Approximately one-third of college students begin their postsecondary education in community colleges, yet over 80 percent of these students aspire to earn at least a bachelor’s degree. In order to achieve their goals, these students will need to transfer from their community colleges (which mostly offer associate’s degrees) to colleges that offer bachelor’s degrees. Yet, only 13 percent of students successfully transfer and earn a bachelor’s degree within six years of entering community college. Black and Hispanic students and lower-income students are the most likely to face obstacles in their transfer journey to a bachelor’s degree.
When students transfer from one college to another, one challenge that jeopardizes their ability to earn degrees is that they frequently are unable to count their previously earned credits toward degree requirements at their new institutions. Nationally, it is estimated that 43 percent of credits are wasted during transfer. This credit loss and the need to repeat courses they have already passed costs students time and is deeply discouraging; it also wastes their money, contributes to increased debt, and puts financial aid eligibility at risk. It is no wonder that students who lose half their transfer credits are far less likely to graduate than students who are able to transfer most of their credits.
The COVID-19 pandemic will exacerbate this problem. Due to closed campuses, concerns about affordability and contagion within dormitories, and restrictions on travel, we should expect both more students to change colleges and more students to choose local, affordable community colleges over bachelor’s-degree colleges, at least temporarily. For these reasons, even more students will need to transfer their credits in order to obtain their desired degrees. Failing to streamline the acceptance of credit will mean that these students will waste credits when they can least afford to do so.
Articulation of Credit Transfer at CUNY
Since June 2019, a team of researchers and administrators from Ithaka S+R, the CUNY Graduate Center, Hostos Community College, Lehman College, the CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA), and the University of California, Berkeley has been engaged in a multi-faceted effort to improve the transfer process for students at CUNY. This project, which we’ve taken to calling, “Articulation of Credit Transfer,” or ACT, is focused on streamlining and enhancing credit information, advising, and transcript evaluation for CUNY transfer students.
At CUNY, 58 percent of students are Black or Hispanic, 61 percent are Pell Grant recipients, 61 percent will be the first in their families to graduate college, and 82 percent graduated from a New York City public high school, with all of these percentages being higher in the CUNY community colleges than in the CUNY bachelor’s-degree-granting colleges. Facilitating transfer at CUNY is an important higher education equity issue.
Based on promising early results in the first year of work, we are pleased to announce that our original funder, the Heckscher Foundation for Children, has awarded Ithaka S+R and its collaborators a new grant to further develop the tools created through the project, to fully implement the interventions at Hostos and Lehman, and to include in the project the third CUNY college in the Bronx, Bronx Community College (BCC).
Over half of Hostos and BCC students who transfer to a CUNY bachelor’s-degree-granting college transfer to Lehman, and almost two-thirds of Lehman’s transfer students who come from within CUNY come from Hostos or BCC. Thus, facilitating transfer among BCC, Hostos, and Lehman has the potential to benefit the majority of CUNY students in the Bronx who aspire to a bachelor’s degree. Through this work, our aim is to create a transfer ecosystem in the Bronx that is a model for CUNY and beyond.
Progress to Date
In just the first 12 months of this effort, the ACT team has made significant progress in interpreting CUNY’s course transfer data, developing processes and applications to support students and advisors, and directly intervening to improve students’ transfer outcomes. Activities completed and underway include:
Full implementation of an electronic workflow management system for quick and efficient credit evaluation at Lehman. Most transfer credit evaluations now take less than 24 hours, compared to an average of two months previously, which helps transfer students declare majors and register significantly earlier than in the past. Earlier registration is critical if transfer students are to register for the courses that help them make progress towards their degrees, instead of finding those courses already full.
Implementation of daily archiving of degree audit data for a cohort of Hostos-to-Lehman transfer students, and analysis of those data to identify credit transfer problems. In just two months this spring, reports generated from the archived data have allowed Lehman and Hostos staff to identify and contact more than 220 transfer applicants to share preliminary transfer credit information for their intended majors, to facilitate optimal course decisions when they transfer, and to ensure ongoing support throughout their transfer process. For about five percent of these students, the increase in registered credits counting toward their degrees made them eligible to receive New York State Tuition Assistance that they otherwise would not have received.
Development of a new Transfer Explorer web tool, publicly hosted by Lehman, that offers organized, searchable, publicly available information on course transfer rules across every undergraduate institution in CUNY. Anyone can now see how any CUNY course transfers (or not) within CUNY, with no login required. In just a few weeks since its launch, nearly two-thousand users have accessed the site, and the site’s transparency has already catalyzed significant clean-up of obsolete and incorrect transfer rules. See our previous blog post for more details on Transfer Explorer.
Agreement by Hostos to adopt Lehman’s non-CUNY transfer credit rules, thus enabling students who transfer from outside CUNY to Hostos and then to Lehman to avoid duplication and possible loss of financial aid.
Integration of information about transfer into chatbots under development at both Lehman and Hostos.
Development and testing of an algorithm that predicts courses that should be judged as equivalent across both Hostos and Lehman.
These efforts seem to be paying off. While it is not an apples-to-apples comparison, the Spring 2020 students with any transfer credits that did not count toward their degree had an average of 15 percent of their credits not count, compared to 18 percent for Fall 2019 students.
Goals and Activities in the New Grant Period
In the next phase of the project, we will continue to improve these tools and processes, and we will fully implement them at Hostos, Lehman, and BCC. Planned activities include:
Further development of the public interface of Transfer Explorer to include additional features, such as the inclusion of information from CUNY’s degree audit system to present public and transparent information about how transfer courses apply to degrees at every CUNY campus.
Development of an internal, faculty- and administrator-focused interface for Transfer Explorer. This interface will be available to any CUNY campus and will incorporate the electronic workflow management system now in use at Lehman for evaluation of transfer credit. This interface will allow for communication between faculty across different institutions regarding course equivalency review and resolution.
Expansion of the archiving process that allows real-time review of how transferred courses apply to degree requirements, so that the archive includes all students transferring from Hostos and BCC to Lehman, and, eventually, all new Hostos and BCC students.
Implementation of improvements in course evaluation, policy review, and transfer student advising at BCC, and continued process improvements at Hostos and Lehman.
Utilization of data available to expand reverse transfer to provide associate’s degrees to Hostos and BCC students who transfer before earning them.
With these additional efforts, CUNY students transferring among the campuses in the Bronx—and across CUNY more generally—will have more and clearer information, more targeted advice, and more rapid and streamlined service than ever before. When students, advisers, and faculty have more information earlier in the process, the students will not only have a better experience, but will be empowered to earn their degree on a faster timeline.
We thank the Heckscher Foundation for Children for funding this work.
When students transfer from one college to another they frequently are unable to count their previously earned credits toward degree requirements at their new institution, jeopardizing these students’ ability to earn degrees at their new institutions. Nationally, 43 percent of credits are wasted during transfer, and students who lose that many credits are far less likely to graduate than students who are able to transfer most of their credits.
The COVID-19 pandemic will exacerbate this problem. Due to closed campuses, concerns about affordability and contagion within dormitories, and restrictions on travel, we should expect both more students to change colleges, and more students to choose local, affordable community colleges over bachelor’s-degree colleges, at least temporarily. For these reasons there will be even more students who will need to transfer their credits in order to obtain their desired degrees. Failing to streamline the acceptance of credit will mean that these students will waste credits when they can least afford to do so.
Since June 2019, with support from the Heckscher Foundation for Children, Ithaka S+R has partnered with the CUNY Graduate Center, Hostos Community College, Lehman College, the CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA), and the University of California, Berkeley to improve the articulation of transfer credit for students at CUNY. A foundational principle behind this work is that complete transparency regarding how credits transfer will help students make optimal course and college choices, and will help colleges facilitate those choices.
We are pleased to announce the public launch of one of the products of this multifaceted project: Transfer Explorer, hosted by Lehman College, offers organized, searchable, user-friendly information on how every course in the CUNY catalog transfers across any number of undergraduate institutions in CUNY. Transfer Explorer draws current data directly from CUNY’s student information system, is accessible to the public, and is completely free to use—the first time such information has been so widely available. Transfer Explorer’s features include:
View Course Equivalencies: Users can see how courses from any CUNY institution will transfer to any other CUNY institution. More specifically, users can see if a course from a sending CUNY institution will be treated as equivalent to a specific course at a receiving CUNY institution, will be treated as satisfying a general education requirement, or will be treated as an elective. Users can search, browse, and filter results using institutions, words, subjects, or catalog numbers. For example, students can look up how CUNY courses they already have taken—or courses they are considering taking—would be treated by other CUNY institutions to which they might transfer.
Bookmark Equivalencies: Users can “bookmark” information they discover so that it can be easily shared with others. For example, students who are comparing their options for transfer can bookmark results for how their courses transfer to different CUNY institutions to share with their advisors or administrators at the institutions to which they might transfer, or advisors can use the tool to share options with students.
CUNY Course Catalog: Transfer Explorer pulls in data from the CUNY course catalogs so that users can quickly and easily view course descriptions, credit hours, and other relevant information as they are browsing within the site.
Review and Validate Equivalencies: A feature still under development but expected soon will enable CUNY faculty and administrators to log in and “suggest” course equivalencies. These suggestions will be routed through a workflow, and if a suggestion is agreed upon, the rule will be updated in CUNY’s internal system.
Transfer Explorer is a work in progress. In addition to a number of smaller enhancements, planned longer-term improvements include adding non-CUNY course equivalencies and the applicability of courses to degree program requirements. As we expand and continue to add features to the site, user feedback is essential to improving the tool. We encourage anyone with an interest in transfer to explore Transfer Explorer and provide feedback through the Transfer Explorer site or directly to us or to Transfer.Explorer@lehman.cuny.edu.
We want to be sure to recognize the outstanding contributions of Chris Buonocore and Elkin Urrea of Lehman College, and Chris Vickery of Queens College, in making Transfer Explorer a reality.
Dr. Alexandra W. Logue is a Research Professor in CASE (the Center for Advanced Study in Education) of the Graduate Center of The City University of New York (CUNY), with particular responsibility for research and scholarship concerning college student success. Dr. Logue is a leading expert on remediation and transfer, and her most recent book, Pathways to Reform: Credits and Conflict at The City University of New York (Princeton University Press), is a case study regarding the difficulty of making change in higher education. She is also a member of the ITHAKA Board of Trustees. Ithaka S+R graciously thanks Dr. Logue for sharing her thoughts regarding using policy to create opportunities for the new majority of students.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length. As noted in our accompanying policy brief, we define the “new majority” of students as those outside the traditional conceptualization of 18-22 year old students attending four-year residential colleges on a full-time basis.
What role should policymakers play in advancing remediation and transfer reforms, two key issues for improving access and attainment of the new majority?
My opinion on this is shaped by seeing that anything that involves changes in what faculty teach is very difficult to happen from the bottom up even if there is a lot of evidence that changes should happen. I’m not talking about the style of teaching in the classroom, but more structural aspects of curriculum. For example, whether or not there should be standalone prerequisite remedial courses or if courses should transfer from one college to another, because both of these affect what courses faculty may teach. Many people think that anything that has to do with curriculum should be the province of faculty alone, and that changes should originate from them. But when you look across the country, you may see a couple colleges make large-scale changes that way, but most do not when the changes are bottom-up.
So I believe there should be some state intervention that isn’t totally based on bottom-up processes. Texas and California have been leaders in making such changes, particularly in terms of evidence-based remedial reform. In both those states there were well-intentioned people who tried the bottom-up approach without the changes being implemented for years, thus harming students. Now both states have intervened with legislation in order to ensure that the changes happen. This underscores the importance of policymakers for implementing change.
What obstacles may impede the implementation of reforms aimed at improving opportunities for the new majority of students?
Both faculty and administrators, although well intentioned, may impede reforms. Many faculty believe that whatever they are doing is the best for students, and any change would be worse. And we want faculty to believe that what they are doing is the best because when they believe that, they will be more successful teachers. But then when there is evidence that is in conflict with these faculty’s beliefs, their beliefs can make change difficult. Moreover, these types of changes may be against faculty’s self-interest because these changes can impact the faculty’s workload and environment.
On the other hand, administrators should be actively trying to improve opportunities for students, and it is their responsibility to remain up to date on current research and innovative practices. However, administrators who do not understand or communicate the evidence undercut the institution’s ability to work with faculty on changing course structures. Additionally, administrators may be incentivized not to push faculty toward reform. If an administrator develops a reputation of having trouble working with faculty it may impact their future professional opportunities.
Policymakers are in a unique position to bypass these obstacles. By legislatures mandating reforms, cover can be given to administrators trying to avoid conflict with faculty, and at the same time faculty change can be accelerated. The actual implementation should certainly rely on faculty’s disciplinary expertise and administrators’ ability to facilitate institutional change. However, policy mandates can be the catalysts for change. In addition, it should be stressed that legislative action should not be undertaken lightly. Ideally, higher education is in the best position, with the most relevant knowledge, to manage its own business. However, when evidence-based change is happening slowly, so that students are being harmed, it can be time for the legislature (or a university system central office) to step in—carefully. Legislators should recognize that they need to work closely with higher education faculty and administrators in order to craft effective, productive, higher education legislation.
How can state policymakers engage both faculty and administrators to develop better policies around these issues?
This will be context specific and depend on what types of changes are being made and the history surrounding them. Hopefully, policymakers can find a group of informed faculty so that together they can co-develop policies that make sense. Staff members can also aid in this process. For example, with transfer, staff can be helpful in writing policies that reflect the logistical aspects of transfer. Ideally, you want to have good evidence that is presented to everyone so people have the opportunity to have a common understanding. Administrators don’t necessarily know what’s happening within the classroom, and faculty don’t necessarily know the logistical issues associated with events outside of their departments, such as transfer. You want to build a coalition that involves varied perspectives and thus write a strong policy.
What strategies should states take for ensuring their policies are addressing the evolving needs of their residents?
Policymakers should be keeping up with the research. However, that is easy to say but sometimes difficult in practice. Policy briefs from independent researchers, such as Ithaka S+R, are good sources for policymakers to obtain summaries of important topics. Campus members certainly have an intimate knowledge of what is happening at a particular college, but also may have incentives to describe the status quo as more positive than it truly is. State leaders therefore need to rely on strong data, but the availability of such data will depend on how the state is organized and if it has a strong data system.
How should policymakers balance the need for speed with the need for evidence?
I’m an advocate for co-requisite remediation in math. There is now a great deal of evidence supporting the increase in student success that accompanies corequisite, as opposed to traditional, prerequisite, remedial math. We’ve seen time and again that, in a college that isn’t offering co-requisite remediation, the faculty may say they want to do a pilot course before offering corequisite remediation at scale. But small-scale pilots may not work because students may not take an optional course and advisors may not want to put a student in a pilot program and have that student be what the advisors conceive of as a guinea pig. This can delay reforms. If pilot programs can be done quickly and effectively, they are helpful. Pilots can be good for building evidence, but once we know what works well, pilot programs may just delay full-scale reform. By ensuring they are up to date on current research, policymakers can balance the need for pilot testing and action. For example, despite many years of effort, in California there was substantial co-requisite remediation at only a handful of community colleges. Based on the substantial evidence on corequisite remediation, the legislature therefore moved to make co-requisite remediation essentially universal via AB 705. Not waiting for pilots deemed successful at each individual college or department allowed the state to avoid wasting years and thus harming large numbers of students by placing them in traditional remediation.
Are there any particular policies that are important for closing equity gaps?
Both remediation and transfer must be addressed. Students from underrepresented groups and poor families are more likely to go to community colleges and enroll in associate-, as opposed to bachelor’s-degree programs, than are other students. Differences in the quality of K-12 preparation for students from different groups, as well as social and economic factors, are largely responsible for these differential attendance rates. The problem is, at community colleges students are more likely to be assigned to traditional remediation. Given that these courses have lower success rates, students are less likely to complete these courses and eventually graduate. We also know that most of the students want bachelor’s degrees, but the issues associated with transfer can be a roadblock and make it more difficult to obtain a bachelor’s degree. What this means is that challenges associated with remediation and transfer essentially discriminate against historically underserved students, and unless we fix these problems, we are complicit in that discrimination.
Are there any states that are exemplars for using policies to tackle these issues?
I have a lot of admiration for California’s policies concerning remediation. There are three systems: the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges (CCC) systems. Remediation is not a significant issue in the UC system, but steps have been taken to address remediation in the CSU and CCC systems. In the case of the CCC, the state legislature passed AB 705 to essentially mandate co-requisite remediation. At CSU, the Chancellor issued an executive order essentially banning standalone pre-requisite remedial courses. The initial results from these changes appear to be showing significant success.
Here is my brief (2.5-minute) podcast, produced by NPR’s The Academic Minute, on the student success advantages of corequisite as compared to traditional remediation, as illustrated by my research with Dan Douglas and Mari Watanabe-Rose: http://bit.ly/2L2h7QC
We have received a new three-year $550,000 grant from the Mellon Foundation to study the leaky pipeline from community college enrollment to bachelor’s degree receipt for students whose academic interests are in the humanities. More information about this grant can be found at https://bit.ly/2l7LGZ7
We are living in a time of substantial curricular reform at community colleges. Multiple approaches are being tested and used to try to increase what have traditionally been low course pass rates and low graduation rates. Nationally, the three-year community college graduation rate is only 38 percent, and the six-year graduation rate for bachelor’s degree students is only 67 percent. It can be confusing trying to distinguish between all of the curricular innovations taking place. This post discusses three such approaches—guided pathways, the Dana Center Mathematics Pathways (DCMP), and corequisite math remediation—including what they have in common and how they are mutually compatible. Guided pathways, DCMP, and corequisite math remediation take a complementary approach to clearing the obstacles to student success, and they can be used together to provide comprehensive reform that maximizes student success.
Three Curricular Reforms
In 2015, Thomas Bailey, Shanna Smith Jaggars, and Davis Jenkins of the Community College Research Center, published Redesigning America’s Community Colleges. This book heralded what is known as the guided pathways approach, which “starts with students’ end goals in mind and then rethinks and redesigns programs and support services to enable students to achieve these goals” (p. 16). The guided pathways approach contrasts with what the authors call the “cafeteria” approach, in which students are offered “an array of often-disconnected courses, programs, and support services that students are expected to navigate mostly on their own” (p. 3). Adoption of a guided pathways approach has been associated with increased student retention and graduation rates. For example, such an approach is at the heart of the curriculum of Guttman Community College, a college of the City University of New York (CUNY). At Guttman, first-year students’ courses are largely predetermined. Subsequently, students’ courses largely depend on their majors, which students declare during their first year. Guttman’s most recent three-year graduation rate is 46 percent, far higher than what is typical for community colleges.
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways
The goal of the DCMP approach, developed by the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin, is to ensure that “all students benefit from well-designed math pathways that are aligned to their programs of study regardless of their placement level or type of institution of higher education.” Most colleges require that students take some sort of quantitative course or courses in order to graduate. In the DCMP approach, those courses focus on the type of math (whether it be remedial or college-level) most relevant to students’ field of study. For example, psychology majors take statistics, while physics majors take courses in the algebra–calculus sequence. In this way, the DCMP approach has goals that are similar to those of the guided pathways approach but focused on math courses instead of the entire curriculum. Further, the DCMP model is designed to “accelerate student progress toward completion” and “integrate student learning supports.” Initial examinations by CAPR show that the DCMP approach significantly increases course pass rates.
Finally, corequisite math remediation is a method of structuring courses in which students who have been assessed as lacking some of the math skills they need for college-level work are placed into a college-level class but with extra support. That extra support is carefully designed to help students acquire and use the skills that they need to succeed in the associated college-level course. This has been described as “just-in-time” academic support.
Commonalities Among These Three Approaches
In all three cases—guided pathways, DCMP, and corequisite math remediation—first a student’s academic goal is determined (to graduate, to learn a certain area of quantitative knowledge, or to pass a particular quantitative course), and then a student is provided with academic experiences and supports designed to lead a student directly to that goal. Given these commonalities, it is no surprise that corequisite math remediation is sometimes a part of guided pathways and of DCMP reforms. However, these three reforms differ in terms of the sampling unit of a student’s experience—the student’s whole curriculum, the student’s overall math curriculum, or a single math course taken by the student.
A specific example illustrating how these three approaches can overlap is the randomized controlled trial of corequisite remediation that I conducted with my colleagues Mari Watanabe-Rose and Dan Douglas. The students in this experiment had all been assessed as needing math remediation, and none needed college algebra for their intended majors. These students were randomly assigned to a traditional, remedial, prerequisite course (elementary algebra) or to college-level introductory statistics with additional support (corequisite remediation). Thus, the two treatments differed not only in the absence or presence of corequisite math remediation but also in whether the quantitative course was aligned with students’ academic goals (similar to DCMP). The pass rate for the statistics course was 56 percent, compared with 39 percent for the remedial course, and three years later the graduation rate for the students randomly assigned to statistics was 8 percentage points higher than that of the students randomly assigned to elementary algebra.
Another example of how the three approaches can be applied is PRIME (Project for Relevant and Improved Mathematics Education), a project funded by the Teagle Foundation and involving four community colleges at CUNY. PRIME’s goal is to streamline and align students’ quantitative curricula from remedial courses through introductory college-level courses that require quantitative skills, including natural and social science courses. One participating institution, Hostos Community College, recently developed a corequisite statistics course that adds extra support (including algebra topics as needed) to a traditional introductory college-level statistics course. This course is being offered to those students who have been assessed as needing that extra support. As a next step, Hostos is going to combine this corequisite statistics course with an introductory college-level psychology course, providing students with even more opportunities to connect the material in the different courses and to make significant progress toward their degrees. For students who have been assessed as needing math remediation and whose majors require both introductory statistics and psychology, such a course combination exemplifies elements of corequisite remediation, DCMP, and guided pathways.
How These Reforms Promote Student Success
There are many reasons why these three approaches can enhance student success. First, evidence suggests that students work harder and are more motivated to learn material when the material is aligned with their other interests. For example, in our randomized controlled trial of corequisite math remediation, the statistics students were more likely to form their own study groups and to attend extra workshops.
Another reason that these approaches can enhance student success is that, similar to other animals, humans prefer more immediate rewards. Therefore, anything that makes the reward of graduation seem closer to students will make graduation worth more to them, and will result in students being more likely to choose to engage in actions to obtain that reward instead of choosing to do something else for a different reward (such as taking a time-consuming job for money). A clear path to graduation, with every course taking you one step nearer, makes the reward of graduation seem closer.
Guided pathways, DCMP, and corequisite remediation all (1) work backward from students’ goals in order to structure academic experiences so that they move students most efficiently toward those goals and (2) take advantage of the increased motivation that can occur when academic activities are aligned with academic interests and when students progress clearly and steadily toward the goal line. These three approaches are mutually compatible and applicable, have significant evidence supporting them, and if applied together are highly likely to greatly enhance student success.
The American Council on Education has posted on its blog a piece regarding a panel (titled “Strengthening Transfer Pathways to Improve Student Success”) in which I participated along with John Fink of the Community College Research Center, Chris Mullin of Strong Start to Finish, and Jon Turk of ACE (the moderator) at the ACE 2018 conference.
After graduating from a good private high school in Brooklyn, New York, Ben first attended Berklee College of Music in Boston to study jazz guitar performance. However, soon after beginning college there, he left Berklee with a low GPA.
After working for a few years, Ben knew he wanted to obtain a bachelor’s degree, but his Berklee GPA wasn’t high enough for him to gain admission to a selective bachelor’s-degree college. Cost was also a consideration in his continuing his education.
Ben had heard from a friend who was attending Borough of Manhattan Community College of The City University of New York (BMCC of CUNY) that the classes there were good. BMCC is an open admissions institution. In addition, the cost of attending BMCC is relatively low, and the location was convenient for Ben (he worked in Manhattan and lived in Brooklyn). Therefore Ben decided to try a couple of (nonmatriculated) classes there. The courses went well, so the next semester he matriculated. He was interested in research psychology that could help to improve people’s lives, but BMCC did not have a psychology major, so he matriculated as a liberal arts major. BMCC provided Ben with a second chance at postsecondary education.
From the beginning of his time at BMCC, Ben was thinking about his transfer goal, and was worried about whether or not his credits would transfer. He was concerned that some colleges might not take his community college credits. He went to see a BMCC advisor about this. She pulled out a sheet showing which BMCC courses would transfer to which CUNY senior (bachelor’s-degree) colleges, and advised him to take courses on the sheet (e.g., social psychology) that would transfer for his intended bachelor’s degree in psychology. This was useful information, but it was limited information, was not personalized to Ben’s situation, and did not help him to think about all of the possibilities open to him. For more information, the advisor advised Ben to contact the colleges to which he was interested in applying, a time-consuming and potentially complex and frustrating task that Ben was not inclined to do.
From exposure to people with bachelor’s degrees, Ben knew that many people did not value associate-degree courses (such as are offered at BMCC) as much as bachelor’s-degree courses. Given his ultimate goal of a bachelor’s degree, Ben prioritized taking courses that he thought would transfer to a bachelor’s-degree program over courses that would obtain him the BMCC liberal arts associate’s degree. So, for example, he did not take a required speech course at BMCC, because he was worried it would not transfer.
Nevertheless, Ben enjoyed his BMCC classes and thought that the professors were good. His professor for a writing class, in which Ben was doing well, took him aside and asked “What are you doing here?” Ben told the professor that his goal was to transfer and receive a bachelor’s degree. The professor told him that some of his previous students had transferred to Columbia, and reminded Ben of BMCC’s motto (which is: “Start here. Go anywhere.”).
Ben was interested in transferring to Queens College of CUNY (where his parents attended college) or Stony Brook University (of the State University of New York). But, because of his professor’s advice, he also applied to Columbia University’s College of General Studies (GS, a division of Columbia for students who have had at least a one-year break in their college educations). He was accepted to Columbia’s GS and so decided to attend there. GS students have the same course requirements as students who begin at Columbia as freshmen.
A recent study by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that, on average, students lose 43% of their credits when they transfer. However, there is a great deal of variation. As described in my new book, around the time that Ben transferred from BMCC to GS, CUNY had just been through a contentious period establishing a set of policies (called Pathways) that would guarantee course credit transfer, including for general education and some major courses, among the 19 undergraduate colleges of CUNY. Until then, for example, some courses taken as general education (core) courses at one CUNY college would count only as electives at another CUNY college.
In contrast, when Ben transferred to GS at Columbia University, of the credits that he had accumulated at Berklee and BMCC, Columbia took the maximum that their policies allowed: 60 of the 124 required for receipt of a Columbia bachelor’s degree. In addition, many of these credits were taken by Columbia in fulfillment of its general education and psychology major requirements. So at the same time that students were having trouble transferring courses from one college to another within CUNY, which is a single university according to New York State Education Law, Ben had no difficulty transferring his credits from BMCC to Columbia, an apparent bolstering of the anecdotal evidence described in my new book that, prior to Pathways, it was easier to transfer outside of CUNY than within CUNY.
Unlike transfer students at many colleges, upon transferring to Columbia, Ben was required to attend orientation. He started at GS in the spring, and was in a cohort of a couple hundred new GS students, which he felt added significantly to his making a positive transition to Columbia. There were many other supports available to him at Columbia (e.g. tutoring).
While working expeditiously on obtaining his Columbia bachelor’s degree, Ben, with his interest in research psychology, looked at the Columbia website for good research opportunities. There he came across the Community College Research Center, which is based at Columbia’s Teachers College. CCRC particularly intrigued Ben because of his experience at BMCC. He reached out to CCRC and subsequently began working there part-time while still in college.
Now, after starting his postsecondary experience at Berklee College of Music and BMCC, Ben is the recipient of a Columbia University bachelor’s degree (for which he spent far less money than had he started there as a freshman). And he is working full-time for a nonprofit organization helping to conduct research on increasing postsecondary students’ success.
As Ben made his way along the path from first entry to college to college graduation, he received advice from the several institutions that he attended. However, he cannot imagine having navigated that path successfully if he had not had parents who were college graduates. Students who are the first in their families to attend college have even more challenges to overcome in reaching graduation than did Ben.
In summary, among other lessons, Ben’s experience shows that: (1) some students can make excellent use of a second chance in college, which can involve transferring to a different institution, (2) sometimes credits transfer more easily to more selective, private colleges than to less selective, public colleges (even ones within the same university system), and (3) advice and support can be critical to a student’s success, including a transfer student’s success.
The higher education community is fortunate that Ben made his way through the transfer student maze and is now contributing to the success of other college students through his research.