Presentation:

Dean Salinger opened the session with a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the higher education system in California (see the 1960 document, A Master Plan for Higher Education in California), gave an overview of the community college population in the Irvine area, and described UC Irvine’s Transfer Student Programs. She drew a distinction between student access and student success and highlighted the difficulties around transfer student access to the University of California. In a discussion of demographic trends of the community college population (e.g., ethnic diversity within community colleges) and the destination of transfer students, she noted that trends in transferring to the University of California do not reflect changing demographic trends. For example, only 58 of the 11,000 students at Santa Ana Community College who identify themselves as Hispanic/Latino transferred to a University of California campus in 2006-07. She also presented the origins of UC Irvine freshman and transfer students, showing that transfer students tend to have lived closer to the campus than freshmen; access to a University of California campus is more limited for transfer students given their propensity to apply to a smaller range of campuses. Despite these problems related to access, University of California Irvine has seen to it that transfer students succeed once enrolled. Through seminars, University Studies courses, a counseling program for transfers, and Student Academic Advancement Services, transfer students at UC Irive are just as successful as freshmen. Their retention rates, time-to-degree rates, GPA’s, and participation in the Honors Program equals freshmen performance and participation.

Discussion:

Session participants considered a number of questions that focused the discussion:

• What kinds of programs exist on your campuses to ensure transfer student access and success?
• What are best practices in engaging and retaining transfer students?
• At what points in their college careers do students transfer and how do patterns of transfer impact policy and practice?
• What are the perceptions of local community colleges and students who begin there at your university?

Session participants represented large and small, public and private universities from across the country. Campuses had widely different experiences with regards to access, enrollment, and success of transfer students. A representative from one campus revealed that 80% of its students transfer to the campus, while in most of the participating institutions the majority of students enter as freshmen. Participants also revealed divergence in success of retaining and graduating transfer students; at UC Irvine, for example, transfer students are retained and graduated at equal rates as students who entered as freshmen, but other schools have experienced difficulties. All agreed that transfer students present unique challenges: class scheduling due to work and family commitments, a non-traditional age range that shapes involvement and engagement, a decreased likelihood of being residential, operation of essential services at non-traditional hours. In short, transfer students, while often more focused and motivated than freshmen, arrive on our campuses just as lost as freshmen.

Participants agreed that a working relationship with community colleges contributes to student access and success. First, all agreed that articulation agreements must be structured in a way that leads to student success and that this structure must be made clear to students. The University of California relies on www.assist.org, a repository of articulation for California’s public colleges and universities, while other universities more heavily rely on their staff to be clear with students about what courses are to be taken—and what grades are to earned—in order to enter their desired major at the university. Second, all agreed on the importance of communication between the university and community colleges. At UC Riverside, there is a history of communication between the university and local community colleges, with university representatives clarifying what they expect of students upon entrance. At other universities, individual departments are doing this clarification. Some universities have established dual admission programs (specialized transfer programs that guarantee admission and transfer of credits to specific four-year colleges and universities) where prospective community college students can take one class at the university and use service and attend programs at the university. One university has institutionalized their collaboration with a local community college by keeping an office there so that they can inform and advise prospective students.

Principal Findings:

• It is essential to maintain a working relationship with local (“feeder”) community colleges. Students who thrive academically benefit from well-developed articulation agreements between the university and community colleges that are clearly communicated to students. Students also benefit from partnerships at the departmental level. For example, West Virginia described the importance of academic departments taking responsibility for informing transfer students about their programs and UC Irvine recently held a workshop for composition instructors from six partner community colleges to collaborate on course objectives and learning outcomes in the interest of aligning programmatic goals.
• These university-community college partnerships must link to programming at the university that fosters engagement. UC Irvine sends academic advisors to the 6 partner community colleges to advise students on how much the campus wants them to transfer; and once they arrive at UC Irvine these same advisors staff the transfer student lounge and act in the role of concierge—helping them be involved and integrate into the campus. The newly created transfer student seminars provide students with an instant intellectual and social community.
• Differences between transfer students and freshmen, such as demand for evening classes or family-friendly programming, means universities must adapt to better meet the needs of transfer students. One campus used focus groups to explore transfer student perceptions of the barriers to transfer before piloting changes. A number of campuses described the value of summer bridge programs and orientation for transfer students.
• Dual degree programs can be critical to enrolling academically-prepared students, and to involving and integrating community college students. At Clemson University, for example, a select group of students are guaranteed admission to Clemson after they complete a set numbers of units with a certain GPA. By giving students access to the university’s library, apartment housing, intramural athletics, among other services, community college students are prepared to be fully integrated into university life after acceptance.

Recommendations:

• Maintain a working relationship with local (“feeder”) community colleges through well-developed articulation agreements and partnerships at the departmental level.
• These university-community college partnerships must link to programming at the university that foster engagement (Kuh et al., 2005).
• Universities must adapt to better meet the needs of transfer students.
• Dual degree programs can be critical to enrolling academically-prepared students, and to involving (Astin, 1975, 1977, 1985) and integrating (Tinto, 1987, 1993) community college students.

Resources/References:

Publications

1. Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E., J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Master Plan Survey Team. (1960). A master plan for higher education in California, 1960-1975. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.
6. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.