Survey Results
Overview of the Transfer Role
From the 1901 founding of Joliet Junior College, considered the
first “community college,” a core function of the
American two-year college has been transfer. As initially conceived,
a well-equipped two-year college, with appropriately credentialed
faculty, was assumed to be capable of offering instruction at
the freshman and sophomore levels equal in rigor and breadth to
a university and could do so in a setting of small classes with
close faculty-student interaction. Those students who completed
a prescribed sequence of general education and specialized courses
over their two years at community college would then be able to
transfer earned credits to a senior college and begin their studies
at the senior college with full junior standing.
The capstone of a student’s two years of study at a community
college was to be the Associate Degree, as introduced by William
Rainey Harper at the University of Chicago late in the 19th century.
This degree consisted of 60 semester hours, comprising general
education courses designed to provide the student with mastery
of basic college-level skills and an introduction to the major
disciplinary fields. Very quickly, this single degree evolved
into the Associate in Arts, with an emphasis upon general education
courses in the liberal arts, and the Associate in Science, with
an emphasis upon courses in the natural and physical sciences.
Toward the end of the 20th century, the Associate in Applied Science
(AAS) degree has gained in popularity. This degree offers the
student relatively limited exposure to general education courses,
emphasizing instead discipline-specific vocational courses.
As the community college grew in number and enrollments over the
course of the 20th century, many in the higher education community
grew concerned that the Associate Degree, in whatever form, was
failing to realize its full potential as a vehicle to facilitate
transfer. Despite various initiatives, the number of Associate
degrees awarded has not kept pace with growth in community college
total enrollment, and, of even greater concern, a growing percentage
of community college students were transferring to senior colleges
and universities without first earning the degree or, had they
earned the degree, were being admitted with less than junior standing.
Purpose
of the Access to the Baccalaureate Survey
In an effort to identify both the obstacles to the Associate degree’s
universal acceptance as the equivalent of the first two years
of senior college/university study and to suggest specific steps
at the state, system, and institutional levels that might address
these barriers, the American Association of Community Colleges
(AACC) and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities
(AASCU) collaborated on a survey of their respective memberships,
comprising presidents and other administrators, faculty, and others
at both two- and four-year colleges. The survey demonstrated a
high degree of consensus among those surveyed with respect to
both the barriers standing in the way of a revitalized Associate
degree and strategies capable of removing existing barriers. Following
is a summary of the survey’s findings.
Perceived
Disparity of Standards
Despite a substantial body of research documenting the comparability
in basic college skills and breadth of knowledge of Associate
degree holders and native students, the barrier most frequently
noted by survey participants is the perception that community
college graduates are simply less well-prepared academically than
students who began their studies at a four-year institution. This
perception cut across institutional boundaries, emerging as the
dominant undercurrent of all responses. Where four-year college
and university faculty attributed this obstacle to a lack of intellectual
challenge at two-year colleges (as one senior-college faculty
member summarized the view of colleagues, “There is a belief
among faculty that some two-year campuses lack academic standards
with respect to course expectations in comparison with four-year-institutions”),
two-year college faculty attributed the problem to a dismissive
and unfounded attitude on the part of four-year faculty that community
college courses simply lack the rigor and breadth of content of
“equivalent” senior college courses.
In addition to this questioning of the comparative rigor of two-year
college courses, the open-ended responses of survey participants,
when clustered and compiled, revealed a high degree of consensus
on a number of other, more specific barriers to baccalaureate
transfer. These obstacles ranged from the process of transfer
to such student-related factors as access and cost.
Articulation Issues
Beyond the issue of perceived comparability, the principal obstacle
to successful transfer identified by survey participants was the
complex set of inter-institutional arrangements collectively known
as articulation. Essentially, articulation is the process by which
two- and four-year colleges formally agree on the equivalency
of courses, thereby permitting credits earned at the two-year
college to be counted toward the baccalaureate at the four-year
institution. Unfortunately, numerous obstacles frequently confront
students who seek to transfer two-year college courses, even where
there is a formal articulation agreement between the two institutions.
Among the many articulation barriers noted by two- and four-year
faculty are the lack of any formal, inter-institutional agreement,
the failure of senior-college officials to enforce existing agreements
at the departmental level, the imposition by four-year colleges
of additional general education requirements beyond those listed
in the formal transfer agreement, and a more general failure to
regularly review and publicize up-dated agreements.
Content
and Comparability of Core Course work
According to survey participants, another major hindrance to transfer
revolves around fundamental disagreement over the composition
of the basic general education core expected of baccalaureate
candidates. While in recent years a number of state legislatures
have mandated a common general education core for all state two-
and four-year institutions, the survey revealed that institutional
adoption of this core has been inconsistent. Even faculty from
four-year institutions acknowledged that, despite such mandates,
“not all four-year institutions have adopted [the general
education core.]” In the same vein, two-year college faculty
reported that “Theory and practice for the [general education]
model are often incongruent.”
A long-standing concern of two-year colleges seeking to promote
transfer is the practice of some programs within four-year institutions
to impose course requirements above and beyond institutional general
education requirements. Some four-year programs argue that these
requirements are mandated by program-specific accreditation standards
(as in the case of NCATE), or the need for course prerequisites
to upper-division courses which have no place as part of the institution’s
general education core. Two-year college faculty, however, view
the “inflexible” imposition of additional course requirements
at the program level of four-year institutions not simply as obstacles
to “seamless” transfer, but also as a means to indirectly
limit the number of potential transfer students absent program-to-program
transfer agreements.
Impact
of the Associate of Applied Science Degree
The increasing popularity of the Associate in Applied Science
(AA/AS) Degree has created a new, and largely unanticipated range
of obstacles to seamless transfer. Among these obstacles, noted
by four-year faculty, is that many institutions granting the AA/AS
degree have yet to secure regional accreditation, and that the
preponderance of courses included in these programs, because of
their explicitly vocational orientation, have no general education
equivalent at most four-year institutions. Two-year faculty note,
however, that AA/AS degree holders are under increasing pressure
from their employers to acquire the baccalaureate, because of
the rapidly developing cognate base of these fields, and that
this need could be readily met if more four-year colleges were
to put aside their long-standing unwillingness to accept the academic
legitimacy of vocational courses and programs.
Process and Information Flow
Not all obstacles to transfer, according to survey participants,
are structural. Many originate in inadequate or flawed processes,
especially with respect to the flow of accurate and timely transfer
information among institutions, and between institutions and students.
Two- and four-year faculty agreed that there is a pressing need
to strengthen the knowledge base of faculty and staff at both
institutions with respect to frequently changing transfer requirements.
Two-year faculty reflected a particular concern that four-year
institutions provide incomplete information on their current transfer
requirements, or fail to routinely up-date transfer information.
As one two-year faculty member observed, “The printed and
Web-based materials reflecting articulation agreements are woefully
lacking and out-of-date.”
Cost and Distance
Beyond institutional and process obstacles, two-year college faculty,
in particular, noted a range of student-specific obstacles whose
resolution will require innovative solutions. One such obstacle
is distance – the fact that many graduates of geographically
isolated two-year colleges are simply unable to relocate to a
four-year institution often several hundred miles distant. A second
obstacle within this cluster is the issue of cost. Not only do
both two and four-year faculty agree that states have failed to
provide the basic funding necessary to support the staff and processes
essential to effective transfer, but that a general reduction
in state support continues to raise the cost beyond the reach
of many able students.
Solutions
and Best Practices
Both two and four-year faculty reflected a high degree of agreement
that any effort to reduce existing barriers to student transfer
must begin with the development and implementation of effective
articulation agreements. Ideally, such agreements would follow
the 2+2 model, with the AAS Degree providing the student with
all required general education courses as well as a limited number
of introductory courses in the student’s desired field of
study. Recalling the model initially proposed by William Rainey
Harper, upper division courses would serve as a capstone to this
program of study, leading to a field-specific baccalaureate degree.
Certain states, notably Illinois and North Carolina, were frequently
mentioned for having made progress in this direction, and providing
possible models for other state systems.
Along with the introduction of 2+2 programs, many survey participants
indicated the importance of combining such initiatives with program-to-program
agreements, thereby ensuring transfer students a seamless transition
into their desired cognate field. One model, Maryland’s
recently adopted Associate of Arts in Teaching (AAT) degree, was
cited as a potential model. At the same time, the widespread popularity
of the AAS degree presents obstacles that even program-to-program
initiatives may not easily resolve. Initiatives which either use
upper division courses to provide AAS students with the general
education courses they did not take at the community college,
or the introduction of the BAAS degree reflect efforts on the
part of both two- and four-year colleges to respond to growing
employer demands for formal education that builds on the AAS degree.
Another cluster of initiatives designed to facilitate transfer
includes the introduction of a dual-credit/dual-enrollment option
for community college students intent on the baccalaureate. Such
programs guarantee admission to specific programs at four-year
colleges, notably nursing and education, for those students who
complete a prescribed program of study at the community college
with a minimum grade point average.
Technology
as the Key
In the view of survey participants, the resolution of information
obstacles to transfer will come through an expanded and enhanced
use of technology, particularly Web-based technology. Among the
more established, Web-based systems maintained to facilitate transfer
are Minnesota’s multi-system Web-site, Utah’s online
academic advising system and ARTSYS, the articulation System for
Maryland colleges and universities. Importantly, these Web-based
systems are not only accessible to college personnel and students,
but also to the general public, so that individuals can weigh
their transfer options even before enrollment. No less importantly,
these systems are well maintained to ensure accuracy and encourage
states to explore other initiatives supportive of transfer, including
common course numbering systems.
As with improving transfer information, a variety of technology-based
initiatives are moving forward to eliminate the barriers of distance
and access for place-bound AA/AS degree holders. One initiative,
found in New Mexico, Texas and Kentucky, is the “virtual
university.” The virtual university uses various technologies
to bring upper division courses to isolated and place bound students
in sparsely populated areas of these states. In other states,
such as Florida, community colleges are being given specific legislative
authority to offer baccalaureate degrees when senior institutions
simply cannot meet the demand, while other states are exploring
the joint use of facilities, so that a student can complete a
baccalaureate degree on the same campus, even though lower and
upper division courses are offered by two separate institutions.
Steps
to Eliminate Cost as a Barrier
While apparently less widespread, some survey participants indicated
that their institutions are taking significant steps to eliminate
financial barriers to student transfer. Even during a period of
limited new funding, some two and four-year colleges are purposefully
reallocating aid or reducing tuition to support the transfer of
both high-need and academically gifted students. Such initiatives
include the creation of targeted financial aid programs, the award
of earmarked financial aid to students who achieve high GPA’s
prior to transfer, and a one-third reduction in tuition at state
senior colleges for transfer students enrolled in a joint program
and who have maintained a minimum 3.0 GPA.