FINDINGS

• Curriculum Requirements
• Responding to Selected Reforms
• Differences at Other Public Institutions

       Our interviews explored several aspects of the university admissions process as it relates to selected reforms. This section begins with a general description of curriculum requirements for admission to the nation's public flagship universities and who sets these requirements. This is followed by a discussion of the locus of responsibility for deciding whether particular courses meet these requirements (i.e., at the campus, segment, or state level). The final section addresses how often admissions staff encounter selected reforms, and how they respond.

Curriculum Requirements

       When screening applicants for admission, a member of the admissions staff usually compares the course titles on a high school transcript to a list of courses required for admission. Typical requirements include four years of English, three years of science, three years of mathematics (usually Algebra II or higher), three years of social studies, and two years of foreign language (often restricted to a single language). Matching courses on a transcript to a set of listed requirements can be a complicated and ambiguous task. While some course titles clearly identify the content and level of the course (e.g., Spanish I), it may be less clear what is taught in a course titled Humanities or Principles of Technology and how to map that content to subject area requirements. In addition, different schools may assign different titles to courses with comparable content. Finally, admissions staff may be uncertain about whether the course should count toward admission requirements if the level of academic challenge presented by the course is unclear.

Who Sets Requirements, and Who Decides Which Courses Meet Them?

       All but one of the 48 states in the study had set forth requirements or strong recommendations for applicants' high school curriculum. In 21 states, the state higher education coordinating board required high school courses in various subjects for admission to any public four-year institution in the state. [8] In many cases, the state set forth minimum curriculum requirements, and institutions were free to impose additional requirements. Curriculum requirements were set by university segment offices in seven states, and in 19 states, each institution set its own requirements. One state, Kansas, had neither curriculum requirements nor strong recommendations since in-state high school graduates are automatically eligible to attend any public four-year institution.[9]

       Decisions about which courses meet subject-specific requirements or recommendations were made by individual institutions in 36 states (Figure 1). In 12 states, this authority rests with a state-level agency such as the higher education coordinating or governing board or with a university segment office. In a few states, this responsibility was delegated to high schools or school districts. [10]

       Admissions counselors had a range of procedures for mapping courses to requirements. The most rigid method was to compare all course titles on the transcript to a list of approved courses (applicable only for in-state applicants). Under this approach, a list of approved courses was typically compiled for the whole segment or for all public four-year institutions in the state. Courses not on the list were either not credited towards requirements or were scrutinized separately to determine their applicability. Admissions staff may make these decisions themselves, consult with faculty members, or turn them over to a faculty committee. While highly centralized procedures were found in only one-quarter of the states surveyed, they were somewhat more common in states with a consolidated governing board for all public higher education than in states with a coordinating board or planning agency (8 out of the 23 states that had governing boards, as opposed to 4 out of the 25 states that had coordinating boards or planning agencies).[11]

       The University of California (UC) provides an example of a highly centralized procedure for relating courses to requirements. UC's Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS), a faculty committee of the Academic Senate, is responsible for admission requirements (known as the "a-f" subject requirements). A single systemwide admissions office compiles a school-by-school list of courses at California schools that fulfill the requirements. This master list is updated annually: the Director of Admissions invites California high schools and school districts to submit descriptions of new or revised courses that set forth how the courses meet the guidelines. Central office staff then decide which courses meet the requirements, in consultation with BOARS or other faculty as necessary. Once the list has been updated, admissions staff at each UC campus use the list to determine whether candidates have met the eligibility requirements. It is important to recognize that even elaborate procedures such as these do not eliminate ambiguity from the admissions process because comparable information relating courses to requirements is not available for out-of-state high schools. In these cases, campus admissions staff use guidelines to assess courses presented by out-of-state students and make direct inquiries to high schools as necessary.

Responding to Selected Reforms

       This section reports on what admissions personnel said about their experiences with specific reforms that complicate standard admissions procedures, and how they react to the attendant difficulties and ambiguities. Because these questions concerned admissions procedures, the findings reported here are based on interviews with respondents at the level where admissions policy is implemented--usually the individual campus.

       In addition to questions about how certain reforms are handled in the admissions process, we also asked respondents how often they encounter instances of each reform. In general, these reforms were encountered only occasionally: few respondents reported that a reform was never encountered (at most four states for a given reform) or frequently encountered (at most three states).

       Although we asked respondents whether a "formal policy" was in place for responding to selected reforms, we found that this term was subject to varying interpretations. As the interview progressed, it sometimes appeared that what a respondent had characterized as formal policy was a policy of making case-by-case judgments. Nevertheless, in the few cases where these questions were asked of both institution- and higher-level respondents, the two sources usually agreed: for each type of reform there were one or two states where a system- or segment-level respondent indicated the presence of a formal policy while an institutional representative did not; and there were no instances of the reverse (formal policy according to an institution-level respondent, but none according to a segment- or state-level respondent).[12]

       The discussion and tables that follow thus combine formal policies and the strategies used for case-by-case evaluation. While in some cases we were unable to elicit more detail than "professional judgment," further probing often revealed the strategies admissions personnel use to make such judgments.

       In general, we found that the procedures reported below were the same for in-state and out-of-state candidates. For any given reform, respondents in from four to eight states indicated that they had a different procedure for out-of-state candidates. In most cases, this amounted to seeking additional information from the school.

Interdisciplinary Courses

       Interdisciplinary courses combine content from two or more academic disciplines. A common combination is to merge literature and social studies curricula into a Humanities course. Such courses may also include content from the arts. Another example is Integrated Science, which brings together material from biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science. Interdisciplinary courses are often offered in double-period blocks and carry two courses' worth of credits.

       Most of the admissions staff interviewed had seen interdisciplinary courses on transcripts, though not very often. Admissions personnel in only two states (Louisiana and Texas) reported frequently encountering such courses, and respondents in four states said they had not encountered them. Institutional respondents in 18 states indicated the existence of a formal policy for dealing with integrated courses.[13] Finally, respondents in three states reported that the policy for handling such courses was under review (including respondents in coordinating boards or central offices).

       A deputy director at the Illinois State Board of Education stated that interdisciplinary courses are "not a big deal" for admissions staff to evaluate, since course content is often clear and academic rigor is rarely questioned. Nevertheless, in one state (Tennessee), we were told that interdisciplinary courses are not creditable toward subject area requirements, and respondents in three other states (Connecticut, Maine, and West Virginia) said that interdisciplinary courses are rarely applied toward requirements.

       Table 1 summarizes the practices in place for handling interdisciplinary courses. We found that interdisciplinary courses often, but not always, fulfill entrance requirements for admission to flagship universities. In states where admissions counselors do not have an approved course list and where the mapping of courses to requirements is not obvious, admissions staff may contact the high school to clarify the course content, submit the case to a state agency for a decision, or send it to a faculty committee that reviews the course content. In 19 states, respondents said they seek more information about a course from the high school or the student if subject area content is unclear.

       Respondents in ten states reported a procedure whereby a two-unit interdisciplinary course is equated to two units in required subject areas. The question then becomes which subject areas to credit; rigor of the course is generally not at issue. Indeed, several respondents commented that interdisciplinary courses are often designated as honors or advanced courses. Moreover, many students with such courses had met or exceeded admission requirements through other (standard) courses, obviating the need to map interdisciplinary courses to subject area requirements.

       A less formal practice is for admissions counselors to use their own judgment in deciding how to allocate interdisciplinary units (six states). This may result in less consistent decisions than when using other approaches. A major factor in this judgment is counselors' personal knowledge of the high school and even specific courses at familiar "feeder" schools. In the absence of specific knowledge about a school, counselors may rely on the course title alone, with little or no additional information.

Table 1
Summary of Admissions Officers' Practices When Evaluating Interdisciplinary Courses at Flagship Institutions in 48 States

	Get more info. from high school or student	Refer to statewide list	Follow school's designation	Professional judgment	Two interdisc. credits equal two subject area credits	Other1	Do not recognize for subject area requirements2	Have not encountered
Total3	19	6	6	6	10	14	1	4
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1 Includes the following responses: apply the course to whichever area has a deficiency; count the course as elective only; award partial credit for the course; rely on the course title alone; faculty review such courses; and other unique or idiosyncratic responses. Some admissions staff offered these responses in addition to other procedures. 2 May count as elective in Tennessee. Excludes states where these courses have not been encountered. 3 Totals do not sum to 48 because more than one practice may have been reported in a given state.

Integrated or Applied Academic Courses

       Integrated courses also combine content from normally distinct curricular areas, but instead of combining academic disciplines, integrated courses combine academic and vocational content, or apply hands-on instructional approaches to academic material. Principles of Technology, a two-course applied physics sequence developed by CORD, is a familiar integrated course. Applied Math, Applied Biology/Chemistry, Applied Communications, and Business English are other examples.

       Most respondents reported having seen integrated courses on high school transcripts. However, admissions personnel at flagship institutions in only three states (Arkansas, Florida, and Louisiana) said that they see such courses frequently.

       Despite the promise of applied courses, some flagship university personnel expressed skepticism about their academic rigor. Some admissions counselors thought that the courses represent a "dumbing down" of college-prep material; thus, we found that ten flagship universities do not count any integrated courses toward subject requirements.[14] Respondents in 11 other states said they were rarely counted.

       What were the common practices in place for mapping integrated courses to subject area requirements? Respondents in 27 states indicated that some formal policy was in place for handling these courses.[15] As with interdisciplinary courses, the most common approach to deciding whether to count integrated courses was to seek more information about the course (22 states) (Table 2). Referring to a list compiled by a segment office or state agency was practiced in 11 states. (This option relies on a panel at the university, segment, or state level having already evaluated courses to determine which ones satisfy admission requirements.) Faculty review of courses was also a fairly common practice (eight states), as was accepting courses only from certain familiar high schools, where admissions counselors are acquainted with curricula and standards and thus can judge a student's preparation more accurately (seven states).

       Three states' flagship universities accepted applied courses, but at less than full credit; a common example was to accept CORD's Applied Math I and II (a two-year sequence) as the equivalent of Algebra I.[16] In such cases, Applied Math I alone would not be counted toward the requirement. Another approach was to count applied courses only if students demonstrated their learning through some external means such as passing a subsequent academic course (e.g., Algebra II) or through test scores. More than half of the universities evaluated applied courses individually and accepted some such courses, but not all. In another study, McCormick (1994) found that in some states Principles of Technology was counted toward lab science requirements if taught by a science teacher, but otherwise was not counted or was counted only as an elective.

       An associate admissions director at the University of Wisconsin-Madison commented that competency testing helps demonstrate to those reviewing applied academics courses what has been taught in those courses. To the extent that integrated courses are successfully teaching academic content, competency tests have the potential to increase acceptance of integrated courses for meeting university entrance requirements because they provide independent indicators of student learning.

       In six states, admissions personnel follow the subject designation(s) assigned by the high school or district. For example, in Illinois, each high school produces a guidebook of course descriptions that states which college entrance requirement, if any, each course fulfills. In 1995, the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board shifted the responsibility for mapping courses to admission requirements from public universities to school districts. The new procedure, which was intended to support reforms in high schools around the state, allows high schools to create their own interdisciplinary or integrated courses and to negotiate with their district for approval in meeting admission requirements. In Washington and in states where there is a statewide list that maps specific courses to admission requirements, high school students can know with a high degree of certainty which of their school's courses will meet state college and university entrance requirements.

       Respondents in eight states indicated that the handling of integrated courses in the admissions process was the subject of current policy review. Those states were Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Table 2
Summary of Admissions Officers' Practices When Evaluating Integrated Courses at Flagship Institutions in 48 States

	Get more info. from high school or student	Refer to statewide list	Faculty review course content	Accept only from certain high schools	Professional judgment	Other1	Do not recognize for subject area requirements2	Have not encountered
Total3	22	11	8	7	6	14	10	3
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1 Includes the following responses: follow the high school's designation as "college prep"; count the course as elective only; award partial credit for the course; accept CORD curriculum only; count the course if taken with another course; decision based on student's overall record, not course content; and other unique or idiosyncratic responses. Some admissions staff offered these responses in addition to other procedures. 2 May count as elective in Massachusetts. Excludes states where these courses have not been encountered. 3 Totals do not sum to 48 because more than one practice may have been reported in a given state.

Unconventional Transcripts

       Reformers who support performance- or competency-based education argue that high school graduation should be contingent on students' knowledge and skills rather than seat time in particular classes (Nathan, Power, & Bruce, 1995).[17] In this strand of reform, schools are replacing or supplementing traditional grades and Carnegie units with lists, descriptions, or assessments of specific competencies that students have achieved. While traditional multiple-choice exams can be used to demonstrate some competencies, schools adopting this approach often use alternative assessments such as performance tasks, portfolios, or senior projects. These methods require students to produce a tangible product, generate their own answers, or provide a performance of some kind. Several of these methods may be combined to produce a fuller picture of a student's abilities. Because replacing conventional grades and Carnegie units with a variety of idiosyncratic assessments would result in vastly different student records, these reforms are fundamentally incompatible with the way colleges assess students' high school preparation. The new assessments could not be easily compared across schools, districts, or states; thus, they raise grave concerns among admissions personnel who place a high priority on the ability to use objective, reliable criteria to compare all candidates' preparation and achievement.

Some States Are Developing or Testing Competency-Based Admissions Systems

       Despite these difficulties, public higher education systems in two states have embarked on serious efforts to accommodate and support these changes in their admissions procedures, and other states are beginning similar projects. In these states, representatives of schools and higher education institutions are collaborating to develop a competency-based admissions process. For example, in 1993 the University of Wisconsin's Board of Regents endorsed developing a competency-based admissions process that would supplement, but not supplant, the existing system based on traditional measures (Rodriguez, 1995). To test the feasibility of such a process, the university system has completed a pilot study involving eight high schools. Students from schools in the study submitted two applications each: one that included a conventional transcript and one that included a profile of competencies in place of a transcript.[18] Participating admissions staff were divided into two groups that examined these applications independently. In the vast majority of cases, the admission decision was the same using either approach.[19] This outcome has been welcomed by the university, which is advising schools and students that they can use alternative measures to document their progress. However, to date, few schools have implemented competency-based assessments. Similar projects are under development in other states.[20]

       Oregon is moving most ambitiously to incorporate competency-based assessments in the admissions process. The state's reforms follow the development of new proficiency standards and assessment systems required by the 1991 Oregon Education Act for the 21st Century (and related legislation passed in 1995). The state is currently piloting high school curricula that support the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), with Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) programs to follow. The CIM is awarded to students who have demonstrated mastery of specified skills and knowledge in specific subjects by passing competency tests containing both written and performance-based items. Although the standards for the CIM were developed for tenth-grade skill levels, students can take the tests at any time. In 1998-1999, the first year that districts will be required to offer CIM programs, CIM-based curricula will be taught and tests will be given for English and mathematics only; additional tests and related curricula will be phased in over the next four years for science, social sciences, the arts, and second languages. A small number of schools are already reporting proficiencies in English and mathematics, in addition to grades and Carnegie units.

       CAM curricula are being developed for the last two years of high school. Programs will include college preparatory academic and occupationally oriented courses (students will choose among six broad industry areas). State policymakers are developing an associated CAM assessment system that will be linked to postsecondary admissions tests. In 2000-2001, CAM-based programs will be introduced on a voluntary basis, with students having the option of participating in the CIM and CAM programs (even though the legislation requires schools to offer them).

       Paralleling the development of the CIM and CAM programs, the Oregon State System of Higher Education is developing a proficiency-based admissions process (P roficiency-Based Admissions Standards System, or PASS). When fully implemented, students will be assigned proficiency ratings in six content areas (mathematics, science, social sciences, foreign language, humanities/literature, and fine and performing arts). In each content area, students will be rated on from three to eleven proficiencies, for a total of 49 proficiencies across the six content areas (Conley & Tell, 1996). Beginning with the class entering in fall 2001, admission to Oregon public institutions will be by proficiencies or by conventional grades and subject area requirements. PASS is projected to be fully implemented for the class entering in fall 2005, at which point admission will be primarily by proficiencies, whereas admission by the conventional criteria will be through a waiver process. Although proficiencies will be the preferred method for admission to Oregon public universities, schools will continue to report course grades and Carnegie units on transcripts to accommodate students applying to other institutions.

       By implementing a uniform statewide competency-based assessment system, these projects mitigate one of the difficulties of competency-based assessment: lack of comparability across schools and districts. While these records will not have the same degree of comparability as standardized achievement tests, they offer a degree of comparability that is at least as good as existing within-school measures (i.e., grades and class rank). The problem of comparability remains, however, to the extent that students may apply to out-of-state institutions (e.g., Oregon high school graduates who apply to the University of Washington).[21] The relative similarity of the assessment systems being developed in different states offers some promise that admissions staff in one state may not have much difficulty interpreting assessments from another state; however, as more states develop their own idiosyncratic systems, the problem might become unmanageable. From the perspective of institutions that genuinely want to support this reform effort, an ideal outcome would be for schools in many states to adopt a standard scheme for competency-based assessment.

Current Practices

       In our interviews, we asked admissions personnel about their experiences with unconventional transcripts (i.e., lacking grades and Carnegie units).[22] In general, respondents reported encountering unconventional transcripts less often than the curricular reforms discussed above. In many states, competency-based reforms had not moved beyond the discussion and planning phase. Respondents at four flagship universities reported no experience with unconventional transcripts, while in most other states we were told they were a rare occurrence (our respondent at the University of Florida was the only one who reported frequently seeing unconventional transcripts). While some respondents commented that a fraction of high schools were beginning to use competency-based assessments, these schools typically continue to report course grades and Carnegie units in traditional subjects. This is consistent with findings by Nathan, Power, and Bruce (1995) in their study of 29 high schools with competency-based graduation requirements:

[M]ore than half of the schools interviewed have had to maintain traditional grading systems because of admissions policies at colleges and universities. They feel that they cannot eliminate grades entirely . . . because it would adversely affect their students' chances of being accepted by colleges. . . . Schools which have a large number of students applying to state universities, which are usually not equipped to handle alternative transcripts, are forced to report traditional grades and are therefore limited in the scope of change they can realistically make. (pp. 19-20)

In these cases, there is no need for universities to modify their procedures and no incentive to attend to the new assessments.

       Not all unconventional records were the result of competency-based assessments. Indeed, the only unconventional records that many admissions officers had seen were from home-schooled students, rather than from reforming high schools. A few respondents mentioned seeing narrative evaluations in place of grades, but they reported that it was usually a simple matter to translate these into grades. Some respondents mentioned that most unconventional transcripts came from a few familiar feeder schools (some of them private), international baccalaureate programs, or foreign countries. They further noted that most students in this category were clearly qualified for college entry; thus, the transcript did not pose a barrier.[23]

       Despite the infrequency of unconventional transcripts, respondents in 11 states indicated that a formal policy existed for handling them in the admissions process, and respondents in six states indicated that the policy for evaluating such transcripts was under review.[24]

       The most common approach cited by admissions staff was to rely more on students' test scores (or to require test scores if they were not otherwise required); this procedure was mentioned by respondents at 33 flagship institutions (Table 3). This indicates that one of the primary purposes of competency-based assessment is being defeated in these states. Competency-based assessments are intended to provide a more precise, detailed, and well-rounded reflection of student accomplishment and ability than a list of semester courses with grades; however, if admissions staff increase their reliance on standardized test scores (which arguably provide less information than grades), this practice undermines the reform.[25] Some university personnel recognize this conundrum and avoid falling back on standardized tests. For example, the admissions office at the University of Wisconsin-Madison reported that they avoid replacing grades with test scores when they lack conventional measures, instead seeking additional indicators of a student's achievements (such as writing and other work samples; teacher, tutor, or employer recommendations; and evidence of college-level course taking).

       Another common approach was to seek more information about a student's work from the high school or the student (24 states). This might include requesting and reviewing an essay by the student. Less frequent practices included asking a department or faculty committee to evaluate the application, translating narrative evaluations into grades (four states each), and interviewing the applicant by phone or in person (one state).[26] None of our respondents indicated that students with unconventional transcripts are automatically disqualified.

       Our interview findings indicate that students with unconventional transcripts applying to public flagship universities are not necessarily at a disadvantage in the admissions process. However, this situation results partly, and perhaps substantially, because such transcripts are relatively rare: institutions can afford the additional effort required to process these applications as long as they are few in number (this applies for home-schooled students as well). If the practice were to become more common, these students might face some disadvantage as admissions offices take steps to minimize the extra effort required. For example, they might routinely weight test scores more heavily, resulting in still greater dominance of standardized tests in determining college admission. Moreover, the absence of conventional measures may redound to students' disadvantage. When competing directly with other students for limited spaces, those with unconventional records may appear less qualified simply by virtue of the fact that fewer conventional criteria are available to help them stand out (e.g., grades, class rank, and a rigorous curriculum as measured by Carnegie units in academic subjects).

Table 3
Summary of Admissions Officers' Practices When Evaluating Unconventional Transcripts at Flagship Institutions in 48 States

	Rely more on test scores	Get more info. from high school or student	Professional judgment	Translate narrative to grades	Other1	Have not encountered
Total2	33	24	8	4	7	4
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1 Includes the following responses: refer to faculty committee for guidance, interview student, and other unique or idiosyncratic responses. Some admissions staff offered these responses in addition to other procedures. 2 Totals do not sum to 48 because more than one practice may have been reported in a given state.

Credit Transfer from Tech Prep Associate's Degree Programs

       Tech Prep or "2+2" programs link courses taken in the last two years of high school with a two-year community college program to culminate in a Tech Prep or applied associate's degree. Tech Prep programs may combine applied academics curriculum, context-centered learning, and competency-based assessment.[27] A key goal is to keep postsecondary educational options open for students who want to gain specialized vocational skills in high school by ensuring that students also acquire a solid foundation in academic skills (especially in mathematics, science, and communication). The Tech Prep curriculum seeks to avoid the dead-end of many traditional high school vocational programs: low-skill, low-pay work and foreclosed opportunities for further education. An extension of these programs links to a further two years at a four-year institution and a bachelor's degree in a technical field (2+2+2). These programs often encourage students to gain work experience in their field of training while in school.

       Applied associate's degree programs are fairly common in some states (Bender, 1991). However, we found it quite rare for these programs to articulate with baccalaureate programs at flagship universities. In only two states (Arkansas and Tennessee) did respondents say that all courses from applied associate's degree programs fulfill core general education requirements at the flagship institution. In two other states (Virginia and Utah), students receive up to two years' worth of elective credits. At the other extreme, only one respondent indicated that courses from applied associate's degree programs never transfer (Wyoming). In two states (Florida and Vermont), respondents said that they had not seen transfer applicants with Tech Prep or applied associate's degrees.

       We found that public flagship universities generally had clear policies about credit transfer from two-year colleges and technical institutes. Among institutions without "all-or-none" policies, the most common approach was to evaluate each course for its comparability to a course offered in their system (29 states); the nub of this review was usually whether the course in question had sufficient theoretical content. Many university staff members expressed skepticism about the rigor of applied courses from two-year colleges, similar to their views of applied academics in high school. In 13 states, flagship universities awarded credit for such postsecondary courses in certain program areas through formal articulation agreements with particular two-year institutions. These agreements facilitate credit transfer and obviate the need for course-by-course review. Some articulation agreements grant students with a completed Tech Prep associate's degree the credits equivalent to the first two years of a four-year degree, as well as credit for general education requirements. At six universities, staff mentioned that only certain departments or schools on their campus accepted applied courses for transfer, and they decided which courses would transfer.

       Many admissions staff at flagship universities mentioned that less selective institutions might encounter more transfer applicants with this credential. For example, University of California respondents were not aware of links with applied associate's degree programs (though they thought there might be such a program at one UC campus). In contrast, nearly all departments on campuses of the California State University system accept some courses from community colleges, and some of these courses are occupationally oriented. While these may not be formal 2+2+2 programs, this is one indication of the prevalence of links between two- and four-year vocational-technical degrees at nonflagship public institutions. Arizona State University and Long Island University in New York have also pioneered these links, particularly with business degrees (Knoell, 1990).

Differences at Other Public Institutions

       Flagship institutions are usually the largest public institution in each state, and they also tend to be the most selective. While they may set a standard that other institutions seek to emulate, they are not representative of all public four-year institutions in a state. As noted in the introduction, by virtue of their prestige, they may also be less likely to innovate or to adapt to reforms at the secondary level. In recognition of this fact, we asked respondents whether they were aware of other public institutions that were more active on these issues.

       With respect to curricular reforms at the secondary level, respondents at state agencies or flagship institutions in 13 states said they were aware of other public institutions that were actively addressing these reforms in their admissions procedures. Respondents in 15 states were aware of institutions participating in a 2+2+2 program. These findings support the argument that institutions other than flagships may be more innovative or responsive in dealing with curricular reforms. On the other hand, that respondents in only about one in three states were aware of innovation or adaptation at any other public campus suggests one of two possibilities: either adaptation at nonflagship institutions is relatively uncommon, or if it is more widespread, it is relatively unknown to personnel outside those institutions.

[8] From this point on, this report refers to curriculum guidelines as "requirements," although the states or schools may characterize them as strong recommendations. Many states with requirements may in practice treat them as strong recommendations: curricular requirements may be waived for older students applying for admission many years after leaving high school and for applicants with special talents.

[9] However, students completing the "Regents Recommended Curriculum" may receive special treatment, and out-of-state candidates are evaluated with respect to recommended courses.

[10] Four states make these decisions at more than one level, and thus are counted more than once in these totals (see Figure 1).

[11] State governance information is taken from McGuinness, Epper, and Arredondo (1994, pp. 9-12). If a state had more than one kind of governing body, it was categorized under the more centralized structure. Some coordinating boards have program approval authority, while others do not: they have less authority than governing boards but more than planning agencies.

[12] It was rare to have responses on these items from more than one level (i.e., from three to seven states, depending on the specific reform being discussed).

[13] However, as noted earlier, "formal policy" was subject to varying interpretations. When responses from personnel at coordinating boards or central offices are included, 20 states have formal policies.

[14] The ten states are Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont (excludes states where integrated courses have not been encountered).

[15] When responses from personnel at coordinating boards or central offices are included, 28 states have formal policies.

[16] This seems both reasonable and appropriate given the typical Applied Math curriculum: an evaluation of CORD's Applied Math curriculum found that students who completed both courses showed comparable achievement to students who completed Algebra I. This practice was not necessarily uniform across all integrated courses.

[17] The terms "performance-based," "proficiency-based," and "competency-based" are used interchangeably throughout this report.

[18] Competencies were grouped by subject area corresponding to traditional admission requirements: English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and foreign language. Under each subject, students were rated on three to six competencies, using a five-point scale.

[19] Under the pilot study, students admitted under either approach were granted admission to the university.

[20] For example, the state of Washington is developing a project similar to Wisconsin's. Competencies will be reported in English, mathematics, science, social studies, world language, and art. The system will be pilot-tested in three schools (Sherman & Scrima, 1997).

[21] According to PASS documentation, an effort is being made to acquaint admissions personnel in other states with the new assessments "to ensure that PASS provides better information about students' performance than do current transcripts" (Conley & Tell, n.d., p. 7).

[22] This category of reform was intentionally defined broadly in order to ascertain procedures in place for handling any records that lack the usual means to rank and classify students.

[23] It is interesting to note that despite all the policy discussion about changing assessment methods and transcript content in public secondary schools, many of the unconventional records encountered come from private high schools and international schools.

[24] When responses from personnel at coordinating boards or central offices are included, 13 states have formal policies.

[25] Recall, however, that "unconventional transcripts" is a broad category that includes home-schooled and international students as well as students from schools implementing competency-based assessments.

[26] These responses were not mutually exclusive: a single respondent could, and often did, mention several courses of action.

[27] For a more detailed discussion of these programs, see Hull and Parnell (1991).