the evolution of the registrar's office

7/24/2019 The Evolution of the Registrar's Office

1/28

Running head: REGISTRAR 1

The Evolution of the Registrars Office

Meghan Arias

CTCH 821

George Mason University


2/28

REGISTRAR 2

It is difficult to give a single definition to what a college registrar is or does because the

role varies widely depending on the period and the institution. With origins dating back to one

of the first universities in existence, the registrars office has a long history in dealing with

student records. As the role of the registrars office has shifted,it has gone from a primarily

record keeping entity to an important service office. This shift is largely due to the influence of

technology on the office. Improved technology has altered the relationship registrars have with

student data and thus their role in the university. This paper will examine the shift in the

functions of the registrars office from 1910 when the professionalization of the office began in

earnest to the 1990s when technological advancements allowed the office to focus on more than

recording and maintaining student information.

The paper will first briefly discuss the origins of the office, before moving into some of

their common duties. It will examine records, grading, registration, graduation, student

involvement and finally, curriculum.

Background

The office of the registrar has origins dating back as far as the twelfth century with the

office of thebedelor beadleat Bologna. Many of the bedelsduties were similar to those of a

modern day registrar, such as making announcements, handling discipline and keeping records of

all graduates (Stout, 1954). Other duties included keeping unauthorized people out of official

faculty assemblies and walking at the head of the academic procession. The first person with the

title of registrar was appointed in Oxford in 1446. Their duty was to give form and

permanence to the universitys public acts, draft its letters, make copies of documents, and to

register the names of its graduates (Quann et al., 1979, p. 5).

Commented [MF1]: It would be good here to have

your conclusion.


3/28

REGISTRAR 3

Most of the early registrars in American higher education served in part-time capacities

when colleges employed this position at all. In 1820, Harvards Hollis Professor of Divinity,

Reverend Henry Ware received an extra $150 dollar a year stipend for his duties as one of the

first American registrars. Orrin Elliot served as a full-time registrar for Stanford when the

institution opened its doors in 1891. Elliot and his office were held in such high regard that he is

described as an administrative officer second only to [Stanfords] president(Quann et al.,

1979, p. 6). The move away from part-time employment marks the beginning of

professionalization for the registrars office. In 1880 about 85% of registrars also had teaching

responsibilities, but by 1933, that number plummeted to 20% (Partridge, 1935). The position

was becoming important enough to warrant full-time employment, rather than a secondary task

for faculty. The number of schools including a registrar position also increased significantly.

Less than 10% of schools had a registrar in 1880, but by 1930, almost all institutions did

(Halfond, 1984).

The move towards professionalization of the registrars office took a big step in 1910

when 15 college registrars gathered to discuss their occupations. Out of this meeting the

American Association of College Registrars (AACR) was born. In 1949, the organizations

name changed to the American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers

(AACRAO) (Quann et al., 1979). The organization offered its members a chance to connect

with each other at conferences, as well as through several publications. Books detailing best

practices pulled from registrar offices around the country and scholarly journals such as College

& University (originally called theBulletin) offered a sense of community to those involved with

the association, giving them a place to hone their craft.

Commented [MF2]: Why do you think this is? I s it r

the growing number of students and institutions, as we

increased complexity of higher education and the high s

curriculum?

Commented [MF3]: Ditto.

Commented [MF4]: Why do you think this happene

related to the increased professionalization of faculty, aby the development of AAUP?

Commented [MF5]: Important change!


4/28

REGISTRAR 4

As mentioned previously, it is difficult to provide a simple definition of who a registrar is

and what he or she does. One list of common duties goes on for six pages and even that is not

comprehensive since registrars at smaller colleges often take on various additional roles (Quann

et al., 1979). In a 1930 survey, the only two duties shared by 98% of the participating registrars

were supplying transcripts and maintaining admission records (Hickman, 1930). Other tasks

shared by 90% of registrars included maintaining student grades and academic records, advising

students, distributing reports on student performance, reviewing students for graduation, and

preparing statistical data. Additional responsibilities mentioned elsewhere include registration

and classroom scheduling, curriculum, keeping minutes for faculty committees and rule

enforcement (Preinkert, 2005). This lengthy and varied list of roles suggests a position that was

still trying to find its place in the role of the university administration.

With so many varied responsibilities, one might expect similar variety in the people that

find employment as a registrar. The average registrar at small deionizational colleges in 1930

was male, about 43 years old with a Masters degree(Hickman, 1930). Troop (1941) explains,

the registrar should be a person with broad, general training who gets along well with people.

His work demands that he have a knowledge of statistical methods and that he understand the

techniques of guidance and counseling" (p. 440). Part-time registrars who also had teaching

responsibilities made an average of about $2,855 a year at these denominational colleges

compared to $2,598 for professor without extra duties and $2,184 for full-time registrars. This

compensation suggests a lack of appreciation for the work of registrars as the full time salary was

lower than that of faculty and the compensation for the additional duties was low, equivalent to

just over $4,000 today (CPI Inflation Calculator,2014).

Commented [MF6]: Current or past?

Commented [MF7]: When, exactly? When you mix

sources and 2005 sources, its hard to know what time

are referencing.

Commented [MF8]: Again, when? Has this changed

Commented [MF9]: Do you mean denominational?

Commented [MF10]: About the pay for one additio


5/28

REGISTRAR 5

This paper will next examine the evolution of some of the common roles taken up by

registrars. First, it will look at the maintenance of student records, particularly grades, followed

by registration, graduation and student involvement, and finally duties related to curriculum.

Since curriculum duties have an especially strong tie to faculty, this paper will look at this duty

in the context of the registrars relationship with this group.

Records and Grading

Two of the most common duties ascribed to the registrar are dealing with student records

and assisting them in registering for classes. The next section will examine these duties in detail.

In early American colleges, the size of student enrollment and teachers employed was

small enough that the professor could easily be acquainted with every student by name. When

this was the case, faculty would gather to review student performance in order to decide if the

students should be allowed to continue in the college or reach graduation. If a students

performance was consistently high, this was an easy decision. However, for a student with some

poor work the faculty discussed the students merits and faults as a whole before passing

judgment (Stroup, 1963). As the size of student enrollment and the number of faculty needed to

teach them grew, this method became impossible. Meyers (1932) argues that the function of the

registrar developed as a direct result of this problem.

A new method was required to distinguish student performance. Several methods were

attempted before most schools settled on a letter grade scale, though some schools used different

letters or alternate symbols for a time. The grading method sometimes even varied between

different departments within the same institution (Christensen, 1913). At the time the letter scale

was developed these letters did not correlate to any particular numerical score, which registrars

protested due to the lack of quantitative data (Meyers, 1932). Eventually the letters settled into

Formatted:Strikethrough

Commented [MF11]: Nice explanation of the histo

grading.


6/28

REGISTRAR 6

the numerical values we know today, though not without some controversy. In an article

criticizing the letter grading system that developed, Stroup (1963) accuses registrars of making

the situation worse by failing to record the plus and minus scores (i.e. A+ or A-) without

consulting the faculty. He tells a compelling story of a potential student, strong in his favorite

subjects, but struggling in the others, receiving C+ grades from faculty who did not realize that

the registrar only recorded the C. Under the new system, students with below a C average were

dismissed from the school. Without the extra points those pluses would have earned him, the

hypothetical student was asked to leave. Stroup sees the grade-point average system as flawed

and heartless and seems to extend his blame to the registrars who support its use. On the other

side, a registrar at one school required a chart in order to interpret past grades because the faculty

had altered the system so many times without any input from the registrar (Christensen, 1913).

The registrars office connection to grading has changed over the years, but one thing

seems to remains constantthe difficulty in obtaining grades from faculty in a timely manner.

Preinkerts (2005) guide for registrars, originally compiled in 1940, devotes an entire chapter to

grading. She discusses the pros and cons of various grading systems, what grades are used for,

ranking systems, as well as common practices of other schools on grade changes, reporting

grades, and grade submission deadlines. By 1979, the letter grading system had become well

established. A new handbook printed at this time included some information on grading, though

the information in this book is much shorter and subsumed under the chapter Organizing and

Maintaining Academic Records (Quann et al., 1979). The manual covers in greatest detail the

best practices for grade reporting. Another author laments that a good registrar improves some

aspect of his operation each year, but even the best registrar makes no progress in the

procurement of his basic records: the grades (Duhig, 1964, p. 92). All three authors offer

Commented [MF12]: Good use of primary sources.

Commented [MF13]: Id like to know more about P

who was she? In what role was she tasked with develop

guide?


7/28

REGISTRAR 7

suggestions on how to obtain grades from reluctant faculty ranging from invoking the authority

of deans or the president to withholding paychecks or imposing fines for perpetually slow

faculty.

None of the authors mentioned the authority of the registrars office and the importance

of timely grade submission for the benefit of the students as effective tools for gathering grades.

The stick rather than the carrot, seems to be the norm for dealing with late grades and Duhig

(1964) notes the more friendly the relations of the registrars office with the faculty, the more

cruel the faculty in the neglect of its duty (p. 92). The need for calling in a higher authority and

a predilection for punishment rather than reward could easily give the registrars office the

appearance of a petulant younger sibling, running to a parent when the older sibling misbehaves.

Until the rise of computers, grade recording was a time-intensive process. The registrars

office had to transcribe grades submitted by the faculty to each studentspermanent record. The

use of carbon paper helped to ease the repetition of this task when grade reports had to be

distributed to various parties, including the students, their parents and academic departments

with a copy also remaining in the registrars office. This process took several days to complete

after the office received all grades from the faculty (Preinkert, 2005). By 1979, the rise of copy

machines and computers greatly reduced the time needed to complete this work. Some schools

maintained their old carbon copy process at this time, but this was already becoming outdated

(Quann et al., 1979). Schools could now have faculty submit grades on machine-readable forms

to eliminate the need for double entry of grades by faculty on a grade slip and again by workers

in the registrars office into the students permanent file. The reduced time spent on a heavily

manual process several times a year began opening up the registrars time for other activities.

The service to students was also improved when grades became available online or via a call-in


8/28

REGISTRAR 8

service as they could access their final grades as much as three weeks faster than when the

registrar mailed grades home (Marus, 1998). Since, as one registrar puts it, the student is the

primary reason for the existence of the registrars office (Preinkert, 2005, p. 1), improvements

to the service provided to students should be undertaken whenever possible.

Grade reporting at the end of each course term was a more regular occurrence, but

copying a students entire record to provide an academic transcript was even more difficult.

Similar to grade reports, hand-written transcripts were necessary before mechanical reproduction

was possible. The 1940 manual for registrars lists nine different methods in use at various

universities for reproducing student records. These included blueprinting, the Leica camera

method and microfilm among others. While these options helped streamline a tedious task for

registrars, there were still limitations. The equipment was large and expensive, often requiring a

separate room or two to operate, as well as chemicals to produce the copy (Preinkert, 2005).

Figure 1 shows an employee at Columbia University using a duplicating machine. In 1951,

Columbia University printed about 150,000 transcripts a process that required two people

working full-time (Columbia Daily Spectator, 1951).


9/28

REGISTRAR 9

Another change that was important to the work of the registrar in grading and records

was the passing of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). FERPA

imposed regulations on rights regarding academic records for any student attending a federally

funded institution. Gone were the days when the registrar could automatically send student

transcripts home to their parents. Under FERPA regulations, students must consent to the

disclosure of their records, though there are exceptions if the parent can show the student is a

dependent (Toglia, 2007). With this change, registrarsoffices became stewards of student

records in addition to being their keepers. Universities generally consider the registrars office,

along with the institutions legal counsel and sometimes department chairs, to be the FERPA

experts and so they are responsible for disseminating regulations to faculty and others affected

by the rules. However, with 41.8% of faculty surveyed reporting no familiarity with FERPA,

these offices obviously need to improve their communication in this area (Gilley & Gilley,

2006).

Figure 1. Duplicating machine. University employee copying

transcripts using a duplicating machine (Columbia Daily

Spectator, 1951)

Commented [MF14]: Important to note the impact

policy on the role of the registrar.

Commented [MF15]: Might this be because it does

the traditional view of the registrars role?


10/28

REGISTRAR 10

With such complete access to student records, it is important to protect those records

from unauthorized adjustments. Quann and associates (1979) suggests a member of the

registrars office remain present while students view their own records, and that the office

conduct periodic records checks on those employed in the registrars office and any family

enrolled in the institution to ensure staff are not tampering with their own records. These types

of checks became easier as computerized record systems proliferated since record updates could

be recorded with a time and date stamp as well as identify who had made the change. It was no

longer as simple for students to pay for fraudulent grades as several had attempted to do in the

past. In 1925, several students paid their registrars barber, who supposedly held considerable

sway over the college official, in an attempt to increase their grades (The Washington Post,

1925). Their plot did not succeed, but students at another school may have been successful. In

1968 John Hedgemon, registrar at Southern University, was charged with failing to report

additional income on his taxes. That additional income came from charging students to alter

their records, adding credits and improving grades (The Washington Post, 1968). While it is

impossible to say that all registrars are ethical individuals, the age of computer records has made

record alterations more traceable since it was no longer a matter of erasing a handwritten record.

The technology used for student records and grading has changed greatly. While several

items often found in an early registrars office might still be found in an updated version,

technological advancements have come a long way in shaping the office. Things like stamps and

calculators are included on early equipment lists, but paper filing cabinets have been replaced

with computer storage, typewriters with computers, and carbon paper with copy machines

(Hickman, 1930). While technology certainly improved the grade reporting process, one of the

Commented [MF16]: ?

Commented [MF17]: todays office


11/28

REGISTRAR 11

biggest problems, faculty delays in submitting grades, remains an issue. Registration, however,

has seen an even greater improvement from the implementation of technology.

Registration

Working with students to register for courses is another important function of the

registrarsoffice. Since this process affects all students, a poorly executed registration process is

the quickest way for the office to earn an unfavorable reputation (NACUBO, 1970; Preinkert,

2005).

The registration process was extremely time intensive as college enrollments grew,

before computers came to lighten the load. Registrars tried to organize registration so that they

did as much as possible ahead of time to reduce stress during the actual registration period

(Preinkert, 2005). Some institutions performed pre-checks on student enrollment eligibility.

Eligible students received an envelope in the mail with instructions to see a faculty advisor to

decide on their courses, the time the students could register, along with a label to affix to their

registration card, which verified their registration eligibility.

Even with such pre-checks, students often had to wait for extended periods before their

registration was complete. An engineering student at one school is rumored to have taken up

medicine after he waited hours in the wrong registration line rather than go through the process

again to sign up for the right courses. Wait times at Michigan State College averaged 7 hours

before 1937 and students at the University of Michigan began arriving at 4 A.M. in the 1920s to

ensure they would be able to register (Quann et al., 1979).

The length of time and method of registration varied depending on the institution. One

school in Texas would gather all students to their assembly hall and play movies, calling in small

groups to register throughout the day. This method entertained the students and avoided long

Commented [MF18]: When exactly? 1920s? 1940s


12/28

REGISTRAR 12

lines, allowing for the registration of all 3,500 students in just eight hours. American

Universitys 1927 catalog included a brief description of registration requirements. Registration

would begin Monday afternoon and continue through Tuesday. The same catalog reported 30

students in the junior and senior classes, with 43 sophomores, 63 freshman and 9 special

students, a total of under 200 students (American University, 1927). Students were also required

to meet with a faculty advisor before they registered or could make any changes to an existing

registration, though the short catalog description does not offer any specifics about the

registration process. The sizable fees incurred for late registration and schedule changes suggest

how onerous this process was for the university even with a relatively small enrollment.

Even asregistrarswork to improvetheir services, they must also remain aware of their

individual schoolsculture and traditions. While students could usually select what courses they

wanted, few institutions allowed them to choose a particular sectionearly. Students were

assigned to a class section alphabetically or based on student test scores. At larger schools, a

certain number of cards were issued for each section and when the cards were gone, that section

was closed (Preinkert, 2005). Columbia University, however, had always allowed students to

select which section they wanted, choosing the instructor or class time they preferred. Any

changes the registrars office made when beginning to implement computer-assisted registration

could not alter this time-honored student right (Franklin, Norman, Wagner & Hurd, 1973). At

another school, not all students were happy after the transition to computer based registration.

One student commented that she did not see anything wrong with the old system because there

was a kind of bonding that went on in line (Marcus, 1998, p. 16). However, a training guide for

new registrar workers, which listed examples of potential student complaints, included several

Commented [MF19]: Good use of primary sources

Deleted: a

Deleted: s

Deleted:

Deleted: their

Deleted:

Deleted: early

Commented [MF20]: Just be careful using words lik

when youre taking an historical approach!

Deleted:

Commented [MF21]: When did this take place?


13/28

REGISTRAR 13

variations of criticisms dealing with the length of the wait time for registration, so obviously not

all students felt this way (Beaver, 1981).

Computerized registration did not immediately eliminate the volume at registration time.

Access to early computers was limited and the systems were not easy for a layperson to operate.

At one community college, students were given a five-week period in which they could go to the

registrars office with their registration paperwork already filled out . A terminal operator was

required to transcribe the students course selections into the computer. The next step was where

the computer excelled. The system automatically checked if there were any problems with the

students proposed schedule and sentback an error if there were. This whole process took mere

minutes, eliminating the need for manual review and huge boards displaying which sections were

still available (Franklin et al., 1973).

Students were still required to go to a specified location at a certain time, but the amount

of time they had to spend there greatly improved. Students at Purdue University in 1979 who

met with their advisor on time did not even have to go the registrars office. Advisors sent

student course request forms to the registrar for processing. Registrar staff fed the forms into an

IBM computer that checked the students registration eligibility and assigned the students to

course sections. Once students submitted payment, the registrar mailed their finalized

registration schedule. As access spread and computers became more user friendly, the need for

students to go to campus for registration decreased significantly (Marus, 1998).

Student Involvement and Graduation

Student involvement

When colleges were small and the curriculum rigid, faculty might have taught or at least

knownall students in their school. As enrollments grew and the elective system developed that

Commented [MF22]: Interestingthat changes the

of students with staff and the campus.

Commented [MF23]: Good to add dates here


14/28

REGISTRAR 14

became less likely. Since registrars often had roles in both admissions and graduation, two

important parts of college life, they were often the most recognizable face of the college for

students.

There are several examples of early registrars being recognized for their connection with

students. University of Nebraskas The University Journalannounced the retirement of their

registrar in 1911 saying The registrar comes into more or less personal contact with every

student in the University at some time or anotherand probably no one official is more widely

known (p. 16). Thomas Ball, the registrar at John Hopkins, was awarded the varsity seal from

students in recognition of high service in 1923. This award was not normally given to non-

students, so it was a particular honor for this administrative officer to receive it (The Sun, 1923).

As higher education continued to grow and change, personal contact with students was harder to

come by for both faculty and administration. Early in his career, which began in the 18XXs, Ball

wasable to recognize and often name all the students who graduated; over the course of his 45-

year career, however, increased enrollments eventually reduced his ability to interact with each

student personally.

Graduation

After years of registering students and handling their grades, the registrars office is also

involved in their graduation. While early students were not always concerned about earning

their degree, the increased importance of degree completion makes graduation responsibilities

one the registrars most important roles.

When the curriculum was rigid, students earned their degrees simply by remaining in

school four years and avoiding too many pranks antagonizing his teachers (Meyer, 1932, p.

53). As programs became more flexible, with degree requirements often changing each year, the

Deleted: used to be

Deleted: during his 45 years as registrar,

Commented [MF24]: A major point.

Commented [MF25]: When, exactly?


15/28

REGISTRAR 15

process of reviewing students for graduation became more complicated. The fact that students

do not always follow the prescribed rules, transfer between schools and take time off before

returning to complete a degree made the process even more complex. While many schools

required faculty approval for students to earn a degree, this approval largely became a token

gesture as the enrollment increased (Preinkert, 2005). The deans of some schools performed

reviews of graduation requirements, but registrars often generated the checklists used to perform

those reviews.

Painstaking attention had to be paid to graduation reviews, as mistakes were often

difficult to resolve. When school officials performed manual reviews, requirements were

evaluated as early as the students junior year to allow time for shortcomings to be addressed.

Check sheets were used to ensure students would have the required grade point average, total

credits, the necessary coursework, honors eligibility and any other requirements for the program

(McGinnis, 1937). At the University of Chicago, final graduation reviews begin three weeks

before the ceremony, continuing until the day of graduation with the registrar signing diplomas

the morning of convocation (Preinkert, 2005). An audit on Cecil Community College in 1977

revealed almost twenty degrees awarded erroneously over a five-year period. The fact that this

one schools poor audit resulted in increased scrutiny for all colleges by the Maryland Board for

Higher Education shows just how crucial it is to conduct accurate graduation reviews (Coltman,

1977). Sending the check sheets back and forth between departments and registrars could also

cause problems with the records often getting lost or not returned in a timely manner (Stark,

2007).

Computerized degree evaluations have reduced the time and potential for error involved

in the graduation review process. The University of Delaware used their Computer Assisted

Deleted: -

Commented [MF26]: When?


16/28

REGISTRAR 16

Degree Checkout system not only to ease graduation review, but also to assist students in

developing a plan for graduation and to analyze the feasibility of changing majors. The system

was set up to check students according to the requirements in place when they began at the

college. It was able to check student records against several parameters including minimum

grade restrictions, total credits required, major credits required and minimum distribution of

coursework from a seemingly endless list of options (Cyphers, Hirsch, Hirshman, Kessler,

Zebroski & Ennis, 1973). Rather than list coursework chronologically, the system allows faculty

and other university officials to see how a students coursework applies to the degree he or she is

pursuing. This service at the University of Delaware was also available to students, but only

through a computer terminal on campus. Some schools charged students to receive degree

audits, often requiring the student to wait as long as two weeks to receive the document (Olsen,

1999).

Computerized degree audits were available in the 1980s, but with the rise of the Internet

in the 1990s, these systems became available to more students online. When the University of

Notre Dame implemented a degree audit system called DegreeWorks, the assistant registrar

envisioned the system changing the way faculty advisors work with students. By removing the

need for a manual review of students records, advisors would have more time to connect with

students and address other concerns in addition to course planning. The registrars office worked

to create the code which the audit would use to check requirements and the academic deans were

given a year to test the system before it was released to students (Olsen, 1999).

For all of the benefits of automated degree audits, there were several limitations. Every

program and student record is different, so it was difficult to code the requirements in a way that

was completely accurate for every situation. Students see the degree evaluation as a contract, so

Commented [MF27]: So at UD, the r egistrars role

an area of academic advising.


Deleted: i


17/28

REGISTRAR 17

it was important for them to be aware that the registrar or dean has final authority on graduation

(Olsen, 1999). Another challenge for registrars implementing these systems was working with

academic departments to ensure accuracy. While the university catalog may state one set of

requirements, all too often, departments also had hidden requirements that needed to be

addressed (Martinez, 2013). In addition to knowledge about the curriculum, the creation of a

degree audit system required technical expertise. The program requirements had to be coded in a

way that allowed the computer logic to function properly. Since few registrar staff members

were proficient in these new skills, technical workers would be called in to create the system. A

common problem noted by registrars when implementing student information systems to assist

with registration or automated degree checking were that the technicians who created the

systems did not fully understand the needs of the students, faculty and staff who used the system.

Conversely, the system creators often complained that registrars and other university

administrators were not ready to deal with the change computerization would bring and so were

difficult to deal with when creating a new system (Quann et al., 1979).

Curriculum and Relationship with Faculty

Curriculum

Curriculum has largely been considered a function of the faculty, but the registrar, as the

keeper of academic records, has a broader view of the students and the needs of the institution

than faculty who tend to focus on their courses and their department. Due to this specialized

knowledge, the registrars office has slowly begun to have more involvement in this area.

When registrar duties were no longer part-time tasks assigned to faculty, their

involvement with curriculum seemed to decrease initially. In 1950, only 4 of 87 schools

surveyed required registrar approval for curriculum and course changes, and that was usually in

Commented [MF29]: Interesting development in th

application of technology to higher ed; this happens acr

university.


18/28

REGISTRAR 18

conjunction with president or dean approval (Neal & Miller, 1950). However, several registrars

seemed to serve on the curriculum committees in some capacity. Out of 32 registrars surveyed

in 1928, just under half reported serving on some version of a curriculum or advisory committee

(Tansil, 1928).

As the size of the faculty grew, it became impossible for all members to be involved in

curriculum decisions, which was the impetus for the creation of faculty senates. At the

University of New Hampshire, the newly created faculty senate was made up of 50 faculty

members elected from the departments and included 13 ex officio administrative officers. There

was some opposition to administrators being on the senate, but the faculty realized that the

administration would have to carry out the rulings of the senate and that since they were rather

better acquainted with the machinery of administration and the application of man-made rules to

the government of men, it would be best to have them bona fide members of the Senate"

(Blewett, 1938, p. 205). Eventually, the faculty grew so large that a dean at Lycoming College

did not believe that deans could maintain the level of knowledge needed to do justice to

curriculum management while also carrying out all their other duties. This dean believed the

registrars knowledge was well inline with this task (Glunk, Jackson, Jose & Woodward, 1973).

Another believed that since so much important student information was stored in the registrars

office, the individual in this role was in an ideal position to provide information to departments

and faculty enabling them to improve the schools curriculum (Troop, 1941).

Not everyone was ready to accept the expertise of registrars. One dean acknowledged

that since registrars maintain student records, it should be their duty to conduct statistical

analyses of these data. However, the application of that information should fall to the deans and

faculty (Ezra, 1933). A registrar from Cornell University agreed with this as he pointed out that

Commented [MF30]: Hard to make comparisons w

out of order chronologically; it would be helpful to pu

information first, and then the 1950 data.


Deleted: n

Deleted: -

Commented [MF32]: Good point.


19/28

REGISTRAR 19

registrars do not have the same subject matter expertise that faculty have which is crucial for

curriculum development. He acknowledged that registrars could be involved in an informal way

due to their knowledge of the university, but maintained the primary responsibility should remain

with the faculty (Glunk et al., 1973). Faculty certainly would have supported this sentiment, as

one stated in its gathered wisdomthe faculty has more theoretical and practical justification

for making broad educational policy decisions than does any other group connected with the

college" (Dibden, 1962, p. 450). However, part of the argument Dibden (1962) used to make

this claim, the facultys institutional context, could just as easily be applied to registrar officers.

Faculty will always have a role in developing curricula for their institutions due to their

subject matter expertise. However, the individuals serving in registrars offices have a different

sort of subject matter expertise that could be extremely valuable. If faculty members accept

registrars as colleagues and respect their advice, it could be beneficial to the institution as a

whole. Improvements in reporting capabilities have allowed registrars to provide a wealth of

useful information that other administrators and faculty could put to good use. Unfortunately,

this is not always the case. One faculty member turned administrator argued that while the

responsibility for curriculum decisions should lie with the faculty a college is a community of

scholars, and it should function like a community (Trippet, 1957, p. 491). He hoped greater

understanding could be reached between faculty and administrators to help achieve this

community. Another agreed that the system could be hostile. He stated that even though some

faculty wish to improve relations with administrators, they still often referred to these individuals

in the negative, as non-faculty,not as what they are, administrative professionals(Scott,

1980). This indicates administrators were not just as a separate group, but as a lesser one, which

does not even deserve its own title but instead became thought of as not one of usby faculty.

Commented [MF33]: And their stated role in gover

Commented [MF34]: What is their relationship wit

offices of institutional research and assessment? Lots of

and it would be useful to lo ok at that development, as w


20/28

REGISTRAR 20

Relationship with faculty

Relationships between faculty and administration have often been strained, with each

group desiring more control over the institution. Moving into the later part of this century,

technology greatly altered the registrar's role and, to an extent, their relationship with the faculty.

There are still tensions between the two groups, but faculty have come to value the data

registrars offices can provide which will continue to improve the relationship.

There was a great deal of resistance to change as the registrar and other administrative

positions grew, possibly due to an apprehension from the faculty of losing responsibility. Early

faculty served as professors or tutors. Professors generally taught one subject and had often

studied to be clergymen, but saw teaching as a less trying career path. The tutors taught a wide

array of topics to an entering class, staying with them until that class graduated or the tutor found

other employment. Tutor was a low paying position with high turnover and little respect

(Rudolph, 1965). As curriculums became less rigid and research became valued, faculty also

began to be seen as important members of their institutions. Since this view was still new in the

early years of the registrar, it was likely difficult for faculty to accept any of their newly won

roles being taken away again. Additionally, the term administrator did not always just refer to

the people who filled those roles,but to a certain state of mind held by those people in the

university who thought in terms of institutional management and planning (Halfond, 1984, p.

353).

It was difficult for the profession of registrars to gain respect from faculty in part due to

their history. A common secondary title for full time registrars was Secretary of the Faculty. In

this role, the registrar functioned as a clerk for the faculty recording and implementingtheir

will" (Halfond, 1984, p. 355). It is not an easy transition from secretary to respected colleague.


21/28

REGISTRAR 21

This is particularly evident in one professors observation that the move towards full-time

registrar positions were useful since it released the faculty from the petty duties (Cowley,

1934, p. 35) they would rather not do anyway.

Conclusion

The role of registrars in American higher education has come a long way since the

positions inception in the late 1880s, however, it continues evolving as newer and faster

technology allows registrars to conduct their work in different ways. As the offices primary

record keeping responsibilities became less time-intensive, registrars have been able to broaden

their horizons and meet new needs for their universities. The list of responsibilities ascribed to

this office is still lengthy and varied, but today more of those duties include analysis and use of

the data to which the registrar has access.

The registrar has become less of a forward facing figure, with most students never setting

foot in this central office. The rise of online systems has reduced the need for direct interaction

with students, but the role registrars play in developing and maintaining online registration,

computerized degree requirement checks and other student systems means that, in a way, they

still touch every student on campus. Due to their increased involvement with various campus

technologies, more registrars are coming into the role with a background in information

technology (Mitchell, 2013). One registrar estimates that his office now spends only about 10%

of its time on administrative tasks with the rest of their work being technical (Lanier, 2006).

Registrars have always had an incredible amount of information at their disposal, but

with computer systems that information can now be queried and reported against to allow for

more meaningful data analysis. It would have been difficult to identify trends using old paper

records. Imagine that a math department is considering adding a prerequisite requirement to one

Commented [MF35]: Good analysis of faculty and

administrative tensions and issues of prestige.

Deleted: them

Commented [MF36]: Interesting commentary on th

relationship between students and the office/function.

Commented [MF37]: Great recommendations in th

for the futuregood use of historical analysis to inform

practice.


22/28

REGISTRAR 22

of their advanced courses. They are considering which lower level course would best prepare the

student and would like to check the records of previous students who were successful in the

advanced course. The paper records would require a lengthy manual search of each students

record to identify common mathematics coursework. Today, this information could would be

fairly easy to retrieve out of the schools student information system. The registrar could even

expand the search to include non-math majors who may have taken the advanced course.

This type of information should help inform the registrars new role as an ambassador of

data (Hurley, 2009, p. 51). Todays registrars should increasingly be able to extract some data

themselves without needing to rely entirely on IT staff. They should use this data to serve their

institution. They can do this by serving on committees in which their expertise could be of use,

groups dealing with curriculum and policy are two that would certainly benefit from the

registrars experience. Top university administrators do not usually deal with day-to-day student

matters, so these individuals should call on their registrars to provide information that will help

them make better decisions for their institutions.

Even with so many changes to the registrars office, more are yet to come. Some schools

still use outdated processes such as manual graduation reviews. University resources are always

tight, but the modern registrar needs to be able to use the available data to help make a case for

securing the most important resources. Better, faster, newer technology is constantly being

developed and college registrars should stay abreast of these developments to ensure they are

serving their students and community in the best way possible.

Some people questioned whether the role of the registrar would continue to be necessary

in the age of computers. To the contrary, registrars have embraced opportunities offered by


23/28

REGISTRAR 23

technology and they are well on the way to securing an ever more important role in higher

education administration.


24/28

REGISTRAR 24

References

American University. (1927).American University Bulletin Catalog Issue: College of Liberal Arts

Annual Catalog(Vol. 19261927). Washington, D.C.: American University. Retrieved from

https://archive.org/details/bulletinliberala1926amer

Barber paid by students to mesmerize registrar. (1925, December 6). The Washington Post (1923-

1954). Washington, D.C., United States. Retrieved from http://proquest.com.mutex.gmu.edu

Beaver, P. (1981).Registration: The important first impression. Macomb County Community

College.

Blewett, E. Y. (1938). A new type of faculty organization. The Journal of Higher Education, 9(4),

201206.

Boli, J., Katchadourian, H., & Mahoney, S. (1988). Analyzing academic records for informed

administration: The Stanford curriculum study. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 5468.

Christensen, J. C. (1913). The business side of the registrars office. InProceedings of the Fourth

Annual meeting of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars. Salt Lake City, Utah:

AACR. Retrieved from http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001735904/Home

Cowley, W. H. (1934). Organizing the non-academic personnel for economy. The Journal of Higher

Education, 5(1), 3541.

CPI Inflation Calculator. (2014).Bureauof Labor Statistics. United States Department of Labor.

Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Cyphers, R. E., Hirsch, J. L., Hirshman, H. M., Kessler, W. A., Zebroski, J. T., & Ennis, J. M. (1973).

Innovative ideas and techniques for registrars. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting. Lancaster,

PA.

Formatted:Font: Italic

Commented [MF38]: Is this a book or report?

Deleted: d

Deleted: .


25/28

REGISTRAR 25

Dibden, A. J. (1962). Faculty comptence and college government. The Journal of Higher Education,

33(8), 449451.

Duhig, C. W. (1964). The procurement, posting and publishing of grades. The Journal of Higher

Education, 35(2), 9293.

Ezra, L. (1933). A registrar looks at his job.Bulletin of the American Association of Collegiate

Registrars, 9(1), 326342.

Franklin, F., Norman, L., Wagner, J., & Hurd, C. (1973). Workshop for new registrars. In

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting. Lancaster, PA.

Gilley, A., & Gilley, J. W. (2006). FERPA: What do faculty know? What can universities do? College

and University, 82(1), 1727.

Glunk, R. J., Jackson, R. P., Jose, J. R., & Woodward, M. L. (1973). Are registrars a necessary

commodity in the age of computer technology?InProceedings of the Annual Meeting.

Lancaster, PA.

Halfond, J. A. (1984). The history of higher education and the registrars changing role. College and

University, 59(4), 351356.

Hawkes, H. E. (1930). College administration: A review of certain tendencies in collegiate education

during the last twenty-five years. The Journal of Higher Education, 1(5), 245253.

Hickman, G. (1930). The status of the registrar in the standard four-year denominational college.

Educational Research Record, 4(1), 2835.

Langbart, S. (1999). Broward Community College announces online registration.Business in

Broward, 13(3), 6.

Deleted: .


26/28

REGISTRAR 26

Lawlor, J. (1998, November 12). Carbon paper still messy, still in use. The New York Times. New

York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/12/technology/carbon-paper-still-

messy-still-in-use.html

Marus, J. (1998). The age of technology takes college administration by storm. Community College

Week, 10(13), 1416.

McDonagh, E. C. (1944). Criteria for college graduation. The Journal of Higher Education, 15(5),

257259.

McGinnis, H. (1937). A days work of a college registrar.Peabody Journal of Education, 14(6), 302

306.

Meyer, M. (1932). Oberlin grades its students in the registrars office.Peabody Journal of Education,

10(1), 5356.

NACUBO. (1970).A student records manual: Guidelines for the administration of college

admissions, financial aid and registration programs. Washington, D.C.: National Association of

College and University Business Officers.

Neal, C. D., & Miller, L. N. (1950). Presentation of new and revised college courses in education. The

Journal of Educational Research, 43(9), 670677.

Olsen, F. (1999, December 3). Smart software lets colleges offer self-service degree information.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A47.

Partridge, F. (1935). The evolution of administrative offices in the smaller colleges of liberal arts. The

Journal of Higher Education, 6(7), 367370.

Preinkert, A. H. (2005). The work of the registrar: A summary of principles and practices in

American universities and colleges. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate

Registrars and Admissions Officers.


27/28

REGISTRAR 27

Quann, C. J., Blakesly, J. F., Conner, J. D., Oleson, L. C., Oliver, E., Perry, M., Wagner, H. (Eds.).

(1979).Admissions, academic records, and registrar services. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

Inc.

Registrar with long memory laughs at systems as aid:Dr. Ball, at Hopkins, greets hundreds of

students and graduates by name--is awarded prized varsity seal. (1923, January 18). The Sun

(1837-1988). Baltimore, Md., United States. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.mutex.gmu.edu/history/docview/544454599/abstract/12C9713EF034

4A7CPQ/20?accountid=14541

Rudolph, F. (1965). The American college and university: A history. New York: Alfred A Knopf.

S.U. registrar sold grades to students. (1968, November 9). The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.,

United States.

Scott, R. A. (1980). Lords, squires, and yeomen: Collegiate Middle-Managers in the U.S.Higher

Education, 9(4), 385398.

Starkman, N. (2007). Image and integrate. Campus Technology, 21(3), 3034.

Stout, E. M. (1954). The origin of the registrar. College and University, 29, 415418.

Stroup, F. (1963). The grade-point average is obsolete: The problem of identifying academic failures.

The Journal of Higher Education, 34(1), 1015.

Tansil, R. C. (1928). The present status of the Registrars Office in the small accredited liberal arts

college of the southern states.Peabody Journal of Education, 5(6), 333338.

Toglia, T. (2007). How does FERPA affect you? Tech Directions, 67(2), 3235.

Trippet, B. K. (1957). The role of faculty in college administration.AAUP Bulletin, 43(3), 484491.

Troop, C. V. (1941). The work of the registrar. The Journal of Higher Education, 12(8), 43742.


28/28

REGISTRAR 28

University of Nebraska, Alumni Association. (n.d.). The University Journal(Vol. 8). Lincoln,

Nebraska: University of Nebraska.

Great use of primary sources to trace the evolution of the registrars function over time,

and also to use the registrars function as a lens through which we can trace the various change

agents in American higher ed (e.g., technology, increased enrollment, professionalization, the

changing role of the faculty, and curricular change). Your writing is clear and easy to follow,

with two areas where it could have been stronger:

First, the difficulty of using APA style for an historical paper is that it makes following

what happened whenvery difficult; youll see a lot of my comments focus on when, exactly,

did this happen? Its not that Im quizzing you on dates, but to get a clear sense of cause and

effect, its good to include the date something happened in the paragraph, and to put the evidence

youve cited in chronological order in the paragraph. When youre citing a handbook that was

published in 2005, and what its talking about happened in 1945, its more important for the

reader to know that it took place in 1945 than to know that the book was published in 2005.

The second area involves your introduction and conclusion: you might have had a

stronger start and finish if you laid out some of the cause and effect relationships in your

introduction, rather than just telling the reader that the paper was going to analyze or look at

relationships . So the introduction might have included a sentence that set up technology,

increased enrollment, professionalization, the changing role of the faculty, and curricular

change as significant forces that shaped the evolution of the registrars function from 1880 to

the present. Then you could have revisited those same forces in the conclusion.

Good work, overall!

GRADE: 94 (A-)

Formatted:Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted:Line spacing: 1.5 lines

the evolution of the registrar's office

Documents