 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||
|
There is little consensus about how to measure transfer performance, particularly at the
statewide level. Disagreements about measurement have helped perpetuate technical as
well as ideological arguments about the effectiveness of 2/4 transfer, and different studies
using similar databases have produced different assessments. Depending on how
“transfer rates” are defined, research can support the finding that transfer students persist
and graduate with the baccalaureate at equal or even superior rates to native students
(those who remain at and graduate from a single institution); that the transfer function
faltered for some time but is now recovering; or that the false promise of transfer
“ghettoizes” higher education by funneling high-risk students into poorly financed
institutions where they have little hope of getting the resources they need to succeed in
higher education. As this paper shows, each of these statements is true for some colleges
and some students, but no one of them accurately characterizes state-level performance
for any state. This implies that there is an important difference between 2/4 transfer
performance and 2/4 transfer accountability. There is a much better understanding of the
different dimensions of 2/4 performance at the individual institutional level than there is
consensus about 2/4 accountability from a statewide perspective.
The public multipurpose community college, designed to provide academic, vocational,
and adult basic and continuing education, is a relatively recent innovation in American
higher education. Since the 1960s, most states have embraced baccalaureate transfer as
one of the missions of the public community colleges, although the degree of emphasis
on baccalaureate transfer varies considerably among institutions and states. Community
colleges have been the fastest-growing sector in postsecondary education and likely will
soon be the single largest sector, overtaking the public four-year institutions (see
figure 1).
At the same time that enrollment pressure is increasing, the rising cost of attending public
and private four-year colleges and a shrinking proprietary sector may be shifting more
low-income students to community colleges. Sticker prices—total tuition and fees—have
increased fivefold since 1977, more than twice the rate of inflation. Tuition increases
have been the steepest in the private sector, and the growing price gap between public
and private institutions has created excess enrollment demand for public four-year
institutions in many states, particularly at the “public Ivies.” This demand has, in turn, put
more enrollment pressure on comprehensive and community colleges. Some four-year
institutions have tried to maintain access through increased institutional financial aid,
especially in merit-based rather than need-based aid, which has further exacerbated the
net price gap between four-year and community colleges. In times of recession, public
tuitions increase even faster, as institutions turn to tuition to replace lost state revenue.
These price increases disproportionately affect enrollment by the lowest-income students,
sending more of them to community colleges. The grim prediction from economists
Michael McPherson and Morton Schapiro is that, in the event of a significant economic
downturn, the prestigious institutions would be largely unaffected, but, “as always,
students from the lowest income backgrounds would be most vulnerable, and their
overrepresentation in the community colleges probably would increase” (McPherson and
Schapiro, 2001).
Community college enrollments are also influenced by changes in admissions policies at
public four-year institutions. In many states, admissions policies at four-year colleges
have tightened as institutions have begun to align their entrance requirements with high
school graduation standards. The enrollment boom in many states also allows high-
demand institutions to be more selective about admissions. Enrollment patterns are also
likely to be affected by new postadmission academic screening, placement, and
remediation policies—at both two-year and four-year institutions—designed to ensure
that all students are capable of doing college-level work.
At the same time, legal pressure on affirmative action has prevented public institutions
from using race as a criterion in college admissions. Prior to the rollbacks on affirmative
action, the gaps between racial and ethnic groups in high school graduation and college-
going rates had begun to narrow, although the gaps in academic preparation as measured
by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) remain. However, when we
look at students who start college but do not complete the baccalaureate degree, the
differences between racial and ethnic groups have remained stubbornly wide (see figure
2).
The combination of rising prices, changing academic standards, and admissions pressure
threatens to increase economic and racial stratification within higher education, with the
preponderance of low-income and minority students remaining in community colleges. In
this environment, 2/4 transfer becomes a fulcrum for ensuring not just access but also
success in baccalaureate degree attainment for poor and minority students. Numerically,
2/4 transfer affects many more students of color than does the more prominent issue of
affirmative action admissions in higher education. Important as it is, affirmative action
affects only a fraction of academically able students of color, most of whom will enroll in
and graduate from college even if they do not attend a highly selective public or Ivy
League college. Yet despite its much greater potential impact, improving the
effectiveness of the 2/4 transfer function has taken a backseat to the more prominent
social debate about admissions at the more elite colleges.
|
||
|
|
There are many types of student transfer activity within higher education: from
community colleges to baccalaureate-granting institutions (2/4 transfer); between four-
year campuses (4/4); from four-year to two-year campuses (4/2); and between two-year
campuses (2/2). The 2/4 community college–baccalaureate transfer function is one of the
most important state policy issues in higher education because its success (or failure) is
central to many dimensions of state higher education performance, including access,
equity, affordability, cost effectiveness, degree productivity, and quality. States that have
strong 2/4 transfer performance will have lower state appropriations per degree. They
will also do a better job of translating access into success and of reducing achievement
disparities that prevent low-income and minority students from obtaining the
baccalaureate degree. If the 2/4 transfer function is weak, however, students who initially
enroll in a community college will be less likely to earn a baccalaureate degree, and those
who do earn their degree will take longer and need more credits to do so.
