…And Their Answer is Preregistration…

A semester ago I was asked to give my supposed professional assessment on what they wanted: Preregistration in place of REGIST. That meant students will preregister in courses assuming they PASS their currently taken courses. I actually wrote a written explanation printed in initially 15 pages. I toned it down to 9 pages. I had it in a folder which I took to the Chancellor’s office. The former registrar was also invited.

This is what they wanted: let students preregister SO we can predict “more accurately” the demand SO we can hire more teachers before the next semester starts if needed SO we can open new sections etc.

Prof. Dorado and I had the same prognosis. She has worked with the registration “problem” longer than me, I have only looked at it at a technical/observational point of view. The previous members (college secretaries) of the Committee on Computerization of Registration have in a long ago meeting agreed REGIST is doing its job as it is designed, it’s just that the things that happen outside the computer results to deficient and sometimes even bad data. So to me, it’s like blaming the wrong thing, judging the innocent.

I’m implementing the “service” in software and to me, it doesn’t make sense to be implementing a service that makes its users do MORE than they should. I mean everybody begins with no slots and they “compete” online. Sure they can chose their sections (as if there was that much good choices) but all of them will do everything from nothing. What we had currently then was a system where more than 50% no longer need to do anything, with the modifications we would be implementing, they would just need to login and finalize OR make minor changes if needed.

On the issue of “better demand prediction”, preregistration is no different from what REGIST does. They are both WRONG in that they assume that students PASS all their courses. The only difference is you involve ALL students in preregistration just so we can make the WRONG prediction. REGIST involves the maintainer/user of the software and the data they have to make the WRONG prediction. My point being, why don’t we just improve the one that involves lesser people? I mean would you like to involve many probable “sources” of error?

Sure, sure, they discussed the oh so Utopian view of students choosing who they want to be with in class, that they are responsible for their own schedules etc etc. As I said Utopian. The registration problem requires realistic measures. Sure fantasies are welcome, but we don’t have the resources to support such fantasies. I don’t see why we bother.

I am drawn to this problem because I am fascinated by the fact that we are the only university I know of that tries to automate its registration problem to the point where majority of students do not have to worry about their registration especially those who are deserving. The goal being you just run the program and if you did good the last semester, you are prioritized and your registration is a breeze. And then they wanted to remove that.

ANd also, WHY did they want us to do more? We already have a system we are improving, why don’t we continue with it? So many years of efforts have been put into it. I joined because I think it’s good we have some sort of LONG TERM GOAL.

I tried to explain the system in the simplest terms I can think of. I thought they understood my so called “professional” assessment why prereg will not fly and why we should go on with our LONG TERM GOAL. I thought they took my assessment to heart judging from their own conclusion to look at the things that happen outside of the system that affects its performance. I did not hand in the report I made, I was so happy I made a point that I trashed it after I went back to my office room.

After the first run of the OCM, we had this meeting. They alleged that they wanted some way to correctly predict demand. And again they suggested Preregistration to BE the answer. I think they forgot about the system that already makes the prediction. They alleged it is wrong. I tried to make a point that IF we correct the student records, we remove some of the errors.

At the middle of the semester, the OUR releases demand prediction and they respond with their department’s schedules according to what they can offer. The OUR runs REGIST to find out we have a deficit in slots, they are expected to respond again to change their offerings. Some of them respond, most don’t. This semester, departments were somewhat “prevented” from offering more because the teachers will not get overload pay. They say it’s a UP-wide directive to save money. I say, WHY THE HELL ARE WE ‘SAVING UP’ THIS WAY WHEN THERE AREN’T ENOUGH TEACHERS TO DO THE WORK?

ANyways, when the grades come in, the demand is updated again SINCE students DON’T ALWAYS PASS and they are asked to respond with the new demand.

They have a point though, the time span by which the events above happen is somewhat tight. They wanted more time to ‘decide’. Were’nt there enough time during the first release of the demand prediction? Oh wait, they claim its not ACCURATE. What PREDICTION is  ACCURATE?

So they decide to have prereg again so they can respond with the demand prediction earlier. However, it must be noted EARLY means error-ridden because the prediction you are going to make is based on shaky assumptions.

ALSO, I tried to make this point: USERS (students) will do more. They will login at least twice or thrice (if you failed): once to preregister, another time to check after the grades are submitted, and third to confirm during the registration period.

I insisted on US still using REGIST though to do the initial distribution of slots given “initial offerings”. The only problem is the priority numbers would be all 1 (for graduating) and 2 (for good standing) because we assume they will pass their courses. I suggested we use current priority numbers (except for those graduating). This complicates this much. I cannot agree to people beginning with no slots because some people will have some “difficulty” doing their transactions online. Also increasing the transactions required will of course means longer time online AND here I am still solving the performance problems we encountered.

On the work-side, the undermanned OUR will do more. ANd here I am thinking working hard is not the answer: we should work smart.

This move severely goes against my common sense. They called me ‘emotional’ about my work and they told me there are somethings I can’t see from their point of view. Yes, I am emotional, but on the second point, I would want to say the same about them. There are contingencies and requirements they still have not answered to and have not looked into. I began to not say anything. I mean, they completely forgot about my explanation once before, I don’t think any of my protestations and assessments have any value. I mean it’s “pseudo-politicians” vs me the worker.

Now I need to add add-ons to the current modules because we are doing MORE steps now. This is aside from the bug fixes and re-configurations I still need to do. I say, value-added service for an unmaterially rewarding job.

In as much as I am a part of the organization, I can do no less but to do my best to support what they want even if I don’t agree to the concept. I look at it as some way to see if I am wrong about my assessment and learn from it. I am anxious to see if their idea works.

I’d like to make it clear though, students — don’t blame me if you don’t like preregistration.

PS 1. Interesting to note, 2 out of the 3 people who spoke in favor of prereg are newly appointed people. They were’nt there when the committee made and debated on the plans and issues of the reg process.