Running head: REGISTRAR

The Evolution of the Registrars Office

Meghan Arias
CTCH 821
George Mason University

REGISTRAR

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
Commented [MF1]: It would be good here to have a preview of
your conclusion.

involvement and finally, curriculum.

Background
The office of the registrar has origins dating back as far as the twelfth century with the
office of the bedel or beadle at Bologna. Many of the bedels duties 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).

REGISTRAR

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

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

Commented [MF2]: Why do you think this is? Is it related to

the growing number of students and institutions, as well as the
increased complexity of higher education and the high school
curriculum?

(Halfond, 1984).

Commented [MF3]: Ditto.

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

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 the Bulletin) offered a sense of community to those involved with
the association, giving them a place to hone their craft.

Commented [MF4]: Why do you think this happened then? Is it

related to the increased professionalization of faculty, as evidenced
by the development of AAUP?

Commented [MF5]: Important change!

REGISTRAR

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

Commented [MF6]: Current or past?

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

Commented [MF7]: When, exactly? When you mix 1930

sources and 2005 sources, its hard to know what time period you
are referencing.

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

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

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

Commented [MF9]: Do you mean denominational?

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 [MF10]: About the pay for one additional course

REGISTRAR

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.

Formatted: Strikethrough

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

Commented [MF11]: Nice explanation of the history of

grading.

REGISTRAR

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).

Commented [MF12]: Good use of primary sources.

The registrars office connection to grading has changed over the years, but one thing
seems to remains constant the 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 [MF13]: Id like to know more about Preinkert

who was she? In what role was she tasked with developing this
guide?

REGISTRAR

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 students permanent 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

REGISTRAR

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).

REGISTRAR

Figure 1. Duplicating machine. University employee copying

transcripts using a duplicating machine (Columbia Daily
Spectator, 1951)

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

Commented [MF14]: Important to note the impact of federal

policy on the role of the registrar.

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, registrars offices 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).

Commented [MF15]: Might this be because it does not fall into

the traditional view of the registrars role?

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

Commented [MF16]: ?

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 [MF17]: todays office

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
registrars office. 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?

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 as registrars work to improve their services, they must also remain aware of their

Commented [MF19]: Good use of primary sources!

Deleted: a
Deleted: s

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

Deleted:
Deleted: their

wanted, few institutions allowed them to choose a particular section early. Students were
assigned to a class section alphabetically or based on student test scores. At larger schools, a

Deleted:
Deleted: early

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

Commented [MF20]: Just be careful using words like always

when youre taking an historical approach!

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

Deleted:

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

Commented [MF21]: When did this take place?

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

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 sent back 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).

Commented [MF22]: Interesting that changes the interaction

of students with staff and the campus.

Student Involvement and Graduation

Student involvement
When colleges were small and the curriculum rigid, faculty might have taught or at least
known all students in their school. As enrollments grew and the elective system developed that

Commented [MF23]: Good to add dates here

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 Journal announced 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 nonstudents, 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
was able to recognize and often name all the students who graduated; over the course of his 45-

Deleted: used to be

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

Deleted: during his 45 years as registrar,

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

Commented [MF24]: A major point.

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

Commented [MF25]: When, exactly?

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

Deleted: -

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

Commented [MF26]: When?

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

Commented [MF27]: So at UD, the registrars role extends into

an area of academic advising.

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

Commented [MF28]: When?

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

Deleted: i

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 the

application of technology to higher ed; this happens across the
university.

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

Commented [MF30]: Hard to make comparisons when you go

out of order chronologically; it would be helpful to put the 1928
information first, and then the 1950 data.

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

Commented [MF31]: When?

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"

Deleted: n

(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 in line with this task (Glunk, Jackson, Jose & Woodward, 1973).

Deleted: -

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 [MF32]: Good point.

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

Commented [MF33]: And their stated role in governance!

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 us by faculty.

Commented [MF34]: What is their relationship with the new

offices of institutional research and assessment? Lots of overlap,
and it would be useful to look at that development, as well.

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

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.

Commented [MF35]: Good analysis of faculty and

administrative tensions and issues of prestige.

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

Deleted: them

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

Commented [MF36]: Interesting commentary on the

relationship between students and the office/function.

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 [MF37]: Great recommendations in this section

for the future good use of historical analysis to inform current
practice.

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

REGISTRAR

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

23

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 (19231954). Washington, D.C., United States. Retrieved from http://proquest.com.mutex.gmu.edu
Beaver, P. (1981). Registration: The important first impression. Macomb County Community

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

Formatted: Font: Italic

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.

Deleted: d
Deleted: .

Christensen, J. C. (1913). The business side of the registrars office. In Proceedings 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). Bureau of 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. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting. Lancaster,
PA.

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? In Proceedings 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: .

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-stillmessy-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.

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.

REGISTRAR

28

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

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

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 when very 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: Line spacing: 1.5 lines