality of post secondary education. For example, in Ontario, the government was under significant political pressure as they had promised a place in a post secondary institution for all “qualified” candidates for the year in which the last Grade 13/Ontario Academic Credit (OAC) year was graduating along with the first year of the new Grade 12 university- bound students (2003), thus creating the so-called “double cohort” of students seeking entrance to post secondary education. Institutions which had never been recognized in Ontario were suddenly given provincial charters to grant degrees, much to the chagrin of the universities and colleges which had always refused to accept course work done at them. This allowed the government to make available a number of places in “degree” programs without it costing taxpayers a penny. But did these institutions have to go through any formal approval process? In 2000, when the Post-secondary Education Choice & Excellence was first passed, the mechanism later developed for examination of programs and institutions was not yet in place. The result was chaos as everyone realized they would either have to accept these as bona fide degree granting institutions or create or refine what kinds of institutions would be acceptable. As a rule, Canadian universities have always accepted as accredited any work taken at an institution that is a member of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). But none of these institutions given a charter under the Act of 2000 is a member, and many of them will not meet the criteria for seeking membership—at least not for a very long time. What most universities did was to turn to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) for support and state that in order to be fully recognized by an AUCC member institution you had to be one. In Ontario, the publicly-funded universities slightly expanded the field to say that all AUCC and Council of Ontario (COU) universities would



be accepted. (The COU consists of the province’s 19 publicly-funded universities, including the newly-founded University of Ontario Institute of Technology and the Ontario College of Art and Design. These two schools are not yet members of AUCC because they have not yet had the opportunity to meet AUCC’s requirements, as you will read later in this article). Any degree program offered by a non-AUCC or non-COU member institution would be considered on an individual basis, with no guarantees to their students that the courses and programs completed would be accepted by anyone else. Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). So, now we have a two-tiered system, or is it three? We have AUCC Member Institutions, all with government granted charters to award whatever degrees they see fit (including two privately-funded universities—Redeemer University in Ontario and Trinity Western University in British Columbia), we have “privately-funded” institutions with limited authority to award degrees through provincial charters, and we have Ontario’s colleges, many of which now have provincial charters to offer some degree programs while continuing with their role of offering alternatives to university education by way of practical training through two- and three-year diploma programs. Ontario’s CAATs were founded in the late 1960’s to offer an alternative to those who wanted additional training after high school but who did not want a university education. Designed as local, or community colleges, their mandate was to offer one-year certificate or two- and three-year diploma programs that would prepare their students for specific careers. Many of the certificate programs were in areas requiring strong technical skills or apprenticeships, such as carpentry or auto-mechanics, while the diploma programs included programs such as business, computer skills (not software or hardware design) and laboratory sciences, among other areas. About four years ago, largely due to concerns raised in the post secondary education sector, the Ontario government created the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board, or PEQAB. The purpose of this board was to assess proposals for degree programs to be offered at institutions other than Ontario's established universities—all of which are AUCC Member institutions. Many provincial charters granted to the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, including Seneca, are for the award of degrees in specific programs. For the most part, these degree programs appear to have one additional year tacked on to the end of a three-year diploma program. Many of the colleges have changed from calling themselves “Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology” to “College Institutes of Technology and Advanced Learning,” but for the purpose of this article, I

(Ontario - continued from page 26) will refer to them all as CAATs. These degree programs are proliferating, but few have as yet graduated any students. Approval by PEQAB is limited to five years at present, and any programs approved prior to the creation of PEQAB must now re-apply for certification. Although all programs approved by PEQAB will be reassessed after five years, is that really long enough to see how the graduates of these new four-year programs fare after graduation, which is the criteria often used to assess the success of applied programs? From what we have seen so far, these programs contain little academic or theoretical content, so students seeking admission to the University of Toronto (U of T) would usually need to meet our admission requirements based on their final year of high school. In the unlikely event that they had completed at least one full year's worth of what U of T considers to be transferable credits, U of T could admit such applicants on the basis of their college studies, and indeed, they would be eligible for transfer credit. We have always accepted studies completed at a CAAT (or, if you prefer, an Ontario College) even though the content of the courses has always been very applied in nature. But these colleges offer programs of significant merit, and fill a void left by the universities in Canada which tend to shy away from applied programs. (Ryerson University in Toronto is one major exception.) But are we, who have always turned our collective noses up at practical training in undergraduate degree programs, now going to embrace these programs for admission to second entry professional programs such as law, dentistry and medicine or for admission to graduate school? Not likely to happen in my lifetime… So, now we have degrees being granted under legitimate provincial authority that many universities will not accept as being equivalent to their own degrees for admission or employment. The governments, whose coffers fund many of these programs, are unhappy to say the least. In Alberta, when negotiations with the publicly-funded universities to accept programs offered by privately-funded religious colleges or technical institutes failed, the government threatened that funding would be pulled if these programs were not accepted. In Ontario, the Honorable Mary Anne Chambers, the Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities was not pleased with the stance of Ontario’s universities and wrote a rebuttal to the statement made by Ontario’s universities that only AUCC and COU member institutions would be treated as fully-accredited. At the same time, the Ontario



government commissioned a study on post-secondary education headed up by Bob Rae, former Ontario Premier and Rhodes Scholar, who is currently chancellor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario. It was with some fear that universities awaited the release of the report, as they have long held dear institutional autonomy. It was welcome news that the Rae Review on Post Secondary Education reminded the government why it had established the CAATs back in the 1960’s, and suggested that role be renewed. He also suggested letting the universities make their own decisions about what they would accept—that if these programs are academically sound, they most assuredly will gain credibility within the university community, thus upholding the sacred cow of institutional autonomy. This is a long-winded way of explaining that right now each university in Ontario is making its own decisions. Queen's University's senate passed a policy that states that only studies completed at AUCC member institutions will be considered for purposes of admission and transfer credit. Other universities, such as Lakehead University, would previously grant up to three years of transfer credit for some of the three-year diploma programs, so they are likely to accept applied degrees on an equal basis to their own. The University of Toronto's policy is somewhere in between, but conforms to the COU agreement. We will treat the Ontario College of Arts and Design and the Ontario University Institute of Technology as AUCC members, but we exercise caution in terms of the academic content of the programs. With respect to the applied degrees such as those offered by Seneca, again, we will look at what we consider to be academic subjects and determine if the applicant is eligible for admission and/or for transfer credit. It is unlikely that applied degrees will have sufficient academic content to qualify a student for admission to a graduate program without having to upgrade by taking additional university level courses, and transfer credit will not be awarded on a course-by-course basis. Baffled yet? It’s time to explain AUCC and its role in Canada (to complete your utter confusion). The AUCC was founded back in 1911, primarily as a lobby group. Few Canadian universities in existence at that time felt they needed a voice, both in terms of dealing with governments in Canada and as members of the Association of Commonwealth Universities. To quote from the AUCC website (www.aucc.ca): “ The institutions listed on the site have declared their commitment to the AUCC principles of institutional quality assurance in Canadian higher education.

(Ontario - continued from page 27) Canadian universities are committed to: The importance of higher education for the

individual and for the economic, social and cultural development of society;

The entitlement of learners to a quality higher education, the results of which will be recognized by society;

The provision of responsive, high quality education that is competitive with that offered anywhere else in the world;

The provision of complete and reliable information about the quality of their educational programs to maintain public confidence, to support mobility of graduates and to ensure the worldwide credibility of Canadian universities.”

But here is the best part: “The institutions listed on this site have also met the criteria for membership in the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and, commencing in 2005, will be invited to reaffirm their adherence to these criteria every five years. In order to apply for membership in AUCC, an institution must demonstrate that it meets the following criteria: • It offers a full program or programs of

undergraduate and/or graduate studies that animate its mission and goals, and that lead to a university degree or degrees conferred by itself or, if federated or affiliated with, or a constituent of a university, by the parent institution. Indicators will include:

• Highly qualified academic staff holding the PhD or other appropriate terminal degree, and relevant professional experience where appropriate;

• Undergraduate programs taught by senior academic staff;

• A quality assurance policy that results in cyclical or continuous assessment of all of its academic programs and support services, and which includes the participation by those directly involved in delivery of the program or service, as well as by other institutional colleagues and external experts and stakeholders;

• Provision for the periodic evaluation of the performance of academic staff including a student assessment component;

• Access to library and other learning resources appropriate to the institution's mission, goals and programs;

• The periodical monitoring of graduate outcomes, and established and transparent processes for disseminating this information inside and outside the institution;



• Academic counselling and other student services appropriate to its programs;

• Financial resources to meet its mission statement and goals;

In addition, an institution seeking membership must demonstrate that: • Its undergraduate degree programs are characterized

by breadth and depth in the traditional areas of the liberal arts and/or sciences, and first degrees of a professional nature—such as medicine, law, teacher education, engineering—have a significant liberal arts and/or sciences component . . . it has a proven record of scholarship, academic inquiry and research, expects its academic staff to be engaged in externally peer reviewed research and to publish in externally disseminated sources, and provides appropriate time and institutional support for them to do so. Indicators of this commitment will include policies and programs pertaining to the creation of knowledge, the development of curriculum and the execution of research projects.

Herein lies the rub. Virtually NONE of the privately- funded colleges or the CAATs offer graduate programs, or have most of their faculty as PhD holders, so they will not be able to meet the criteria required for AUCC membership—at least not now. The result of all of this is that we are left with trying to decide what is fair to the students but does not compromise our own degrees and academic standards. At the University of Toronto, we have always considered courses completed as part of a diploma program at a CAAT for admission and transfer credit, but transfer credit has never been awarded on a course-by- course basis due to the high percentage of practical or applied content in most courses. We will continue this practice and extend it to degree programs, but again, we will not be considering courses taken at a CAAT for credit in a degree program on a course-by-course basis. We have never, as an institution, accepted as accredited work taken at privately-funded religious colleges unless they were accepted for membership by AUCC, nor will we now, even though they may have received provincial charters to grant degrees. But the University of Toronto, which is the top-ranked university in Canada, has always tended to err on the side of caution, and US colleges and universities should not necessarily apply our standards to their applicants. For example, many US colleges have set up degree completion transfer programs with Ontario’s CAATs. If your institution is one of those, or if your institution itself offers or generally accepts for admission and transfer

(Ontario - continued from page 28) credit work that is applied or practical in nature, then it is reasonable for your institution to accept work completed at Ontario’s CAATs, be it part of a degree or diploma program. Likewise, if your institution accepts coursework completed at institutions accredited by the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges (AABC), then there is no pedagogical reason for not accepting credit t a ken a t t he i n s t i t u t i o n s l i s t ed a t www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/priv_deg.html or to accept Alberta’s Nazarene University College, for example, or the non-AUCC institutions listed at www.advancededucation.gov.ab.ca/college/postsecsystem/postsecinst/postsecinst.asp. If you regularly refer to the AUCC website seeking information on Canadian universities, you will be astonished at the change in tone and information provided on that site, some of which was quoted in this article. As the senior admissions policy advisor at Canada’s largest publicly-funded university, I am forever trying to balance equitable policies with respect to admission and transfer credit while maintaining the standards expected of those who began their studies at the University of Toronto. And, as the manager of the University Comparative Education Service, I must apply the same standards to those whose educational credentials were completed outside of Canada. It is a delicate balancing act indeed. So how does this article end? Well, it doesn’t really, because as yet there are no real answers and no end to the turmoil in sight. Wendy Loat is the Senior Admissions Policy Advisor and Manager. Comparative Education Service, Admissions and Awards at the University of Toronto (Canada)


The National College Entrance Examination (NCEE) in China By Muriel M. Zhou

THIS ARTICLE CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR

Introduction The National College Entrance Examination (NCEE) is a selective exam used to determine which students are selected for admission to colleges and universities each year in China. The NCEE was reintroduced to the Chinese educational system in 1977, one year after the Cultural Revolution ended in China. The reintroduced NCEE was based on the examination model used before 1966, that is, students were required to choose humanities or science subject examinations, depending on what they would study at colleges/universities. The humanities examination subjects included politics, Chinese language, mathematics (for the humanities group), history, geography, and foreign language (usually English). The science examination subjects included politics, Chinese language, mathematics (for the science group), physics, chemistry, biology, and foreign language (usually English). In general, students who desired to study in a program such as business, law or education took the humanities examination, while students who planned to study agriculture, engineering, medicine or sciences would take the science examinations. Prior to 1999, a standard NCEE was given nationwide, except for Shanghai, which began giving its own examination in 1987. Currently, the examination questions are made by the Examination Center of the Ministry of Education, except for the examinations administered in the provinces and municipalities that have been authorized by the Ministry of Education to draft their own entrance examination questions. The Examination is administered by the provincial Higher Education Committees or higher learning institutions that are authorized by the Committees to administer the exams. In most of the provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions, the NCEE is given once a year in the summer. In 2000, Shanghai began giving the NCEE in both the spring and summer. Beijing followed Shanghai's lead and offered its first spring NCEE in 2003. Prior to the mid 1980’s, the NCEE was given uniformly nationwide on July 8th, 9th, and 10th each

year. Since 2002, the summer examination has been given on June 7th, 8th, and 9th each year. NCEE Reforms In1987, with the approval of the State Education Commission (currently known as the Ministry of Education), Shanghai reformed its examination system by creating its own college entrance examination model "3 + 1," while offering the national entrance examination at the same time. The "3 + 1" model included subjects such as Chinese language, mathematics, foreign language plus one of six subjects: physics, chemistry, politics, history, biology or geography. In 1995, many provinces and districts (except for Shanghai) began adopting the "3 + 2" model. That is, students of the humanities group took examinations on Chinese language, mathematics, and foreign language plus history, and politics. The students of the science group took the exams on Chinese language, mathematics, and foreign language plus physics and chemistry. In 1999, authorized by the State Education Commission, Guangdong Province experimented with the "3 + X" model. That is, students were required to take the 3 main examinations in Chinese language, mathematics, and foreign language. In addition, they were required to take one or more examinations in the following subjects: physics, chemistry, politics, history, biology and geography. In 2001, this "3 + X" model was changed to the "3 + X +1" model. The "3" refers to mathematics, Chinese language and foreign language. The "X" refers to one or more of the following six examination subjects: physics, chemistry, biology, politics, history and geography. The "1" refers to the comprehensive exam that includes questions in all of the following subjects: physics, chemistry, biology, politics, history and geography. The questions on the comprehensive exam are different from the questions on the "X" exams. The purpose of requiring the comprehensive exam is to prevent students from studying their favorite subjects only, either in science or humanities. In 2000, following in Guangdong's footstep, four other provinces Shanxi, Jilin, Jiangsu and Zhejiang, also adopted the "3 + X" model. Furthermore, Shanghai reformed the "3 + 1" model and created the "3 + Comprehensive Humanities + Comprehensive Sciences + 1" model, which refers to Chinese language, mathematics, foreign language plus physics, chemistry, politics, history, biology and geography. The one additional subject can be one of any of the above or fine arts. In that same year, provinces and



municipalities such as Tianjin, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Fujian, Hunan, Hubei, Hainan, Sichuan, and Shaanxi adopted the "3 + Comprehensive Humanities or Comprehensive Sciences" model. That is, in addition to taking the exams on Chinese language, mathematics, and foreign language, examinees could choose the comprehensive humanities exams or the comprehensive sciences exams. Henan Province chose the "3 + Comprehensive Humanities + Comprehensive Sciences" model, i.e. students took the exams on all of the following subjects: Chinese language, mathematics, foreign language plus physics, chemistry, politics, history, biology and geography. However, in 2004, the educational authority of Henan Province decided to change that model to the "3 + Comprehensive Humanities or Comprehensive Sciences" model. Also in 2004, in addition to Shanghai, about ten other provinces and municipalities )Beijing, Tianjin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Fujian, Hunan, Hubei, Liaoning and Chongqing), were also authorized by the Ministry of Education to create their own college entrance examination questions, in part or in full. For example, in Guangdong Province, the 2004 examination questions for mathematics, Chinese language, and foreign language were made by the Examination Center of Guangdong Education Bureau, while examination questions for the other subjects were made by the National Examination Center of the Ministry of Education. In 2005, all the examination questions were made by the Examination Center of the Guangdong Education Bureau. Other provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions continue to use the examinations prepared by the Examination Center of the Ministry of Education. Current College Entrance Examination Models The "3 + Comprehensive Humanities or Comprehensive Sciences + 1" model: The Shanghai Model (see the explanation above). The "3 + X +1" model: The Guangdong Model. As indicated above, the "3" refers to mathematics, Chinese language and foreign language. The "X" refers to one or more of the following six examination subjects: physics, chemistry, biology, politics, history and geography. The "1" refers to the comprehensive exam of physics, chemistry, biology, politics, history and geography. The "3 + Comprehensive Humanities or Comprehensive Sciences" model: as of 2005, this has been used by the provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions of Tianjin, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Fujian, Hunan, Hubei, Hainan, Sichuan, Shaanxi, and Guangxi. The "3 + 2" model (a.k.a. the National Model). This

(NCEE - continued from page 30) model is currently used by most of the provinces and autonomous regions. The "3" refers to the three main subjects: mathematics, Chinese, and foreign language. The "2" refers to any two of the following subjects: physics, chemistry, politics, history, biology, and geography. Students choose the two subjects based on their strength and admission requirements of the institutions where they would like to pursue further education.

NCEE Scores For quite a long time, the maximum score for each exam of the NCEE subject was as follows: Science Group: Politics 100 Chinese 120 Mathematics (for the Science group) 120 Physics 100 Chemistry 100 Biology 50 Foreign Language 100 Humanities Group: Politics 100 Chinese 120 Mathematics (for the Humanities group) 120 History 100 Geography 100 Foreign Language 100 From 2002 to 2004, the maximum score for the Shanghai Examinations (not the National One) was 630; the maximum "Standard Score” for the exams given in Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan was 900, and the maximum score for the examinations given in other provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions was 750. In 2003, many provinces adopted the current maximum score model, which is as follows: Comprehensive Science Exam: Chinese 150 Mathematics (for the Science group) 150 Foreign Language 150 Comprehensive Sciences 300 Comprehensive Humanities Exam: Chinese 150 Mathematics (for the Humanities group) 150 Foreign Language 150 Comprehensive Humanities 300 Please note that most of the provinces use "original scores", and some use "standard scores". "Original



scores" refers to the actual examination scores that examinees earn, while the "standard scores" are converted scores based on the actual examination scores combined with a and a mathematical formula to show the examinees' rank among all who took the exam in that year. For example, a NCEE report card issued in Guangdong Province in 2005 showed "Standard Scores." That is, the numbers shown on that report card were not the actual examination grades, but ranks indicating where the card holder placed among all the examinees who took the entrance examination in Guangdong Province that year. In the same year, Guangxi Autonomous Region used the "Original Scores". Therefore, the scores shown on an entrance examination report card issued in Guangxi Province would show the actual examination scores the cardholder obtained on the exams. Changes and Trends In provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions that give their own college entrance examination, the term "NCEE" is no longer used. Instead, it is called "Guangdong Examination Paper," "Jiangsu Examination Paper," etc. At this time, NCEE reforms are still in progress in many provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities. One example is that, beginning in 2007, Shandong Province will adopt the "3 + Comprehensive Humanities or Comprehensive Sciences + 1" model. The "3" refers to Chinese language, mathematics and foreign language. The Comprehensive Humanities include subjects such as politics, history and geography. The Comprehensive Sciences refer to physics, chemistry and biology. The "1" refers to the comprehensive exam on high school curriculum such as technology, physical education and health, art, practical work or problem solving capability. Every examinee is required to take this comprehensive exam. Another example is that Guangdong Province has been working on a new college entrance examination model, which will be introduced in 2007. It is still too early to tell what an ideal exam model will be and when the reforms will end, but we will definitely see more and more provinces offering their own college entrance examinations in the near future. Author's Suggestions and Recommendations As I understand it, some US institutions require Chinese students to submit their official NCEE score reports, while other institutions do not have such a requirement. I suggest that U.S. admission officers require Chinese upper middle school graduates to submit their official college entrance examination report cards, mainly because those are the most reliable academic records,

(NCEE - continued from page 31) comparing to the transcripts issued by the schools. However, if a Chinese student has completed some college/university level coursework, the U.S. institution should not require his/her NCEE report card. The admission should be based on the student's college/university coursework. For institutions that have a very selective admission process, NCEE score reports are definitely very helpful and beneficial. As mentioned earlier, it is difficult for us to know if the scores on the NCEE score reports are "original scores" or "standard scores". These two types of scores do not mean the same thing. Thus, before we use them, it is necessary and important for us to do some research and find out the name of the province, autonomous region, or municipality where the exam was taken, and the examination model and the scoring system used in that province. Since examination models vary from province to province, I suggest US admission officers follow the cutoff scores published each year after the NCEE at http://www.neea.edu.cn. For everyone's convenience, I have also copied this information. Due to the complex nature of the examination models, this information is for reference only. For further information, you may need to contact an education bureau or a higher education commission that issues NCEE score reports. You may also contact the Chinese Consulate located near you for help. Factors that determine the cutoff NCEE scores include degree of difficulty of the examination questions, the total number of examinees of each examination, and the total national enrollment for the year. Because of these factors, it is difficult for us to know whether those students who have scores within the cutoff score range meet our requirements for a B or C average. Although in theory it sounds fair to admit Chinese students who have NCEE scores in the 70% -100% range in each province, in reality it is very difficult to obtain such information because the NCEE scores are not calculated in a comparable manner. Muriel M. Zhou is Director, Engineering Credentials Evaluation International/ECEI, ABET, Inc. in Baltimore, Maryland References: The 2005 National College Entrance Examination Scores, published by the Tibetan People's Press, January 2005 http://www.neea.edu.cn http://www.eol.cn


(NCEE - continued from page 32) The following cannot be reproduced without prior permission from the author.

2002 - 2005 NCEE SCORES 2002 2003 2004 2005

Humanities Sciences Humanities Sciences Humanities Sciences Humanities Sciences

Beijing

1st Admission 462 469 470 455 474 491 486 470

2nd Admission 432 424 434 408 435 433 443 414

3rd Admission 360 340 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Chongqing

1st Admission 508 518 510 463 537 518 549 548

2nd Admission 440 433 449 391 472 450 487 494

3rd Admission 380 360 382 316 440 415 455 462

Fujian

1st Admission 543 555 543

551 535 555 542

2nd Admission 483 505 463 430 485 456 492 470

3rd Admission 382 413 341 274 469 432 475 445

Gansu

1st Admission 492 508 504 458 578 568 535 558

2nd Admission 460 457 456 402 528 508 476 498


Anhui

1st Admission (see Note 6)

535 548 507 482 564 565 543 541

2nd Admission (see Note 7)

482 487 462 431 520 501 488 480

3rd Admission (see Note 8)

300 300 455 424 504 484 470 462

Guangdong

1st Admission 640 640 643 643 626 626 632 632

2nd Admission 574 574 565/549 565/549 548/541 548/541 559/547 559/547

3rd Admission 512 512 500/415 500/415 498/414 498/414 502/400 502/400

Guangxi

1st Admission 642-746 636-728 676-595 643-619 675-656 642-626 564 572

2nd Admission 565-661 555-698 536-631 576-604 582-516 546-538 504 501

3rd Admission n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 465 446



(NCEE - continued from page 33)

(continued on page 35)

2002 2003 2004


Guizhou

1st Admission 513 485 505 436 531 484 556 536

2nd Admission 429 393 422 354 463 408 476 459

3rd Admission n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Hainan

1st Admission 678/618 668/596 679/615 659/589 626 588 582 542

2nd Admission 545 422 615/557 589/518 564 514 575 527


Hebei

1st Admission 539 571 531 513 582 590 536 551

2nd Admission 505 527 496 469 550 543 500 511

3rd Admission 430 450 415 392 458 383 416 380

Heilongjiang

1st Admission 527 541 503 476 517 527 556 582

2nd Admission 489 496 450 418 466 467 501 527


2005

Henan

1st Admission 562 562 575 575 599 589 565 568

2nd Admission 516 516 532 532 564 533 525 523

3rd Admission 440 440 468 468 544 507 493 496

Hubei

1st Admission 527 555 516 502 536 561 506 524

2nd Admission 504 525 489 468 490 510 478/460 492/475

3rd Admission 484 502 463/453 446/436 430/405 450/420 415/390 428/400

Hunan

1st Admission 553 559 557 501 568 541 574 544

2nd Admission 513 513 520 457 531 496 533 491

3rd Admission 458 400 n/a n/a 501* 466* 494/453 464/411

Hubei

1st Admission 527 555 516 502 536 561 506 524

2nd Admission 504 525 489 468 490 510 478/460 492/475

3rd Admission 484 502 463/453 446/436 430/405 450/420 415/390 428/400


(NCEE - continued from pate

2002 2003 2004


Hunan

1st Admission 553 559 557 501 568 541 574 544

2nd Admission 513 513 520 457 531 496 533 491

3rd Admission 458 400 n/a n/a 501* 466* 494/453 464/411

Inner Mongolia

1st Admission (General Adm.)

521 533 487 455 535 564 525 555

1st Admission (Mongolian)

525 554 409 466

2nd Admission (General Adm.)

488 480 445 400 477 493 470 489

2nd Admission (Mongolian)

467 483 383 370

3rd Admission 448 463 385 350 n/a n/a n/a n/a

2005

Jiangsu

1st Admission 552 552 501 501 575 575 560 560

2nd Admission 515 515 465 465 543 543 529 529


Jiangxi

1st Admission 542 564 530 512 583 596 554 545

2nd Admission 491 509 478 462 542 542 509 494


Jilin

1st Admission 505 520 474 462 501 492 559 562

2nd Admission 436 442 402 380 421 392 479 456

3rd Admission 365 392 352 323 363 309 n/a n/a

Liaoning

1st Admission 532 528 523 523 558 558 530 530

2nd Admission 490 459 453 453 485 485 458 458

3rd Admission 460 442 390 390 433 433 405 405

Ningxia

1st Admission 480 471 491 426 532 526 512 504

2nd Admission 440 428 431 381 485 482 461 453


(continued on page 36)



2002 2003 2004


Qinghai


445 378 426 335 478 438 442 430

1st Admission (Nationalities)

470 426 430 420

2nd Admission 372 302 355 276 390 365 358 365

3rd Admission 290 210 255 190 n/a n/a 340 355

Shandong

1st Admission 568 589 552 524 600 606 572 597

2nd Admission n/a n/a 430 400 n/a n/a n/a n/a

3rd Admission n/a n/a 280 280 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shanghai

1st Admission (Shanghai Exam)

467 456 441 435 460 451 480 469

1st Admission (National Exam)

497 503 479 436 505 506 497 494

2nd Admission (Shanghai Exam)

449 423 420 423 428 398 439 418

2nd Admission (National Exam)

470 440 450 440 463 428 444 413

3rd Admission (Shanghai Exam)

294 279 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

3rd Admission (National Exam)

408 356 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shanxi

1st Admission 549 544 530 512 574 571 534 532

2nd Admission 505 501 478 462 539 531 497 495


Tianjin

1st Admission 492 505 477 452 520 495 498 458

2nd Admission 453 455 441 403 472 434 460 408

2005

3rd Admission 370 400 n/a n/a 472 434 443 389

Tibet


450 450 450 440 490 480 490 520


350 300 350 310


340 340 320 325 320 325 340 370

2nd Admission (Nationalities)

250 210 255 225




2002 2003 2004


Xinjiang


490 499 493 456 538 522 516 507


393 367


436 420 450 390 484 447 455 433

2nd Admission (Nationalities)

360 335

3rd Admission (General Adm.)

340 330 410 351 437 397 360 350

3rd Admission (Nationalities)

300 300

Yunan

1st Admission 475 440 480 405 480 405 515 465

2nd Admission 435 375 445 350 445 350 470 400


Shaanxi

2005

1st Admission 502 500 516 467 576 562 550 567

2nd Admission 450 445 455 419 510 508 500 518

3rd Admission 280 280 295 295 430 428 420 418

Zhejiang

1st Admission 560 573 540 508 576 574 568 550

2nd Admission 522 531 500 459 535 517 535 508

3rd Admission 490 495 443 417 487 453 486 448

Notes: 1. The cutoff scores above are for admission to four-year degree programs only. 2. When scores are indicated as "465/414," it means admission took place based on the higher score 465 first and then on the lower score 414. 3. When scores are indicated as "536-631," it means admission was based on the scores ranged from 536-631, depending on the combination of

the examination subjects. 4. When both Humanities and Sciences have the same scores, e.g. 552 and 552, it means examinees are required to take both Humanities and

Science exams. 5. The scores above do not include the scores for admission to specialized programs such as physical education and performing arts. 6. College/university admissions in China are conducted in three phases. The "1st Admission" refers to the admission process of the 1st phase.

Institutions that admit their students based on the 1st Admission scores are usually universities that are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, including the "Key" institutions. This group of institutions is similar to the US Doctorate-granting Institutions defined by the Carnegie Foundation.

7. Institutions that admit their students based on the 2nd Admission scores are considered the "second tier" institutions. They are usually under the jurisdiction of various ministries and provincial educational authorities. These institutions are similar to the US Master's Colleges and Uni-versities by the Carnegie classification, although some of them also award doctorate degrees.

8. Institutions that admit their students based on the 3rd Admission scores are four-year institutions. In some provinces, three-year non-degree granting institutions are also in this category. They are usually under the jurisdiction of provincial educational authorities or city governments. These institutions are similar to the US Baccalaureate Colleges and Associate's Colleges by the Carnegie classification.

References: The 2005 National College Entrance Examination Scores, published by the Tibetan People's Press, January 2005 http://www.neea.edu.cn http://www.eol.cn


In the following section, you will see several credentials from programs from the new degree structure of the Bologna Declaration. We wanted to provide websites and documents that relate to the Bologna Declaration and the changing structure of higher education throughout Europe. In future issues, as we begin to see more of the 'new' degree structure, we will review documents on a country by country basis. We hope that this information is useful. The Bologna Declaration, originally signed in 1999 by 29 participating countries, establishes three tiers/cycles of higher education that will have to be fully implemented by 2010. They are:

• Bachelor’s • Master’s • Doctorate

In addition, a system will be set in place that will provide consistency in documentation, the Diploma Supplement (see samples), and for the establishment of uniformity in grade and credits through the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). For extensive additional information, please check out the websites listed below. Websites http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/ http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna/ http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna_en.html http://www.eua.be/eua/en/policy_bologna.jspx http://arucc2004.centennialcollege.ca/documents/B4.pdf#search='UMAP%20Credit http://www.enic-naric.net/instruments.asp?display=DS http://www.aic.lv/ace/ace_disk/acebook/Bologna_reports.pdf (600 + pg. book on-line, May 2005) – Bologna Process Reports http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/rec_qual/recognition/diploma_en.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/rec_qual/recognition/ds_en.pdf http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/ects/doc/form4.pdf (sample documents) http://www.esib.org/BPC/welcome.html (students group) http://www.nafsa.org/knowledge_community_network.sec/recruitment_admissions/admissions_and_credential/practice_resources_19/hot_topics http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/HigherEducation/EHEA2010/BolognaPedestrians_en.asp (The Council of Europe) http://www.eua.be/eua/index.jsp - Published by EUA, in cooperation with Raabe academic publishers in Berlin, the Bologna Handbook is a new resource tool for higher education academics and administrators to gain valuable up-to-date information on all aspects of the Bologna reform implementations in their institutions. http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/EN/national_impl/05NAT_REP.HTM - National Reports on the Process of Bologna http://www.aic.lv/ace/

CREDENTIAL EVALUATION SECTION


C R E D E N T I A L E VA L U AT I O N: B O L O G N A D E C L A R AT I O N E S T O N I A - D I P L O M A S U P P L E M E N T 2 0 0 2


CR E D E N T I A L E VA L U AT I O N: B O L O G N A D E C L A R AT I O N E S T O N I A - D I P L O M A S U P P L E M E N T 2 0 0 2


C R E D E N T I A L E VA L U AT I O N: B O L O G N A D E C L A R AT I O N E S T O N I A - D I P L O M A S U P P L E M E N T 2 0 0 2


CR E D E N T I A L EVA L U AT I O N : B O L O G N A D E C L A R AT I O N E S T O N I A - D I P L O M A S U P P L E M E N T 2 0 0 2


C R E D E N T I A L E V A L U A T I O N : N E T H E R L A N D S

C R E D E N T I A L E VA L U AT I O N: B O L O G N A D E C L A R A T I O N E S T O N I A - D I P L O M A S U P P L E M E N T 2 0 0 2


Newsletter Team Editorial Board: Sandy Gault Vice President and Director of Evaluations Educational Perspectives, Inc. [email protected]

Marybeth Gruenewald Senior Evaluator/Information Resource Manager Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc. [email protected] Nancy Katz International Educational Consultant [email protected] Alan Margolis Consultant in Higher Education CUNY Office of Academic Affairs [email protected] Pat Parker Assistant Director of Admissions Iowa State University [email protected] Ellen Silverman Director, International Evaluations City University of New York [email protected] Kate Trayte Executive Director, International Students and Scholars Services Drexel University [email protected]

Special thanks to the Chris Foley Deborah Hefferon Content Committee: Senior Associate Director of Admissions Independent Consultant Indiana University [email protected] [email protected]

Doug McBean Senior Policy Coordinator University of Toronto [email protected]

Special thanks to the Jim Frey Alan Margolis Columnists: President

Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc. [email protected]

Questions? Feedback? E-mail: [email protected]

What credentials would you like evaluated? What topics would you like covered?

What did you like about this newsletter? What can we improve upon?