Roger

Thank you for trying to make the best of a bad job, but I'm probably not 
alone in being infuriated by the incompetence shown by SLC in this matter, 
and if any blame is going around for late supply of these dates it rests 
entirely with them. They dithered for months about data collection 
methods, produced a shoddily analysed application at the last minute, 
distributed it with inadequate (WRONG) guidance notes, set up a help desk 
that couldn't answer questions of ANY substance, and now (through you) 
they have shifted the technical goalposts again.  I sent back the data as 
best I could by last Wednesday.  It is clear from your latest advice that 
I am going to have to resubmit it (because of the completely NEW advice 
relating to Years Abroad and term dates for freshers arrangements).  I'll 
grit my teeth & do this, but thought it worth sharing with you & others 
this more serious technical point:

* I simply cannot approach this return by fiddling within the SLC 
application with the data they sent back:

a) because the poor guidance given at the earlier stages meant that c.25% 
of the programmes that need to be included were missing from what has come 
back to us;

b) re. the 6-digit codes - I cannot tell from the other fields which 
record they have sent back relates to which of our internal programmes.  
The UCAS lookup doesn't help much (a high proportion of the programmes 
that our students actually end up registered on do not have one-to-one 
UCAS code matches). 

So I've had to re-load the data from scratch, and they have got the data 
back from me with this key field recast as either the UCAS code or our 
internal programme code.  Their application was quite happy with this.  If 
they can't deal with it at the upload stage the I (& maybe many others) 
have a major problem.  My view is that they >should< be able to deal with 
this: all that their dbase needs is a programme code that is unique *for 
this institution*), and if it happens to match the code WE know it by, so 
much the better.  The least SLC can do for having messed HEIs about so 
thoroughly is cope technically with returns from those of us who 
effectively need to supply our data ab initio at this stage.

If you are able to help put pressure on SLC to this effect I would be most 
grateful.

Owen


On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:50:02 +0100 () Roger Clark wrote:

> From: Roger Clark <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:50:02 +0100 ()
> Subject: SLC/LEA
> To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> The attached document is self explanatory.
> 
> Roger Clark
> Academic Registrar
> University of Reading


_____
Owen Richards
Senior Assistant Registrar (Registry Systems)
Sussex University
Tel: 01273 877019
Email: [log in to unmask]





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%