Filters in the Transfer Pipeline:Access, Achievement and the Receiving Institution

AACRAO 2013 Transfer Conference Bart GrachanDirector of AdmissionsSt. Thomas Aquinas College

Intentional Transfer and Social Justice

Why community college transfer

matters Issues of access and barriers to the

process The four-year institutional role Results from the CCTOP study Conclusions and Q&A

Why filters?

Litmus Test

How many of your institutions enroll transfers?

Community college transfers? How many of your institutions

differentiate? Enrollment management goals? Data tracking? Scholarships? Programming and support services?

Researcher’s Stance

Diversity is a benefit. Educational Value Workforce Value

Waiting for Godot We’ve always been a stratified, segmented

society There’s nothing more tradition-bound than

higher ed What new reality do we think will show up?

Intentional Transfer MattersWhy?

Where are the students?

Public

2YR

Public

4YR

Private

4YR

For-P

rofit

Other

s0

1020304050 45.7

28.9

12.79.8

2.9

2011 Enrollment by Institutional Type

% of All UG

Source: (Handel, 2012)

Over 7 million students Average age of 29 Work

2/3 are enrolled PT and work FT1

30% of FT enrolled also work FT1

60% work more than 20hrs/week, and 25% more than 352

30-80% require some level of remediation3

As many as 80% are looking to continue to the baccalaureate when they enter; as few as 15% actually do4

Source: 1. (AACC & AASC, 2004)2. (Johnson, et al, 2009)3. (Provasnik & Planty, 2008), (Mellow, 2008)4. (Handel, 2012), (Townsend, 2002)

Baccalaureate Completion Rates

Low-In

come

Modera

te-Inc

ome

Middle-

Incom

e

High-In

come

0102030405060708090

4350

6480

62 6778 84

2034

4453

All StudentsStarted at 4YRStarted at 2YR

Source: (Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2006)

Stratification of Higher Education – Race and Ethnicity Nearly 50% of minority students were

enrolled in community colleges in 1976; same in 20091

55% of Hispanic students enrolled in community colleges (40% of white students)1

“Cooling out?”2

146 most selective institutions, 12% Black or Hispanic as opposed to 28% of graduating class (1995)3Sources: 1. (Synder & Dillow, 2011)

2. (Clark, 1960)3. (Carnevale & Rose, 2003)

Stratification by SES

At the same 146: 3% of entering students from the lowest SES quartile, and only 10% from the bottom 50%, a loss of 68,000 students1

2004 graduating class:

Source: (Carnevale & Rose, 2003)

Stratification by SES- HS Senior Class of 2004

42 44 3512

6235 43

17

82

1751

29

Lowest 25% Middle 50% Highest 25%

Source: (Provasnik & Planty, 2008, p. 16)

Among immediate enrollees

The growing divide

No High

Scho

ol

High Sc

hool

Gradua

te

Some C

olleg

e

Assoc

iate D

egree

Bache

lor's D

egree

Master'

s Deg

ree

Doctora

l deg

ree

Profes

siona

l Deg

ree0

0.51

1.52

2.53

0.711 1.13 1.24

1.661.97

2.58 2.74

Earnings Ratio

Source: (Baum, Ma & Payea, 2010)

Social Mobility: Poverty Rates Since 1959

1959 1973 1995 2000 2005 20090

10

20

30

40

50

60

NationalWhiteBlackHispanic

Source: (DeNavas-Walt, et al., Table B-1, 2010)

A National Issue – The Social Treadmill

Poverty

School Access

and Choice

Cost &

DebtTransf

er

Degree Completi

on

Career Earnings, Life

Choices

The Synchronous Problems of Creaming and Fishing “Creaming”: Competition amongst the most

selective institutions over the most qualified Black and Hispanic high school students Not necessarily low-income, and much less risk of

missing out on higher ed – skimming off the top “Fishing in the same pool”1 looking for Pell-

eligible students – not enough qualified “fish.”

Why are we only focused on one pool?Source: (Supiano & Fuller, 2011)

The Selectivity Factor The most selective institutions spend as

much as 4x as much per student as non-selective institutions

Higher graduation rates Higher acceptance rates for postgrad

education 20% wage premium - $170,000 in LE between

private and public research institutions Networking

Causation or Correlation?Source: (Carnevale & Rose, 2003)Additional: (Bowen & Bok, 1998); (Rosenbaum, 1984); (Astin & Oseguera, 2004); (Price, 2004)

“For most students in two-year institutions, the choice is not between the community college and a senior residential institution; it is between the community college and nothing.”

- Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p. 58, emphasis in the original

Barriers: Carried and Created Issues of Transfer Access

Carried - Social and Cultural Capital

Capital and Mobility – Bourdieu (1986, 2003) Cultural Social

Majority of community college students have parents with a HS degree or less1

Students with highly educated parents2: 60% at the most selective institutions 18% at the least selective

Affects understanding of Educational benefits Financial aid Career and academic planning Social and academic adjustments to varying institutions

Source: 1. (AACC & AASC, 2004)2. (Astin & Oseguera, 2004)

Carried - Economic Barriers

We mentioned work and poverty Financial aid issues and varying effects

Loans▪ Increase cost▪ Low understanding

Grants▪ Limited buying power▪ New limitations

Scholarships▪ Highest income quartile – 25% of total awards▪ Lowest income quartile – 17% of total awards1

▪ Transfer v freshman awardsSource: (Dillon & Carey, 2009)

Carried – Community College Roles & Expectations

Shift from “Junior” to “Community” Vocational Training Remediation Continuing Education Transfer Function

Stretches resources, attention An issue of priorities

Created: Four-Year Institutional Barriers Enrollment Management Models

Student Retention, and Upper-Level Excess Space Data Reporting and Differentiation

FTFTF – Transfers disappear from the data that matters

Is enrolling transfers necessarily creating access? Articulations, Partnerships, and Policies

The letter of credit or the spirit of the credit Timing of credit transfer Who is the process designed for?

Attitudes towards or ideas about community colleges?

A Study of Intentional Transfer

The Community College Transfer Opportunity Program (CCTOP)

Founded at NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development 23 years ago, partnered currently with the NYU Silver School of Social Work and the NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies – Paul McGhee Division

13 partnership community colleges in the tri-state area

Over 1700 students through the program in Steinhardt alone

The Intentionality of CCTOP It gives it a name, and it names community

colleges Personal pre-admission credit advisement,

transfer and articulation agreements and educational workshops – not admissions presentations

Scholarship support Continued support and coordination between

student, program and institution – translating the bureaucracy for the students, and the capital issues for the institution

Research Questions Is there a significant difference in enrollment diversity

(race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age at entry) between transfer students within CCTOP and those without?

Is there a significant difference in admissions standards (GPA at the time of admission and the transfer of credits from prior institutions) between transfer students within CCTOP and those without?

Is there a significant difference in academic performance (first-semester and cumulative GPA performance at NYU) and success rates (graduation or continued enrollment) between transfer students within CCTOP and those without?

Methodology Mixed-methods study 4-years of quantitative data (Fall 2007- Spring

2011) on all transfer students to Steinhardt (N = 806), grouped by sending institution type: TR4 (N = 430), TR2 (N = 78), CCTOP (N = 298) Compare enrollment diversity (R/E, SES, Age) Admissions standards (incoming GPA, transfer credits) Academic performance (1st term GPA, cumulative GPA,

persistence) Qualitative interviews with 8 students to gain a

more rich understanding of the transfer process and look for effects of the program

Key Demographic Findings – R/E

Total TR4 TR2 CCTOPEnrolled 806 430

(53%)78 (10%)

298 (37%)

URM Students

135 35 20 80

% of Group

17% 8% 26% 27%

% of URM

100% 26% 15% 60%

Key Demographic Findings – SES

Total TR4 TR2 CCTOPEnrolled 806 430 78 298 FAFSA (%Group)

554 (69%)

209 (49%)

59 (76%)

286 (96%)

Pell Eligible (% Grp. Filers, % Group)

263 (48%, 32%)

55 (26%, 13%)

26 (44%, 33%)

182 (64%, 61%)

M EFC $17,202 $27,258 $13,625 $10,592Mdn EFC $6,536 $17,208 $8,484 $1,699M Inst. Support

$4,750 $6,960 $16,940

M Age 22 20 22 25

Key Admission FindingsMean Incoming GPA

Mean Transfer Credits

TR4 3.45 42TR2 3.65 50CCTOP 3.64 58Total 3.54 48

Key Academic Performance Findings

Mean 1st term GPA*

Mean Cumulative GPA**

Persistence Rate*

TR4 3.46 3.48 95%TR2 3.26 3.26 94%CCTOP 3.23 3.25 90%Total 3.30 3.33 93%Controlling for Pell, URM, Gender and Incoming GPA:* No significant difference between groups**Only significant between CCTOP and TR4 at p<0.05

Key Qualitative Findings

Theme 1: Deciding to apply to NYU Location and prestige

Theme 2: Deciding to attend Information and finance

Theme 3: Transition and assimilation Work, life and connection

Two underlying themes emerged Surprise and comfort

Conclusions of the Study

Money matters. Money isn’t the only thing that

matters.

Some seeds will grow without care, but agriculture requires intentionality.

RecommendationsWithin the institution: Differentiate.

Community College Transfer ≠ Transfer ≠ Freshman Emphasize.

Diversity as a goal. Policy clarification and inclusiveness. Partnerships with other academic institutions, not a

predator/prey relationship. Beyond the institution. Track and report data on community college

(and all) transfers. Focus on graduation from the current institution.

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

- President Lyndon B. JohnsonCommencement Address at Howard University June 4, 1965

ReferencesAdvisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2006). Mortgaging our future: How financial barriers to college undercut America's global competitiveness. Washington, D.C.: The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. American Association of Community Colleges and American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2004). Improving access to the baccalaureate. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press. Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining "equity" of American higher education. Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frolich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011). The condition of education 2011. ( No. NCES 2011-033). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Washington, D.C.: CollegeBoard. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

ReferencesBourdieu, P. (2003). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In P. Jarvis, & C. Griffin (Eds.), Adult and continuing education: Major themes in education (pp. 173-185). London: Routledge. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). In Bok D. C. (Ed.), The shape of the river : Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press. Carnevale, A. P., & Rose, S. J. (2003). Socioeconomic status, Race/Ethnicity, and selective college admissions. New York: Century Foundation. Clark, B. R. (1960). The "cooling-out" function in higher education. The American Journal of Sociology, 65(6), 569-576. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college (Fifth ed.). San Francisco: San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

ReferencesDeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2010). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2009. ( No. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-238). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Dillon, E., & Carey, K. (2009). Drowning in student debt: The emerging student loan crisis. Washington, D.C.: Education Sector. Handel, S. J., & Williams, R. A. (2012). The promise of the transfer pathway: Opportunity and challenge for community college students seeking the baccalaureate degree. (The Initiative on Transfer Policy and Practice No. 12b-5163). New York: The College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. Price, D. V. (2004). Borrowing inequality : Race, class, and student loans. Boulder, Colo.: Boulder, Colo. : Lynne Rienner Publishers.

ReferencesProvasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community colleges: Special supplement to the condition of education 2008. statistical analysis report. NCES 2008-033. National Center for Education Statistics. Available from: ED Pubs. P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Tel: 877-433-7827; Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/help/orderinfo.asp. Rosenbaum, J. E., 1943-. (1984). Career mobility in a corporate hierarchy. Orlando, Fla.: Orlando, Fla. : Academic Press. Supiano, B., & Fuller, A. (2011). Elite colleges fail to gain more students on Pell grants. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(30), 1. Townsend, B. K. (2002). Transfer rates: A problematic criterion for measuring the community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, (117), 13-24.