Guest Blog: The Trouble with Transfer Articulation Policies

Today's blog is authored by Josipa Roksa, assistant professor at the University of Virginia

Once again, transfer articulation policies are in the news, being touted as a viable solution to the problem of low transfer rates between 2-year and 4-year colleges.

Articulation policies sound like a good idea, but there are a few pieces of empirical evidence that should give us pause. Consider the following questions:

(1) Do states with articulation policies (and particularly those with more comprehensive articulation policies) have higher transfer rates?

According to at least three recent studies, the answer is no.

For example, see:
Gregory M. Anderson, Jeffrey C. Sun, and Mariana Alfonso Anderson, “Effectiveness of Statewide Articulation Agreements on the Probability of Transfer: A Preliminary Policy Analysis” The Review of Higher Education, 29 no 3 (2006).

Betheny Gross and Dan Goldhaber, “Community College Transfer and Articulation Policies: Looking Beneath the Surface.” Working paper # 2009_1R. University of Washington Bothell: Center on Reinventing Public Education (April 2009)

Josipa Roksa, “Building Bridges for Student Success: Are Higher Education Articulation Policies Effective?,” Teachers College Record 111 (2009).

(2) Do states with articulation policies have higher bachelor’s degree completion rates, shorter time-to-degree, and/or less “wasted” credits among their transfer students?

The answer, again, is no.

See:
Josipa Roksa, and Bruce Keith,“Credits, Time, and Attainment: Articulation Policies and Success after Transfer,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 30 (2008).

(3) How many credits do four-year entrants earn on their path toward a bachelor’s degree?

Community college transfers are not the only ones earning 140 credits. A recent report noted that students who transferred from community colleges to the California State University (CSU) system graduated with an average of 141 credits. And how many credits did students who began in the CSU system graduate with? 142!! The situation is only slightly better in Florida: Associate of Arts (AA) transfers completed 137 credits before graduation while native four-year students averaged approximately 133 credits. Similar patterns are observed in national data: students starting in four-year institutions (and even those who attend only one four-year institution) earn more (and often many more) than 120 credits.

In conclusion: yes, low transfer rates are a problem, but there is no empirical evidence to suggest that articulation policies are the solution. This does not mean that we should not work on streamlining credit accumulation, or that the transfer process should not be more transparent and consistent. But it does mean that relying on articulation policies to increase bachelor’s degree attainment or improve efficiency in higher education is more hopeful than realistic.

You have read this article articulation / community college / Josipa Roksa / transfer with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2011/06/guest-blog-trouble-with-transfer.html. Thanks!

Thoughts on Tucson

This isn't an education story, per se. But it's too important to ignore.

The education angle to the recent tragedy in Tucson, Arizona is the fact that the apparent shooter recently attended a local community college. While I think it is unfair to hold Pima Community College responsible for Jared Loughner, this New York Times article and Sunday's Washington Post editorial does raise some smart questions about what could have been done differently, most notably having sought an involuntary mental evaluation of the suspect. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20.

Currently, too much of the public conversation about Tucson is about culpability and about the role of political discourse in fueling the violence. Those are possibly irrelevant or overly simplistic conversations. It is unclear if political discourse had much bearing on Loughner's decision to do what he did. Sunday's New York Times story suggests that his twisted belief that "women should not be allowed to hold positions of power or authority" may have been a crucial factor. Clearly, the accused shooter is responsible (although our justice system will make the official determination of guilt). Is anyone else? His parents? Institutions like his former community college? What about the state of Arizona for having gun laws on the books that allowed Loughner to legally purchase his weapon and ammunition? Fundamentally, taken to it logical end, the finger points directly at the collective 'us'. We have elected leaders who have shaped our current gun laws.

And that's the tougher conversation that no one in power seems to want to have: Our current laws on access to firearms are senseless and extreme when compared to other nations. Semiautomatic weapons (such as the one used by Loughner in this tragedy) and extended magazines have no legitimate place in civil society. Why could someone like Loughner legally purchase a Glock semiautomatic handgun and an extended magazine? Why should anyone be able to for that matter?

Nicholas Kristof recent op-ed in the New York Times (Why Not Regulate Guns As Seriously As Toys?) raised some pointed questions in this regard.

Jared Loughner was considered too mentally unstable to attend community college. He was rejected by the Army. Yet buy a Glock handgun and a 33-round magazine? No problem.

A few suggestions he offered:

[B]an oversize magazines, such as the 33-bullet magazine allegedly used in Tucson. If the shooter had had to reload after firing 10 bullets, he might have been tackled earlier.

We can also learn from Australia, which in 1996 banned assault weapons... [T]he Journal of Public Health Policy notes that after the ban, the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved.

Where are our political leaders on gun control? No where to be found. They're all still playing duck 'n' cover with the National Rifle Association. Even, in Arizona, they say this incident doesn't change anything. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Of course. [UPDATE: Some lawmakers even want to make the state's gun laws even more lax. Apparently, it isn't enough that Arizona is already one of only three U.S. states that allows residents to carry concealed weapons without training or even a background check.]

Frank Rich hits several nails on their heads in Sunday's New York Times. I'll let his words speak for themselves:

Of the many truths in President Obama’s powerful Tucson speech, none was more indisputable than his statement that no one can know what is in a killer’s mind. So why have we spent so much time debating exactly that?

The answer is classic American denial. It was easier to endlessly parse Jared Lee Loughner’s lunatic library — did he favor “The Communist Manifesto” or Ayn Rand? — than confront the larger and harsher snapshot of our current landscape that emerged after his massacre....

Let’s also face another tragedy: The only two civic reforms that might have actually stopped him — tighter gun control and an effective mental health safety net — won’t materialize even now.

No editorial — or bloodbath — will move Congress to enact serious gun control (which Giffords herself never advocated and Obama has rarely pushed since 2008). Enhanced mental health coverage is also a nonstarter when the highest G.O.P. priority is to repeal the federal expansion of health care. In Arizona, cutbacks are already so severe that terminally ill patients are being denied life-saving organ transplants.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and their families. Here's hoping that some good can come as a result of this tragedy, but I'm not overly optimistic.

You have read this article Arizona / Barack Obama / community college / Gabrielle Giffords / guns with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2011/01/thoughts-on-tucson.html. Thanks!

Helping Ourselves

There's a bit of an uproar in California over an arrangement between the for-profit Kaplan University and the California Community College Chancellor's Office that makes it possible for students locked out of community college courses to enroll in a Kaplan course at a reduced rate. The arrangement stems from the overcrowding and under-resourcing of the California community college system, which is nothing less than under siege. Of course, it also stems from a completely sensible desire of Kaplan to expand its reach and enrollment. The California State Legislature, by failing to adequately support its community colleges, created that opportunity. Kaplan is doing exactly what we'd expect any educator to do--responding to student demand. We denigrate that action only because it will also result in profits. Let's at least be honest about that.

To me the really distasteful part of the backlash against Kaplan comes from those who are outraged that an agreement was reached to ensure the transferability of credits--an arrangement in which faculty were not consulted. Faculty members are used to being consulted on which courses they will and will not accept. Professors like to sign off on what courses can count to "replace" theirs--seemingly because they want to ensure educational quality, but let's face it, it's also because it helps to protect their jobs. The more courses deemed transferrable, the more it will become clear that the current system is inefficient--if many courses equate with each other, why have so many different people in different places teaching them?

But undergraduate education isn't meant to serve faculty; it's meant to serve students. This is something people seem to ready to forget. The president of the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges was quite straightforward about her priorities when she told a reporter, "I'm hard pressed to see where we could...make this favorable to faculty." Huh? Since when is ensuring the continuation of a degree, and the portability of credits, meant to be about helping the faculty?

I get it--this move opens the door to a lot of scary possibilities. One is that Kaplan and other for-profits will fulfill a need and let the Legislature off the hook in future funding of state higher education. The degree to which we treat that as negative should be at least partly informed by empirical evidence on how California's community college students fare at Kaplan. Kaplan is to be commended for providing the data to allow a study on that topic to take place, and Scott Lay, president of the Community College League of California is a smart guy to recognize that as a real opportunity. Make that commitment a real one, and assess the outcomes of the arrangement. Then we'll have something more solid with which to pass judgment: evidence on how this affects students.

You have read this article California / California Community College System / college / community college / higher education / Kaplan with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/05/helping-ourselves.html. Thanks!

For-Profits vs Community Colleges -- The Debate Continues...

Are students attending for-profit institutions getting their money's worth, especially compared to attending community college? I've tackled this one before. Now, another study commissioned by a for-profit has appeared, claiming to fill gaps in our knowledge.

Since I only have a powerpoint presentation of the findings to review, and my opinion is pretty-well expressed in other media coverage, I'll just hit a few notes I've not yet seen mentioned elsewhere.

1. The authors want to claim that the for-profit sector is outpacing community colleges' capacity for enrollment expansion. To back this up, they compare recent enrollment growth in the two sectors. But they fail to mention the very different levels of overall enrollment --community colleges enrolled approximately 1.2 million more students in 2009 than were enrolled in 2007-- in comparison there were 1.4 million students total in for-profit institutions in 2007. Growth is affected by the starting point, and obviously capacity is too. It's harder to expand capacity when one's already nearing capacity. Moreover, this kind of assertion ignores the fact that the expansion of community college enrollment depends on the availability of public resources-- in comparison, the for-profit sector does not, and is correspondingly more nimble. But whether that's a "good" thing is far from clear.

2. The authors also purport that for-profit students realize greater wage gains from their investment. But they neglect the fact that community college students begin with higher earnings--and experience nearly the same dollar gains (over $7000). It is arguably more difficult to stimulate an increase in earnings for those who are better-off to start with compared to someone who starts at minimum wage (e.g. to bring someone from $21K to $28K, compared to $15K to $22K).

3. The study also indicates that for-profit students do not appear to know less about debt than other students. Given that they take on more loans, from a wider range of sources, "not knowing less" is insufficient-- if anything, the burden's on the for-profits to do a better than average job since their grads incur more than average debt.

All that said, I applaud the for-profits for their willingness to consider hard facts and data. I'd like to see them provide longitudinal student-unit record data to independent researchers so we can begin to sort out some of the bigger, lingering questions about student learning and the like. Maybe that's in the future.

You have read this article college / community college / for-profit / higher education / university with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/04/for-profits-vs-community-colleges.html. Thanks!

Jumping to Conclusions

In a recent post on Education Week's Inside School Research blog, Debra Viadero offers a caution about President Obama's support for community colleges. Pointing to her recent article on community college research that indicated how much more we need to know about how best to improve completion rates in that sector, she questions whether the president would be wiser to place his bets on career colleges. She says that a recent study by the Educational Policy Institute (EPI) and an ongoing program of research by James Rosenbaum and colleagues support her contention that community colleges ought to take cues from career colleges.

In my opinion, this talented reporter is jumping to conclusions.

Yes, the graduation rates at two-year for-profit colleges exceed those at two-year public colleges. No one disputes that. That does not necessarily mean, however, that career colleges are outperforming community colleges, or that community colleges should take steps to become more like career colleges. The plausible alternative explanations for the differences in results are numerous. For example, the students attending the two types of colleges may differ in important yet unmeasured ways, ways that are associated with chances of graduation (what researchers refer to as selection bias). Is one group more economically or educationally advantaged? More motivated? More apt to have a family, nighttime work, or receive tuition support from an employer? It's also possible that the differences in graduation rates stem from constraints that community colleges face but career colleges do not-for example, inadequate resources or a lack of control over mission or governance. It's one thing to point to differences in practices between the community colleges and for-profit colleges, and another thing to attribute those differences to variation in the "will" or intentions of practitioners, rather than attribute them to under-funding and all that comes with it.

Establishing that community colleges have poorer graduation rates than career colleges for reasons they can and should do something about requires evidence that the two differ on one or more key aspects that is causally linked to college completion. Say we knew that smaller classes caused better student retention-and community colleges have larger classes than career colleges. We'd then be able to say, there's something community colleges ought to fix. But we don't have evidence that that's the case.

Instead, research simply establishes that (a) career and community colleges have different graduation rates and (b) career and community colleges (sometimes) employ different institutional practices. Rosenbaum and his colleagues have done a nice job, as Viadero notes, of documenting the latter-using qualitative methods, mostly at colleges in the Chicago area. But they have not shown that those practices cause observable differences in graduation rates. Moreover, while they've produced one paper indicating that differences in the student populations at career and community colleges do not appear to account for disparities in outcomes, that analysis is based solely on a limited set of observable characteristics-and therefore don't rule out the possibility that different levels of student motivation, for example, are really the culprit. Just think about how students get to college-many at career colleges are actively recruited (sometimes off their living room couches) while many at community colleges effectively wander in the door. Why would we think, then, that career and community colleges are serving the same kinds of people and producing different results?

There's another consideration Viadero neglects, and that's college costs. Students at career colleges leave with far more debt than students at community colleges. Data from the 2007-2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study reveal that 61% of community college students graduate with less than $10,000 in debt, compared to only 22% of students graduating from 2 year for-profits. In contrast, 19% of graduates from 2 year for-profits have $30,000 or more in student loans, compared to only 5% of community college graduates. Nearly all students (98%) finishing at 2 year for-profit colleges have taken on a loan, compared to just 38% of community college graduates. Is that a problem? Is it offset by higher rates of graduation? The answers are far from clear. Absent better ones we shouldn't be relying on evidence like EPI's---a study of career colleges' high graduation rates that was supported by the Imagine America Foundation, formerly the Career College Foundation, established in 1982 as the research, scholarship and training provider for the nation's career colleges. Full-text of that study wasn't even placed online for researchers to fully vet!

Community colleges have a long, rich history of serving this nation. Sure, there's room for improvement, but without more solid evidence of which changes are needed let's not jump to conclusions and tout the for-profits as a model to which they ought to aspire. We might end up in a bigger mess than we're already in.

POSTSCRIPT:

I have now obtained a copy of the full EPI report. My suspicions were correct: the authors use nothing more than simple descriptive comparisons of students' characteristics and degree completion rates (calculated using NCES's DAS system, likely without propering weighting) to support their causal claims about the "benefits" of attending community college. For example, they write "The report suggests that career colleges work harder to provide appropriate student services and support" but present no data on institutional services or effort expended, particularly any tied to student outcomes. Their final conclusion -- "statistically, not only do students attending career colleges perform as well as or better than many other students attending comparative public institutions, but they persist in and complete their education while typically being more economically, educationally and socially challenged than other students"-- is based on nothing more than comparisons of sample means (no regression, no nothing). C'mon folks, this ain't the kind of research any consumer ought to be taking seriously. Glad to see Kevin Carey agrees.

You have read this article Barack Obama / community college / Education Week / Educational Policy Institute / James Rosenbaum / President with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/01/jumping-to-conclusions.html. Thanks!

Big Man on Community College Campus

TIME recently crowned 10 college presidents (nearly all men) the "best" in the nation. The article spurred the usual pushback against "top 10" lists and raised questions about the criteria used, but a notable aspect of the list hasn't drawn much attention: one of those presidents is Eduardo Padron, a community college president.

This was a smart, strategic pick on TIME's part. 2009 is the year of the community college, and while Miami Dade is exceptional in many ways (including that it's officially Miami Dade College, since it awards BAs) inclusion of a president from that sector was wise. The signals abound: the status of the public 2-year college is rising, at least in the press. And what a relief.

The role of the "snob factor" in resource allocations and overall treatment of community colleges has gone without mention for far too long. How many of us will openly praise the work of open-access institutions, while at home privately acknowledging there's no way our kids are going to these places? By casting them as institutions of last resort, schools to attend only by default, and excluding their leaders from any awards that aren't strictly focused on "do-gooders", we keep them down. It's got to stop.

So it's a pleasure to see the ambitious, audacious, strategic and smart Eduardo Padron given the credit he deserves. While the profile focuses mainly on his college's open access mission, Padron balances a commitment to that value with a continual attempt to put Miami Dade's work in the spotlight, making it central not only to education in Miami and in Florida, but to the nation. I've had the opportunity to meet him a few times this year, but on a least one occasion the chance to speak was scuttled when President Barack Obama summoned him to the White House for a meeting. Better than TIME magazine recognition for sure-- the nation's president is bringing him in for consultation and discussion. A real step in the right direction.

Next year, I hope we'll see several more community college presidents added to this list. Of course, identifying the best will require TIME to look beyond colleges possessing the most power and resources, and instead work to find those helping students excel without the benefit of all that glitters.

You have read this article community college / Eduardo Padron / Miami-Dade / TIME magazine with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/11/big-man-on-community-college-campus.html. Thanks!

Join Us!

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

You are invited to the Jam on the American Graduation Initiative for community college leaders; an online discussion with you and others from around the country about President Obama’s recent announcement to invest $12 billion in America’s community colleges. Convened by the Brookings Institute, The Education Commission of the States, and Jobs for the Future, the Jam will be held on September 16, 2009 from 8:00 am to 12:00 Midnight EST.

Sponsored by Knowledge in the Public Interest, with LaGuardia Community College as the lead college, the Jam will solicit your ideas about:

1) WHAT we should know—the benefits and consequences--about what the administration is proposing

2) HOW we can organize ourselves to make a difference for every community college in the US

Join a diverse group of individuals—community college presidents, faculty and staff; public officials; policy researchers and advocates--to influence the discussion on this groundbreaking proposal. The result will be a tool kit for action that will be available within two weeks of the Jam.

You can RSVP for the Jam until Sunday, September 13 by:
1) Going to http://polilogue.net and complete the sign up form.

2) Receive a confirmation email from “Polilogue Admin” with a link back to the site.

3) Click on the American Graduation Initiative community to enter the Jam site.

4) The passkey is: register

Please join in shaping the community college response to the most important national higher education initiative since the GI Bill. Come and go as your time permits, post as often as you like, and move between conversation threads.

See you online.

Sincerely,

Sara Goldrick-Rab
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Lead Author, "Transforming Community Colleges,"(Brookings Institution, 2009)

You have read this article American Graduation Initiative / Barack Obama / Brookings Institution / community college / Education Commission of the States / Jobs For the Future / President with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/09/join-us.html. Thanks!

Strengthening Student Support: A Sensible Proposal with What Results?

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

Anyone who's taken a hard look at the reasons why more students drop out of community college realizes it's got to have at least something to do with their need for more frequent, higher-quality advising. After all, in many cases these are students who are juggling multiple responsibilities, only one of which is attending college, and they need to figure out a lot of details-- how to take the right courses to fit their particular program (especially if they hope to later transfer credits), how to get the best financial aid package, how to work out a daily schedule that can maximize their learning, etc. It's fairly easy to figure that in fact community college students would likely stand to benefit more from good advising than their counterparts at many 4-year institutions.

Except high-quality advising isn't what they get. Counselor-student ratios are on average 1000:1. That's right-- one counselor for a population the size of a decent high school. In elementary and secondary schools the ratio is 479:1. There's a pay disparity as well-- in k-12 the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the median annual earnings for a counselor in 2006 was nearly $54,000. For counselors at community colleges it was $48,000 (and for those at other colleges it was $42,000). Now, perhaps the salary differentials reflect the different work load, and assumptions about it being easier to counsel adults. But I tend to think this is offbase-- these are outdated notions of who community college students are and what they need.

So what would happen if we reduced the counselor/student ratio at community colleges to a standard even better than the national average in k-12? And at the same time ramped up the intensity of the counseling? Theory would suggest we should see some meaningful results. Many studies, including my own, point toward a persistent relationship between parental education and college outcomes that's indicative of the importance of information-- and information (plus motivation) is what counseling provides. So, putting more counselors into a community college and increasing the quality of what they provide should work-- if students actually go and see them.

To test these hypotheses, MDRC (a terrific NYC-based evaluation firm) recently conducted a randomized program evaluation in two Ohio community colleges. In a nutshell, at college A students in the treatment group were assigned (at random) to receive services from a full-time counselor serving only 81 students, while at college B students in the treatment group had a counselor serving 157 students. In both cases, the control group students saw counselors serving more than 1,000 students each. In addition to serving far fewer students than is typical, these counselors were instructed to provide services that were "more intensive, comprehensive, and personalized." In practice, students in the treatment group did see their counselors more often. The "treatment" lasted two semesters.

The students in this study are Midwesterners, predominantly (75%) women, predominantly white (54%), with an average age of 24, half living below the poverty line and half are working while in school. I think it's also worth pointing out that while all applied for financial aid, these were not folks who were overwhelming facing circumstances of deprivation-- 88% had access to a working car, and 64% had a working computer in their home. And 98% were U.S. citizens.

The results indicate only modest results. After one semester of program implementation, the biggest effects occured-- students in the treatment group were 7 percentage points more likely to register for another semester (65 vs. 58%). But those differences quickly disappeared, and no notable differences in outcomes like the number of credits taken and other academic outcomes occured. Moreover, the researchers didn't find other kinds of effects you might expect--such as changes in students' educational goals, feelings of connection to the college, or measured ability to cope with struggles.

So what's going on? The folks at MDRC suggest 3 possibilities: (1) the program didn't last long enough to generate impacts, (2) the services weren't comprehensive enough, (3) advising may need to be linked to other supports--including more substantial financial aid--in order to generate effects. I think these are reasonable hypotheses, but I'd like to add some more to this list.

First and foremost, there's a selection problem. MDRC tested an effect of enhanced advising on a population of students already more likely to seek advice-- those who signed up for a study and more services. Now, of course this is a common problem in research and it doesn't compromise the internal validity of the results (e.g. I'm not saying that they mis-estimated the size of the effect). And, MDRC did better than usual in using a list of qualified students (all of whom, by the way had to have completed a FAFSA) and actively recruiting them into the study-- rather than simply selecting participants from folks who showed up to a sign-up table and agreed to enter a study. But, in the end they are testing the effects of advising on a group that was responsive to the study intake efforts of college staff. And we're not provided with any data on how that group differed from the group who weren't responsive to those efforts--not even on the measures included on the FAFSA (which it seems the researchers have access to). Assuming participants are different from non-participants (and they almost always are), I'm betting the participants have characteristics that make them more likely to seek help-- and therefore are perhaps less likely to accrue the biggest benefits from enhanced advising. I wish we had survey measures to test this hypotheses-- for example we could look at the expectations of participants at baseline and compare them to those of more typical students-- but the first survey wasn't administered until a full year after the treatment began. To sum, up, this issue doesn't compromise the internal validity of the results, but it may help explain why such small effects were observed-- there are often heterogeneous effects of programs, and those students for whom you might anticipate the bigger effects weren't in the study at all.

A second issue: we just don't know nearly enough about the counterfactual in this case-- specifically, what services students in the control group received. (We know a bit more about differences in what they were offered, e.g. from Table 3.3, but not in terms of what they received,) We are provided comparisons in services received by treatment status only for one measure-- services received 3+ times during the first year of the study (Appendix Table c.3), but not for the full range of services such as those shown in Appendix Table C.1. For example we don't know that students in the control and treatment groups didn't have similar chances of contacting a counselor 1 or 2 times, only the incidence of 3+ contacts. If the bar was rather high, it may have been tougher to clear (e.g. the treatment would've needed to have a bigger impact to be significant).

Having raised those issues, I want to note that these are fairly common problems in evaluation research (not knowing much about either study non-participants or about services received by the control group), and they don't affect MDRC's interpretations of findings. But these problems may help us understand a little bit more about why more substantial effects weren't observed.

Before wrapping up, I want to give MDRC credit for paying attention to more than simply academic outcomes in this study-- they tested for social and health effects as well, including effects on stress (but didn't find any). As I've written here before, we need to bring the study of student health and stress into educational research in a more systematic way, and I'm very glad to see MDRC doing that.

So, in the end, what have we learned? I have no doubt that the costs of changing these advising ratios are substantial, and the impacts in this case were clearly low. Right now, that doesn't lend too much credence to increasing spending on student services. But, this doesn't mean that more targeted advising might not be more effective. Perhaps it can really help men of color (who are largely absent from this study). Clearly, (drumroll/eye-rolling please), more research is needed.

You have read this article college degree / community college with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/08/strengthening-student-support-sensible.html. Thanks!

Bloomberg Takes a Cue from Obama

When my colleagues and I crafted our Brookings blueprint on community college reform earlier this year, one of our greatest hopes was that federal leadership would spur real changes at the state and local level. More specifically, we hoped that if President Obama spoke out on the important role played by community colleges, and came forward with a proposal to substantially ramp up their resources, he wouldn't be alone. The message-- and the money-- would travel.

At least that was our hope. Call us naive, but really that's the best way to scale up change.

So we were all incredibly psyched to read in August 14's New York Times that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has pledged $50 million to that city's community colleges-- provided he's there to give out the money during a 3rd term of course.

According to the Times, "Mr. Bloomberg’s four-year proposal calls for graduating 120,000 students by 2020 from the city’s six community colleges, a 43 percent increase over the 84,000 students that are currently expected to graduate by that time, his campaign said. Nationally, President Obama has allocated $12 billion aimed at getting 5 million more Americans to graduate from the nation’s 1,200 community colleges by 2020."

This is a welcome shift in attitude from Bloomberg, whom (at least as I understand it) hasn't exactly made life easy for community colleges so far. I'll be in New York several times this fall, and look forward to learning more about exactly how that city's community colleges feel about his intentions. Stay tuned...

You have read this article Barack Obama / Brookings Institution / community college / Michael Bloomberg / New York City / New York Times with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/08/bloomberg-takes-cue-from-obama.html. Thanks!

(Re)Focusing on What Matters

Last week I spoke at a meeting of the Lumina Foundation’s Achieving the Dream Initiative, a meeting of policymakers from 15 states all working to improve the effectiveness of community colleges. At one point, a data working group shared results of its efforts to create new ways to measure college outputs. This was basically a new kind of report card, one capable of reporting results for different subgroups of students, and enabling comparisons of outcomes across colleges. Something like it might someday replace the data collection currently part of the IPEDS.

While it's always gratifying to see state policymakers engaging with data and thinking about how to use it in meaningful ways, I couldn’t help but feel that even this seemingly forward-thinking group was tending toward the status quo. The way we measure and report college outputs right now consistently reinforces a particular way of thinking-- a framework that focuses squarely on colleges and their successes or failures.

What’s the matter with that, you’re probably wondering? After all, aren’t schools the ones we need to hold accountable for outcomes and improved performance? Well, perhaps. But what we’re purportedly really interested in—or what we should be interested in—is students, and their successes or failures. If that's the case, then students, rather than colleges, need to be at the very center of our thinking and policymaking. Right now this isn't the case.

Let’s play this out a bit more. Current efforts are afoot to find ways to measure college outcomes that make more colleges comfortable with measurement and accountability--and thus help bring them onboard. That typically means using measures that allow even the lowest-achieving colleges at least a viable opportunity for success, and using measures colleges feels are meaningful, related to what they think they’re supposed to be doing. An example: the 3-year associates degree completion rates of full-time community college entrant deemed “college ready” by a standardized test. We can measure this for different schools and report the results. Where does that get us? We can then see which colleges have higher rates, and which have lower ones.

But then what? Can we then conclude some colleges are doing a better job than others? Frankly, no. It’s quite possible that higher rates at some colleges are attributable to student characteristics or contextual characteristics outside an individual college (e.g. proximity to other colleges, local labor market, region, etc) that explain the differences. But that’s hard to get people to focus on when what’s simplest to see are differences between colleges.

It's not clear that this approach actually helps students. What if, instead, states reported outcomes for specified groups of students without disaggregating by college? How might the policy conversation change? Well, for example, a state could see a glaring statewide gap in college completion among majority and minority students. It would then (hopefully) move to the next step of looking for sources of the problem—likely trying to identify the areas with the greatest influence, and the areas with the most policy-amenable areas of influence. This might lead analysts back to the colleges in the state to look for poor or weak performers, but it might instead lead them to aspects of k-12 preparation, state financial aid policy, the organizational structure of the higher education system, etc. The point is that in order to help students, states would need to do more than simply point to colleges and work to inspire them to change. They’d be forced to try and pinpoint the source(s) of the problems and then work on them. I expect the approaches would need to vary by state.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to absolve any college of responsibility for educating its students. What I’m suggesting is that we think hard about why the emphasis right now rests so heavily on relative college performance—an approach that embraces and even creates more insitutional competition—rather than on finding efficient and effective ways to increase the success of our students. Are we over-utilizing approaches, often adopted without much critical thought, that reify and perpetuate our past mistakes? I think so.

Image Credit: www.openjarmedia.com

You have read this article Achieving The Dream / community college / data / higher education / Lumina Foundation / policy with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/07/refocusing-on-what-matters.html. Thanks!

The Ugliness of For-Profits

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

I admit it. I have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to for-profit providers of higher education. Until now, I wasn’t entirely sure why. After all, I generally like competition and think that more options for students is a good thing.

But I grew nauseous reading this Reuters article, which summarizes President Obama’s American Graduation Initiative and concludes (with a nearly audible sigh of relief) that it doesn’t present a threat to the for-profit sector. Specifically, while “analysts said the program for community colleges could make them more competitive against firms such as Apollo Group Inc, Corinthian Colleges, ITT Educational Services Inc and Lincoln Educational Services Corp….the amount of money earmarked for the program would result in only a marginal increment in budgets for community colleges and have a small impact on these companies in the short term.”

Oh, well thank goodness. Because we wouldn’t want our efforts to increase degree completion rates in this country to hurt your bottom line—god forbid. Lest we forget for one moment that America is in the business of education, an analyst from Wedbush Morgan Securities states “"We would be more cautious on the market-funded sector had President Obama added another zero to the proposed $12 billion targeted for community colleges."

My goodness, yes—good thing the feds didn’t give too much money to the colleges serving the widest swath of Americans. Then you for-profits might really have to compete on a level playing field.

You have read this article Barack Obama / blog / Chronicle of Higher Education / community college / higher education / President with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/07/the-ugliness-of-for-profits.html. Thanks!

Obama Endorses Community College Reform

It's a very big day for the nation's community colleges. In today's Washington Post, our president praises them, and calls for additional funding to support their work. In particular, President Obama writes, "We can reallocate funding to help them modernize their facilities, increase the quality of online courses and ultimately meet the goal of graduating 5 million more Americans from community colleges by 2020."

On Friday I spent the morning speaking with staff from the U.S. House of Representatives Community College Caucus, and was impressed by the significant turnout and detailed questions they asked. Then, TIME magazine moved on a substantial piece noting the importance of the 2-year sector as well.

This thing has legs. It's a very exciting time.... Let's hope that the President's ability to connect community colleges not only to job training but to his goals for increasing degree attainment continues. An integrated agenda will pay off.

NOTE: On July 14, 2009 the President will announce a proposal for $12 billion in support for community colleges, to enable them to produce an additional 5 billion graduates over 10 years. This is a remarkable turn of events.

----------

RELATED ARTICLES:
New York Times, "A Boon To Two-Year Colleges, Affirming Their Value", July 14, 2009
NYT, "Obama Attacks On Economy and Seeks Billions For Community Colleges", July 15, 2009
Derrick Jackson, "Community Colleges' New Clout", Boston Globe, July 18, 2009
David Brooks, "No Size Fits All", New York Times, July 19, 2009
Cap Times, "UW-Madison profs help shape bold initiative for community colleges" July 20, 2009

You have read this article Barack Obama / community college / President / TIME magazine / Washington Post with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-endorses-community-college-reform.html. Thanks!

The Closed-Door Community College

My skin can't stop tingling since I read in the Chronicle this morning that the 11% budget cut faced by the California Community College System will result in an enrollment reduction of 250,000 students.

That's a population nearly the size of Madison, Wisconsin. It's larger than the entire UC system combined.

Come fall students will show up to register for classes and find them full or otherwise unavailable. Those who sign up early-- and make no mistake, these are the most savvy and well-off among community college-goers-- will likely be fine. The rest will not. Where else are they supposed to go?

I spoke about the collision of high demand and low support for two-year colleges at Brookings a few weeks ago. I tried to impress upon the audience the severity of the problem. Well, folks, here we are...

You have read this article California / California Community College System / college access / college entry / community college with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/05/the-closed-door-community-college.html. Thanks!

America Must Put Community Colleges First

Sara's op-ed ("America Must Put Community Colleges First" ) is published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. In it, she argues that community colleges -- given the much larger number of students they serve as compared with four-year institutions -- need a renewed government commitment to their support and leadership.

Faced with high tuition, a weak economy, and substantial competition for admission to four-year colleges, today's students are more likely than ever to attend one of the nation's 1,045 community colleges. According to Department of Education statistics, enrollment at community colleges grew by 741 percent from 1963 to 2006, compared with 197 percent at public four-year institutions and 170 percent at private four-year colleges. It increased from about two million in 2000 to 6.2 million in the first half of this decade alone. Yet, based on data from the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability, community colleges receive less than one-third the level of federal support per full-time-equivalent student ($790) that public four-year colleges do ($2,600), and have correspondingly poorer outcomes.

The op-ed offers four recommendations included in a report [policy brief] authored for the Brookings Institution by Sara, Doug Harris at UW-Madison, Chris Mazzeo at the Consortium for Chicago School Research, and Greg Kienzl at the Institute for Higher Education Policy.

The four recommendations are:

1. Development of national goals and a performance-measurement system. The overarching goal of national higher-education policy should be to effectively educate students at the postsecondary level. While colleges should focus on the needs of their students, it is important that they also have clearly defined goals along those lines, with incentives to match. Success in a new system should be measured by progress. Right now appropriations to community colleges are primarily based on enrollment, without regard to whether their students earn degrees or get good jobs. That gears incentives toward inputs and process, rather than outcomes.

The federal government should invest resources specifically to promote greater success for students. Colleges that receive more money should be required to track and report student results, consistent with the many community-college missions, such as whether they completed a minimum number of credits, transferred, or earned a degree. Over time, a majority of federal dollars would be awarded based not on enrollment but on colleges' performance on such crucial measures.

2. Expanded federal support. To bring community colleges to the table and convey its strong support for their work, the federal government should double its current level of direct support, from $2-billion to $4-billion. Resource needs are significant and pressing. Since 1974, the net number of new community colleges has been just 149, a growth rate of only 17 percent. The result: Many campuses today are bursting at the seams, and increasing numbers of students must be turned away. In the short-term, federal spending would support infrastructure upgrades that truly stimulate the economy. Over the longer term, that investment would add modestly to higher-education expenditures but more than pay off by increasing the number of students who can enroll, graduate, and contribute to the nation's economy.

3. Innovation to enhance educational quality. We further call on the Department of Education to focus half of the proposed $2.5-billion college access and completion incentive fund on efforts to create innovative community-college policies and practices and then evaluate them. The two-year sector is not only overutilized and underresourced, but it also has too little information about how to effectively improve student outcomes. That problem can and must be remedied by connecting practitioners with well-trained researchers who share a common goal of helping community colleges succeed in meeting goals and gaining more support in return. For example, practitioners and researchers could collaborate on putting in place and evaluating approaches that accelerate progress in developmental education, integrate occupational and academic content in new curricula, or develop systemwide assessment and placement policies.

4. Accountability through student data systems. Finally, the federal government should support the improvement of student-level data systems to track community-college performance. That is the only way to operationalize real accountability and track progress and improvement. Most states do not have the ability to track individual outcomes throughout the education system and into the labor force. But thanks to the federal stimulus package, more will have that opportunity. Those efforts must be continued, for without the ability to evaluate outcomes based on hard data, student and institutional progress cannot be measured.

Sara is participating in a discussion of the report at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC today.

You have read this article Brookings Institution / community college / federal / higher education with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/05/america-must-put-community-colleges.html. Thanks!

Why Reverse Transfer?

Today's Inside Higher Ed covers an article I wrote with UW-Madison doctoral student Fabian Pfeffer on the topic of reverse transfer. The basic gist is this: reverse transfer may be more common now, but it's certainly not benign. Students who reverse transfer tend to have parents who aren't highly educated, and therefore not as informed about how to navigate the game of 4-year college life. And in turn, the degree completion rates of these students-- who move from a 4-year to a 2-year school, are correspondingly low.

The article responds to anecdotal evidence suggesting that a lack of money drives the decision to leave a 4-year college for a community college. While we're the first to admit that money matters-- probably a LOT (see my other investigation into this) our national data indicates that the underlying reason has to do with a lack of information (since the greatest SES disparities are based on parental education not family income).

To illustrate this point, here are some examples:

Despite reasonably strong academic preparation, Joe has a C average in the first year of college. He's working nights at the local grocery store, and falling asleep in class. He doesn't see a way out-- when he calls home, Dad says he hasn't gotten any money to help, and Joe keeps working. Eventually, lacking a better solution, he leaves and moves back home to attend community college.

Mary also feels she doesn't have enough money to persist in college. Her family financial situation has changed when her mom lost her job, but she doesn't know that her financial aid officer can help. Instead of submitting a new FAFSA (a complex process), she switches to the less-expensive local community college.

Suzanne did well in high school, and has enough financial aid to get by. But when her initial grades freshman year were low B's, her feelings were hurt and she didn't know what to do. Her parents didn't go far in college, and couldn't help her understand what might explain those grades (one possibility is grade deflation; another might be her writing abilities). Demoralized, she leaves to go to a school where she thinks she can do better.

In each case we might mistake the underlying reasons for the student's reverse transfer decision. In Joe's case and Mary's it looks like money. In Suzanne's, it looks like grades. But when we look at thousands of these students, and begin to look closely- comparing apples and apples-- a common theme emerges. The underlying issue is a lack of information.

What if an advisor or a professor helped Joe find a job that let him sleep at night? What if Mary's financial aid officer checked in with her, and explained there was more aid available? What if Suzanne's professor called her in to discuss her grade, and explain how she could improve?

In each case, the information provided by the 4-year college could help fill in information these students couldn't get from their parents. Note: I do NOT fault the parents for not having more education. Since we know many students in need do not access already available services for good reasons (e.g. they are working long hours, etc), we need a multi-pronged approach (involving both faculty and staff, for example) and likely a mandatory one. How about a required check-in every term, or twice a term-- during class time? It could help.

You have read this article college / college completion / community college / degree / Inside Higher Ed / transfer with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-reverse-transfer.html. Thanks!

The Best Ideas Seem to Come Out of Thin Air

I was at dinner with a group of community college leaders last month when one administrator began to tell me about an "innovation" his college was trying. I'd asked for his thoughts on the productivity agenda in higher ed, an effort to do more with less. Doug Harris and I are working on a Lumina Foundation initiative and are tasked with identifying the most cost effective ways to increase the number of college grads-- groan, a laudable yet seemingly impossible task.

So this guy starts telling me about his program- a call center operating on a $50,000 per year budget. The center makes two kinds of calls- those focusing on recruitment, and those focusing on retention. The first set includes calls to follow-up on whether students took the ACT, did the FAFSA, finished their application etc. The second set are efforts to check in-- why aren't you enrolled this semester, what's going on with an undecided major, welcome calls to late registrants, etc. A staff of 4 has made 5,000 recruitment calls and 10,000 retention calls in just over a year.

And lo and behold-- it looks like, based on pretty solid evidence, this thing is successful- and paying for itself. Comparisons between students who were called and reached, those who were left a voicemail, and those who were called but no message were left, indicate that even the most conservative assessment reveals that the call center not only covers its own costs but GENERATES new revenue through tuitition.

Surprise surprise-- students respond when someone calls to say "I care." On some calls students reported problems that administrators were then able to resolve. In others, students gain needed information they would've otherwise gone without.

Doug and I are still working on these cost-effectiveness ratios, but I gotta tell you-- right now call centers are right there on top. Who knew? When I said this talented gentleman (Joe DeHart at Des Moines Area Community College) where the idea came from, he referred me to his president, Rob Denson. Rob reports this was a completely organic process-- someone decided to make a few recruitment calls that were well-received, it seemed like a good idea to ramp up, and so they did.

At a recent Lumina Foundation meeting no one in the room seemed to be able to name other colleges trying this. My question is, why the heck not? Backed by strong evidence that social capital is unequally distributed, that information is invaluable, and that people are often receptive to help, this program may well be succeeding--despite its incredible simplicity.

I love stumbling into new ideas like this. You can bet you'll continue to find me at dinners like these, hoping to come upon another one. In the meantime, if you've got thoughts on innovative programs or policies you've tried out in higher ed, write me a note. If you've got data we can use to estimate both costs and effects-- and oh man is that rare-- so much the better!

You have read this article college completion / community college / Lumina Foundation with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/04/the-best-ideas-seem-to-come-out-of-thin.html. Thanks!

More Good News From the Obama Administration

The first step to transforming the role of community colleges in the American landscape is elevating their status. President Obama and Secretary Duncan took a great step in the right direction today, naming Martha Kanter, chancellor of the Foothill-De Anza Community College District (California), the new under secretary for education.

Stay tuned... next month the Brookings Institution will issue a paper in which several colleagues and I lay out an agenda we certainly hope Dr. Kanter will embrace and make her own.

Check out Mike Kirst's thoughts on Kanter here....

You have read this article community college / Martha Kanter / U.S. Department of Education with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-good-news-from-obama-administration.html. Thanks!

Then and Now

In one of the most radical higher ed policy moves of the twentieth century, the City University of New York (CUNY) threw open its doors to urban residents, did away with tuition, and let the masses enter. This was the early 1970s, and the move may have helped quell social uprisings (as suggested by David Karen and Kevin Dougherty).

Fast forward 30 years, and as empirical evidence of the positive effects of CUNY's transformation mounted (see the longitudinal analysis performed by David Lavin and Paul Attewell, among others), CUNY gradually rolled backwards. Over-enrollment meant crowded classrooms, demoralized faculty, lots of remediation, a decline in "prestige." At the same time it also meant greater opportunities to grow a NYC black middle class, and increases in the attainment of women and their children. The city responded negatively, ending remediation at 4-year colleges, shifting the majority of poorer students to 2-year schools, and generally imposing regressive policies.

Now, travel south to Washington DC, which has lacked a community college for decades, relying heavily on the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) to provide access to college-goers who couldn't afford a private school and/or didn't want to leave home. UDC has been through a lot (and that's a massive understatement). Now, in 2009, at the peak of collective ambitions for a bachelor's degree, it is ending its open door policy and hiking tuition from $3800 to $7000. Not surprisingly, students are upset.

Now, the goal of this transformation is in some ways a laudable one. DC needs a community college, and the plan is to make UDC partly a more selective 4-year college (e.g., 2.5 GPA and 1200 SATs) and partly an open-door community college. But it's hard not be wary of this move. It's being championed by the same guy who tried to end open admissions at Queens College-- Allen Sessoms. It flies in the face of plenty of evidence that the differentiation of colleges like this, if not accompanied by some excellent policies that equip all students with great navigational abilities, will result in greater inequalities. It's pretty unlikely that UDC the community college will draw folks into higher education who weren't already enrolling when UDC was cheap and offering a BA.

It is clear that relegating remedial coursework to the purview of community colleges unnecessarily restricts the college opportunities of a group of students who are disproportionately disadvantaged to begin with. Requiring more students to begin at a two-year college is likely to reduce their chances for bachelor’s degree completion. At least one study from New York suggests that students denied access to four-year institutions because of a need for remediation (known as being “de-admitted”) often do not end up enrolling at community colleges and thus are not in college at all. Eliminating remedial education at four-year institutions may therefore in effect diminish opportunities for earning a bachelor’s degree. Not what DC needs.

The Washington Post reports that the citizens of Washington DC are agitated over the proposed "transformation." In a city already deeply divided by race, income, and education, this is hardly a step in the right direction.

You have read this article community college / CUNY / higher education / UDC / University of the District of Columbia / Washington DC with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/02/then-and-now.html. Thanks!

Stimulus for America's Community Colleges

The following is my new web-ed, co-authored by Alan Berube:

The Brookings Institution

February 03, 2009 —

Many people in the education sector are rooting for the economic recovery package now working its way through Congress.

That’s because the package’s education component—an estimated $150 billion in the House plan—represents a central part of the Obama administration’s efforts to lay the groundwork for future economic growth. These investments can produce tremendous returns, driving long-run employment and earnings gains, and increasing the chances that future generations will become well-educated.

When it comes to investments in higher education, however, President Obama and congressional leaders should exercise focus. Resources should be targeted in ways that stimulate enhanced educational attainment, and close disparities in degree completion.

To that end, the recovery package—and future federal higher education policy—must do more to help transform America’s community colleges.

Faced with high tuition costs, a weak economy, and increased competition for admission to four-year colleges, students today are more likely than at any other point in history to attend one of the nation’s 1,100 community colleges. Annually, community college enrollment is increasing at more than twice the rate of that at four-year colleges, by 2.3 million students in the first half of this decade alone.

The rise of these institutions reflects their important roles in training workers, especially first-generation college students, for well-paying, high-demand jobs and in providing students a bridge to even higher levels of education.

We need to get more out of the system, however. Columbia University researchers estimate that the community college dropout rate is 50 percent. Despite the fact that community college degree and certificate holders earn considerably more than workers with only a high school diploma, just one-third of students who entered a community college in 1995 completed a degree of any kind by 2001. With many of the fastest-growing occupations requiring some post-secondary education, but not necessarily a bachelor’s degree, serious challenges await if community college performance does not improve.

Part of the problem lies in the way we fund community colleges. Owing to their historical role in serving local labor markets, community colleges are hampered by a heavy financial dependence on states and localities, where negative budget outlooks today portend deep funding cuts. Moreover, they are funded primarily based on enrollment, without regard to whether their students earn degrees or get good jobs. This gears community colleges' incentives toward inputs and process, rather than outcomes like student success.

Given the critical function of community colleges for meeting our nation’s future economic needs, the federal government has a responsibility to improve this state of affairs. Its current role is limited; community colleges receive less than 30 percent the level of federal government support provided to four-year colleges.

A forthcoming paper from the Brookings Institution proposes a major shift in this relationship. It calls for four key federal reforms: a new focus on national goals for the two-year sector guided by a first-ever accountability system; expanded federal funding to help community colleges meet these more ambitious goals; stimulating greater innovation in community college policies and practices to enhance educational quality; and developing student data systems that enable crucial tracking of outcomes. As recognized by ambitious initiatives such as the Lumina Foundation’s Achieving the Dream project, a “culture of evidence” focused on student achievement—when coupled with capacity-building efforts to make success possible— can have a rapid and transformative impact.

On funding, the federal government should double its current level of direct support for community colleges, from $6 billion to $12 billion, in order to account for 30 percent of their budgets. Resource needs, especially for infrastructure, technology, and faculty, are significant and pressing.

Since 1974, only 149 new community colleges have been built, and many campuses today are bursting at the seams. While community college students tend to enroll part-time, even these students require space in which to learn. In the first two years, this spending would amount to just 1.4 percent of the proposed costs of the recovery package, and would support infrastructure upgrades that truly stimulate the economy. Over the longer term, it would add modestly to federal higher education expenditures, but would ensure that our nation realizes an economic payoff from increasing enrollments.

The federal government should not simply expand funding, but use these new resources explicitly to promote greater success for community college students. Colleges receiving enhanced funds would be required to track and report student results, such as completion of a minimum number of credits, earning a degree, and landing a good-paying job. Over time, a majority of federal dollars would be awarded based not on enrollment, but on colleges’ performance on these critical measures.

Our community college system, long on the sidelines in funding and policy debates, now needs a seat at the table. Ensuring that American workers are trained to compete in the global marketplace, to earn a place in the middle class, and to fulfill their responsibilities as citizens requires expanding and improving their experience with postsecondary education. By better supporting the affordable and accessible higher educational institutions found within all of our communities, and asking more of them in exchange, we can put our nation and its families back on the path to economic prosperity.

You have read this article Barack Obama / Brookings Institution / community college / federal / higher education / stimulus with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/02/stimulus-for-america-community-colleges.html. Thanks!

Treatment of Transfers

What to do, what to do about those pesky community college students? Their graduation rates are so low, they lack big ambitions, they bring those families and kids and jobs, they're "older," they're poorer, they're loan averse... no wonder their transfer rates to 4-year schools are so low!

Sound familiar? To those of you familiar with the extended policy and academic debate about the educational opportunities created by or diverted by community colleges, well, it should.

I reported Friday about the increasing numbers of students changing colleges. And yet, and yet...here's an excerpt from a recent New York Times online chat with a couple of admissions gurus from 4-year colleges:

QUESTION: I’m curious as to how admissions criteria are altered or shifted in importance for a transfer applicant compared with a freshman applicant.

QUESTION: How are transfer applicants from community colleges viewed in the admissions process? What advice would you offer these applicants?

ANSWERS:
Mr. Poch of Pomona: There are huge variations in transfer student possibilities from institution to institution. Some have lots of room and some little or none. USC enrolls more than 1000 transfer students each year. Pomona has room for 10 to 15. Obviously different factors affect both of these patterns and common answers will be hard to find.
Transferring to Pomona is tough. There are proportionally many fewer spaces than there are for first year students in huge part because of the high graduation rate of our incoming first years. Space doesn’t open up. We look at the high school record, especially for those seeking to transfer as sophomores. We look closely at the college record and the extent to which the student has pursued a general education program which would leave them time to dedicate the time they and we would wish to their electives and their major when they enroll at Pomona. We will explore the reasons for transfer and to understand as best we may about why Pomona and how the student sees life changing in our educational environment. Are they transferring FROM something or TO something?

Mr. Brenzel of Yale: Our unusual system of residential colleges makes the freshman year and sophomore years critical to our undergraduate program. So we maintain only a very small transfer program, limited to 24 places each year.

Mr. Syverson of Lawrence: In the case of transfers, the bulk of the academic evaluation focuses on the college record. We welcome transfer applicants from community colleges and treat them essentially the same as transfer applicants from four-year colleges.

What is wrong here? Oh, let me count the ways:

1. Mr. Pomona--A nice back-handed slam against USC for admitting plenty of transfer students, by not-so-subtly suggesting that only poor retention rates could lead to another places for transfer students (Pomona's 6 year grad rate is 93%, USC's is 84%). Not true: underclassmen require different classes and services than upperclassmen. Schools often find they can fit more upperclassmen on a campus even when retention rates are quite high.

2. Mr. Pomona again-- Oh, beware that wayward transfer student who is just trying to escape from a crappy school and come running to yours... Yeah, we all know about those community college transfer students banging on the doors of 4-year schools like Pomona, just dying to run from their community college

3. Mr. Yale-- Yeah, I'm sure the 1st two years of Yale make it so different that students who did their first two years elsewhere could never merit your precious degree.

4. Mr. Lawrence-- Why treat applicants from community colleges the same as those from 4-year colleges? Why is this something you are showing off, like it's a good thing?

Bottom line- why aren't more kids transferring? Open your eyes: it's all about preserving privilege. Make the kids spend more time on our campus before they can get a degree (read: pay more money to our school). Keep out those bottom-dwelling community college goers who might try to sneak past the gates. Watch out, in all fairness, students who had an opportunity to earn a BA must be treated the same as those coming from a school that doesn't grant one!

At least there it all is, in the New York Times!

You have read this article college / community college / New York Times / students / transfer with the title community college. You can bookmark this page URL http://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/01/treatment-of-transfers.html. Thanks!