1 / 41

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

AACRAO 2013 Transfer Conference Bart Grachan Director of Admissions St. Thomas Aquinas College. Filters in the Transfer Pipeline: Access, Achievement and the Receiving Institution . Intentional Transfer and Social Justice. Why community college transfer matters

yanka
Télécharger la présentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AACRAO 2013 Transfer Conference Bart Grachan Director of Admissions St. Thomas Aquinas College Filters in the Transfer Pipeline:Access, Achievement and the Receiving Institution

  2. 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

  3. Why filters?

  4. 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?

  5. 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?

  6. Intentional Transfer Matters Why?

  7. Where are the students? Source: (Handel, 2012)

  8. 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)

  9. Baccalaureate Completion Rates Source: (Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2006)

  10. 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 Hispanicas opposed to 28% of graduating class (1995)3 Sources: 1. (Synder & Dillow, 2011) 2. (Clark, 1960) 3. (Carnevale & Rose, 2003)

  11. 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)

  12. Stratification by SES- HS Senior Class of 2004 Among immediate enrollees Source: (Provasnik& Planty, 2008, p. 16)

  13. The growing divide Source: (Baum, Ma & Payea, 2010)

  14. Social Mobility: Poverty Rates Since 1959 Source: (DeNavas-Walt, et al., Table B-1, 2010)

  15. A National Issue – The Social Treadmill

  16. 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)

  17. 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)

  18. “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

  19. Barriers: Carried and Created Issues of Transfer Access

  20. 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)

  21. 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 awards Source: (Dillon & Carey, 2009)

  22. Carried – Community College Roles & Expectations • Shift from “Junior” to “Community” • Vocational Training • Remediation • Continuing Education • Transfer Function • Stretches resources, attention • An issue of priorities

  23. 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?

  24. A Study of Intentional Transfer

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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?

  28. 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

  29. Key Demographic Findings – R/E

  30. Key Demographic Findings – SES

  31. Key Admission Findings

  32. Key Academic Performance Findings Controlling for Pell, URM, Gender and Incoming GPA: * No significant difference between groups **Only significant between CCTOP and TR4 at p<0.05

  33. 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

  34. Conclusions of the Study • Money matters. • Money isn’t the only thing that matters. Some seeds will grow without care, but agriculture requires intentionality.

  35. Recommendations Within 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.

  36. 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. Johnson Commencement Address at Howard University June 4, 1965

  37. References Advisory 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.

  38. References Bourdieu, 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.

  39. References DeNavas-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.

  40. References Provasnik, 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.

More Related