nrimqfiu.
.....

 

«734$ ..

magic

:7) LIB gate
I. ' i hi an
200% Michigan“?

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A NATIONAL STUDY OF INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES FOR
THE EVALUATION OF TRANSFER APPLICANTS

presented by

ANDREW LOREN FLAGEL

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong
Education

 

 

 
   

rofessor’s Signature

gm/fié, 9200 5)

Date

MSU is an affinnative-aclion, equal—opportunity employer

no-0-o-I—o-n-n-u-I-n-oun-o-o-n—u—o-o—n-n-u-o-n-n-I—I—o-u-I--c—n-n-0---u-c-u-o-El-.---I-n—n-I-I—I-I-I_-n-u—o-u---c-n-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Acc&PrelelRC/DateDue,indd

A NATIONAL STUDY OF INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES FOR
THE EVALUATION OF TRANSFER APPLICANTS

By

Andrew Loren FIageI

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fiJlfiIlment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

2008

ABSTRACT

A NATIONAL STUDY OF INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES FOR
THE EVALUATION OF TRANSFER APPLICANTS

By
Andrew Loren F Iagel

This study surveyed chief enrollment officers at four-year institutions regarding
policies for the evaluation of transfer applicants as a new component of the National
Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) Admissions Trends Survey.
Regression analysis was conducted to determine which institutional characteristics had a
bearing on whether, and to what degree, admission factors are in use for the evaluation of
transfer applicants.

Applicant’s grade point average from their prior post-secondary institution was
the most important factor, regardless of institutional characteristics. The results indicate
that institutions that are smaller, private, and that have more competitive admissions are
likely to utilize a variety of evaluation factors. The results strongly suggest that many
institutions have very little complexity in their transfer process, and that more complex
policies are likely based on models developed for freshman evaluation. This suggests
that policy makers and institutional leaders should examine transfer applicant evaluation
policies. In addition, prospective transfer students are provided with insight as to how

institutions are likely to evaluate their applications for admission.

This research is dedicated first to my wife and son for tolerating all the time this took
from them. The results are dedicated to students who transfer into baccalaureate
institutions, who are often viewed as filler for open spaces by enrollment managers, as
less qualified by faculty members, and as less important by institutional leaders. You are

in the majority — it is time for attitudes to change.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study could not have been completed without the generous support of the
National Association for College Admissions Counseling, and in particular David
Hawkins, Director of Public Policy, and Melissa C Iinedinst, Assistant Director of
Research. Their prior work evaluating freshman application evaluation policies served as
the model for this study. By including this study in their annual survey of chief
enrollment officers they eased access and encouraged results for this new research effort.

My deep appreciation also goes to Vijaya Sampath, who was then data analyst for
the Office of Enrollment Development at George Mason University and is now an
institutional researcher at the Northern Virginia Community College. Her expertise with
SAS programming, and her very patient explanations of hundreds of pages of output, was
tremendously helpful in analyzing the data.

Abbie Redmond, a graduate of George Mason University, proofread the full
document twice. Madelyn French, then my administrative assistant, was of great help in
tracking down articles, no matter how obscure, and in proofreading the early proposal, as
was Tanneh Kamara, who has worked extensively with me at Mason in developing our
Pathways to the Baccalaureate program with Northern Virginia Community College.

I am also very appreciative of the members of my committee who offered
wonderful insight in developing the proposal and the results. My thanks to Marilyn
Amey, Lee June, Matt Wawrzynski (especially for taking on the thankless role of format

and statistics police) and, of course, my adviser and mentor, MaryLee Davis.

iv

Finally, my deep gratitude goes to the faculty and staff of the George Mason

University, particularly Dr. Linda Schwartztsein, for all their support for this endeavor.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................ 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
Problem statement ................................................................................................ 3
Research questions ............................................................................................... 6
Underlying assumptions ....................................................................................... 7
Overview of methodology .................................................................................... 8
Definition of terms ............................................................................................. 10
Significance of the study .................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 17
Overview ........................................................................................................... 17
Enrollment trends and demographic data ............................................................ l7
Purposes and goals of the admission process ...................................................... 20
Admission methods ............................................................................................ 25
Admission evaluation criteria ............................................................................. 31
Academic record .................................................................................... 32

Standardized tests ................................................................................... 36

Nonacademic criteria .............................................................................. 44

Articulation as an admission process .................................................................. 51
Transfer student admission, enrollment, and performance .................................. 55
Literature review limitations .............................................................................. 61
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 67
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 67
Survey method ................................................................................................... 69
Research design and Data Collection .................................................................. 70
Sampling ................................................................................................ 71

Data Collection Tool .............................................................................. 71

Stratification ........................................................................................... 72
Confidentiality ........................................................................................ 73

Analysis ............................................................................................................. 74

Issues of validity and reliability .......................................................................... 75
Methods of validity ................................................................................. 75

Methods of reliability ............................................................................. 76
Generalizability of data ........................................................................... 76

Delimitations ..................................................................................................... 77

vi

CHAPTER 1v: RESEARCH FINDINGS .............. w ........................................................ 79

Institutional Control ........................................................................................... 84
Freshman Admission Rate .................................................................................. 90
Transfer Admission Rate .................................................................................... 99
Total Enrollment .............................................................................................. 107
Freshman Class Size ........................................................................................ 116
Transfer Class Size .......................................................................................... 125
Results of Regression Analysis ........................................................................ 134
Grade Point Average at Post-Secondary Institution ............................... 135

High School Grade Point Average ........................................................ 135

Scores on Standardized Tests ................................................................ 136
Quality of Prior Post-Secondary Institution ........................................... 137
Quality of High School ......................................................................... 137

Essay or Writing Sample ...................................................................... 138

Work or Extracurricular Activities ........................................................ 138
Recommendations ................................................................................ 1 39

Ability to Pay ....................................................................................... 139
Race/Ethnicity ...................................................................................... 140
Interest in Attending ............................................................................. 140
Alumni Relations .................................................................................. 141
Interview .............................................................................................. 141
Received a GED ................................................................................... 141
Received an Associate Degree .............................................................. 142
Attended a Community College ............................................................ 142
Attended a Highly Competitive Four-Year College ............................... 142

More than 60 Hours of Transferable Credit ........................................... 143
Visited the Campus ............................................................................... 143
Frequently Contacted the Admissions Office ........................................ 144

Over 25 Years Old ................................................................................ 144
Academic or Professional Focus ........................................................... 144

Plans to Enroll Full-Time ..................................................................... 145

Plans to Enroll Part-Time ..................................................................... 145

Open Response Section .................................................................................... 146
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 148
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 148
Methodology .................................................................................................... 149
Overview of Findings ....................................................................................... 149
Findings Contrary to Hypothesis ...................................................................... 155
Limitations ....................................................................................................... 1 57
Implications for Practice .................................................................................. 158
Implications for Future Research ...................................................................... 163

Vii

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS ..................................................................... 165

APPENDIX B: LETTERS TO SUBJECTS ................................................................. 179
APPENDIX C: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES ........................................................... 182
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 196

viii

Table A

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 1 1

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

LIST OF TABLES

Admissions Processes ............................................................................. 27
Frequency of Responses on Scaled Items ................................................ 80
Frequency of Indicator of Top Factor ...................................................... 81
Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor ................................................ 81
Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor ................................................... 82
Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors ....................................... 83
Distribution of Respondents by Institutional Control .............................. 85
Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Institutional Control ............ 86
Associations on Scaled Responses by Institutional Control ................... 183
Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Institutional Control ................ 87
Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Institutional Control ........... 87
Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Institutional Control .............. 88
Associations for Top Three Factors by Institutional Control ................. 184
Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by .................................. 89

Institutional Control
Associations for Additional Factors by Institutional Control ................. 184
Distribution of Responses on Competitiveness Scale for ......................... 91

Freshman Admission Rate

Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Freshman Admit Rate .......... 92

Associations on Scaled Responses by Freshman Admit Rate ................ 185
Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Freshman Admit Rate ............. 94
Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Freshman Admit Rate ......... 95
Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Freshman Admit Rate ........... 96

ix

Table 21

Table 22

Table 23

Table 24

Table 25

Table 26

Table 27

Table 28

Table 29

Table 30

Table 31

Table 32

Table 33

Table 34

Table 35

Table 36

Table 37

Table 38

Table 39

Table 40

Table 41

Table 42

Associations for Top Three Factors by Freshman Admit Rate ............... 186
Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by Freshman .................. 98
Admit Rate

Associations for Additional Factors by Freshman Admit Rate .............. 186
Competitiveness Scale by Transfer Admission Rate .............................. 100
Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Transfer Admit Rate .......... 101
Associations on Scaled Responses by Transfer Admit Rate .................. 187
Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Transfer Admit Rate ............. 102

Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Transfer Admit Rate ......... 103

Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Transfer Admit Rate ............ 104
Associations for Top Three Factors by Transfer Admit Rate ................. 188
Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by Transfer .................. 106
Admit Rate

Associations for Additional Factors by Transfer Admit Rate ................ 188
Distribution of Respondents by Institutional Enrollment Size .............. 107

Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Institutional Enrollment ..... 109
Association on Scaled Responses by Institutional Size .......................... 189
Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Institutional Enrollment ........ 1 1 1
Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Institutional Enrollment.... 112
Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Institutional Enrollment ....... 113
Associations for Top Three Factors by Institutional Enrollment ............ 190

Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by ................................ 1 15
Institutional Enrollment

Associations for Additional Factors by Institutional Enrollment ........... 190

Distribution of Responses by Freshman Enrollment .............................. 117

Table 43

Table 44

Table 45

Table 46

Table 47

Table 48

Table 49

Table 50

Table 51

Table 52

Table 53

Table 54

Table 55

Table 56

Table 57

Table 58

Table 59

Table 60

Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Freshman Enrollment ........ 118
Association on Scaled Responses by Freshman Enrollment .................. 191
Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Freshman Enrollment ........... 120

Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Freshman Enrollment ....... 121

Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Freshman Enrollment .......... 122
Associations for Top Three Factors by Freshman Enrollment ............... 192
Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by ................................ 124
Freshman Enrollment

Associations for Additional Factors by Freshman Enrollment ............... 192
Distribution of Responses by Transfer Enrollment ................................ 126
Frequency of Responses on Scaled Items by Transfer Enrollment ......... 127
Associations for Scaled Responses by Transfer Enrollment .................. 193
Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Transfer Enrollment .............. 129
Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Transfer Enrollment ......... 130
Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Transfer Enrollment ............ 131
Associations for Top Three Factors by Transfer Enrollment ................. 194
Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by ................................ 133

Transfer Enrollment
Associations for Additional Factors by Transfer Enrollment ................. 194

Results of Regression Analysis ............................................................. 195

xi

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

Community colleges had been in existence since the turn of the

twentieth century, and with the increase in college attendance,

their numbers increased as well, so that by the I960s they were in

every state. By this time, the bachelor ’s degree was the point of

entry to vast areas of the workforce; predictably, the number of

students transferring from two— to four-year colleges increased

during this period (Cohen & Brawer, 2003).

(Jacobs, 2004, p. 3)
Introduction

The college-bound population is growing dramatically as the number of high
school graduates in most states rises sharply. The Western Interstate Commission on
Higher Education projects this increase to be, “about 10 percent more graduates in 2017-
18 than in 2001-02” (Knocking at the College Door, 2003, p.3). If current rates of high
school graduates seeking post-secondary enrollment continue or increase, this implies a
10% or greater increase in the number of high school graduates hoping to enroll in higher
education during that period. These data are supported by projections from the US.
Department of Education, which estimate an increase of 10% in the enrollment of
students in degree seeking institutions between 2006 and 2014 (Husser, 2005).

There is little doubt that a significant portion of this growth will be absorbed by
the community college system. The number of students enrolled in community colleges is
already vast, although there are some differences of opinion as to the exact number. “The
Almanac [2001 Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac] indicates that, 5.3 million
students are enrolled at American community colleges; that figure is expected to increase

to 6.67 million by the year 2010” (Steinmann, Pope, & Miller, 2004, p. 19). Two studies,

however, estimated the number in fall 1999 and fall 2000 between 40 and 42% of

undergraduates in the United States, already over 6 million students (Horn, et a1, 2002;
Knapp, et. a1. 2002), and the latter number was repeated in a recent column in The
Chronicle for Higher Education (Wyner, 2006, B6). It seems these numbers may only
apply to community college students enrolled in degree programs and in courses for
academic credit, as another recent research study found that “America’s community
colleges enroll approximately 10 million credit- and non-credit-seeking students each
year (Laanan, 2001, p. 5)” (cited in Jacobs, 2004, p. 5), and an article in a Lumina
Foundation publication clams that in 2004 there were “11.6 million students attending the
nation’s nearly 1,200 two-year institutions. According to the American Association of
Community Colleges (AACC), these 11.6 million students represent 46 percent of all
US. undergraduates and 45 percent of first-time freshmen” (Giegerich, 2006, p.4). The
most recent data on degree-seeking students in academic courses from the US.
Department of Education, the source for the Almanac data cited by Steinmann, Pope and
Miller, projects 7.2 million students at two-year institution by 2010, and 7.4 million by
2014 (Hussar, 2005).

These numbers are also reflected in the number of institutions, as “the number of
community colleges alone has increased, from 74 in 1915 to 1,244 in 1998” (Cohen &
Brawer, 2003). The number of institutions and students hold great implications for higher
education. Among the issues is the number of students entering community colleges with
the intent of transferring to baccalaureate-granting institutions. A study of students in
1989-90 found that 71% of community college students planned to transfer to a
baccalaureate-granting institution (Bradburn & Hurst, 2001). As was noted recently in

The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Last year alone, community colleges accounted for

45 percent of all first-time freshmen enrolled in higher education. About half of that
number had the goal of attaining a bachelor’s degree” (Dicroce, 2005, B22). If those
numbers intending to transfer remain consistent, the number of students planning to
transfer can be counted in the millions. Based on the projections in the growth of high
school graduates, and the volume of that growth in high school graduates enrolling in the
community college system, that number of graduates can be expected to rise sharply and
dramatically in the near future. Of course, transfer students are not only received from the
community college system A US. Department of Education researcher found “nearly 60
percent of traditional-age undergraduates attend more than one institution” (Adelman,
2005).

This growth has massive implications for higher education. The academic and
social implications of a likely shift in the college-bound population require attention, and
that shift will be seen first in the admission process, the gateway into institutions of

higher education.

Problem Statement

Considering the volume of students seeking to move from community colleges to
baccalaureate-granting institutions, and the number that move between baccalaureate-
granting institutions, it’s surprising so little is known about the process. Direct (a.k.a.
freshman or FTIAC, first time in any college) admission after high school graduation to
four-year institutions has been studied and written about extensively. There is a massive

number of books advising students on the process (not to mention the annual college

ranking and college guide publications), in addition to a volume of academic research on
the structure of the admissions process, ethical decision-making, and the value of various
criteria in the process.

The gap in literature on the transfer admission process is especially surprising as
the impact of community college transfers in higher education goes well beyond the
tremendous number of students involved. The community college population is far more
diverse than the enrollment at baccalaureate-granting institutions, and the community
college is a far more likely destination for students of color and students from families
with a lower socio-economic status, although, as with estimates of total students enrolled,
the estimates of the size of these populations is slightly inconsistent, although researchers
found the makeup of the student body at the community college level consistently
diverse. “According to Eggleston and Lanaan (2001), racial and ethnic minorities
account for approximately 48 percent of the community college population” (Jacobs,
2004, p.6). As a result, it appears that a significant portion of minority students in higher
education are enrolled at the community college level. “In fact, 60 percent of all
Hispanics in higher education are enrolled at community colleges, as are half of all
Women enrolled in college” (Steinmann, Pope, & Miller, 2004, p. 18). A recent article in
a Lumina Foundation publication asserted that, “Community Colleges serve 47 percent of
the nation’s Black undergraduates, 56 percent of Latinos, and 57 percent of Native
Americans” (Giegerich, 2006, p.6). This is not a new phenomenon, as another author
found in analyzing enrollment data from 1994 that “disproportionately large numbers of
underrepresented college students attend community colleges. Approximately 50% of all

minority students begin higher education at 2-year institutions (Carter & Wilson, 1995;

Levitz, 1992), despite the fact that they represent less than 23% of all students in
American higher education (American Council on Education, 1994)” (Cuseo, 2001, p.5).
In addition, ‘fitvith the price of four-year colleges increasingly out of reach for working-
class students, more of them are turning to community colleges” (Burd, 2006, p. A23).
According to the US. Department of Education “2005 Digest of Education Statistics
Tables and Figures” (http://nces.ed. gov), approximately 45% of the minority students
enrolled in degree seeking programs in the United States are enrolled at two-year
institutions.

As noted elsewhere, however, there is literature and research in an area closely
related to the admission of transfer students. Research was conducted on freshman
admission for many years, leading to a robust and detailed body of literature. These
writings generally start with the basic information of current practices in the field,
whether found through survey or conveyed by panels of experts, then explore the
usefulness, efficiency, and ethics of such practices.

These same topics — admission practices, their use, effect, and ethics — apply to
the study of transfer admission policies and procedures and must receive increasing
attention to inform practice, and additional research, in the very near term. Unfortunately,
no comparable study of the basic practices in transfer admissions has been conducted.
This gap regarding transfer practices in admission literature makes it nearly impossible
for other research to progress. What little research that might be developed, without any
baseline information, will be challenging to apply beyond the institutions or students

involved in the particular study.

In answer to that gap, this study used models developed in research on the
admission process for students applying to baccalaureate-granting institutions
immediately following high school as the basis for a survey of baccalaureate-granting

institutions policies for the admission of transfer students.

Research Questions
The basic research question is:
What are the criteria used in the evaluation of applicants with prior post-secondary credit

(transfer students) seeking admission to baccalaureate-granting institutions?

1. Which criteria are used for the evaluation of the admission of transfer students
applying to baccalaureate-granting institutions?
a. Which criteria are more important than others (how are criteria “weighted”) in
evaluating transfer applicants?
b. What are the most commonly used standards for admission of transfer
applicants?
2. What are the transfer admission criteria by institutional type, size, selectivity, or other

institutional identifiers?

 

Underlying Assumptions
Two organizations have been leaders in developing research on the admission
process. Both have made heavy use of practitioners at receiving institutions, the
individuals who set admission evaluation policy in examining the subject.

The College Board has a variety of quantitative research, particularly sources that
explore the relationship between student test scores and other admission criteria with
outcomes, student grades, and persistence at their receiving institutions (Bell-Rose, 1999;
Bridgeman, Pollack, & Burton, 2004; The Future of the SAT Program, 1999; Guidelines
on the Uses of College Board Tests and Related Data, 2002; The New SAT: A Guide for
Admissions Officers, 2005; Questions and Answers about the New SAT for Admissions
Officers, 2004). Several pieces of literature, however, have instead used qualitative
methods to gather information from practitioners. In general, this body of literature
utilizes a series of meetings sponsored by the College Board among experienced
admission policy-makers from some of the most competitive institutions in the United
States. “In August of 1998, a group of about 50 admissions deans, directors and
researchers from the United States gathered . . . a dialogue on the fiiture of admissions,
and to consider how the profession needs to change” (Perfetto, 1999, p. 1). Future sets of
meetings were held as well, including meetings in the summer of 2004 (Rigol, 2004).

That literature is complemented by the annual survey conducted by the National
Association for College Admission Counseling (N ACAC). The survey is sent to the
1,500 t0 1,600 member colleges and universities (the number varies with membership

levels), and in 2004 the survey had a response rate of 43% (Hawkins & Lautz, 2005).

While their methods differ, both the College Board and the NACAC surveys
assume that information on college admissions is best obtained from the institutional
officials who set and/or implement these policies, and that the methods and criteria used
can be established and compared across institutions that vary by location, size, control
(public or private), and degree level (graduate, baccalaureate, and/or associate degree-
granting).

This study similarly assumes that admissions professionals are the best source for
information about the admission process. Further, although specific factors may vary, the
framework used for describing and weighting criteria used for the admission of students

directly fiom high school can be used to describe and weight criteria used for transfer

admission.

Overview of Methodology
To obtain this information, a survey was sent to chief enrollment officers at four-
year institutions in the United States. Data were obtained from NACAC, and the survey
itself has been combined with NACAC’s annual State of College Admissions survey tool.
Within the volume of research on admission for the “traditional” college-going
Population, those entering baccalaureate-granting institutions immediately after high
school graduation, there are a handful of seminal pieces. Two such pieces produced by
the College Board, Toward a Taxonomy of the Admissions Decision—Making Process and
Admissions Decision-Making Models, provide the most fundamental information about

the traditional admission process, offering a basic map of criteria and methodologies. The

National Research Council’s Myths and T radeofls: the Role of Tests in the
Undergraduate Admissions supplements these. Each of these utilizes information from
chief enrollment officers.

NACAC’s annual publication, State of College Admissions, contains data fiom the
annual Admissions Trends Survey. 43% of the approximately 1,500 post-secondary
member organizations responded to the 2004 survey (Hawkins, 2004). Personal data of
respondents to the survey is entirely confidential. While institutional characteristics are
supplied, the identity of the institutions responding and the individuals at those
institutions who supply the data were not supplied to the researcher, and so anonymity
and confidentiality are entirely assured.

Like the initial pieces in that series on admission immediately following high
school graduation, as part of the Admissions Trends survey, this research collected
statistical data, and sought to clarify and categorize the community college transfer
admission process and criteria based on data supplied by the participating institutions. It
did not statistically validate or rate the effectiveness of those processes and criteria. In
other words, while data were analyzed on admission practices, the effects of those
practices were not included in the scope of this study.

In support of and providing background to this effort, the literature review
includes a comprehensive discussion of the research on the admission process for
students applying to four-year institutions immediately following high school, including
the we ighting of various criteria; the studies conducted on retention and graduation of

Students after transferring from community college to four-year institutions, where the

Studles are tied to admission criteria; the state of community college transfers to four-year

colleges; and the demographic data and projections on community college enrollment and

transfer to four-year colleges.

Definition of Terms
Baccalaureate-granting institution — A college or university at which the bulk of
undergraduate degrees are baccalaureate programs. This term is often used synonyrnously
in the literature with “four-year” college, university, or institution. While both terms
appear regularly in the document, this is an important distinction, as some institutions
traditionally labeled as “four-year” are now offering some associate degrees, while some
traditionally labeled as “two-year” are now able to offer some baccalaureate degrees. In
addition, time to degree completion at both types of institutions is not limited to a specific
time span.
Community College — Institutions that predominantly award associate degrees, although
some baccalaureate degrees may be available. This term is used synonymously in the
literature with “two-year” institution and with “junior college” in the literature review,
although this study uses community college as the preferred term.

Institutional Control — Whether an institution is governed under the authority of a state

 

government or not. This study and the literature refer to whether a college or university
is a Private or public institution, offering only these two possible responses.

m - Freshmen, for the purposes of this study, are students applying to college
with no college credit earned after high school graduation. Since the focus is on the

application evaluation process, this is distinct from students who are classified as

fieshfllen because they have not yet attained sufficient credits to be classified as

10

sophomores. Students applying to college with no prior credit before high school
graduation are also referred to in the literature as First Time in Any College (FTIAC)
students. That term is not tied to a student’s class level, as freshmen may enter college
with credit that brings them to sophomore level by receiving, for instance, Advanced
Placement or Dual Enrolhnent credit while still in high school. Since this credit is
received prior to high school graduation, they are generally still considered freshmen, and
will be so for the purpose of this study.
Transfer students - Students who, after receiving a secondary diploma, receive post-
secondary credit from any institution prior to applying to another institution of higher
education. Some of the literature only explores transfer fiom community college to
baccalaureate-granting institutions, such as the research on articulation, such as in Healy
(1991). Other publications encompass both these community college to baccalaureate
institution transfers as well as students moving from one baccalaureate-granting
institution to another (Adelman, 2006, for example). This study made no effort to
explore students moving from one community college to another, so the term transfer
admission refers to students with post-secondary credit they received after high school
graduation seeking admission to baccalaureate-grating institutions, regardless of prior
institution.

Guest matriculants — Students enrolled in degree seeking status at one institution while

 

receiving academic credit fiom another. Examples at the secondary level include students
Who take college courses while still enrolled in high school (Dual Enrollment). This is
also true of students at the post—secondary level enrolled in a degree program who take

courses elsewhere, including students enrolled in study abroad programs, in consortia

11

arrangements, or taking courses not offered at their home institution. This can be a source
of confusion, as many institutions label the credit for all of these students as “transfer
credit,” without labeling the students as transfer students. Guest matriculants are not a
target subject of this study.

Admissions — The process of selecting which applicants will be offered the opportunity to
matriculate at a post-secondary institution.

Selective admission — Admission for institutions receiving a number of qualified
applicants that exceeds institutional capacity. “Of the 3,100 US. colleges and
universities, in 1989 roughly 180 of them offered admission to less than half their
applicants” (Blackburn, 1990, p. 1). Considering the media coverage of the
competitiveness of the admission process, it is surprising that this hasn’t changed
significantly. According to the US News and World Report ’s America’s Best Colleges
20_0L however, only 197 colleges and universities nationwide currently report admission
rates below 50% (2006,
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex.php).

Articulation Agreements — Arrangements between academic institutions, generally

 

community colleges and baccalaureate-granting institutions, although some institutions
make agreements with high schools (Healy, 1991). The arrangements can, but do not
always, grant admission to transfer or freshman applicants from the sending institution if
Students meet set standards. More recently, these broad admission agreements have been
sometimes referred to as transfer agreements, distinguishing them from articulations,
Which may be more focused on the transfer of credit. Some of these arrangements have

been mandated and/or established by state higher education coordinating bodies.

12

L__

 

Swirl — A term used to describe students who move back and forth between multiple
institutions (Townsend & Dever, 1999).
Reverse transfers — Students who transfer from a baccalaureate-granting institution to a

community college (Townsend & Dever, 1991).

Significance of the Study

Attracting, admitting, and enrolling qualified, interested, motivated, and -—

importantly — appropriate students who understand the realities of your campus

culture and its academic and social demands will give you your best odds for
retaining happy and successful students through graduation. Conversely, luring
under prepared, disinterested, ill-informed, and inappropriate students who have
been marketed a glossy view of campus and academic life will likely lead to a low

sophomore retention rate, increasing attrition, and finally, a low graduation rate . .

. A high retention rate signifies strong campus morale, engagement, and financial

well-being for the institution. (Greene & Greene, 2003)

As this quote asserts, the admission process has a tremendous impact on both
students and institutions. For students, admission is a goal to be achieved and an
opportunity to benefit from the curriculum and services of those institutions that admit
the student. For institutions, the admission process yields the enrollment needed for
budgetary purposes, the quality of student sought in the classroom, and the type of
student the institution is charged to serve. If the process functions correctly, all of these
goals are met. If, however, the process functions poorly, then students are likely to find

themselves denied opportunities they have earned, or, perhaps worse, admitted into
institutions at which they are unprepared to succeed. In addition, institutions may miss

enro llment targets, sending budgets into freefall, and worse, may find themselves

enro lling students who they are not prepared to adequately instruct and serve.

13

L_

 

“In an era when nearly 60 percent of traditional-age undergraduates attend more
than one institution . . . it is important to mark transfer as a permanent change of venue, a
migration that is formally recognized by system rules” (Adelman, 2005, p.xv). This is
especially relevant in light of recent state and national initiatives to increase the rate of
enrollment in community colleges and the articulation of transferring students from
community colleges into four-year institutions. For example, Education Secretary
Margaret Spellings, “said community colleges offered good values that could be covered
by Pell grants. To lower their costs, students could be ‘starting there rather than at a state
university,’ she said” (Burd, 2006, A23). Legislators across the country, who see
community colleges as a less expensive investment than four-year publics, are raising the
demand that four-year colleges increase transfer enrollment without any clear data on the
impact such a shift might have on students and institutions. “Financially, directing
support to community colleges as launching pads to the baccalaureate makes sense
because it’s cheaper to have students start out at community colleges” (Dicroce, 2005,
B22).

Despite the motivation to encourage community college enrollment,
baccalaureate-granting institutions that are typically considered as the most competitive
generally enroll few community college graduates, despite stated goals of diversifying
their enrollment. As one author notes, “A growing number of community-college

students are precisely the sort of exceptional achievers that elite colleges seek” (Wyner,
2006, B6). Wyner goes on, however, to point out that “research supported by the Jack
I(ent Cooke Foundation shows a striking decline in transfer enrollment at selective

institutions” (Wyner, 2006, B6)-

14

L_

 

Unfortunately, there is very little, if any, research conducted on the admission
process for students transferring from community colleges to four-year institutions to use
in determining whether current processes are supportive of (or even detrimental to) an
institution’s goals, what outcomes new policies might have, and how the processes and
standards are impacting transfer student enrollment patterns. A review of literature on the
transfer process concluded, “much of the work presented in the articles is narrow in focus
and case study-oriented. Research into national trends . . . would provide valuable
perspectives” (Steinmann, Pope, & Miller, 2004, p. 23). Large studies, both qualitative
(Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Cuseo, 2001), and quantitative (Adelman, 2005, 2006) have
looked at patterns of transfer from community colleges to baccalaureate degree-granting
institutions and identified a number of obstacles and opportunities of improvement.
Cohen and Brawer (1996) in particular noted the difficulty of positively shifting transfer
rates. As detailed in the literature review, however, none of this research has taken a
systematic approach to reviewing the role that the admission of transfers plays, other than
to raise questions about the lack of consistency in institutional and state policies (Cuseo,
2001; Knoell, 1990).

Considering the impact on society and the number of students involved, this gap
is surprising. “Over the course of the undergraduate education of 1999-2000 college
graduates (first-time bachelor’s degree recipients), a majority (59 percent) had attended

more than one institution.” (Peter, Cataldi and Carroll, 2005, p.iii). Also, “forty percent of
traditional-age students who entered post-secondary education in the 19903 started out in
community colleges . . . for older beginning students, i.e., those starting out at age 24 or

more, over 60 percent first enter community colleges.” (Adelman, 2005, p.xvi).

15

L_

 

Reflecting this data, the American Association of Community Colleges noted,
Almost half of all undergraduates who attend college —— including the majority of
first-generation and minority students —- attend one of the nation’s community
colleges. Of that number, close to half declare attaining a bachelor’s degree as
their goal, yet only an estimated quarter of those students manage to achieve
transfer to bachelor’s level programs. In bottom-line terms, lack of transfer can
mean a significant difference in individual earning power over a lifetime. Beyond
economic returns, higher levels of education can translate to important personal
and societal benefits, including greater job security and flexibility, better health,
increased tax revenues, and higher levels of civic participation. Clearly, it is in the
best interest of individuals and our society to minimize existing barriers and
maximize post-secondary success. (Improving Access to the Baccalaureate, 2004,

p.vii)

The admission process is one key area that can minimize, or at times raise,
barriers. Without research to guide policy decisions, it will be hard to determine which is
occurring. This study is not intended to answer all of the questions regarding the
evaluation of transfer applicants; no single study will be able to fill the enormous gap in
the literature. However, as has been done with literature on aspects of admission from
secondary institutions directly to baccalaureate—granting institutions, a basic framework
must be provided that explores what processes are currently in use. This study serves as a
crucial foundation for the ongoing study of the transfer admission process that is needed
to adequately serve students and institutions alike.

The following chapter provides a more detailed review of the literature related to

this topic.

16

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
A study of policies for the evaluation of transfer applicants requires an

understanding of the literature related to that subject. This chapter begins with a review
of the enrollment trend and demographic data related to education in general that directly
impacts projections of transfer student application and enrollment trends. This is
followed by literature focused on the evaluation of fieshman applicants that examines the
purposes and goals of the admissions process, and then by studies describing the methods
used to evaluate fieshman applicants. The review then describes the literature on specific
criteria used in evaluating fi'eshman applicants, including academic records, standardized
tests, and nonacademic criteria. The review concludes with a description of the literature
on articulation as admissions processes and the limited literature that looks at the
admission, enrollment, and performance of transfer applicants and students. Lastly, the

limitations of the review are provided.

Enrollment trends and demographic data
General trend data for enrollment and admission leave no doubt that the number
of students heading into higher education in general, and community colleges in
particular, is growing dramatically. “Nationally, annual increases in the number of [high
school] graduates are expected to range from about 6,300, a .2 percent increase, to
79, 000, a 2.5 percent increase from 2001-02 and 2017-18 . . . or about 271,500 more

graduates” (Knocking at the College Door, 2003, p.3-12). Even if college enrollment

l7

 

rates remain the same, despite efforts to increase them, this growth in high school
graduates creates a huge pipeline of increased college-going students.

The majority of this post-secondary grth is likely to be seen in the community
colleges. “More thgn 50% of all first-year college students attend two-year institutions
(California Community Colleges, 1994; Parnell, 1986), and student enrollment at 2-year
institutions is increasing at a faster rate than it is at 4-year colleges and universities
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 1993)” (Cuseo, 2001, p.3). This has led
leaders in higher education to predict a growing importance in community college
expansion. “In the next five years, the nation’s two-year colleges will face a tidal wave of
increased enrollment demand . . . [and] will have ballooning numbers of qualified
students clamoring at the doors of two-year colleges for access to higher education”
(Levine, president of Columbia University’s Teachers College, 2004). In addition to
grth in traditional-age students, there is also great growth among adult learners. “Adult
students — those students 25 years of age and older — now make up close to 50 percent of
all college enrollments in the US.” (Aslanian, 1999, p.1).

That growth is of particular interest as the data also indicate the tremendous
importance of community colleges to socio-economic diversity in enrollment in higher
education. “At community colleges, 20 percent of all students were from families with
annual incomes under $25,000, 59 percent were from families earning $25,000-$74,999,

and 21 percent were from those making $75,000 and above” (Burd, 2004, p.A23). The
enro llment of students with traditionally lower representation in four-year institutions
21180 extends to family educational background and to ethnic and racial background.

“More first-generation ethnic and rac_ial minority students are enrolled at community

18

 

 

.L

-q
Ink

.1

r1

colleges than at all of our nation’s 4-year colleges and universities combined (California
Colleges, 1994)” (Cuseo, 2001, p. 5). The most recent data from the National Center for
Education Statistics (http://nces.ed. gov), supports the older report, finding that minority
students enrollment at two-year institutions represents 45% of US. degree-seeking
minority students. This led one recent publication to conclude, “There is ample evidence
that students from middle-income and upper-income families are attending four-year
institutions, while low-income students are concentrated in two-year community colleges.
These patterns demonstrate serious constraints on the college-choice process for many
students, especially students of color, who disproportionately come from lower-income
families” (Kinzie, Palmer, Hayek, Hossler, Jacob, & Cummings, 2004, p.46).

These issues are particularly important from an admission perspective since
“approximately one-half of all students who attend community colleges with aspirations
to attain a baccalaureate degree will actually make the transition to 4-year institutions —
with or without an associate degree (American Council on Education 1991; Pincus &
Archer, 1989; Watkins, 1990)” (Cuseo, 2001, p.4). As the data above indicate, for
increasing numbers of students, community colleges will be the primary option for
starting higher education. As a result, the number of transfer students will likewise
continue to increase, and this will create increasing pressure for institutions to better
serve and evaluate these students.

This combination of the growth in college populations, the volume of that

increase that is projected to start in community colleges, and the likelihood, based on
Prior enrollment, that the community college population will continue to be the most

diverse sector of higher education enrollment, will place intense pressure on the

19

 

admission process. More students each year will be striving for transfer admission, and
these increases, as noted above, represent a massive increase in volume, in addition to a
desirable target enrollment for institutions seeking increased diversity. To understand
how or whether that growth will or should change the admission process requires an
explanation of how that process functions. While there is little or no data available on
such practices for transfer students, closely related literature focuses on the admission of
first time in college students, or FTIACs, also often referred to in popular and trade

literature as “freshmen.”

Purposes and Goals of the Admission Process
While some institutions are open enrollment, and many others enroll the large
majority of applicants, this study, and most of the literature, focuses on receiving
institutions where admission of students is selective and/or competitive. As noted below,
open enrollment policies are largely straightforward. In contrast, the methods for
evaluating freshmen for admission at selective institutions can be very complex, and they
vary to some degree from institution to institution. For instance, some institutions use
faculty committees to evaluate candidates, while others use committees made up entirely
of professional admissions staff (Blackburn, 1990). A common misconception, however,
is that most colleges are h_igfly selective.
Actually, there is only a handful at the highest competitive levels. “Of the 3,100
[1.3. colleges and universities, in 1989 roughly 180 of them offered admission to less
than half their applicants” (Blackburn, 1990, p. 1). As noted in the definition of terms

SeCtion, US News and World Report, providing data based on their annual survey, found

20

 

that only 197 colleges and universities nationwide currently report admission rates below
50 % (2006, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex.php).

“The colleges that have more applicants than they have available seats usually

make their decisions based on factors other than test scores and grade-point

averages (GPA), such as essays and recommendations. Because most of their
applicants have high grades and test scores, the final decision usually comes down

to other factors.” (Blackburn, 1990, p.3)

Although these institutions make up the minority of institutions, they receive
disproportionate attention in much of the literature. Their admissions processes are more
complex and provide insight to the many factors that can be considered in admission
decisions.

Research points out that the objectives of those decisions are not always readily
apparent. In exploring admission objectives, Blackburn (1990) included goals beyond the
academic talent of an incoming class. These other goals pertain to the mix of students in
the class, including gender ratio, international student population, and socio-economic
status. He also noted that many schools set targets for portions of the class to be children
of alumni, faculty, or staff members; students with interests in particular fields; and/or
quality athletes. Presumably, the same goals could be set for transfer decisions.

In 1998 and 1999, Jack Blackburn, then the director and now dean of admissions
at the University of Virginia and the author of the aforementioned research, chaired
meetings of senior admissions officers, predominantly from highly selective institutions,
on “the future of admissions, and to consider how the profession needs to change to meet
social, political, and economic challenges of the twenty-first century” (Perfetto, 1999,

p.1). The focus was largely on the admission of students from secondary institutions and

resulted in several publications and firrther research. The first such publication, Toward a

21

Taxonomy of the Admissions Decision-Making Process (Perfetto, 1999), provides a

wealth of insight to the purposes and methods of admission processes.

That publication notes, as does another from the same set of meetings (Blackburn
1990), the type of institution, generally as best represented by the institutional mission, is
needed to understand the admission process. As a result, the author suggests three distinct
decision-making models, largely dependent on their intended outcomes. Blackburn also

draws a distinction between eligibility criteria and competition or selectivity.

“Eligibility-based admission [models] are ones in which there are objective and
public criterion [sic] . . . All students deemed ‘eligible’ by these criteria will be admitted;
all students who fail to meet the eligibility criteria will be denied” (Perfetto, 1999. p.3).
This explanation of “open admission” is distinct from competitive models where eligible
students are compared to determine which students are best-suited for admission. These
models, Perfetto notes, are not completely incongruous, since most institutions with
competitive models have some minimum eligibility standards.
The publication continues by linking these process models to general admission

“philosophies” which, the author asserts based on the aforementioned meetings, are the
drivers behind types of admission processes employed by institutions. For non-selective,

open institutions, those using strictly eligibility-based criteria, these philosophies include

entitlement, that, “higher education is an inalienable right and should be made available
to everyone.” Also that “college is a natural progression after high school and should be

 

made available to everyone who is qualified” (Perfetto, 1999, p.5). These bear on

dlscussions of the transfer admission process, as most US. community colleges have a

22

tradition of open enrollment for students meeting minimum criteria (usually a high school

diploma or equivalent credential).
The same publication (Perfetto, 1999) lists seven additional philosophies which

are the basis for more selective admission process models and groups them in three
categories: student capacity, student outcome, and student effect.

Student capacity contains “two perspectives that strive to recognize a prospective
student’s capacity to perform in the college environment based on demonstrated
performance prior to college.” This includes “meritocracy — Access to higher education is
a reward for those who have been most academically successful” and “character — Access
to higher education is a reward for personal virtue, dedication, perseverance, community
service, and hard wor ” (Perfetto, 1999, p.6).

These issues of capacity may be contrasted with or complemented by issues of
student outcome. These include “enhancement — The goal of higher education is to seek

out and nurture talent” and, “mobilization — Higher education is the ‘great equalizer’ and

must promise social and economic mobility” (Perfetto, 1999, p.6).

The last philosophies are grouped by the effect students can have on the receiving
institution and even on the world and include “investment — Access to higher education

should promote the greater good and further the development of society . . .
Environmental/Institutional — The admissions selection process is designed to meet the
euro llment goals and unique organizational needs of the admitting institution while
promoting the overall quality of students’ educational experience” and “fiduciary —

ngher education is a business, and access must first preserve the institution’s fiscal

integrity” PerfettO, 1999, P- 7)-

23

Perfetto reports that the meeting attendees tied these seven philosophies to seven

“evaluative criteria” as follows:
A. Capacity to Perform

1. Academic Quality

2. Personal Qualities
B. Effect of Education on the Individual

3. Potential to Benefit
4. Overcoming Educational Adversity

C. Potential to Contribute
5. Potential to Contribute

6. Student Body Needs
7. Ability to Pay (Perfetto, 1999, p. 10)

Perfetto goes on to describe how these evaluative criteria were found in the
meetings to guide the specific criteria that admissions committees use at various
institutions, compatible with the philosophy and goals listed above. While intended to
focus on admission of students directly from secondary institutions, each could have
implications for the admission of transfer students as well. In fact, there is no particular
mention, other than reference to secondary school performance, of these models applying

exclusively to admission process for applicants from secondary institutions. These

models may very well be applicable to transfer admission as well.

Another view of the same issue is found in follow-up research conducted by the
College Board, “Admissions Decision-Making Models: How U.S. Institutions of Higher
Education Select Undergraduate Students” (Rigol, 2002). That research, unlike the prior
work based on analysis and discussion among practitioners, was based on intensive

interviews, site visits, and literature analysis for more than 100 institutions. A
Slmp lification of the principles above, based on that research, finds that institutions with
goals of open access use the minimum criteria structure, while other institutions review

application records for evidence of a student’s ability to succeed at, and contribute to, a

24

receiving institution. Further, according to this publication, the most competitive
institutions will likely use some portion of those processes. However, because they will
receive far more applications fiom students who both meet the minimum criteria and who
are likely to benefit from and contribute to their institutions, they also use an element of
electing the students who have demonstrated prior “success.” Success may be observed
in strength of academic profile, other talents and personal characteristics, or the degree to
which any of those might meet the yearly enrollment goals of the institution (Rigol,
2002). Because that study is focused — based on the criteria listed and the procedures used
— entirely on admission fiom secondary schools, there is no direct application made to
transfer admission. This view of the purposes behind fi'eshman admission processes,
however, offers interesting potential for its application to the transfer admission process.
In other words, do receiving institutions follow the models from their freshman level,

Whether based on open access, ability to benefit/contribute, or measures of success, when

developing processes for transfer admission?

Admission Methods
The College Board study goes on to provide greater detail, and notes that nearly
every school will vary, to one degree or another, on the general methodologies used to
handle the evaluation of admission applications. This includes the materials that a student
must submit in order to apply, from the application itself to transcripts, test score reports,
essay S, and recommendations. This varies slightly, particularly in the areas of quantity:
how many tests, essays, and recommendations an institution requires. The study further

lndiOates that some institutions, particularly for targeted groups of students or specialized

25

programs, may additionally require portfolios, auditions, financial statements, or health
examinations (Rigol, 2002). While this may give some insight for the transfer process,

there does not appear to be any literature on what specific records or materials are

required for transfer students.

Once the application materials are received, according to the College Board
study, there are several methods for handling the enclosed data. Many institutions
recalculate student grade point averages to try to balance the various grading scales and
methods of weighting Advanced Placement and Honors courses. Some include school
quality, or additional weight for those with more competitive grading scales, in these
recalculations. Other institutions create an “academic index,” an overall academic score
for a student based on high school GPA (which may or may not be recalculated), rank in
class, and test scores (Rigol, 2002).

In addition to various ways to view and weight the data, there are also numerous models

for conducting the evaluation and determining what personnel will be involved. An

abbreviated version of Rigol’s (2002) descriptions is included in Table A. All of the
methods listed in the table are focused on admission of secondary school students,
although most could apply for transfer admission. Repeated searches, however, have

turned up no literature on methods used for transfer student admission.

26

Table A: Admission Processes

 

 

committee

review each
file

recommendation to committee
for decision

Process Title Explanation Outcome Institution Type
most likely to
use

Multiple readers to 2 readers One reader presents Private selective

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Team reading to 2 readers If readers agree, decision is Selective
decision or review each made.
committee file If readers disagree, file is
referred to committee for
decision
Single Reader to 1 reader If applicant meets all criteria, Moderately
decision or reviews each decision is made. Selective
committee file If applicant fails to meet any
criteria, referred to committee.
Reader(s) to l or more Computer reviews scores and All types
Lcomputer readers score makes decisions or refers to
each file committee
Computer to Computer Files are referred to three Moderately
committees scores each committees for decision: meets selective
applicant on all criteria, some deficiencies,
available and does not meet criteria
data
Computer plus Computer Reader reviews computer score Very large
reader to decision scores each and makes decision competitive
applicant institutions
and refers to
reader
Computer to Computer Applicants that meet all Large institutions
decision or firrther scores each criteria, computer makes with low
review applicant decision. If not, file is referred selectivity

 

 

to a reader.

 

 

 

The 2002 College Board study also briefly noted the possibility of a lottery

system which was a model suggested in a radical proposal from Barry Schwartz (2005),

a professor of psychology studying the college selection process. He proposed that, as

resu Its of admission, in-class composition and student outcomes are completely uncertain

(particularly as it may be unclear how a student may manipulate his or her information)

27

 

and there are plenty of selective students from which to choose, selective colleges would

be just as well served using a lottery system to select their class members (Schwartz,
2005). Several admissions deans responded that they often took chances on students who
went beyond statistics and that the balance of their class depended on the careful
selection of particular attributes fiom their respective pools. As to the potential

manipulation, Robin Mamlet, former Dean of Admissions at Stanford, noted:
There will always be ‘system gamers,’ who buy essays, pay others to take their
SAT’s, cheat on finals, file fraudulent applications, and take steps to package their
self-presentations so that they will look like the young people they think colleges
want them to be. But we shouldn’t structure a system merely to foil those who
would manipulate it. Instead we must talk with young people about the ethics of
applying to college, of figuring out who they are and who they want to become.
Lowering expectations is not the answer. (Mamlet, 2005, p. 24)

None of the respondents, however, seemed to address Schwartz’s main contention — that

current admission process results have little or no predictive validity for student

outcomes.

A newer admission process, not represented in the studies above, is typically
called “percent rule” policies. This admission process, largely mandated by states,
required colleges and universities to admit students based on their secondary school rank
in class, often regardless of other factors. A comprehensive review of related literature

(Tienda & Niu, 2005) found that these policies were based on efforts to be “fair” but

Created new socio-economic bias into the admission process. While of interest, since
COInmunity colleges and other transfer sending institutions do not rank students, this

Sb’Stem is unlikely to bear on transfer admission processes.

The literature outlined above clearly demonstrates that admission processes can

be complex; understanding them requires careful examination. Unfortunately, little or no

28

such examination has been conducted on these processes for transfer admission. The only
area of exception is in the way transfer admission may be governed by institutional, state,
or system articulations. Unfortunately, only one articulation-focused study provided any
insight into the admission process.

Healy (1991) defined articulation as “the process of providing, through
communication, mutual support among high school guidance counselors, college
admission counselors, and college transfer counselors in the efforts to perform college-

admission-related tasks” (Healy, 1991, p.3). He noted that,

The Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges (1966) addressed
the need to strengthen the linkage between two-year and four-year

colleges.
The committee stated that communication was, in general, inadequate

and described two areas in which improvement was needed:

1. College publications should be aimed directly at potential students
and cover such areas as transfer of credit, admission requirements,
student profiles, support services, and success rates; and

2. Professional communication should encompass correspondence,
telephone contact, feedback on transfer students’ adaptation, joint
conferences, and a sharing of research findings. (Healy, 1991, 7-8)

As Healy explained, this strengthened linkage can be accomplished through formal
articulations. Such articulations may include a specific policy on transfer admission, such
as a specific combination of grades, coursework, and/or a degree from a two-year
iIIStitution that will guarantee admission into a baccalaureate-granting institution. Healy

cOnducted a survey of high school counselors, two-year college admission officers, two-
Year college transfer counselors, and four-year college admission officers. He found that,

While the high school to college admission and transition process was generally perceived

Positively, the respondents also perceive that transfer from two-year to four-year

29

Lu—

.‘,.

vb-

In

sf

 

VI

‘1

institutions under-serves students. Unfortunately, the scope of the study did not include
details as to how the students were perceived to be underserved and did not provide
details on the admission process. This highlights, however, the importance of including
articulation in any examination of transfer admission processes.

The processes above are each dependent on specific factors used to evaluate
students potential for admission. “Despite the comprehensiveness of many applications,
there is no way that readers can know everything about an applicant. As one admissions
dean put it, whole—file review means just that, not full-life review” (Rigol, 2005, p.3). As
a result, admission policies determine which criteria are used and what weight each is

given.

30

Admissions Evaluation Criteria

Blackburn (1990) listed the following potential criteria for admission to higher
education from secondary institutions: high school transcripts, standardized test scores,
essays, personal characteristics (nonacademic skills, abilities, and achievements);
recommendations; interviews; and supplementary materials (portfolios, performance
tapes). He also raises the question of the role of financial aid in the process describing the
transition from a need—blind system. Need-blind “means that the admission committee
and staff do not know which students are applying for financial aid so that the admission
decision is based solely on achievements and potential” (Blackburn, 1990, p. 23). He
goes on to describe the erosion of this policy, noting that “some colleges have had to
resort to considering need as a factor in admission because their financial aid resources
have been declining. Some admission deans hold the view that the college should not
tempt the student to enroll if it cannot provide adequate financial assistance” (Blackburn,
1990, p.24). This may also be a factor in the transfer process, especially if colleges and
universities reserve most of their financial aid firnding for continuing students and new
freshmen, to the financial detriment of new transfer students.

Rigol (2002) found a similar list, culled from over 100 factors that developed in
her research. These include academic achievement, quality, and potential; direct
measures (GPA, rank, scores), caliber of high school, evaluative measures; and
nonacademic characteristics and attributes: geographic, personal background,
extracurricular activities, service, leadership, personal attributes, extenuating

circumstances, and others. She further noted that portions of these may be used in very

31

different ways by different institutions, and provided three major additional factors that
can cross into any of those issues, or be considered separately: secondary school quality,
interviews, and personal statements and essays (Rigol, 2002).

The most comprehensive analysis on the topic is the annual State of College
Admission survey conducted by NACAC. Exactly 661 institutions participated in the
2004 research, representing a cross-section of US. four-year post-secondary institutions.
The results found “the factors used to evaluate applications for admission in 2003
remained consistent with previous years. The top factors continued to be grades in
college prep courses, standardized admission tests, [and] overall grade point average”
(Hawkins & Lautz, 2005, p.5). Understanding how these factors may be applied to
transfer admission requires a review of the literature available on each factor.

“Academic credentials are given the greatest weight in all admissions processes
examined; however there were no competitive models that disregard personal factors”
(Rigol, 2005). Academic credentials include grade point average, but also the more

researched issues of strength of curriculum and test scores.

Academic record

Grade point average is a commonly listed criterion in admission processes, as
57% of colleges consider the GPA of considerable importance, 28% of moderate
importance, and 8.5% of limited importance in the admission evaluation (Hawkins &
Lautz, 2005). It is not always, however, used by schools in the same way. “Recomputing
the high school GPA is one of the most common ways application credentials are

standardized” (Rigol, 2005, p. 10). Little further detail is available on the use of grade

32

point average, which is especially notable considering its prevalent use. This is also
notable since this criterion may be the easiest to transport to the transfer admission
process.

Strength of curriculum, on the other hand, has received more detailed scrutiny,
and greater concern. A recent ACT report noted that “we now know that simply taking
core is not enough. It’s the nature and the quality of the courses students take, not only
the number, that determine if they will be ready for college and work” (Crisis at the
Core, 2004, p.7). This study also found that many students, even when pursuing core
curriculum, were not provided with sufficient rigor to reach minimum proficiency for
college, based on the ACT test scores (Crisis at the Core, 2004).

For the admissions process, this plays out as grades in high school college
preparatory courses are found to be an even larger factor in the admission process than
the overall grade point average, with 80.3% of colleges reporting it of considerable
importance, 10.2% of moderate importance, and 3% of limited importance. This
distinguishes this factor as the most important in the admission decision process,
although the national survey does not include a separate question on course rigor distinct
from achievements in those courses (Hawkins & Lautz, 2005). High school college
preparatory courses are those that are perceived to be core curriculum in preparation for
college study. For transfer students, this raises the question as to whether there is a core
curriculum for transfers between institutions, a set of courses perceived to be more
important to the admissions process. If that is the case, a logical follow-up question is
whether such a set of courses is adequately preparing students for their further post-

secondary work. For a student transferring from one institution to another, for instance,

33

do art courses have as much weight as a math course, and do independent study or
seminar courses have comparable weight to more traditional courses? This may be
particularly relevant in the case of articulation, when specific academic coursework and
grades are tied to automatic admission, but also when courses or requirements at the
receiving institution may be waived, raising questions as to whether those articulations
establish sound admission criteria.

The subject of curriculum strength also raises the question of Advanced
Placement courses for secondary school students. Klopfenstein and Thomas (2005) found
that

a high school curriculum characterized by rigorous non-AP math

and science courses improves the likelihood of early college

success, but that AP experience confers few additional benefits.

AP classes in science and economics have a significant positive

impact on college persistence, but the most popular AP subjects,

math, English, and history, do not. With the lone example of

Hispanic students taking AP science, AP experience has no impact

on first semester college GPA. (Klopfenstein & Thomas)

Possible support for this view may be found in an examination of the admission process
at the University of California. Geiser and Santelices (2004) found that “the number of
AP and Honors courses taken in high school bears little or no relationship to students’
later performance in college,” and ”merely taking AP or other honors-level courses in
high school is not a valid indicator of the likelihood that students will perform well in
college” (Geiser & Santelices, 2004, p.2).

In these studies, a broadly defined rigorous curriculum is found to be influential,

but the particular increase in rigor assumed by the addition of Advanced Placement

courses does not appear to correlate with student outcomes. It is unclear what this means

34

for transfer applicant evaluation. It may be that some college curriculum and/or levels of
rigor are more likely to yield higher grades in college and greater persistence after
transfer. It is possible, however, that any transferable college level work, regardless of
course rigor or topic, may be equally likely to predict performance at another post-
secondary institution. It also raises the issue of whether grades in college level courses
are equally predictive, regardless of the source institution. In other words, should grades
in college courses or the quality of the source institution have greater weight in the
evaluation of transfer applicants, assuming a similar set of courses?

The impact of source institution quality in the admission process also received
some direct attention. Tam and Sukhatme (2004) found that including school quality in
fi'eshman decisions, when using average ACT score of graduates from a school as an
estimate of school quality, improved the predictive ability of an admission index at the
University of Illinois when added to grade point average, rank, and score information for
each student. This raises significant questions for transfer admission, as institutional
quality is often questioned when students transfer from community colleges:

There is much discussion in the literature about the academic

preparation of transfer students. Atin (1985) contends that the

atmosphere at community colleges is not conducive to students

who aspire to a bachelor’s degree. It is dominated by technical or

vocational programs, and often, students involved in these

programs are not interested in degree achievement . . . According

to Baton (1994) community colleges have failed to provide a

liberal arts foundation that facilitates transfer. Although their

curriculum may be considered adequate, it is a weak foundation for

students who will be advancing to higher academic pursuits.

(Kippenhan, 2004, p. 14)

The most extensive area of analysis of admission factors, however, has been

conducted on the use of standardized test scores in the admission process. It is interesting

35

that no test is currently provided nationally with the intention of providing data for use in
transfer admission, while extensive testing is available for prospective freshmen and

graduate students.

Standardized Tests in Admissions

Test scores have been the second most important factor listed by colleges for their
decision process since the State of College Admission survey began in 1993. In 2004,
60% listed test scores of considerable importance, 28% of moderate importance, and 5%
of limited importance (Hawkins & Lautz, 2005). “Standardized tests are the most
common requirement for college admission . . . Those of us who have worked at colleges
where test scores are not given great weight try hard to dispel the fear of tests in high
school applicants, but the fact remains that students applying to most four-year colleges
and universities must take standardized tests” (Ancrum, 1992, p. 20).

The largest provider of test score data to higher education, The College Board,
provides guidelines for use of scores in the admission process:

Users are encouraged to consider scores in conjunction with other

factors such as students’ grades, co-curricular activities, writing

samples, personal statements, interviews, portfolios, and

recommendations when making admission decisions . . . Test

scores have long proved very useful in helping admissions and

placement staff and other educators to better understand and

interpret students’ qualifications and preparation. Students in more

than 27,000 secondary schools throughout the United States

experience vastly different educational models and grading

systems. In many situations, test results provide the only consistent

and objective measure of students’ abilities and achievement in

specific areas. (Guidelines on the Uses of College Board Test
Scores, 2002, pp. 1-2)

36

This leads to a series of articles and publications supporting the use of scores as a factor,
suggesting that “there is a clear relationship between not only SAT scores and graduation
rates, but also between SAT scores and how long it takes to graduate” (The New SA T,
2005). This analysis is considerably weakened by the inherently confounding data of test
score use. If scores are currently used as a significant factor in admission, and if schools
with high graduation rates tend to be more competitive in their admission process, then
applicants with higher scores are more likely to enroll at schools with higher graduation
rates. In other words, the correlation may be more self-fulfilling (schools with already
higher graduation rates selecting students with higher scores) rather than a predictive
indicator.
This is not to say, however, that the scores may not have predictive value.

Although a large number of large-scale studies have

demonstrated an increase in predictive validity when SAT

scores are added to high school grades, this increment is

often described in terms of a seemingly very small increase

in variance. This may have led to the erroneous belief

among test critics and others that students with low SAT

scores would perform, on average, almost as well in college

as students with high SAT scores. Using a sample of 41

colleges, the current study shows substantial differences in

the percent of students who succeed (defined by a 2.5 or

3.5 college grade point average [CGPA] at the end of one

year or four-years in college) by SAT score level, even

when intensity of high school curriculum and high school

grades are taken into account. (Bridgeman, Pollack, and

Burton, 2004)

The 2004 study by Bridgeman, Pollack, and Bruton cited above found high school

curriculum and performance to be accurate predictors of student performance in college.

Since the study was sponsored by The College Board, the owners of the SAT, it may not

be surprising that the study also found the SAT to be a good predictor, and that the SAT

37

added to predictive value when combined with curriculum and performance. While the
sponsorship of the testing service may raise some doubts about the study, the
methodology appears sound. The study also, however, highlighted that small differences
indicated little or no variance in achievements, and defined a 40-point difference as a
small difference. The research suggested that a difference of approximately 190 points
would be necessary to have a significant impact on predicted performance (Bridgeman,
Pollack, & Burton, 2004).

In another study, Noble & Sawyer, 2002) found that the combination of the ACT
and GPA was more predictive than either alone, especially as GPA was more predictive
than ACT score at low levels of success. GPA was not useful at distinguishing likely
higher levels of success, while ACT had a reasonable effectiveness for that purpose.

Despite the support this data provides for test scores as an admission factor, there
are strong arguments against their use as well. Stories in The New York Times (Dec. 20,
2004) and Business Week (Feb 2, 2005) highlight the expanding anxiety of students and
the increasing public concern over the importance of the tests. This follows some of the
literature noting the increase in students’ efforts to enhance scores, such as an article in
the press suggesting that student use of drugs to enhance test performance is increasing
(Zamiska, 2004). This follows an assertion in the literature that “scores are the most
easily manipulable [sic] measures of anything that might suggest quality in education . . .
Even the College Board, which administers the SAT, gave up on that argument years ago
when finally conceding that coaching can affect results” (O’Neill, 2005).

Additionally, the literature suggests that, regardless of the degree to which the

tests predict performance, they also include unjustifiable bias. For example, Alterrnatt

38

and Kim explored, by examining prior research, whether anxiety could be the cause of
gender differences on standardized tests, and recommended asking demographic
questions after, not prior to, testing to help alleviate some of that anxiety (Altermatt and
Kim, 2004.) They still, however asserted a gender bias to the tests themselves.

Society knows well that males outperform females on

mathematics portions of college entrance examinations. In 2003,

for example, males scored an average of 537 points on the

mathematics section of the scholastic aptitude test (SAT), whereas

females scored an average of 503 points. Less well known is the

fact that males also show a slight advantage on the verbal portion

of the SAT. In 2003, males scored an average of 5 12 points,

whereas females scored an average of 503 points. These gaps

appear to be closing, but are still a significant source of concern for
students, parents and educators alike. (Altermatt and Kim, 2004,

W)

In addition to potential gender bias, there is also some indication that the tests
may be biased with regard to income level and ethnicity. The National Center for Fair &
Open Testing (F airtest) is a nonprofit organization that, “works to end the misuses and
flaws of testing practices” (www.fairtest.org). Fairtest published a report on their website
based on data from the ACT High School Profile Report: High School Graduating Class
of 2002 National Report titled, “The ACT: Biased, Coachable, and Misused”
(www.fairtest.org), claiming that ACT scores are directly tied to income levels, and
ascribing this to a theory that those with greater incomes can afford better coaching.
Some authors assign a significant detrimental impact to these biases: “Because of the gap
between majority and minority students’ test scores, a greater proportion of minorities are
rejected despite their capacity to succeed” (Beatty, et al., 1999).

To complicate the analysis, in 2005 the College Board dramatically changed the

SAT to raise the level of math and add a writing section, while the ACT added an

39

optional writing section. Media coverage of this issue has been extensive, and largely
negative, centering around the addition of the writing test section. Examples include,
“New SAT Writing Section Scores Low” in The Christian Science Monitor (Franck, Feb.
15, 2005), “It’s Bigger — is it Better?” in US News and World Report (Ewers, March 14,
2005), and “New SAT Writing Section Draws Sharp Criticism from Association of
English Teachers” in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Bollag, May 4, 2005). The
Fairtest organization also placed several critical articles on their website, such as “Test
Maker Greed Spurs New Writing Test” (2005). The College Board supplied numerous
arguments in support of these changes. Because these appear to be the only positive
statements about the new test, a sample of their supporting language is provided below.

A primary goal of adding a writing section to the new SAT is to

provide admission officers with important additional information

in the admissions process. Three scores — in critical reading, math,

and writing — can be expected to have a greater predictive power of

a student’s probably success at a given institution than two scores

in verbal reasoning and math. . .the College Board sponsored a

study to evaluate the predictive ability of a prototype of the new

SAT writing section, and the results showed that the prototype was

a valuable predictor of fi'eshman grade point averages and English

Composition grades. This finding suggests that new SAT writing

scores will be a better tool for making admission and placement

decisions. (The New SA T, 2005)
The arguments both for and against the SAT in general, as well as the recent changes to
the SAT, highlight some important issues in considering whether standardized tests
should have any role in transfer admission. Two additional issues related to standardized
testing have relevance to possible use in transfer admission, the ability of some students
to gain access to higher scores and score optional admission process.

Untirned versions of the SAT and ACT may be offered to students with

demonstrated learning disabilities. For many years, the College Board let colleges and

40

universities know which students had taken untimed versions, a practice known as
flagging. The College Board changed this practice, and Cahalan-Laitusis, Mandinach,
and Camara (2003) conducted a study of admissions officers, guidance counselors, and
disability service providers exploring practices post-flagging. They found that these
practitioners believed that some students are “gaming” the system to inappropriately get
access to the untimed test. The researchers also found that admissions officers perceived
an increase in untimed test use. Admissions officers in the survey demonstrated a strong
preference for flagging the untimed scores, stating this as a desire to reduce misuse but
reporting that they did not intend to use the information in the admission process. Most
guidance counselors reported an increase in untimed test use, and this was markedly
higher among private secondary school counselors. Although the researchers did not have
access to College Board data on untimed test use, they found that the use of untimed tests
was increasing most among affluent students and suggested that this raised possible
additional socio-economic disparities for the tests.

Issues of test preparation also raise this socio-economic disparity. The
aforementioned stories on the F airtest website list test preparation as a likely score
influence, noting the College Board itself offers preparation services, and claiming that
access to these services is driven by affluence (www.fairtest.org). The potential for
students to gain access to untimed tests and to test preparation based on their ability to
pay could raise issues of particular concern to the transfer process, since (as noted above)
community college students are far less affluent than their four-year counterparts.

Colleges and universities have also been exploring making the use of test scores

optional for prospective fi'eshmen. Bates College began making scores optional in 1984,

41

and compiled a study showing that their methodology, based on academic record, was
equally predictive with or without SAT scores (Hiss, 2004). This modified use of
standardized tests, allowing the student discretion in their use, may also have implications
for transfer admission.

These score-optional policies highlight the efforts of colleges and universities to
find ways to use standardized tests responsibly. Noble and Sawyer (2004), following up
on their 2002 study noted above, studied the predictive potential of high school GPA and
ACT scores at 84 post-secondary institutions. They found that both had predictive value
and that GPA was the stronger predictor of overall performance (above a 2.0). They also
found that the ACT score was the better predictor of higher grade achievement,
reinforcing their earlier finding that combining the ACT or SAT score with high school
GPA was a more powerful predictor of student success (Noble and Sawyer, 2002). This is
supported by other recent studies documenting the success in correlating standardized test
scores with performance in college (The New SA T, 2005; Bridgeman, Pollack, and
Burton, 2004). These studies do not take into account the students who stopped out,
whether they were transferring to other institutions or whether they left the institution for
academic reasons. No study was found that included such stop outs, although data on
such a population could alter the findings of studies such as those described above.

The National Research Council steering committee assembled a board on testing
and assessment that held workshops to review myths and realities, based on expertise and
data review, of the use of standardized testing in college admissions. This may be the
most comprehensive analysis of the use of standardized tests, and included the leading

experts in the field. They found for both the SAT and the ACT:

42

In practice, both tests have an average correlation with first-year
college grades that ranges from .45 to .55 . . . The steering
committee concludes that the standardized tests available today
offer important benefits that should not be overlooked in any
discussion about changing the system:

0 The US. educational system is characterized by variety.
Public, private, and parochial schools each apply their own
standards, and public schools are controlled locally, not
nationally. In such a system, standardized tests are an efficient
source of comparative information for which there is currently
no substitute

0 Standardized tests can be provided at a relatively low cost to
students and offer valuable efficiencies to institutions that must
review thousands of applications.

0 Standardized tests provide students with an opportunity to
demonstrate talent. For students whose academic records are
not particularly strong, a high score can lead admissions
officers to consider acceptance for a student who would
otherwise be rejected. (Beatty, Greenwood, and Linn, 1999, pp.
20-22)

In other words, the data supports the use of standardized tests in admissions, and
the volume of applications makes them nearly a necessity, but their use must be limited to
situations in which the score gaps are large enough to be significant. While that research
provides a best practice for the use of standardized tests in the evaluation of applicants
for fieshmen admission, there is no comparable data on their use for transfer applicants.
One major reason may be the lack of a standardized test intended for use in transfer
evaluation, as opposed to freshman evaluation with the SAT and ACT, and to the many
specialized graduate tests (GMAT, GRE, LSAT, etc.). Despite this lack of specific test or
best practice, there is some evidence that standardized tests are being used in transfer
admission (Cuseo, 2001). It is not clear from the limited literature on the subject how

prevalent this practice may be or whether any other standardized tests may be in use that

are more targeted for transfer students. It highlights, however, the need to explore that

43

subject, and the possibility that a standardized test might be designed, or be used more

widely, for the purpose of transfer evaluation in the fiiture.

Nonacademic criteria

The extensive data on the use of grades, curriculum, and scores are not,
unfortunately, matched by the volume of research on the use of nonacademic factors,
despite their growing use. “In 2004, the application essay was valued as equally
important as a student’s rank in class by colleges and universities. This marks a
convergence point in a ten-year trend” (Hawkins & Lautz, 2005). While the popular press
suggests the essay is a small part of admissions (Russell, 2005) some colleges welcomed
the new SAT writing component as a way to be sure of the authenticity of student essays
(McGrath, 2004). Other than the non-cognitive variable studies outlined below, the
research does not specify how the essays were or should be used in the admission
process, and the same may be said of recommendations. As Ancrum wrote:

Letters of recommendation are a tool used to gather more

information about candidates fiom those who are familiar with the

applicant’s abilities and potential . . . [however], recommendations

do not always provide a complete, accurate, or honest appraisal.

Counselors are asked, and in most situations provide,

recommendations for students whom they know little about. Many

times these recommendations are based on teachers’ comments, in

which case only the best are included. (Ancrum, 1992, p. 21)
Counselor and teacher recommendations were ranked of similar importance in the
admission process, with 18.4% and 18.1% ranking them of considerable importance,

respectively (Hawkins & Lautz, 2005). If used similarly in transfer admission, this may

be very difficult for transfer students who are unlikely to get to know their academic

44

counselors at this level of depth, and who also may not have established close
relationships with instructors.

The NACAC survey ranked interviews just below recommendations in
importance to the admission decision, and 8.7% of schools listed interviews of
considerable importance, while 28.9% reported them of moderate importance (Hawkins
& Lautz, 2005). This is surprising considering the findings in other research. Rigol
asserted that, “Relatively few institutions actually require interviews of all applicants”
(Rigol, 2005, p. 10), while Ancrum felt that “the college interview has become more of a
recruitment activity than a tool in admission decisions” (Ancrum, 1992, p. 22).

Extracurricular and work activities were only a considerable factor for 7.5% of
institutions, while it was of moderate importance to 42.1%. The press asserted a need to
be deep in activities, particularly community service, and not just do activities as an
admissions effort (Randall, 2004). This may be an important issue for transfer students
since college level extracurricular and work experiences may be very different than at the
secondary level.

The use of legacy, whether a close relation of the applicant has previously
attended an institution, has also received attention, even among students themselves. An
article in The Daily Pennsylvanian, for instance, focused on the debate over legacy
admissions (Haigh, 2004). “Sixty-five percent of colleges attribute some level of
importance to a student’s alumni relations” (Hawkins & Lautz, 2005, p. 38); however,
many of these, 44.3 percent of institutions, consider the factor of limited importance.
Likewise, “a student’s demonstrated interest in attending an institution is an important

‘tip’ factor in the college admission decision. More than half of all colleges consider a

45

student’s interest in the institution during the admission process” (Hawkins & Lautz,
2005,p.5)

The NACAC study also noted ability to pay, subject test (SAT II, AP, 1B), and
state or county of residence as important admission factors, although, like the interview,
work and extracurricular experience, race/ethnicity, alumni relations, and demonstrated
interest are all listed as less crucial to the process than direct academic factors and seem,
as the authors describe them, to fimction more as these “tip” factors. It may be worth
noting that “Institutions that accepted fewer applicants placed slightly higher emphasis on
the ‘tip’ factors than institutions that admitted most applicants” (Hawkins & Lautz,
2005)

There are regular press references regarding the use of race and ethnicity in the
admission process, including: using race as a factor (Zimar, 2004; Mangan, 2004), the
impact of not having it as a factor (Trounson, 2004), general trends in enrollment along
racial/ethnic lines (Schmidt, 2005; Berman, 2004), and discussion or political battles over
policies that are purported to maintain access if ethnicity is not used as a plus factor
(CBS, 2004; Eaton, 2005;Fischer, 2005; Kriel, 2005; Rodriguez, 2005). Contrasting this
coverage, colleges and universities list race and ethnicity as minor factors in admission.
Only 2.2% of institutions report race and ethnicity of considerable importance, 16.4% of
moderate importance, and 24% of little importance (Hawkins & Lautz, 2004). Some
studies (example referenced in Mangan, 2004) suggest that using race as a plus factor in
admissions without regard to predictive value of success results in students attending
institutions where they are more likely to fail. Issues of whether or not a student is a

first-generation college-bound student along with socio-economic status are often

46

intertwined with these subjects. These combined topics are a particular focus of research
on “Noncognitive variables” or NCVs.

As the data above notes, the factors most often used in the evaluation of freshmen
are cognitive (curriculum, grade point average, and test scores). In addition to the other
factors listed, colleges also make use of noncognitive variables (NCVs), often using tests
or essay questions designed to elicit standard measures of such factors. Much of the
literature on the use of NCVs as admission criteria has been conducted by William
Sedlacek. Sedlacek (2004) explains:

Although noncognitive appears to be precise and scientific
sounding, it has been used to describe a variety of

attributes. . .Willingham (1 885) studies high school honors, high
school follow-through, personal statements, and reference and
concluded that they added to the prediction of college success.
Other researchers have included student involvement (Astin,
1993); academic and social integration (Milem & Berger, 1997;
Tinto, 1993); study skills (N isbet, Ruble, & Shurr, 1982); and
socioeconomic background, institutional, and environmental
variables (Ting & Robinson, 1998) in their conception of
noncognitive variables related to student success. (p. 36)

He defines these factors as, “variables relating to adjustment, motivation, and
student perceptions, rather than relying solely on the traditional verbal and quantitative
(often called cognitive) areas typically measured by standardized tests” (Sedlacek, 2004,
p. 7). He goes on to note:

There are eight noncognitive variables (NCVs) identified by extensive research in
this area: Positive self-concept, Realistic self-appraisal, Successfully handling the
system, Preference for long-term goals, Availability of strong support person,
Leadership experience, Community involvement, Knowledge acquired in a field.
The goal of using noncognitive variables is not to substitute this approach for the
cognitive focus more commonly employed in assessments, but to add to the range

of attributes that we consider in making the many judgments required of us all.
(Sedlacek, 2004, p. 7)

47

Sedlacek identifies several tools for measuring these variables, such as short
answer questions, essays, portfolios, and application review. In addition, he highlights the
Noncognitive Questionnaire (NCQ), a tool designed specifically to test the eight
noncognitive variables listed above, citing over a dozen studies demonstrating that the
NCQ can be predictive of student performance in college (Sedlacek, 2004).

The results of the tools demonstrating these non-cognitive factors are often
contrasted in the literature with the ones for cognitive factors. One example analyzed
female students for noncognitive outcomes from a series of questions and compared the
predictive value of those results with the predictive value of SAT scores for the same
students (Ancis & Sedlacek, 1997). The researchers reinforced that some noncognititve
factors can be predictive, and that the SAT remains a legitimate tool. The authors also
noted that their regression analysis, which showed that the use of some noncognitive
factors with the SAT made for a much stronger predictive model of academic
performance, demonstrated the limitations of the SAT. Their results also, however,
demonstrate the challenges of using noncognitive factors, as one factor, positive self-
image, was found to have a negative relationship to academic performance.

A study by Hunter and Samter (2000) took a different approach. Instead of
arguing for noncognitive factors on their own value, they argued for the value of adding
additional information to SAT scores to eliminate what they called “false negatives” -
students who out-performed their scores. A student’s SAT score, for instance, may be
much lower then his or her secondary school record would predict, and the Hunter and
Samter approach would seek to offer an alternative view for such students. They used a

barrage of different tests of noncognitive factors and created 29 sub-scores of specific

48

characteristics explored across the tests. They found five of these sub-scores yielded, in
combination, predictive models that were “moderately to highly significant.” They
suggested that using a test to identify sub-scores in five noncognitive areas: creative,
truth-seeking; adjusted; adapting; and social; to produce an aggregate “ACCESS” score
for students who underperforrned (scores below 1000) on the SAT. They suggested that
using high student ACCESS scores to offset these low SAT scores would better predict
college performance, thereby serving to reduce false negatives (Hunter & Samter, 2000).
This offers an interesting approach since the only students that would be impacted would
be those for whom standardized scores are not reflective of a strong high school
performance. Using such a test for only one segment of the applicant pool, however, may
pose unwelcome challenges of bias, since only students in such a situation would benefit.

A study of first-generation college students examined the noncognitive variables
related to self-regulated learning. The resulting self-regulated learning factor, when added
to ACT scores, created a result that was much more predictive of college GPA than using
ACT score alone (Naumann, Bandalos, & Gutkin, 2003).

The study of noncognitive variables includes research indicating that the variables
that are most predictive of performance vary for different groups of students. A large
study, for instance, found that “the overall relationship to college retention was strongest
when SES [socioeconomic status], HSGPA [high school grade point average] and ACT
Assessment scores were combined with institutional commitment, academic goals, social
support, academic self-confidence and achievement motivation” (Lotkowski, Robbins, &
Noeth, 2004). This use of socio-economic status to vary evaluation criteria is similar to

the idea that the criteria should vary by race or ethnicity. Research conducted comparing

49

the performance of Caucasian and Native American students found that “SAT scores
were less effective than the noncognitive variables in predicting the students’ GPA”
(Ting & Bryant, 2001). Additionally, in 2003, Ting studied first-generation students, and
based on his results recommended adding noncognitive factors to their evaluation, in
particular community service, as a proxy for several factors, in conjunction with high
school GPA and test scores in awarding admission (Ting, 2003).

One study by Thomas and Kuncel, as reported in The Chronicle of Higher
Education, purported to demonstrate that the tool recommended by Sedlacek and others
for estimating noncognitive values, the Noncognitive Questionnaire, failed to
demonstrate predictive validity (Glenn, 2004). As Sedlacek noted in the article, however,
there are many different versions of the NCQ and other ways to estimate noncognitive
traits. Thomas and Kuncel asserted that much of the research supporting noncognitive
variables use weak or inappropriate statistical tools. Several of the studies above,
however, especially those using noncognitive indicators in conjunction with grades and
test scores, clearly demonstrated an increased ability to predict student performance, as
determined by first-year college GPA and second—year persistence.

Sedlacek is a particularly strong advocate for the use of noncognitive variables for
“nontraditional” students (Sedlacek, 2004), and the studies on the topic have been
focused on students designated as nontraditional, or contrasting between those designed
as traditional and nontraditional. Questions remain in both the literature on NCVs and in
the reports on the use of race and ethnicity in admissions on how applicants are best
identified for these purposes. The criteria by which a student may designate him or

herself as a member of a particular nontraditional group and how that information can be

50

verified should be a topic of future research, and it limits the practical application of the
NCV theories. Furthermore, while these issues may be explored actively at the freshman
level, it remains to be seen whether NCVs have any potential, or are being explored at all,
for use in transfer admissions.

Despite the literature on the usefulness of noncognitive variables, there is no
literature suggesting that these factors are being weighted in the admission process in a
systematic way. The three most comprehensive studies of admission practices at the
undergraduate level (Blackburn, 1990; Rigol, 2002; Hawkins & Lautz, 2004) note only a
broad use of these concepts. In fact, the national study of admission practices (Hawkins
& Lautz, 2004) studies only the use of tools institutions might use to obtain this
information, such as recommendations, essays, and test scores, not the actual factors
suggested by Sedlacek and others. It appears that these practices have not yet developed
to the point of appearing in common fi'eshman admission practices, and the same may

also be true for transfer admissions.

Articulation as an Admission Process
One factor that exists for transfer students, but that rarely plays a role for
freshman applicants, is articulation agreements. Articulation agreements are
arrangements between academic institutions, generally community colleges and
baccalaureate-granting institutions. The arrangements can, but do not always, grant
admission to students from the sending institution if students meet set standards. Some of
these arrangements have been mandated and/or established by state higher education

coordinating bodies.

51

Kintzer and Wattenbarger (1985) define articulation as ‘the entire range of
processes and relationships involved in the systematic movement of students
interinstituionally and intersegmentally throughout post-secondary education,’
while transfer is one process of articulation representing ‘the mechanics of credit,
course, and curriculum exchange’ (p.iv). Articulation and transfer agreements
facilitate the movement of students between different institutions by establishing
guidelines for admission and/or transfer credit and typically are constructed on the
basis of courses, academic majors, departmental curricula, or general education
core. (Gutierrez, 2004, p. 119)

The popular claim is that “transfer agreements based on the attainment of the
associate in arts degree simplify the articulation process for community colleges and
receiving institutions” (Knoell, 1990, p. 26).

While these agreements, which can detail criteria by which a student may gain
automatic admission, seem to make the admission process for transfer students simple
and easy to understand, that it not always the case.

This uncertainty [of whether or not the student will be admitted] is not diminished

by those universities whose articulation guides for community colleges list in

considerable detail the sequences of courses to be taken by students pursuing
particular baccalaureate-degree majors but also caution students that the
completion of such courses with satisfactory grades does not insure their

admission with advanced standing to these programs. (Knoell, 1990, p. 20)

In other words, community college students may follow the guidelines for
admission to a baccalaureate-granting institution and still not gain the access to programs
afforded to native students. So the researcher suggests,

One approach to reducing the problem of limited access involves the development

of closely articulated lower-division programs by pairs of institutions, with some

type of guarantee that community college students who complete such programs
with grades that are specified as part of the agreement will be admitted to the

university with firll credit for the lower-division. (Knoell, 1990, p. 24)

This practice of more detailed agreements may answer a variety of concerns for

transfer applicants, and may even be taken to the start of the community college

experience, but may not answer all concerns.

52

A variation on the contract approach is the joint admission programs as practiced
by some institutions in the State University of New York. In September 1985,
some four-year colleges of arts and science cooperated with two-year public
colleges in admitted freshmen who would begin their work in the two-year
colleges and be guaranteed a place in the junior class when they completed an
associate degree and met other conditions. Supporters of the program cite benefits
to students in both types of colleges, such as increased retention and better flow of
transfer information. At the same time, critics point out inconsistencies in the
treatment of students by the four-year institutions with respect to the
baccalaureate-degree requirements that the students must meet after transfer.
(Knoell, 1990, p. 25)

Most information and research on articulation has focused (with the exception of

a small section in Knoell, 1990) on the transfer of credit and access to programs once

attending an institution, rather than the ways in which articulations may govern

admission processes and standards (Sullivan, Dyer, & Franklin, 2004). Unfortunately,

even the limited focus on admission practices in articulation has not detailed the extent of

their use nor their usefulness in predicting transfer student success.

Given the multitude and complexity of articulation practices nation-wide, one
cannot characterize ‘good’ practice outside the context of an individual state’s
educational governance and sociopolitical circumstances (Bender, 1994;
Tobolowsky, 1998). Regardless of whether these practices are ‘good,’ several
common patterns are evident: First, despite changes in students’ enrollment
patterns, even the newer articulation and transfer policies focus almost
exclusively on the traditional view that students transfer solely from two-year to
four-year colleges (the 2-4 transfer) (Riflrin, 1998b; Towsend & Ignash, 2001;
Wellman, 2002). Second, state-level agreements tend to focus on transfer between
public institutions and do not take into account the possibility of transfer to or
from private or for-profit institutions. (Gutierrez, 2004, p. 123-4)

Part of this complexity is caused by the various ways that articulations develop.

“Agreements favoring articulation can be entered into via voluntary commitments

between institutions; can be mandated by state law; or simply may be ‘encouraged’ by

state policies.” (Gutierrez, 2004, p. 119). The mandates and incentives for entering into

such agreements seem to be expanding.

53

According to the Education Commission of the States (2001), 30 states have
passed transfer legislation; 40 states have statewide cooperative agreements
between institutions; 33 states have developed systems for transfer data reporting;

18 states offer additional incentives, such as financial aid or guaranteed transfer

credit, to support the transfer process; 26 states have statewide articulation guides;

23 states streamline the articulation process though a common core curriculum;

and 8 states provide common course numbering systems. (Swanson and Jones-

Johnson, 2004, p. 134)

Articulations are also initiated by community college faculty as a way to use
admission to baccalaureate programs to encourage community college persistence and
graduation. “It was suggested that articulation agreements that provide incentives for
degree completion prior to transfer, such as priority or guaranteed admissions, also could
improve student retention and degree completion rates. (Cuseo, 2000; Ford Foundation,
2001)” (Gutierrez, 2004, p. 127). These many different sources, types, and governing
structures for articulations have provided little information on how successfirl these
agreements are in fostering transfer student success beyond the period of admission and
transition.

Articulation agreements do, however, offer a very simple process, both for
students and for the receiving institutions. By using them, a competitive institution can
offer an admission process that works as simply as that of the open enrollment
institutions, using only a set group of criteria, and avoiding the detailed review generally

conducted for freshmen applicants. This is especially important because the more

comprehensive the review, the more expensive to the institution (Rigol, 2005).

54

Transfer Student Admissions, Enrollment, and Performance

In addition to the limited information on articulation, there are a handfirl of
studies that provide some insight into transfer admissions (Ancrum, 1992; Cejda, 2004;
Cuseo, 2003; Gutierrez, 2004; Hagedom, et a1, 2003; Jacobs, 2004; Knoell, 1990;
Maryland State Higher Education Commission, 2003; Palmer, et al, 1994; Peter &
Carroll, 2005; Sullivan, Dyer, & Frankling, 2004; Suskind, 1997; Swanson & Jones-
Johnson, 2004). It is important in reviewing them to note the confusion about identifying
who is included in transfer admission processes:

Once upon a time, the assumption was that ‘the transfer student’

was a young person who, for reasons of finance or convenience,

attended a local two-year institution for two years before

transferring to a four-year college or university.

Today, the ‘2-plus-2’ model is only one of many. There are now

‘reverse transfers’ (4-year to 2-year), ‘lateral transfers’ (2-2 or 4-

4), and ‘swirling students’ (co-enrolled in two or more institutions

simultaneously), among other permutations. (Lauren, 2004, p. i)

Likewise, a comprehensive review of data from National Center for Education
Statistics detailed the many patterns possible for transfer students. These included not just
students starting at one institution and transferring to another, but students who dual
enrolled, transferred back and forth, and attended multiple (at times numerous)
institutions (Peter & Carroll, 2005).

As the analysis above indicates, it is not always clear, from the standpoint of an
admissions officer, who is considered in the “transfer” process. Ancrum also reported on
this confusion in his study of admission practices at post-secondary institutions, “Some
institutions require that a transfer have 15 to 30 credits of previous college work . . . At

other institutions, a transfer student is any person who has earned any college credits after

secondary school graduation; thus, transfer students might enter as fieshmen,

55

sophomores, or juniors, depending on their previous academic experience” (Ancrum,
1992, p. 17). Beyond the level at which transfer students enter an institution, there is also
the source of their prior experience to consider:

Townsend (2001) discusses transfer students in terms of those who start their

career at a community college and those who start at a four-year college: they

may transfer prior to completing a degree, transfer having earned an associate of
applied arts (Occupational program) degree, or go back and forth between two-

and four-year colleges (‘swirl’). (Swanson and Jones-Johnson, 2004, p. 134)

These varied definitions may be part of the reason there is so little research on
transfer admissions. The largest study directly on topic (Knoell, 1990), for instance, did
not look directly at institutional policies, but instead used a combination of interviews
with policy administrators, transfer data, and policy documentation to produce a review
of admission policies for transfer students (the report also calls them “students with
advanced standing”). Not surprisingly, that research noted that, “the amount of attention
that states and institutions give to the admission of freshmen exceeds that given to
admission of students with advanced standing” (Knoell, 1990, p. 20).

The author goes on to report that the lack of attention to the issue extends the
confusion around transfer admission issues. “A major finding of this study is the lack of
clarity in many states about the requirements and standards that transfer applicants must
meet in order to be admitted with advanced standing” (Knoell, 1990, p. 20). The report
goes on, however, to provide at least some insight into the factors considered in the
process:

When the number of qualified applicants for advanced standing exceeds the
number who can be enrolled, the best qualified are usually selected — sometimes
taking into account such variables as place of residence, ethnicity, amount of

coursework completed, or enrollment in a community college rather than another
four-year institution. (Knoell, 1990, P. 24)

56

The report later notes:

F our-year college and university policies for admitting undergraduate transfer
students vary widely from ‘open admission’ for anyone with a grade point
average of ‘C’ or better in community college coursework, to ‘selective
admission’ for those who would have been ineligible for freshman admission on
the basis of their high school record. Admission policies also vary from subjective
or unclear in terms of standards to be met, to specific and highly prescribed. With
some exceptions, increases in university requirements and standards for fieshman
admission are not producing changes in transfer and admissions policies . . . One
conclusion about admission that was reached in the earlier study continues to be
valid today: Some universities with selective admission standards are admitting
community college transfer students with no more than a C average on some
minimum amount of coursework, without assessing such students’ chances for
competing successfully with ‘native’ students. (Knoell, 1990, pp. 63-64)

Evaluating the transfer admission processes requires measures of success. While
some of these, as noted above, have been GPA at prior institutions and persistence to
graduation, another way to explore transfer student success is to compare them with
“native” students. This has been of particular interest to researchers exploring outcomes
for students transferring from community colleges.

Students who begin higher education at 2-year colleges with the intention of

achieving a baccalaureate degree will receive, on average, 15% fewer B.A.

deggees than those who enter higher education at 4-year institutions, even when

controlling for students’ SES background, academic ability, high school

achievement, and educational aspirations at college entry (Astin, 1975, 1977,

1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). (Cuseo, 2001, p. 3)

Because those studies include all community college students, not just those who
have made it through the admission process to baccalaureate-granting institutions, the
factor is not entirely relevant to this study. This highlights, however, the possible
distinction between students starting in the community college and those native to
baccalaureate degree granting institutions.

This performance may vary when looking at select students, those who enter

baccalaureate-granting institutions with higher academic achievements, an associate

57

degree, or just more credits. “Research studies, primarily of community college students,
report varying results regarding GPA performance of students during the first semester of
transfer . . . according to the NSSE [2002 National Survey of Student Engagement],
senior transfer students ‘appear to be performing academically on par with non-transfer
students in that they report comparable grades and similar degree of academic challenge’
(p.22)” (Jacobs, 2004, p. 4). The NSSE study noted, however, that senior transfer
students reported lower levels of interaction and campus involvement than native
students (N SSE Viewpoint, 2002).

The performance may also be more comparable once students are past an initial
transition period. “Appreciable differences between the overall grades of native and
transfer students in upper-level course work rarely exist following the ‘transfer shock’ of
the first semester” (Sullivan, Dyer, & Franklin, 2004, p. 103). Since the limited research
available indicates that transfer students are as likely as native students to be successful,
similar factors to those in use for freshmen may be predictive of that success. Although
there is no specific research to support or refute that contention, there are some studies
that indicate which factors might be predictive.

Typical of broader research on the subject of transfer students, some studies
focused on analysis of transfer patterns, of which students transferred to institutions at
what rates (Palmer, et al, 1994; Maryland State Higher Education Commission, 2003;
Peter & Carroll, 2005), on progression within the community college towards transfer
readiness and actuality (Hagedorn, et. al. 2003), or on the transition process from
community college to baccalaureate institution (Berger & Malaney, 2001), but did not

explore or suggest how these patterns might (or might not) have been affected by

58

admission practices at receiving institutions. While the studies hold interest from the
standpoint of understanding the many ways that students transfer and the challenges they
face, they offer little insight as to how admission practices are or should be conducted for
these students.

The literature does seem to infer a correlation between associate degree
completion and firture achievement of the bachelor’s degree (Palmer, et a1, 1994).
“Recent studies show that students who transfer to universities with a large number of
credits or with an associate degree tend to do better than those who transfer with only a
few credits; in fact, they perform as well as native students” (Sullivan, Dyer, & Franklin,
2004, p. 102). Likewise, “In a nationwide study of practices examining transfer and
articulation, the Ford Foundation (2001) found a positive correlation between number of
credit hours earned at the community college level and the likeliness of attaining a
bachelors degree” (Gutierrez, 2004, p. 126). While other literature refers back to these
studies (Pope, 2004, for instance), it is not clear whether the associate degree itself is an
indicator of performance, or may be correlated for a variety of other reasons (such as
greater articulation of coursework for those with the associate degree, or higher academic
or socioeconomic profile among associate degree completers).

Although the literature indicates that larger amounts of credit, and/or attaining an
associate degree, are potential indicators of student success, it is less clear whether there
is evidence that this is an admission factor outside of articulation agreements. One large
study of 15, 278 transfer students from community colleges to 50 baccalaureate granting
institutions looked specifically at the issue of whether achieving an associate degree had

an impact on students transfer patterns and found that it was not a factor (Palmer, et al,

59

1994). While they did not specifically examine whether associate degree attainment was
used in admission processes, it was clear in this study that the transfer pattern did not
reflect a likely emphasis on holding an associate degree as a plus factor for admission.

Type of community college degree is also used as an admission factor in some
articulations. This factor is particularly interesting as there is evidence in the research that
the rate of transfer is not correlated to the degree a student is seeking at a community
college. “The transfer rate of community college students who are in vocatmal-technical
programs has been found to equal or exceed that of students who are in general education
L transfer track) programs (Prager, 1999). These results call into question the validity of
drawing strong distinctions between community college students as being either ‘transfer’
or ‘nontransfer’ tracks (Harbin, 1996)” (Cuseo, 2001, p.4).

Adelman (2005) used data from the grade-cohort longitudinal studies of the
National Center for Education Statistics to develop “portraits” of community college
students. He observed several ways to distinguish these students: age, institutional type,
education expectations, and transfer pattern (Adelman, 2005). Many of these factors
might lend themselves to use as admission factors, but none have been explored in the
literature. Additionally, “the literature search did not reveal any studies that provided a
national perspective on the commuter or family status of nontraditional students enrolled
at two-year institutions” (Cejda, 2004, p. 164). Likewise, this review found no studies
that these factors have been explored for transfer students, despite their potential

influence on success.

60

Literature Review Limitations

While there is a wide variety of literature relevant to the topic, the methodology
of that literature varies greatly, and to some extent limits the applicability of any findings.
Before these findings are provided, an overview of the volume of literature and these
methodologies is first provided.

Several researchers conducted surveys, and in most cases these were described as
surveys of experts (Calahan-Laitusis, Mandinach, & Camara, 2003; Improving Access to
the Baccalaureate, 2004; Rigol, 2003; Sanders & Poynter, 1989). These experts were
described as admissions officers, guidance counselors, transfer counselors, or just simply
as experts in the field of admissions. Many of the surveys included several different
groups within these categories, and in general, these vague descriptions were all that was
offered—mo specific credentials or data on participants, beyond institutional data, were
provided. Two surveys differed as they gathered student perceptions (Aslanian, 1999;
Buckley, Mahaffey, & Turner, 1996).

Along with more formal surveys, a number of key articles and publications were
products of expert panels, individual interviews, or group colloquium (Ancrum 1992;
Beatty & Linn, 1999; Bond, Merrill, & Smith, 1997; O’Reilly, 1999; Perfetto, 1999;
Rigol, 2004). The works synthesized proceedings and interviews, but in most cases no
survey was conducted. In addition, there is a fine, and at times hard to discern, line
between products of colloquium or panels and expert commentary.

A number of such articles, written by individuals listed as “experts” based on their
position in the admissions and counseling professions or on a background of research in

the field, are also included (Aurand, 1994; Blackburn, 1990; Burton, Perfetto, & Sanders,

61

1997; Chimes, 2003; Greene & Greene, 2003; Healy, 1991; Holaday & McCauley, 2004;
Levine, 2004; MacGowan, 2004; MacGowan, 2005; Mamlet, 2005; Martin, 2005; Miller
& Nadler, 2005; McGrath, 2004; McPhail, 2004; Omundson, 2004; Palmer, 1998;
Roueche, 2004; Sanders & Perfetto, 1993; Schwartz, 2005; Stetson, 2005; Templin,
2004; Thiboutot, 2005; Young, 1994). Similar to the surveys of experts, however, there is
no evidence that these studies are based on data that can be validated.

Further evidence of the importance of the topic is represented by the wide variety
of stories on the subject found in mainstream publications, including newspapers,
magazines, online news sources, and higher education publications (Achen, 2005;
Argetsinger, 2004; Berman, 2004; Brush, 2005; Burd, 2004; Dobbs, 2004; Eaton, 2005;
Evelyn, 2005; Fisher, 2005; Gaigh, 2004; Glenn, 2004; Glenn, 2005; Hays, 2004; Helm,
2005; Hong, 2004; Jones, 2005; Kriel, 2005; Mangan, 2004; Matthews, 2004; O’Neill,
2005; Rodriguez, 2005; Russell, 2005; Sanoff, 2005; Schmidt, 2005; Randall, 2004;
Rimer, 2004; Schemo, 2004; Thomas, 2004; Trounson, 2004; University Business, 2004;
Zamiska, 2004). It is valuable to bear in mind, as these sources are referenced, that it is
often unclear which are being offered as news items, and which are being published by
individuals who intend to be viewed as experts on the subject.

Some of the most relevant literature on the subject consists of reviews of state,
federal, and/or institutional policies and processes. These were based on public
documentation and artifacts (Lauren, 2005) or interviews with policy and institutional
officials (Knoell, 1990).

Documents are also included in the literature review that are provided by agencies

that serve the admissions profession for the purpose of instructing admissions officers in

62

how to interpret data or use tools/products from those organizations (Crisis at the Core,
2004,: Guidelines on the Uses of College Board Test Scores, 2002; The New SA T: A
Guide for Admission Oflicers, 2005; Questions and Answers about the New SA T for
Admissions Officers, 2004).

Some of the most statistically reliable information in the literature includes
reviews of national, state, and institutional aggregate data, including longitudinal and
one-time studies of student performance. These can be divided in two sub-categories by
the subjects they explore. Broad studies review general trends in admissions by exploring
patterns in the data, demonstrating what is happening to students, institutions, and
policies (Adelman, 2005; Hawkins & Lautz, 2005; Peter, Cataldi and Carroll, 2005;
Tienda & Niu, 2005; ACT, 2004; Hagedorn, et al, 2003; Retention, Graduation and
Transfer Rates at Maryland Community Colleges, 2003; Gabriel, 2000; Jacobs and
Stoner-Eby, 1998; Dorans, Lyu, Pommerich, & Houston, 1997; Cohen & Brawer, 1996;
Palmer, et al, 1994; Houston & Sawyer, 1991). More focused studies examine which
student factors found in the admission process are most indicative of successful student
achievement (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2005; Bridgeman, Polack, & Burton, 2004; Geiser
& Santelices, 2004; Hiss, 2004; Noble & Sawyer, 2004; Tam & Sukhatme, 2004;
Massey, 2003; Naumann, Bandalos, & Gutkin, 2003; Ting, 2003; Noble & Sawyer, 2002;
Ting & Bryant, 2001; Hunter & Samter, 2000; Bell-Rose, 1998-99; Ancis & Sedlacek,
1997). Another category, not generally used in this study but often found in the
literature, explores which intervention or services provided by transfer destinations
influence successfiil transfer student achievement (Berger & Malaney, 2001). Such

studies were determined to lack relevance to the study, as they do not explore data that

63

can be obtained prior to student enrollment and are therefore not applicable to the
admission process.

Finally, several authors have provided literature reviews and syntheses of prior
research (Bell, 2005; Borland, 2005; Cejda, 2005; Jacobs, 2005; Johnson & Altemara,
2005; Pope, 2005; Steinmann, Pope, & Miller, 2005; Sullivan, Dyer, & Franklin, 2005;
Swanson & Jones-Johnson, 2005; Ward-Roof & Cawthom, 2005; Altermatt & Kim,
2004; Kinzie, et al, 2004; Kippenhan, 2004; Vogler, 2004; Cuseo, 2001; Flagel, 1998;
Richardson & King, 1998; Hubin, 1997). While source material has been used wherever
possible, the literature reviews and synthesis have been used when those materials were
no longer accessible.

While these varied studies provide a number of different approaches, none have
centered directly on the topic of transfer admission practices and/or processes. Instead
they are included because they cover a wide variety of related subjects that provide the
necessary background to issues of transfer admission. This begins with data on overall
trends and patterns in admissions and student enrollment in higher education, especially
from literature that looks at patterns in community college and transfer student
enrollment. Because the vast majority of the research has been conducted on the
admission of students directly from high school to baccalaureate granting institutions, the
review follows the data on patterns and trends with exploration of the findings of that
body of work on so-called “freshman admission.” This is divided to look initially at
processes and methodologies, and then to the specific factors considered as the basis for
admission decisions, with some attention in each area as to how these issues may be

applied to transfer admission, and a brief look at how financial issues impact these

64

decisions. With the general trends and bulk of the freshman— focused research as
background, the review details the limited literature specifically focused on transfer
students: their admission, their performance after transfers, and the factors that seem to
indicate their success. The review concludes with a brief description of topics not
included.

There are very apparent gaps in the literature. This study explored which factors
are in use by four-year institutions in evaluating transfer applicants, which will provide
information for policy makers, both internal and external to baccalaureate-granting
institutions, community college faculty and staff, and prospective transfer students as to
what degree the transfer admission process mirrors freshman evaluation. It did not
explore whether transfer admission processes do or should align with freshman admission
processes. It did not include possible admission processes institutions do or should
employ to address the many types of transfers, such as those that reverse (start at
baccalaureate-granting institutions, then attend community college, finally returning to a
baccalaureate institution) or swirl, going between two or more institutions with repeating
patterns. The validity of admissions factors was also not investigated, including whether
quality or type of sending institution is a valid predictor of future success, or whether
credits or degrees achieved before transfer should be a factor.

The gap in the literature also extends to an emerging area of new admission
models, such as joint admission programs between two-year and four—year institutions.
This leaves a wide variety of important follow-up study, particularly exploring the
validity of the factors in use and those that are indicated as having good potential as

success predictors in the literature. The same can be said for the use of noncognitive

65

variables in the admissions process. While the tools to discover these variables appear to
be well—established (tests, essays, recommendations) and have some validity, there are no
indications that the variables themselves are being systematically utilized at more than a
handful of institutions.

Apart from the gaps in the literature, several areas closely related to admissions
have received study, but are not relevant to this literature review as they contain no
information relating to admission processes or criteria. These include research on
enrollment patterns for international students and students with English as a Second
Language, on the philosophical, legal, and policy implications of affirmative action, on
retention and graduation of community college students at community colleges, and on
the credit policies of transfer student receiving institutions. For the same reason,

information on marketing and recruiting transfer students is also not a part of this review.

66

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

As one textbook author noted, “the first step in dealing with a mass of data is,
somehow, to organize it” (Shavelson, 1996, p. 43). Several approaches are possible in
exploring admission processes, but to gain a comprehensive overview of current
practices, a quantitative approach is the most appropriate. “A quantitative study,
consistent with the quantitative paradigm, is an inquiry into a social or human problem,
based on testing a theory composed of variables, measured with numbers, and analyzed
with statistical procedures . . . Something can be measured objectively by using a
questionnaire or an instrument” (Creswell, 1994, pp. 2-4). Once the tool has been
identified to gather these data, the analysis must follow a legitimate format. “Statistics are
methods of organizing and analyzing quantitative data. These methods are tools designed
to help the researcher organize and interpret numbers derived from measuring a trait or
variable” (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989, p. 209).

The basic research question is: What are the criteria used in the evaluation of
applicants with prior post-secondary credit (transfer students) seeking admission to
baccalaureate-granting institutions? This entails asking which criteria are used for the
evaluation of the admission of transfer students applying to baccalaureate-granting
institutions, including which criteria are more important than others and which factors are
most commonly used. These policies need to be explored by institutional type, size, and
selectivity. Consistent with the concept of quantitative research tools that yield a

statistical analysis, these research questions were used to develop a survey tool to be

67

distributed to those most likely to be knowledgeable about transfer admission policies,
chief admissions officers at receiving institutions.

The need for such a study is clearly established in the literature. For many years,
admissions officers have relied on an annual study of freshman admission practices
conducted by the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC).
Other research has been based on a series of explorations of freshman admission
practices developed through a series of symposiums on the subject, with chief enrollment
and admissions officers as the participants. These qualitative studies are helpful but are
limited in their application since a very small subset of receiving institutions are
represented. This introduces potential response bias with no corresponding analysis of its
implications, and the small sample size makes it difficult to know if the conclusions they
reached are generalizable. The more inclusive NACAC study provides a necessary
baseline on which subsequent research can be justified. The extent to which various
criteria are in use guides the direction of research on freshman admission, including
studies on the ways in which the factors are used and the degree to which they are
predictive of future student performance.

A quantitative study provides a standard to prioritize such firture research on the
transfer admission process and a context in which it can be evaluated. “Descriptive
statistics transform a set of numbers or observations into indices that describe or
characterize the data. Descriptive statistics (sometimes referred to as summary statistics)
are thus used to summarize, organize, and reduce large numbers of observations”
(McMillan and Schumacher, 1989, p. 209). From a standardized and comprehensive

survey, such descriptive statistics can readily be generated. To do so, it makes the most

68

sense to develop the questionnaire/survey along the same lines that the best research has
been conducted at the freshman level. In fact, “If the researcher can locate an existing
questionnaire, he or she will save time and money and may find an instrument with
established reliability and validity” (McMillan and Schumacher, 1989, p. 255). The
annual NACAC study provided just such an opportunity.

The following section details the survey method.

Survey Method

“The mere presence of statistical procedures does not assure quality in the
research. While the contribution of some results does depend on applying correct
statistical procedure, the quality of the research depends most on proper
conceptualization, design, subject selection, instruments, and procedures” (McMillan &
Schumacher, 1989, p. 209). To ensure that the instrument design is correct, a survey style
questionnaire was the most appropriate tool for this research.

“For many good reasons the questionnaire is the most widely used technique for
obtaining information from subjects. A questionnaire is relatively economical, has
standardized questions, can assure anonymity, and questions can be written for specific
purposes” (McMillan and Schumacher, 1989, p. 254). In particular, a survey is the most
applicable of such tools. “In survey research the investigator selects a sample of
respondents and administers a questionnaire or conducts interviews to collect information
on variables of interest . . . Most surveys describe the incidence, frequency, and
distribution of the characteristics of an identified population” (McMillan and

Schumacher, 1989, p. 293).

69

The purpose of survey research, “is to generalize from a sample to a population so
that inferences can be made about some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of this
population (Babbie, 1990)” (Creswell, 1994, p. 118). In this case, the inclusion of a large

number of receiving institutions increases the applicability of the study.

Research Design and Data Collection

The study is cross-sectional as, “the survey information is collected at one point in
time” (Creswell, 1994, p. 119). This survey was a new component of the National
Association for College Admissions Counseling Admissions Trends Survey, which was
conducted from October through December 2006. As the authors wrote for the March,
2005 edition, “The purpose of this survey is to poll college admissions officers to
determine what factors are most important in the admission decision and to assess trends
in admission office functions, staff, budget, and operations” (Hawkins and Lautz, 2005,
p. 1).

Copies of the 2006 survey are included as Appendix A of this publication, in
addition to text from letters that accompanied the survey and email reminders to complete
the survey, which are provided in Appendix B. The questions regarding transfer
admissions replaced a section dedicated to questions on the admission of students who
were home-schooled.

The survey was distributed to 2,213 institutions. A paper version, along with a
cover letter (Appendix B) providing a link to the online version of the survey was sent via
postal mail on October 31, 2006, with a deadline of December 15, 2006, for completion.

An e-mail reminder (Appendix B) was sent electronically on November 29’“. Because

70

initial response was low, a deadline extension message was sent via e-mail (Appendix B)
on December 12, 2006, extending the deadline until January 12, 2007.

The population for the distribution used was all four-year, not-for-profit, degree-
granting, Title-1V participating institutions in the United States. The data was obtained
using the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Post-secondary Education
Data System (IPEDS) at www.mces.ed.gov/ipeds.

The data set includes 386 completed surveys that were received, representing

approximately 17% of institutions that was sent the survey.

Sampling

The survey was sent to a single stage sample as NACAC, “has access to names in
the population” (Creswell, 1994, P. 120), in addition to receiving institutional contact
information through the Department of Education National Center for Education
Statistics fi'om their IPEDS Dataset Cutting Tool (http://www.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
find_data/data_cutting_summary. asp). As a result, the survey was sent to 2,213 four-year,
not-for-profit, degree-granting, Title-IV participating institutions in the United States and
outlying areas. This study excludes information fiom community college respondents, as

the subject pertains to students seeking to enter baccalaureate-granting institutions.

Data Collection Tool
The NACAC annual survey tool focuses on the freshman admission process and
has been used for more than 10 years. Questions on transfer admissions were designed to

match the format in the survey, and they replaced an existing section on the admission of

71

home-schooled students. This is an entirely new section of the survey that has been
designed to answer the research questions of this study.

The NACAC survey was developed with an online version in 2006 in a program
called “Surveymonkey.” According to their website, Surveymonkey meets the “Safe
Harbor requirements” and, “has been placed on the Safe Harbor list of companies”
(www.3urveymonkey.com).

The survey was distributed to all baccalaureate-granting colleges and universities
in the United States and those associate degree granting institutions with organizational
memberships in NACAC. This is a departure from surveys prior to 2005, which were
only sent to NACAC members (Hawkins, 2004; Hawkins and Lautz, 2005).

A paper survey was first sent with an accompanying letter. The paper survey
contains a link to an online form as an alternative way to complete the survey. An initial
e-mail was also sent promoting use of the online form, and three additional e-mail

reminders followed the initial communications.

Stratification
The response rate to the 2005 survey, one year prior to the inclusion of a transfer
admission section, was 23%, with 582 responses from 2,530 institutions surveyed.
According to the NACAC annual report of the 2005 survey, “33 percent were public
institutions, while 67 percent were private institutions. Nationally, 41 percent of post-
secondary institutions are public, while 59 percent are private” (Hawkins and Clinedinst,
2006). This is consistent with data from the National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES, 2005) indicating that 40% of post-secondary institutions are public and 60% are

72

private. The survey responses, however, correspond more closely with the percentages of
four-year institutions. NCES reports that only 25% of four-year institutions are public,
while 75% are private. Two prior surveys sent to the 1,540 institutional members of
NACAC had response rates of 39% (595) in 2003 and 43% (661) in 2004 (Hawkins,
2004; Hawkins and Lautz, 2005). Stratification of the 2006 survey, which included the

transfer survey, is detailed in the results analysis.

Confidentiality

All survey subjects participated with informed consent. The ways in which the
survey is used and the results published are detailed in all materials sent to prospective
subjects. The selection of subjects has no potential for identified selection, as admission
offices are contacted at all baccalaureate-granting institutions.

The privacy of the research subjects has not, and cannot, be compromised in any
way. Respondents are anonymous, as their responses are tied to institutions and not to
individuals. Respondents are not asked to give their name or other personally identifying
information, thereby guaranteeing individual anonymity.

Institutionally identifying data are on secure servers at the NACAC headquarters
on systems not connected to the Internet. The data are not available to the public, and the
data cannot be accessed from outside the association. In addition, the data that was made
available to the researcher had all institutional identifiers removed. While this data set
retained general institutional characteristics (size, admission rates, expenditures, etc.), the
size of the research population makes it improbable, if not impossible, that this data could

be linked to a specific institution. As a result, the researcher had no access to institutional

73

identities, while respondent identities are, as noted, not collected. Although identifying
data are excluded in this matter, data supplied to the researcher was stored on a secure
server behind a firewall and with high-security, password-only access.

As noted above, data collected by NACAC was collected using the tool known as
Surveymonkey, which includes stringent privacy and confidentiality standards and

protections.

Analysis

An analysis of the respondent data was conducted consistent with the quantitative
method.

On the epistemological issue, the relationship of the researcher to that being

researched. . .The quantitative approach holds that the researcher should remain

distant and independent of that being researched. Thus in surveys and
experiments, researchers attempt to control for bias, select a systematic sample,

and be ‘objective’ in assessing a situation. (Creswell, 1994, p. 2-4)

The analysis was conducted in software using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS)
language.

In answering the research questions, it was most important to show which factors
are in use for the evaluation of transfer applicants, and the relative importance of those
factors. “A frequency distribution is a method for summarizing and highlighting aspects
of the data in data matrix”(Shavelsone, 1996, p. 46). Such a frequency distribution is the
initial level of analysis, and were conducted in the SAS software.

Some of these dependent variables (factors used to evaluate transfer applicants)

were correlated with independent variables found elsewhere in the survey, such as

institutional identifying data (public or private status or size of enrollment, for instance)

74

or with general admission standards (level of competitiveness). To show the relationship
between two variables, “the typical convention is to calculate a number to represent the
relationship, called a correlation coefficient”(McMillan and Schumacher, 1989, p. 233).
The SAS system provided Monte Carlo Estimates for the Exact P-values using the
Cochran Mentel Haenszel (CMH) test for assessing ordinal associations. In this study,
factors with a P-value below 0.05 are considered to have a statistically significant
association at a 5% level of significance.

Where multiple correlations between dependent and independent variables were
found for any dependent variables, the correlation information was complemented by
regression analysis to find the most likely predictors, if any, of the use of the various
factors in the admission process. For such variables, the SAS system produced P-values
indicating the strength of the relationship, and a confidence internal indicating the
likelihood of the relationship. A Wald confidence interval was included for each
regression model to more exactly describe the likelihood of the predictive model, with

wider intervals indicating greater uncertainty.

Issues of Validity and Reliability
Methods of validity
All correlations and regression analysis run on the data has external and internal
validity analysis conducted and reported in the findings.
Validity is the extent to which inferences made on the basis of numerical scores
are appropriate, meaningful, and usefirl. Validity is a judgment of the
appropriateness of a measure for specific inferences or decisions that result from

the scores generated . . . in order to assure others that the procedures have validity
in relation to the research problems, subjects, and setting of the study, it is

75

incumbent on the investigator to describe the validity of the instruments used to
collect data. (McMillan and Schumacher, 1989, p. 241)

This was particularly important to determine any potential response bias,
including over-representation of institutions that are more or less competitive, public or
private, or other factors that may tend to skew results. No significant bias was found in

the data.

Methods of reliability
Because the NACAC survey is an existing format that has been in use for several
years, there is some long-term comparability of the data previously gathered which has
shown a consistency in responses.
Reliability refers to the consistency of measurement, the extent to which the
results are similar over different forms of the same instrument or occasions of
data collecting. The goal of developing reliable measures is to minimize the
influence of chance or other variables unrelated to the intent of the measure. If an
instrument is unreliable, the information obtained is ambiguous, inconsistent, and
useless. It is therefore important for researchers to select and develop data
gathering procedures that will be highly reliable. (McMillan and Schumacher,
1989,p.243)
The study of transfer admission factors should also be able to be used over time to

develop a comparison of responses. Ideally, other studies will be conducted over time to

provide a greater comparability.

Generalizability of data

Since a large cross-section of receiving institutions were survey respondents, the

results of the study and analysis are widely generalizable.

76

Delimitations

In order to be part of the national survey that NACAC conducts annually, and to
make the response data as comparable with the longitudinal results from that survey as
possible, a number of delimitations were accepted for this study.

While the vast majority of competitive receiving institutions are members of
NACAC, it is possible that some bias was introduced by favoring responses from
members through a survey sent from the organization. In addition, only not-for-profit
institutions are included in the sample. While most of the for-profit institutions have open
enrollment policies, and therefore are not relevant to the study, it is possible that their
exclusion reduces the applicability of the study to this fast-growing segment of the
educational environment.

In addition, the questions asked often do not firlly explain the use of various
factors. There is no way to tell fiom this survey if some factors are always given the
weights indicated, or if this is something that only happens under set conditions. For
example, does a school use high school grade point average, for instance, only when the
student has a limited post-secondary record, or is it weighted equally for all transfer
applicants? Is the essay used to evaluate writing talent and English proficiency, or to
glean information about other factors from the applicant? Likewise, the study did not
explore the source information for the various factors. It is not clear for instance, whether
there is a difference in how much documentation is required, such as recommendations,
essays, and/or resume details, to be a successful transfer applicant. This also carries over
to questions about curriculum and whether specific courses would be more valued in the

admission process, also an unexplored topic. This may not be significant, since few

77

institutions note a need for specific coursework, and since the institutions had the
opportunity to fill in an open response question. Other topics, such as factoring in
standardized tests, lack clarity as the use of tests traditionally examined by the NACAC
survey, the SAT and ACT, are by no means the only possible standardized tests when it
comes to transfer students. It is possible, although the issue is not mentioned in the
literature, that schools might use some other standardized tests that are more relevant to

transfer admission.

78

 

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The 2006 NACAC survey of admissions practices contained sections on the
evaluation of traditional applicants, as well as this study’s section on the evaluation of
transfer applicants. The traditional admission section of the survey focuses on students
applying to college directly from secondary school. The transfer section explored
admission policies related to students who, after receiving a secondary diploma, receive
post-secondary credit fiom any institution prior to applying to a US. baccalaureate-
granting institution. The section first asked respondents to identify the policies regarding
the degree of importance of sixteen potential transfer applicant evaluation factors.

By far, the factor that was given the most weight in the responses was applicants’
grade point averages at their prior post-secondary institutions, with 312 respondents
listing this as being of moderate or considerable importance, and 296 of those as
considerable importance. The other factors appeared far less important, and were listed as
factors of moderate or considerable importance half or less as many times as the grade
point average from prior post-secondary institution. The one exception was high school
grade point average, and this was still only listed as moderate or considerable importance
176 times, with only 37 institutions weighing it with considerable importance. Other
factors that were reported to receive similar weight are recommendations, with 153
moderate to considerable responses (58 considerable); quality of prior post-secondary

institution with 151 moderate to considerable responses (37 considerable); and essay or

79

writing sample with 150 moderate to considerable responses (65 considerable). Overall

response rates on these scaled response items are presented in Table I.

Table I: Frequencyof Regponses on Scaled Items

 

 

Variable Limited Considerable

Importance Importjr‘nce Importance Importance Responses
GPA at post- 5 5 16 296 322
secondary
institution
GPA at high school 30 110 139 37 316
Average of grades 24 24 82 184 314
in transferable
courses
Scores on 61 123 109 23 316
standardized tests
Quality of prior post- 61 104 114 37 316
secondary
institution(s)
Quality of high 108 131 69 9 317
school
Articulation with 118 87 71 39 315
prior institution
Essay or writing 99 69 84 65 317
sample
Work/extra- 104 1 15 83 15 317
curricular Activities
Recommendations 79 86 95 58 318
Ability to pay 243 37 27 8 315
State or county of 236 52 21 7 316
residence
Race/ethnicity 214 52 40 8 314
Students' interest in 123 87 67 40 317
attending
Alumni relations 146 106 55 8 315
Interview 125 98 65 26 314

 

Respondents were also asked to list the top three of these criteria as used in their

evaluation of transfer applicants for admission. Nearly half of the participants failed

provide list one or more of the top three factors. Again, grade point average at the

applicant’s post-secondary institution was most often, 201 times, listed as the top factor.

80

Grades in transferable courses was the next most-listed top factor, at 19 times, and was
the most often listed second factor, 87 times. High school grade point average followed,
listed 44 times as the second most important factor. Standardized test scores were listed
31 times as the third most important factor, with recommendations and essays/writing
samples following closely at 29 and 28 times, respectively. The frequency of times that a
factor was listed among the top three is provided in Tables 2, 3, and 4, and the number of

institutions that failed to respond to each factor is also provided.

Table 2: Frequency of Indicator of Top Factor

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Articulation
secondary school grades in with prior
institution transferable institution
courses
201 2 19 1
Essay or writing Ability to pay Students' total
sample interest in
attending
2 1 1 227

 

Frequency Missing = 159

 

Table 3: Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor

 

GPA at post— GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT,
courses ACT)
19 44 87 7

Quality of prior Articulation with Essay or Work/extra-
post-secondary prior institution writing sample curricular

institution activities

1 9 8 16 1
Recom- Students' interest Interview Total
mendations in attending

11 5 2 21 9

 

Frequency Missing = 167

81

 

 

 

Table 4: Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor

 

GPA at post— GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT,
courses ACT)
1 22 19 31
Quality of prior Quality of high Articulation Essay or
post-secondary school with prior writing sample
institution institution
21 2 18 28
Work/extra- Recom- Ability to pay State or county
curricular mendations of residence
activities
5 29 2 1
Students' interest Interview Total
in attending
12 13 204

 

Frequency Missing = 182

The transfer section of the survey also asked respondents to indicate whether 10
other factors were a plus, minus, or neutral consideration in determining the admissibility
of transfer applicants. Applying from a highly competitive four-year college was the only
factor not having a majority of neutral responses, and it was also the highest (159 times)
plus factor, followed by having an associate degree (126) and having visited the campus
(122). Very few factors were listed as minuses, planning on part-time status getting the
highest (33) followed by more than 60 hours of credit (18) and having a GED (18). The

frequency of all responses on the additional factors section is provided in Table 5.

82

Table 5: Freguengy of Responsess on Additional Factors

 

 

Variable Plus Neutral Minus Total
Responses

Received a GED 11 290 18 319

Received an 126 192 1 319

associate degree

Attended a 57 258 2 317

community college

Attended a highly 159 156 3 318

competitive four-

year College

More Than 60 91 211 18 320

hours transferable

credit

Visited the campus 122 195 2 319

Frequently 88 228 2 31 8

contacted the
admission office

Over 25 years old 15 294 7 316
Particular academic 114 203 1 318
or professional

focus

Plans to enroll full- 109 208 0 317
time

Plans to enroll part-

time 10 268 33 311

 

Six institutional characteristics were identified as the most likely independent
variables to have an impact on selection and weighting of factors in the transfer
admission process: control of institution (public or private), two measures of
competitiveness (freshman admission rate and transfer student admission rate), and two
measures of enrollment size (size of fall semester incoming freshman class, and size of
fall semester incoming transfer class).

In the following tables, the responses for each independent variable are detailed,
including frequency of responses and association between the variable and the responses.

In order to evaluate the various transfer admission factors and their relationships to the

83

independent variables, associations were analyzed statistically using a series of chi-
square tests of independence. The software used was the Statistical Analysis System
(SAS) language. This provided the “P-values,” or the measures of the statistical
significance of the observed relationship between these factors. The Monte Carlo
Estimate for the Exact P-values were obtained using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel
(CMH) test for assessing ordinal associations. This describes the likelihood of an
association between the independent and dependent variable.

These overviews are followed by the results of regression analysis on each
dependent variable (survey responses on factors used in the transfer admission process)
against any independent variables with statistically significant associations to
demonstrate the best predictors of the use of those factors in the admission process. For
the purpose of this study, associations were considered to be statistically significant if the
association had a P-value of less than .05. This level was sufficient to indicate a likely
association, while the regression analysis was used to screen out any potentially weak or
confounding predictors among the independent variables. The strength of the
associations and the level of association are detailed in Appendix C. This chapter

concludes with a brief description of the open response section of the survey.

Institutional Control
Institutional control refers to whether an institution is governed under the
authority of a state government or not. The question asked whether a college or
university is a private or public institution, offering only these two possible responses.

The breakdown of respondents is provided in Table 6.

84

Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Institutional Control

 

Control of Institution Number of Respondents Percentage
Public 97 28.76%
Private 264 71 .24%

 

 

The survey respondents included 28.76% public and 71.24% private institutions. Out of
the total data obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS website,
29.4% of institutions are public, while 70.6% are private. This indicates a slight (less than
1%) difference in the stratification of the respondent pool when compared to the total
population.

While grade point average at post-secondary institution was the dominant
admission factor for both public and private institutions, as it was in the overall
distribution, some of the other factors appear to differ by institutional control. The

frequency of response by institutional control for each scaled item is detailed in Table 7.

85

Table 7: Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Institutional Control

 

 

Variable Institutional Limited Considerable
Control importance Importance Responses
GPA at post- Public 1 2 1 79 83
secondary
institution Private 4 3 15 217 239
GPA at high school Public 15 33 30 3 81
Private 15 77 109 34 235
Average of grades Public 6 5 11 58 80
in transferable Private 18 19 71 126 234
courses
Scores on Public 28 30 19 3 80
standardized tests Private 33 93 90 20 236
Quality of prior post- Public 36 22 17 6 81
secondary Private 25 82 97 31 235
institution(s)
Quality of high Public 44 30 7 0 81
school Private 64 101 62 9 236
Articulation with Public 28 22 16 16 82
prior institution Private 90 65 55 23 233
Essay or writing Public 48 15 14 5 82
sample Private 51 54 70 60 235
Work/extracu r- Public 48 20 12 1 81
ricular activities Private 56 95 71 14 236
Recommendations Public 45 26 11 0 82
Private 34 60 84 58 236
Ability to pay Public 77 2 1 0 80
Private 166 35 26 8 235
State or county of Public 59 12 5 5 81
residence Private 177 40 16 2 235
Race/ethnicity Public 67 8 5 2 82
Private 147 44 35 6 232
Students' interest in Public 47 18 13 4 82
attending Private 76 69 54 36 235
Alumni relations Public 56 20 4 1 81
Private 90 86 51 7 234
Interview Public 61 13 6 0 80
Private 64 85 59 26 234

 

As noted in the previous section, associations were analyzed statistically using a

series of chi-square tests of independence. These scores show associations between
institutional control and responses on high school grade point average, scores on

standardized tests, quality of prior post-secondary institution, quality of high school,

essay or writing sample, work/extracurricular activities, recommendations, ability to pay,

race or ethnicity, student’s interest in attending, alumni relations, and interview. All

86

values describing the association between the institutional control variable and the scaled
response factors are provided in Table 8 in appendix C.

Grade point average from post-secondary institution was the most often listed top
factor for both public and private institutions. The frequency of listing among the top

three factors is provided in Tables 9, 10, and 11.

Table 9: Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Institutional Control

 

 

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Articulation with
secondary school grades in prior institution
institution transferable
courses
Public 56 0 6 1
Private 145 2 1 3 0
Essay or writing Ability to pay Students' Total
sample interest in
attending
Public 0 0 0 63
Private 2 1 1 164
Table 10: Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Institutional Control
GPA at post- GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
Public 6 1 5 30 3
Private 1 3 29 57 4
Quality of prior Articulation Essay or Work/extra-
post-secondary with prior writing sample curricular
institution institution activities
Public 2 2 1 0
Private 1 7 6 1 5 1
Recom- Students' Interview Total
mendations interest in
attending
Public 0 1 0 60
Private 1 1 4 2 159

 

Frequency Missing = 167

87

Table 11: Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Institutional Control

 

GPA at post— GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
Public 0 5 8 10
Private 1 17 1 1 21
Quality of prior Quality of high Articulation Essay or writing
post-secondary school with prior sample
institution institution
Public 5 1 7 4
Private 16 1 1 1 24
Work/extra- Recom- Ability to pay State or county of
curricular mendations residence
activities
Public 3 1 O 1
Private 2 28 2 0
Students' interest Interview Total
in attending
Public 2 1 48
Private 10 12 156

 

Frequency Missing = 182
Of the associations between the top three factors and institutional control, only the
third factor has a significant association. The associations are provided in Table 12 in
Appendix C.
For the additional factors, applying from a highly competitive four-year
institution was the most indicated plus factor for private institutions, while having
received an associates degree was the most ofien indicated among public institutions. The

breakdown of responses by institutional control is provided in Table 13.

88

Table 13: Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by Institutional Control

 

 

Variable Institutional Plus Neutral Minus Total Responsess
Control
Received a GED Public 2 78 1 81
Private 9 212 17 238
Received an Public 39 42 0 81
associate degree Private 87 150 1 238
Attended a Public 20 60 0 80
community college Private 37 198 2 237
Attended a highly Public 24 55 1 8O
C0mpet't've “3“" Private 135 101 2 238
year College
More Than 60 Public 31 50 O 81
2g: tranSferab'e Private 60 161 18 239
Visited the campus Public 10 71 O 81
Private 1 12 124 2 238
Frequently Public 7 74 O 81
”“8“?“ the Private 81 154 2 237
admussuon office
Over 25 years old Public 9 71 O 80
Private 6 223 7 236
Particular academic Public 27 53 0 80
°' pmfess'ma' Private 87 150 1 238
focus
Plans to enroll full- Public 17 63 0 80
time Private 92 145 0 237
Plans to enroll part— Public 4 72 3 79
_t_ime Private 6 196 30 232

 

When associations were examined between these factors and institutional control,
attending a highly competitive four-year institution, having more than 60 hours of
transferable credit, visiting the campus, frequently contacting the admissions office,
being over 25 years old, planning to enroll full-time, and planning to enroll part-time
were all found to have statistical significance. A complete list of the P-Values for these

associations is provided in Table 14, Appendix C.

89

Freshman Admission Rate

Unlike institutional control, which was either public or private, competitiveness,
as measured by freshman and transfer admission rates, was a numeric variable. Average
(mean) reported freshman admission rate was 69.15%, closely mirroring the average
freshman admitted rate for the filll population at 69.0%. In order to conduct fiequency
and association analysis, institutions were categorized into four numeric levels of
competitiveness that created an approximately even distribution of respondents: 25
(admission of 0-50% of applicants); 60.5 (admission of 50-71% of applicants); 78 (71-
85% of applicants); and 92.5 (more than 85 percent of applicants). As described by
Melissa Clinedinst, Assistant Director of Research at NACAC, in e-mail and phone
conversations with the researcher, these ranges were developed by NACAC based on the
distribution of respondents and member perception of levels of selectivity, and these
ranges have been used for the past four cycles of this national study. After reviewing the
data, the researcher found these ranges provided an adequate distribution for the purpose
of determining initial associations, especially since the exact responses were used in the
more detailed regression analysis section. These NACAC designed ranges will be
particularly useful if future research is conducted comparing the policies of freshmen and
transfer admission, or to permit policy makers and institutional leaders to compare the
analysis in this research with the research conducted on the traditional applicant section

of the survey. Table 15 provides the frequency of respondents from each of these ranges.

9O

Table 15: Competitiveness Scale

 

Freshman Admission Rate Frequency Percentage

 

25 52 15.48
60.5 109 32.44
78 110 32.74
92.5 65 19.35

 

Table 16 provides the frequency of responses in four freshman admission rate

categories on the scaled questions on transfer admission factors.

91

Table 16: Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Percent of Freshmen Applicants Admitted

 

 

Variable Freshmen Limited Considerable
Admit Rate Importance Responses

GPA at post- 25 1 1 3 42 47
secondary 60.5 1 1 5 94 101
institution 78 0 1 1 97 99
92.5 3 2 6 50 61
GPA at high school 25 4 10 21 11 46
60.5 9 38 46 7 100
78 8 35 46 9 98
92.5 8 24 21 7 60
Average of grades 25 2 2 1O 31 45
in transferable 60.5 8 8 27 58 101
courses 78 6 6 27 57 96
92.5 8 8 14 29 59
Scores on 25 9 11 22 5 47
standardized tests 60.5 16 41 39 4 100
(ACT. SAT) 78 17 43 32 5 97
92.5 17 24 11 8 60
Quality of prior post- 25 7 1 1 21 7 46
secondary 60.5 17 38 33 12 100
institution(s) 78 17 31 38 12 98
92.5 17 21 17 5 60
Quality of high 25 11 24 8 4 47
school 60.5 33 41 24 3 101
78 30 42 26 0 98
92.5 30 21 6 2 59
Articulation with 25 23 11 9 3 46
prior institution 60.5 29 28 27 16 100
78 34 31 20 11 96
92.5 27 14 12 7 60
Essay or writing 25 8 4 14 21 47
sample 60.5 34 24 26 16 100
78 33 24 29 12 98
92.5 22 13 10 15 60
Work/extra- 25 8 12 2O 7 47
curricular Activities 60.5 36 31 29 5 101
78 34 46 15 2 97
92.5 23 22 14 1 60
Recommendations 25 7 6 18 16 47
60.5 26 29 27 18 100
78 26 27 35 11 99
92.5 17 21 11 11 60
Ability to pay 25 31 6 5 3 45
60.5 73 16 11 1 101
78 79 9 7 2 97
92.5 49 5 4 2 60
State or county of 25 28 14 2 3 47
residence 60.5 68 21 9 2 100
78 81 1 1 5 0 97
92.5 51 4 4 1 60
Race/ethnicity 25 15 13 13 3 44
60.5 71 12 15 2 100
78 70 19 9 1 99
92.5 49 6 2 2 59
Students' interest in 25 16 13 13 5 47
attending 60.5 43 21 25 1O 99
78 41 33 16 9 99
92.5 18 18 11 13 60
Alumni relations 25 13 16 11 4 44
60.5 45 37 18 1 101
78 45 33 20 0 98
92.5 38 15 5 2 60
Interview 25 22 1O 9 4 45
60.5 38 31 22 9 100
78 34 36 20 7 97
92.5 25 18 11 6 60

 

Regardless of freshman admit rate, grade point average at post-secondary
institution and average grades of transferable courses were the most often listed as being
of considerable importance. Admit rate ranges 60.5, 78, and 92.5, all reported
race/ethnicity, ability to pay, and state or county of residency most often as having no
importance. The most competitive institutions, in the 25 range, also most often reported
ability to pay and state of residency as being of no importance, but unlike the less
competitive institutions were less likely to indicate that race and ethnicity had no
importance. Following the frequency analysis, associations were run to determine the
relationship between freshman admission rate and responses on these factors. The P-
values for these associations are provided in Table 17, Appendix C.

Nearly all of the associations between freshman admit rate and the scaled
responses were significant. Only grade point average at post-secondary institution,
articulation with prior institution, student’s interest in attending, and interview were not
found to have a significant association.

The frequency of responses for the three top factors by freshman admission rates,

are provided in Tables 18, 19, and 20.

93

Table 18: Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Freshman Admit Rate

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Articulation with
secondary school grades in prior institution
institution transferable
courses
25 24 1 3
60.5 71 0 3
78 71 O 8
92.5 28 1 3
Essay or writing Ability to pay Students' Total
sample interest in
attending
25 1 1 O
60.5 0 O 0
78 1 O O
92.5 0 0 1

-¥ 000

30
74
80
34

 

Frequency Missing = 180

94

Table 19: Frequ_ency of Indicator of Second Factor by Freshman Admit Rate

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
25 4 5 8 3
60.5 3 12 43 1
78 6 18 26 1
92.5 4 9 1
Quality of prior Articulation Essay or Work/extra-
post-secondary with prior writing sample curricular
institution institution activities
25 4 1 2 1
60.5 3 2 2 0
78 1O 3 8 0
92.5 2 2 4 O
Recom- Students' Interview Total
mendations interest in
attending
25 1 1 O 30
60.5 3 1 1 71
78 5 0 1 78
92.5 2 2 0 32

 

Frequency Missing = 186

95

Table 20: Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Freshman Admit Rate

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
25 0 1 3 4
60.5 0 5 4 9
78 1 12 8 13
92.5 0 2 3 5
Quality of prior Quality of high Articulation Essay or writing
post-secondary school with prior sample
institution institution
25 1 O 1 6
60.5 6 O 11 14
78 10 2 5
92.5 2 O 1 3
Work/extra- Recom- Ability to pay State or county of
curricular mendations residence
activities
25 1 7 0 O
60.5 1 6 1 1
78 1 10 1 O
92.5 1 5 O 0
Students' interest Interview Total
in attending
25 2 1 27
60.5 5 4 67
78 2 6 75
92.5 3 2 27

 

Frequency Missing = 201

Grade point average at post-secondary institution remained the most listed top
factor, regardless of freshman admission rate. The top factor is the only one of the three
that had an association with the competitiveness of the institution as measured by
freshman applicant admission rate, as the only factor with an association below 0.5. In

other words, the percent of freshman applicants that an institution accepts had a

96

statistically significant association with which factor that institution gives the most
weight in the transfer applicant evaluation process. The P-values for all three factors is
provided in Table 21, Appendix C.

The frequency of responses on the additional factors is provided in Table 22.

97

Table 22: Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by Freshman Admit Rate

 

 

Variable Total Responsess
Received a GED 25 3 40 4 47
60.5 5 92 4 101
78 1 90 9 100
92.5 1 57 1 59
Received an 25 13 32 1 46
associate degree 60.5 44 57 0 101
78 44 55 0 99
92.5 22 38 0 60
Attended a 25 10 36 1 47
community college 60.5 23 77 O 100
78 15 82 1 98
92.5 7 53 0 60
Attended a highly 25 30 15 1 46
competitive four- 60.5 50 50 1 101
year College 78 49 50 O 99
92.5 26 33 1 60
More Than 60 25 7 32 8 47
hours transferable 60.5 33 66 2 101
credit 78 32 64 3 99
92.5 15 41 4 60
Visited the campus 25 18 28 1 47
60.5 38 61 1 100
78 37 63 O 100
92.5 26 34 O 60
Frequently 25 12 34 1 47
contacted the 60.5 26 73 1 100
admission office 78 29 70 0 99
92.5 19 41 0 60
Over 25 years old 25 2 40 4 46
60.5 6 93 0 99
78 5 93 1 99
92.5 2 56 2 60
Particular academic 25 16 31 0 47
or professional 60.5 36 62 1 99
focus 78 38 62 0 100
92.5 19 41 0 60
Plans to enroll full- 25 23 23 0 46
time 60.5 28 72 0 100
78 37 62 0 99
92.5 18 42 0 60
Plans to enroll part— 25 O 26 7 43
time 60.5 5 87 6 98
78 3 89 7 99
92.5 2 55 2 59

 

Attendance at a highly competitive four-year institution was the most indicated

plus factor among all freshman admission rates, while only planning to enroll part-time

98

received a few indications as a minus factor (options were provided for plus, neutral, or
minus influence on the admission decision). Of these additional factors, only three had
associations with freshman admission rate. The use of prior enrollment at a highly
competitive four-year institution, having more than 60 credit hours, and planning to
enroll in part-time status varied significantly by freshman admission rate. The P-values
for all of the additional factors and their association with the categories of freshman

admission rates are provided in Table 23, Appendix C.

Transfer Admission Rate

The average (mean) reported transfer admission rate was 64.44%. For the
competitiveness variable based on the admission of transfer applicants, institutions were
categorized into the same four numeric levels of competitiveness that were used for
fi'eshman admission rates: 25 (admission of 0-50% of applicants); 60.5 (admission of 50-
71% of applicants); 78 (71-85% of applicants); and 92.5 (more than 85% of applicants).
These were selected to simplify any future comparisons between freshman and transfer
admission rates and for the convenience of analyzing frequency and association data. As
with the freshman admission rate, the exact numeric responses were used in the
regression analysis section of the research. Table 24 provides the overall frequency of

responses for each of the ranges.

99

Table 24: Competitiveness Scale

Transfer Admission Rate Frequency Percentage

 

25 66 22.22
60.5 1 15 38.72
78 66 22.22
92.5 50 16.84

 

Table 25 provides the frequency of scaled responses on the factors used in the

evaluation of transfer applicants.

100

 

Table 25: Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Percent of Transfer Apglicants AdmItted

 

 

Variable Limited Considerable
Admit Rate Importance Responses

GPA at post- 25 0 O 3 62 65
secondary 60.5 2 1 3 109 115
institution 78 0 O 2 62 64
92.5 3 2 5 40 50
GPA at high school 25 4 12 37 12 65
60.5 11 46 44 13 114
78 1 30 29 3 63
92.5 9 14 20 4 47
Average of grades 25 3 2 14 46 65
in transferable 60.5 9 7 33 64 113
courses 78 6 7 13 35 61
92.5 5 6 15 23 49
Scores on 25 8 18 34 5 65
standardized tests 60.5 25 42 37 9 113
(ACT, SAT) 78 8 34 18 3 63
92.5 14 21 9 4 48
Quality of prior post- 25 7 16 32 10 65
secondary 60.5 21 33 41 17 112
institution(s) 78 13 30 17 3 63
92.5 14 12 19 4 49
Quality of high 25 14 29 19 3 65
school 60.5 41 39 29 4 113
78 19 36 9 0 64
92.5 24 16 7 1 48
Articulation with 25 30 12 13 9 64
prior institution 60.5 35 37 25 14 111
78 19 20 14 10 63
92.5 23 11 10 6 50
Essay or writing 25 10 17 20 18 65
sample 60.5 42 24 28 19 113
78 19 16 18 10 63
92.5 18 10 12 9 49
Work/extra- 25 10 22 27 6 65
curricular Activities 60.5 43 36 30 4 113
78 19 34 9 1 63
92.5 20 15 11 3 49
Recommendations 25 10 11 26 18 65
60.5 28 33 34 18 113
78 17 25 17 5 64
92.5 16 13 10 1O 49
Ability to pay 25 49 10 6 O 65
60.5 82 16 11 3 112
78 54 7 2 0 63
92.5 38 2 5 3 48
State or county of 25 39 21 4 1 65
residence 60.5 83 19 7 3 112
78 51 7 5 0 63
92.5 43 3 2 1 49
Race/ethnicity 25 26 17 18 3 64
60.5 80 19 12 1 112
78 46 11 5 1 63
92.5 40 3 3 2 48
Students' interest in 25 26 21 13 4 64
attending 60.5 47 29 24 13 113
78 26 17 14 7 64
92.5 15 17 8 9 49
Alumni relations 25 17 27 18 1 63
60.5 48 44 19 2 113
78 37 18 7 1 63
92.5 27 12 8 2 49
Interview 25 24 20 14 6 64
60.5 44 38 19 10 111
78 26 19 15 3 63
92.5 19 17 9 4 49

 

101

As was true of associations for freshman admit rate, very few of the variables
failed to show a statistically significant association. Level of reported importance for
articulation, interest in attending, and interview did not statistically vary by either transfer
or freshman admission rate. The ability to pay also failed to show an association for
transfer admission rate. The P-values for the associations between each scaled response
on factors used to evaluate transfer applications and the transfer admission rate ranges is
provided in Table 26, Appendix C.

The fiequency of responses to each of the top three factors broken down by
transfer admission rate is provided in Tables 27, 28, and 29.

Table 27: Freguency of Indicator of First Factor by Transfer Admit Rate

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Articulation with
secondary school grades in prior institution
institution transferable
courses
25 42 0 3 0
60.5 80 1 7 0
78 43 O 3 1
92.5 21 1 5 0
Essay or writing Ability to pay Students' Total
sample interest in
attending
25 1 0 O 46
60.5 0 1 0 89
78 0 0 1 48
92.5 1 0 O 2_8_

 

Frequency Missing = 175

102

Table 28: Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Transfer Admit Rate

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
25 3 9 20 2
60.5 7 19 34 3
78 4 10 19 1
92.5 4 4 8 1
Quality of prior Articulation Essay or Work/extra-
post-secondary with prior writing sample curricular
institution institution activities
25 6 2 2 0
60.5 8 2 8 1
78 2 1 4 0
92.5 2 3 1 0
Recom- Students' Interview Total
mendations interest in
attending
25 1 O 0 45
60.5 3 2 1 88
78 3 1 1 46
92.5 3 0 O 26

 

Fregency Missing = 181

 

103

Table 29: Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Transfer Admit Rate
GPA in high Average
grades in
transferable

GPA at post-
secondary
institution

25
60.5
78
92.5
Quality of prior

school

AOOO

Quality of high Articulation

post-secondary school

institution

25
60.5
78
92.5
Work/extra-
curricular
activities
25
60.5
78
92.5

(10me1

Recom-
mendations

—‘O-‘I\)

Students' interest Interview

in attending

25
60.5
78
92.5

—¥U'IN

4

(COM

2

OONO

@0100

O

COU I'SBS

with prior
institution

Total

10
4
‘l

COMO

42
84
42
22

Scores on
standardized
tests (SAT, ACT)

Essay or writing

OJCOCON

8
9
6
2

Ability to pay State or county of

OO—‘O

 

Frequency Missing = 196

Grade point average at prior institution was the top factor for all competitive
levels when the top three factors were requested. Transfer admit rate did not have a

statistically significant impact on responses for the top three factors. This indicates that

the number of transfer applicants an institution accepts is not related to the priority order

that institution places on its transfer evaluation factors. The P-values for the associations

104

between the responses and the transfer admission rates are listed in Table 30, Appendix
C.
The frequency of responses to the additional factors broken down by transfer

admission rate is provided in Table 31.

105

Table 31: Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by Transfer Admit Rate

 

 

Variable Transfer admit Plus Neutral Minus Total Responsess
rate

Received a GED 25 4 55 6 65
60.5 3 105 6 1 14
78 2 58 4 64
92.5 0 47 1 48
Received an 25 22 42 1 65
associate degree 60.5 48 66 O 114
78 3O 33 0 63
92.5 20 29 0 49
Attended a 25 14 5O 1 65
community college 60.5 21 91 1 113
78 11 52 O 63
92.5 5 43 0 48
Attended a highly 25 43 22 0 65
competitive four- 60.5 59 53 2 1 14
year College 78 26 37 0 63
92.5 23 24 1 48
More Than 60 25 14 41 1O 65
hours transferable 60.5 39 73 2 114
credit 78 21 41 2 64
92.5 11 35 3 49
Visited the campus 25 20 44 1 65
60.5 45 68 1 1 14
78 22 42 0 64
92.5 23 25 0 48
Frequently 25 17 47 1 65
contacted the 60.5 29 84 1 114
admission office 78 18 45 0 63
92.5 16 32 0 48
Over 25 years old 25 3 59 3 65
60.5 6 105 2 113
78 6 56 1 63
92.5 0 47 1 48
Particular academic 25 27 38 0 65
or professional 60.5 41 72 1 114
focus 78 22 41 0 63
92.5 15 33 0 48
Plans to enroll full- 25 30 33 0 63
time 60.5 39 76 0 115
78 19 44 0 63
92.5 14 34 0 48
Plans to enroll part- 25 1 42 17 60
time 60.5 3 101 10 114
78 2 57 3 62
92.5 g 45 1 48

 

Attending a highly competitive four-year institution was the most often listed plus

factor for the most competitive institutions for transfers, while those same institutions

106

showed some tendency to list planning to enroll part-time or having over 60 hours of
credit as minus factors. Those same additional factors, attending a highly competitive
four-year college, having over 60 hours of transferable credit, and planning to enroll in
part-time status, were all significantly associated with the transfer admission rate. Table
32 in Appendix C provides the P-values for the associations between each of the

additional factors and transfer admission rate.

Total Enrollment

The average institutional size (headcount) of respondents was 4,545. In order to
analyze total enrollment for frequency and association with dependent variable responses,
five categories were created: 1,500 (enrollment between 0 — 3,000); 4,000 (3,000 —
5,000); 7,500 (5,000 — 10,000); 12,500 (10,000 — 15,000); 17,500 (15,000 >). Like the
measures of selectivity, these ranges were established four-years ago by NACAC and
were used to establish a baseline for analyzing frequencies and associations between
enrollment size and the dependent variables, while regression analyses were conducted
with exact numeric values. The values were USCfiJl as over several years of data that
NACAC has on survey respondents the samples in the ranges reflect the larger
population. Use of these ranges permits ease for policy makers, institutional leaders, and
future researchers in comparing the results with those found for the survey section
pertaining to traditional applicants. The frequency of responses in each range is provided

in Table 33.

107

Table 33: Enrollment Size

 

 

Institutional
Enrollment Frequency Percentage
1500 251 69.53
4000 35 9.70
7500 24 6.65
12,500 17 4.71
17,500 34 9.42

 

Using these ranges, Table 34 provides the frequency of responses by total

enrollment.

108

Table 34: Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Institutional Enrollment

 

 

Variable Institutional Limited Considerable
Enrollment Importance Importance Responses

GPA at post- 1500 4 3 16 193 216
secondary 4000 1 1 0 26 28
institution 7500 0 0 0 20 20
12500 0 0 0 14 14
17500 0 0 0 28 28
GPA at high school 1500 15 69 99 29 212
4000 5 10 10 2 27
7500 2 7 9 2 20
12500 0 8 6 0 14
17500 7 10 9 2 28
Average of grades 1500 17 22 67 106 212
in transferable 4000 0 1 3 23 27
courses 7500 2 0 7 10 1 9
12500 1 1 0 12 14
17500 3 0 1 23 27
Scores on 1500 31 80 82 21 214
standardized tests 4000 7 12 6 1 26
(ACT, SAT) 7500 5 8 6 1 20
12500 2 1 1 1 0 14
17500 10 9 8 0 27
Quality of prior post- 1500 26 76 81 29 212
secondary 4000 7 8 1 1 2 28
institution(s) 7500 5 6 9 0 20
12500 7 2 4 1 14
17500 1 1 7 6 3 27
Quality of high 1500 59 92 54 8 213
school 4000 12 9 6 1 28
7500 8 9 3 0 20
12500 9 4 1 0 14
17500 13 12 2 0 27
Articulation with 1500 80 59 49 24 212
prior institution 4000 9 5 9 4 27
7500 6 9 2 3 20
12500 5 4 3 2 14
17500 1 1 6 4 6 27
Essay or writing 1500 59 42 61 50 212
sample 4000 5 9 8 6 28
7500 8 4 6 2 20
12500 6 5 2 1 14
17500 17 4 5 2 28
Work/extra- 1500 62 85 56 10 213
curricular Activities 4000 5 10 1 1 2 28
7500 9 6 4 1 20
12500 8 5 0 1 14
17500 15 5 6 1 27
Recommendations 1500 38 57 69 49 213
4000 6 9 8 5 28
7500 7 6 5 2 20
12500 9 2 2 1 14
17500 16 7 5 0 28
Ability to pay 1500 150 29 26 8 213
4000 22 5 0 0 27
7500 20 0 0 0 20
12500 14 0 0 0 14
17500 25 1 0 0 26
State or county of 1500 162 33 15 2 212
residence 4000 23 5 0 0 28
7500 15 4 1 0 20
12500 9 1 2 2 14
17500 16 6 3 7 97
Race/ethnicity 1500 148 32 26 4 210
4000 13 6 7 1 27
7500 10 6 3 1 20
12500 11 0 2 1 14
17500 20 5 2 1 28

109

Table 34 continued

Students' interest in
attending

Alumni relations

Interview

1500
4000
7500
12500
17500
1500
4000
7500
12500
17500
1500
4000
7500
12500
17500

62
14
10
11
18
95

6

9

9
17
59
11
14
12
24

030003032

65
15

(DAONVCDOO

01

b
OOOCDN—I—h—‘NkrFO-kflo

01

c:

N
OOONwO-IOOVOOO—‘OD

212
28
20
14
28

211
28
20
14
27

211
28
20
13
27

Grade point average at post-secondary institution remains the factor reported as

having the greatest weight across the institutional sizes. The responses appear to vary

more widely when examined by institutional size than was the case for the two measures

of competitiveness. These differences were significant for all but two factors: articulation

and race/ethnicity. In all other cases, statistically significant associations were found
between the measure of total enrollment size and the weighting given to the scaled
admission standards. The P-values for the associations between the responses on the
scaled items and institutional size are detailed in Table 35, Appendix C.

The responses to the question of which factors were the top three used yielded

similar responses to the scaled items. The frequency of these responses is listed in Tables

36, 37 and 38.

110

Table 36: Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Institutional Enrollment

GPA at post- GPA in high Average

secondary school grades in
institution transferable
courses
1500 135 2
4000 1 5 0
7500 1 5 0
12,500 8 0
17,500 20 0
Essay or writing Ability to pay Students'
sample interest in
attending
1500 1 1
4000 0 0
7500 0 0
12,500 1 0
17,500 0 O

Articulation with
prior institution

(JON—KOOO
COO—IO

Total

150
19
16
11
23

0000‘

 

Frequency Missing = 167

111

Table 37:Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Institutional Enrollment

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
1500 10 25 52 5
4000 3 2 9 0
7500 1 6 7 0
12,500 3 3 4 1
17,500 2 7 1 1 1
Quality of prior Articulation Essay or Work/extra-
post-secondary with prior writing sample curricular
institution institution activities
1500 15 5 15 1
4000 2 2 0 0
7500 O 1 0 0
12,500 0 0 0 0
17,500 2 0 0 0
Recom- Students' Interview Total
mendations interest in
attending
1500 1 1 5 2 146
4000 0 0 O 18
7500 0 0 0 15
12,500 0 0 0 1 1
17,500 0 0 0 23

 

Frequency Missing = 173

112

Table 38: Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Institutional Enrolment

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
1 500 0 1 7 1 0 22
4000 1 2 2 0
7500 0 0 3 3
12,500 0 1 0 2
17,500 0 1 4 4
Quality of prior Quality of high Articulation Essay or writing
post-secondary school with prior sample
institution institution
1 500 14 1 12 17
4000 2 0 0 6
7500 2 0 2 0
12,500 1 0 1 0
17,500 0 1 3 4
Work/extra- Recom- Ability to pay State or county of
curricular mendations residence
activities
1 500 2 24 2 0
4000 0 1 O 0
7500 0 2 0 0
12,500 1 1 0 0
17,500 1 0 0 1
Students' interest Interview Total
in attending
1500 1 1 12 144
4000 1 1 16
7500 0 O 12
12,500 0 0 7
17,500 0 0 19

 

Frequency Missing = 188

113

While the responses to the second factor had some differences similar to those
found on the scaled items, only the responses on the third most important factor had a
statistically significant association with total enrollment. The P-values for the three
factors’ associations with institutional enrollment are provided in Table 39, Appendix C.

Frequency of responses on the additional factors used in the evaluation of transfer

applicants, broken down by institutional enrollment, is provided in Table 40.

114

Table 40: Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by Institutional Enrollment

 

 

Variable Institutional Neutral Total Responsess
Enrollment

Received a GED 1500 7 195 12 214
4000 1 24 3 28
7500 0 17 3 20
12500 2 12 O 14
17500 0 27 O 27
Received an 1500 88 127 0 215
associate degree 4000 6 22 0 28
7500 10 9 1 20
12500 8 6 0 14
17500 11 15 0 26
Attended a 1500 40 172 1 213
community college 4000 2 26 0 28
7500 5 14 1 20
12500 4 10 0 14
17500 4 22 0 26
Attended a highly 1500 121 91 2 214
competitive four- 4000 14 14 O 28
year College 7500 11 9 0 20
12500 5 9 0 14
17500 5 20 1 26
More Than 60 1500 61 141 14 216
hours transferable 4000 6 19 3 28
credit 7500 7 12 1 20
12500 6 8 0 14
17500 8 18 0 26
Visited the campus 1500 99 114 1 214
4000 8 20 0 28
7500 7 12 1 20
12500 1 13 0 14
17500 1 26 0 27
FrequentIy 1500 78 134 1 213
contacted the 4000 5 23 0 28
admission office 7500 3 16 1 20
12500 0 14 0 14
17500 0 27 0 27
Over 25 years old 1500 5 201 6 212
4000 2 26 0 28
7500 2 17 1 20
12500 3 1 1 0 14
17500 3 23 0 26
Particular academic 1500 79 134 1 214
or professional 4000 8 20 0 28
focus 7500 12 8 0 20
12500 3 1 1 O 14
17500 8 18 0 26
Plans to enroll full- 1500 86 127 0 213
time 4000 6 22 0 28
7500 8 12 0 20
12500 4 10 0 14
17500 3 23 0 26
Plans to enroll part- 1500 7 175 25 207
time 4000 0 25 3 28
7500 1 16 3 20
12500 1 12 1 14
17500 0 25 1 26

 

115

Size of institution had different associations with plus factors than did the
measures of competitiveness. Statistically significant associations between institutional
enrollment and how additional factors were used were found for having attended a highly
competitive four-year institution, having visited campus, having frequently contacted the
admission office, being over 25, and intending to enroll full-time, although planning to
enroll part-time did not show a significant association. The P-values for the associations
for all of the additional factors with institutional enrolhnent is provided in Table 41,

Appendix C.

Freshman Class Size

The average reported freshman class size was 996. Like total institutional
enrollment, respondents were divided into five subsets for the sake of analysis of
frequency and association of responses. These five freshman class size categories were
125 (0-250); 625 (250-1,000); 1,500 (1,000-2,000); 3,000 (2,000-4,000); and 6,000 (>
4,000). As was done with the other independent variables, the ranges that were used for
frequencies and associations were established by NACAC, while regression analysis
utilized exact numeric responses. Table 42 provides the number of surveys received from

institutions in each of these ranges.

116

Table 42: Enrollment Size

 

Freshman Class Size Frequency Percentage

 

125 89 26.65
625 164 49.10
1500 34 10.18
3000 32 9.58
6000 15 4.49

 

Like institutional enrollment, response rates varied by freshman class size. The
frequency of responses to the scaled questions broken down by freshman class size is

provided in Table 43.

117

Table 43: Frequency of Resmnse on Scaled Items byFreshmen Enrollment

 

 

Variable Freshman Limited Considerable
Enrolment Importance Importance Responses

GPA at post- 125 3 0 7 73 83
secondary 625 2 4 9 139 154
institution 1500 0 1 0 27 28
3000 0 0 0 30 30
6000 0 0 0 13 13
GPA at high school 125 8 29 38 7 82
625 10 51 69 21 1 51
1500 3 9 14 2 28
3000 5 12 1 1 2 30
6000 3 5 4 1 13
Average of grades 125 5 12 22 43 82
in transferable 625 14 1 1 44 81 150
courses 1500 0 0 1 0 17 27
3000 4 1 2 23 30
6000 1 0 0 1 1 12
Scores on 125 15 36 27 5 83
standardized tests 625 23 56 57 15 151
(ACT, SAT) 1500 6 11 1 1 0 28
3000 10 14 5 1 30
6000 4 4 4 0 12
Quality of prior post- 125 13 31 30 9 83
secondary 625 20 51 59 21 151
institution(s) 1500 6 8 1 3 1 28
3000 14 7 6 3 30
6000 5 3 3 1 12
Quality of high 125 30 32 20 0 82
school 625 40 69 37 7 153
1500 10 1 1 6 1 28
3000 18 10 2 0 30
6000 6 6 0 0 12
Articulation with 125 34 20 19 9 82
prior institution 625 56 42 38 15 151
1500 5 12 5 5 27
3000 15 7 6 2 30
6000 3 3 1 5 12
Essay or writing 125 22 21 16 24 83
sample 625 40 32 45 34 151
1500 1 1 5 1 O 2 28
3000 15 6 5 4 30
6000 9 3 1 0 13
Work/extracurricula 125 26 37 1 5 5 83
r activities 625 41 56 48 7 152
1500 10 8 9 1 28
3000 16 7 5 2 30
6000 7 4 1 0 12
Recommendations 125 18 19 24 22 83
625 26 45 53 28 152
1500 7 9 8 4 28
3000 18 4 7 1 30
6000 7 6 0 0 13
Ability to pay 125 54 11 11 7 83
625 1 14 23 14 1 152
1500 26 1 0 0 27
3000 28 0 0 0 28
6000 12 1 0 0 13
State or county of 125 73 6 3 1 83
residence 625 108 30 12 1 151
1500 20 7 1 0 28
3000 22 2 3 3 30
6000 5 5 1 1 12
Race/ethnicity 125 69 6 5 2 82
625 90 33 24 3 150
1500 15 5 6 1 27
3000 20 5 3 2 30
6000 10 2 1 0 13

118

Table 43 continued

Students' interest in 125 25 14 23 21 83
attending 625 51 54 31 15 151
1500 13 9 6 0 28

3000 20 7 3 0 30

6000 9 2 2 0 13

Alumni relations 125 50 23 6 4 83
625 54 52 42 2 150

1 500 12 13 3 0 28

3000 19 7 3 1 30

6000 6 6 O 0 12

Interview 125 30 26 20 7 83
625 35 57 40 18 150

1500 17 7 3 1 28

3000 27 2 0 0 29

6000 10 2 O 0 12

 

Similar again to institutional enrollment, the different response rates for the
different categories of freshman class size showed an association for all but the same two
factors, articulation and race/ethnicity. The P-values for the associations between the
responses on the scaled items and the size of the freshman class are provided in Table 44,
Appendix C.

The frequency of responses by freshman class size for the top three factors in the

transfer admission process are provided in Tables 45, 46, and 47.

119

Table 45: Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Freshman Enrollment

 

GPA at post— GPA in high Average Articulation with
secondary school grades in prior institution
institution transferable
courses
125 45 0 3 0
625 103 2 6 1
1500 17 0 3 0
3000 21 0 3 0
6000 8 0 2 0
Essay or writing Ability to pay Students' Total
sample interest in
attending
125 1 0 1 50
625 0 1 0 1 13
1500 O 0 0 20
3000 1 0 O 25
6000 0 0 (L 10

 

Frequency Missing = 168

120

Table 46: Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Freshmen Enrollment

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
125 3 8 17 0
625 7 17 43 4
1 500 2 7 9 0
3000 4 7 11 2
6000 1 3 5 0
Quality of prior Articulation Essay or Work/extra-
post-secondary with prior writing sample curricular
institution institution activities
125 5 0 9 1
625 12 6 7 0
1 500 0 2 0 0
3000 1 0 0 0
6000 1 O 0 0
Recom- Students' Interview Total
mendations interest in
attending
125 1 2 O 46
625 9 3 2 1 10
1500 O 0 0 20
3000 0 0 0 25
6000 0 0 0 10

 

Frequency Missing = 175

121

Table 47: Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Freshman Enrollment

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
125 0 3 1 8
625 0 15 10 14
1500 1 1 3 2
3000 0 0 2 5
6000 0 1 2 2
Quality of prior Quality of high Articulation Essay or writing
post-secondary school with prior sample
institution institution
125 2 1 4 8
625 15 0 7 14
1500 2 0 2 2
3000 0 1 4
6000 0 1 3 0
Work/extra- Recom- Ability to pay State or county of
curricular mendations residence
activities
125 0 10 0 0
625 1 14 1 0
1500 2 3 O 0
3000 1 1 0 1
6000 O 0 0 0
Students' interest Interview Total
in attending
125 5 4 46
625 7 8 106
1500 0 1 19
3000 0 0 16
6000 O 0 9
Frequency Missing = 190

 

Freshman class size, as with other independent variables, held grade point average
at post-secondary institution as the top factor in admission across all categories, but

appeared to show more variation in the second and third most important factors. Again,

122

fieshman class size mirrored the behavior of institutional class size, only demonstrating a
statistically significant association with the responses to the third most important factor.
The statistical associations between the three factors and P—Values for the three top
factors can be seen in the P-values provided in Table 48, Appendix C.

The frequencies for all responses on the additional items, broken down by

freshman class size, are provided in Table 49.

123

Table 49: Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by Freshmen Enrollment

 

 

Variable Freshmen Neutral Total Responsess
enrollment

Received a GED 125 1 80 2 83
625 6 134 13 153
1500 0 26 2 28
3000 2 27 1 30
6000 0 13 0 13
Received an 125 33 50 O 83
associate degree 625 58 95 0 153
1500 14 14 0 28
3000 13 16 1 30
6000 5 7 0 12
Attended a 125 18 64 0 82
community college 625 21 131 1 153
1500 7 21 0 28
3000 6 23 1 30
6000 2 10 0 12
Attended a highly 125 38 44 1 83
competitive four- 625 89 63 1 153
year College 1500 17 11 0 28
3000 8 22 0 30
6000 2 9 1 12
More Than 60 125 24 56 3 83
hours transferable 625 39 103 12 154
credit 1500 12 15 1 28
3000 9 20 1 30
6000 3 9 O 12
Visited the campus 125 44 39 0 83
625 64 88 1 153
1500 7 21 0 28
3000 3 26 1 30
6000 0 13 0 13
Frequently , 1 25 35 47 0 82
contacted the 625 46 106 1 153
admission office 1500 5 23 0 28
3000 0 29 1 30
6000 0 13 0 13
Over 25 years old 125 3 78 1 82
625 4 143 5 152
1500 3 25 0 28
3000 4 25 1 30
6000 1 1 1 0 12
Particular academic 125 36 47 0 83
or professional 625 47 105 1 153
focus 1500 13 15 0 28
3000 8 21 0 29
6000 5 8 0 13
Plans to enroll full- 125 35 48 0 83
time 625 53 99 0 152
1500 8 20 0 28
3000 7 22 0 29
6000 2 1 1 0 13
Plans to enroll part- 125 6 72 5 83
time 625 3 123 20 146
1500 1 24 3 28
3000 0 26 3 29
6000 0 12 1 13

 

124

Visiting the campus turned up as the most reported plus factor among institutions
in the smallest freshman class size category (125) while attending a highly competitive
four-year institution was the most reported among those slightly larger (625). Particular
academic focus was the most reported for the mid-size freshman class institutions
(1,500), while received an associate degree had the most plus responses in the two largest
freshman class size categories (3,000 and 6,000). Despite the variation in the most
reported plus factors, only four of the additional factors had a statistically significant
association with the size of the freshman class: attending a highly competitive four-year
institution, visiting the campus, frequently contacting the admissions office, and planning
to enroll fiill-time. The P-values for all of the additional factors’ associations with

freshman class size are provided in Table 50, Appendix C.

Transfer Class Size

The last independent variable is also a measure of enrollment: average number of
transfer students entering in the fall semester. The average transfer class size among all
respondents was 312, far smaller than the 996 average freshman class. As a result, the
five categories created for analysis of frequencies and associations with responses are
also smaller: 25 (0-50); 100 (50-150); 200 (150-250); 875 (250-1,500); and 2,750
(>1,500), the categories being roughly equivalent to those used for the larger freshman
class sizes. The number of surveys received from institutions in each range is provided in

Table 51.

125

Table 51: Enrollment Size

 

Transfer Class Size Frequency Percentage

 

25 72 25.44
1.00 110 38.87
200 33 11.66
875 55 19.43

2750 13 4.59

 

The frequency of responses in these ranges on the scaled questions is provided in

Table 52.

126

Table 52: Frequency of Response on Scaled Items by Transfer enrollment

 

 

Variable Limited Considerable
Enroll_rri_gnt Imoortgnm Imggggngg Imggrtgnm Impgggngg Bgsggnsgs

GPA at post- 25 2 0 6 62 70
secondary 100 2 1 6 100 109
institution 200 0 O 1 32 33
875 0 3 0 52 55
2750 0 0 0 12 12
GPA at high school 25 2 20 35 11 68
100 10 32 53 14 109
200 1 13 15 3 32
875 8 26 19 2 55
2750 5 4 3 0 12
Average of grades 25 6 7 20 36 69
in transferable 100 8 9 35 56 108
courses 200 2 3 7 19 31
875 5 2 9 37 53
2750 1 0 0 11 12
Scores on 25 8 22 34 6 70
standardized tests 100 16 41 39 13 109
(ACT, SAT) 200 4 16 10 2 32
875 17 25 12 0 54
2750 7 2 3 0 12
Quality of prior post- 25 5 22 33 8 68
secondary 100 14 41 36 17 108
institution(s) 200 6 8 14 5 33
875 18 16 18 2 54
2750 7 3 1 1 12
Quality of high 25 16 29 23 1 69
school 100 32 45 27 4 108
200 11 15 5 2 33
875 26 22 6 0 54
2750 9 2 1 0 12
Articulation with 25 31 21 13 3 68
prior institution 100 39 28 25 14 106
200 12 7 10 4 33
875 16 16 11 11 54
2750 5 4 1 2 12
Essay or writing 25 8 15 20 26 69
sample 100 31 24 34 19 108
200 12 7 8 5 32
875 28 12 9 6 55
2750 7 2 3 0 12
Work/extracurricula 25 8 28 27 7 70
r activities 100 35 44 26 3 108
200 13 10 8 1 32
875 26 16 9 3 54
2750 7 3 2 0 12
Recommendations 25 6 10 24 29 69
100 20 34 36 18 108
200 10 8 13 2 33
875 24 20 8 3 55
2750 6 3 3 0 12
Ability to pay 25 47 10 9 4 70
100 77 17 13 0 107
200 25 3 2 2 32
875 51 1 2 1 55
2750 11 0 0 0 1 1
State or county of 25 51 15 2 1 69
residence 100 83 16 9 0 108
200 25 5 2 0 32
875 36 9 6 3 54
2750 7 3 1 1 12
Race/ethnicity 25 37 15 13 2 67
100 75 20 10 2 107
200 20 6 7 0 33
875 36 8 7 3 54
2750 11 1 0 0 12

127

Table 52 continued

Students' interest in
attending

Alumni relations

Interview

25
100
200
875

2750

25
100
200
875

2750

25
100
200
875

2750

19
35
14
31

8
22
50
14
28

8
14
32
13
36
10

20
30
12
15

25
35
12
20

24
39
12
14

_t_L
(”N

_t_l
COW—POON—P—PwOQN

68
108
33
55
12
68
108
33
54
12
69
108
32
54
1 1

Interestingly, although freshman class size and transfer class may not be related at

many institutions, or even conversely related at some, size of the transfer class was

associated with the same responses on the scaled questions as freshman class size, again

with only articulation and race/ethnicity failing to show a statistically significant

association. The P-values for the associations between the responses and the size of the

transfer class are provided in Table 53, Appendix C.

The similarity in responses by enrollment size was also consistent when the

responses on the top three factors used in transfer admission evaluations are examined by

transfer class size. The frequency of responses to the top three factors is broken down by

transfer class size in Tables 54, 55, and 56.

128

Table 54: Frequency of Indicator of First Factor by Transfer Enrollment

 

Essay or writing Ability to pay Students'
interest in

GPA at post-
secondary
institution
25 37
100 74
200 23
875 37
2750 6
sample
25 0
100 1
200 O
875 1
2750 0

GPA in high Average
school

DOA—*0

COO—‘0

transferable

Articulation with

prior institution

MCD-ANU'I

Total

OO—KOO

O-KOOO

42
79
26
45

 

Frequency Missing = 186

129

Table 55: Frequency of Indicator of Second Factor by Transfer Enrollment

 

25
100

200
875
2750

25
100
200
875

2750

25
100
200
875

2750

GPA at post-
secondary

Quality of prior
post-secondary with prior

mendations

GPA in high Average Scores on
school grades in standardized
transferable
courses
3 6 8
3 5 35
2 5 1 1
7 7 23
2 2 4
Articulation Essay or Work/extra-
writing sample curricular
institution activities
8 0 8
5 1 6
2 1 2
2 3 0
0 0 0
Students' Interview Total
interest in
attending
5 0 0
4 4 2
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

tests (SAT, ACT)

ONOODN

OOO—‘O

40
79
24
44

 

Frequency Missing = 191

130

Table 56: Frequency of Indicator of Third Factor by Transfer Enrollment

 

GPA at post- GPA in high Average Scores on
secondary school grades in standardized
institution transferable tests (SAT, ACT)
courses
25 0 5 2 4
100 0 9 5 14
200 0 3 3 3
875 1 4 6 4
2750 0 0 2 1
Quality of prior Quality of high Articulation Essay or writing
post-secondary school with prior sample
institution institution
25 2 1 1 7
100 9 O 6 1 1
200 3 0 2 2
875 4 1 6 4
2750 O 0 2 2
Worklextra- Recom- Ability to pay State or county of
curricular mendations residence
activities
25 0 10 O 0
100 0 1 1 2 0
200 1 3 0 0
875 2 2 0 0
2750 0 0 0 1
Students' interest Interview Total
in attending
25 3 4 39
100 6 5 78
200 0 2 22
875 3 0 37
2750 0 0 8

 

Frequency Missing = 202
While the frequency of responses on the top three factors appeared to have
some similarity to the response for fieshman class size, those for transfer class size did
not show a statistically significant relationship with the top three identified factors,

although the second and third factors were very close to a significant association. The P-

131

values for the relationship between all three factors, broken down by transfer class size,
are provided in Table 57, Appendix C.
The frequency of responses on the questions regarding additional factors used to

evaluate transfer applicants broken down by transfer class size are provided in Table 5 8.

132

Table 58: Frequency of Responses on Additional Factors by Transfer Enrollment

 

 

Variable Transfer Neutral Total Responsess
enrollment

Received a GED 25 0 64 6 70
100 4 96 7 107
200 0 30 3 33
875 4 49 2 55
2750 0 12 0 12
Received an 25 19 50 0 69
associate degree 100 47 61 0 108
200 1 5 17 1 33
875 27 27 0 54
2750 6 6 O 12
Attend ed a 25 1O 59 0 69
community college 100 16 91 1 108
200 7 24 1 32
875 1 6 38 0 54
2750 1 1 1 0 12
Attended a highly 25 43 25 1 69
competitive four- 100 62 46 0 108
year College 200 18 15 O 33
875 21 31 2 54
2750 2 10 0 12
More Than 60 25 14 44 12 70
hours transferable 100 32 70 6 108
credit 200 8 25 0 33
875 1 9 35 0 54
2750 5 7 0 12
Visited the campus 25 3O 39 0 69
100 56 52 0 108
200 1 1 21 1 33
875 1 0 44 1 55
2750 1 1 1 0 12
Frequently 25 28 41 0 69
contacted the 100 39 69 0 108
admission office 200 6 25 1 32
875 6 48 1 55
2750 1 1 1 0 12
Over 25 years old 25 1 61 6 68
100 2 106 0 108
200 2 30 1 33
875 7 47 0 54
2750 2 10 0 12
Particular academic 25 21 48 0 69
or professional 100 49 59 0 108
focus 200 1 1 22 O 33
875 22 31 1 54
2750 2 10 0 12
Plans to enroll full- 25 35 35 0 70
time 100 46 61 0 107
200 9 23 0 32
875 1 3 41 0 54
2750 1 1 1 0 12
Plans to enroll part- 25 4 43 18 65
time 100 2 96 10 108
200 0 29 2 31
875 3 50 1 54
i2750 0 1 1 1 12

 

The smaller transfer class size ranges, 25, 100 and 200, all had the most plus
responses for attended a highly competitive four-year college, while institutions in the
two larger ranges gave having an associates degree the most plus responses. As was the
case for freshman class size, transfer class size showed an association with prior
attendance at a highly competitive four-year institution, visiting the campus, frequent
contact with the admission office, and intending to enroll filll-time. In addition, having
over 60 transferable hours and being over age 25 also showed statistically significant
associations with transfer class size, which was not true of freshman class size. The P-
values for the associations between the five class size ranges and the responses on the

additional factors are provided in Table 59, Appendix C.

Results of Regression Analysis

By taking the statistically significant associations identified in the prior tables and
running them against one another, SAS is able to run regression analysis to determine
which factors are most likely to be in use by institutions by the explored independent
variables, as seen in institutional control, freshman and transfer competitiveness, as well
as freshman and transfer class size. Each dependent variable (response) has been
analyzed along these lines, providing the strength of the relationship in a P-value, the
likelihood of the relationship in an odds ratio estimate, and the confidence interval for the
relationship.

Using that methodology, a number of the dependent variables did not appear to be

predictable using institutional control or the various measures of size and selectivity.

134

These included average grades in transferable courses, transfer articulation, and

residency. An overview of the regression analysis is provided in Table 60, Appendix C.

Grade Point Average at Post-Secondary Institution

Whether GPA at post-secondary institution is used as a factor to evaluate transfer
applications seems to change with transfer selectivity, the percentage of transfer
applicants offered admission. The odds of the post-secondary grade point average being a
criterion decrease by 46% for every 10 unit increase in transfer admission rate. The
transfer admission rate was provided as the percent of applicants an institution accepts.
A 10 unit increase represents a 10% increase in the rate of transfer applicants offered
admission. Since increasing admission rate results is a less competitive class, the use of
post-secondary grade point average as a factor decreases as the transfer admission
competitiveness decreases. An institution that accepts a larger than average proportion of
transfer applicants, for instance, that institution is projected to rely less often on an
applicant’s grade point average from his or her prior institution. An institution accepting
a low proportion of transfer applicants, however, would be expected to use this factor.

Transfer admission rate was a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.028 1 , an

odds ratio estimate of 0.941 , and a Wald confidence interval between 0.891 and 0.993

High School Grade Point Average
The use of high school grade point average as a factor in the evaluation of transfer
applicants appears to correspond best with a combination of a measure of

competitiveness, the percent of transfer applicants admitted, and one measure of

135

institution size, the size of the transfer class. The chance that an institution uses high
school grade point average as a transfer admission factor decreases by approximately
17% for every 10 units increase in transfer admission rate, meaning the percentage of
transfer applicants admitted, after adjusting for transfer population size. The admission
rates were measures as the percent of applicants accepted, so a 10 unit increase represents
10% more applicants accepted. Since an increasing transfer admission rate indicates that
a greater percentage of applicants are accepted, a higher rate is considered a less
competitive institution. At the same time, the chance of high school grade point average
as a factor decreases by only 4% for every 50 units increase in the size of the transfer
class, after adjusting for transfer admission rate. This indicates that the larger the
institution’s enrollment, at least as measured by the size of new transfer enrollment, the
smaller the likelihood that high school grade point average will be used as an admission
evaluation factor for transfer applicants.

Transfer admission rate was a significant predictor with P-value of 0.0021 and an
odds ratio estimate of 0.982, and a Wald confidence interval between 0.970 - 0.994. Size
of the transfer class was a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0048, an odds ratio

estimate of 0.999, and a Wald confidence interval between 0.999 and 1.000.

Scores on Standardized Tests
Like the use of high school grade point average, reported use of scores on
standardized tests as a factor in the evaluation of transfer applicants also corresponds

with changes in the admission rate of transfer students and the size of the transfer class.

136

After adjusting for transfer population size, reported use of standardized tests
decreased by 21% with every 10 units increase in the transfer admission rate. Viewed in
the other direction, after controlling for transfer admission rate, the use of standardized
tests as a transfer admission factor decreases 4% with every 50 units increase in the
transfer class size.

Transfer admission rate was a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0003, an
adjusted odds ratio estimate of 0.977, and a Wald confidence internal between 0.965 and
0.990. Transfer size was a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0087, an adjusted

odds ratio estimate of 0.999, and a Wald confidence interval between 0.998 and 1.0.

Quality of Prior Post-Secondary Institution

Whether the quality of the prior institution an applicant attended is or is not a
factor used in evaluation of transfer applicants seems to change with the size of the
transfer class. The chances of quality of prior institution being a criterion decrease by 5%
for every 50 units increase in transfer population size. Transfer class size was a
significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0025, an odds ratio estimate of 0.999, and a

Wald confidence interval between 0.998 and 1.0.

Quality of High School

Whether or not quality of high school is a factor in the evaluation of transfer
applicants seems to depend on the type of institutional control (public vs. private). The
chance that quality of an applicant’s high school is used as a criterion decrease by 78% if

an institution was public rather than private. Institutional control (public vs. private) is a

137

significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0022, an odds ratio estimate of 0.22 l , and a
Wald confidence interval between 0.084 and 0.582.
Essay or Writing Sample

The use of essays or writing samples in evaluating transfer applicants seems to
depend on the type of institutional control and freshmen admission rate (adjusting for
each other). The odds of an institution using essays or writing samples decrease by 81%
if an institution was public rather than private, after adjusting for freshmen admission
rate. The likely use of essays or writing samples decreases by 21% for every 10 units
increase in freshman admission rate, after adjusting for type of institutional control.
Institutional control is a significant predictor with a P-value less than 0.0001, an adjusted
odds ratio estimate (public vs. private) of 0. 193, and a Wald confidence interval between
0.095 and 0.393. Freshmen admission rate is a significant predictor with a P-value of
0.0023, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 0.977, and a Wald confidence interval between

0.962 and 0.992.

Work and Extracurricular Activities

Whether or not work or extracurricular activities are used as transfer admission
criteria appears to change with an institution’s freshman admission rate and the size of
that institution’s transfer class, when each is adjusted for the other. Indications that work
or extracurricular activities are a criterion decreases by 25% for every 10 units increase in
fi'eshman admission rate (becoming less competitive) after adjusting for transfer
population size. The odds of work and extracurricular activities being used as an

evaluation factor decrease by 4.5% for every 50 units increase in the size of the transfer

138

class, after adjusting for fieshmen admission rate. Freshmen admission rate is a

significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0002, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 0.971,
and a Wald confidence interval between 0.956 and 0.986. Size of the transfer class is a
significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0025, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 0.999,

and a Wald confidence interval between 0.998 and 1.0.

Recommendations

The use of recommendations as a transfer admission criterion depends on the type
of institutional control and an institution’s freshmen admission rate, when each is
adjusted for the other. The odds of recommendations being used decreases by 90% if an
institution is public, after adjusting for freshman admission rate. The chances that
recommendations will be used decreases by 19% for every 10 units increase in freshmen
admission rate (decrease in selectivity), after adjusting for institutional control.
Institutional control is a significant predictor with a P-value below 0.0001, an adjusted
odds ratio estimate of 0.102, and a Wald confidence interval between 0.045 and 0.228.
Freshman admission rate is a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.009, an adjusted

odds ratio estimate of 0.979, and a Wald confidence interval between 0.964 and 0.995.

Ability to Pay

Whether ability to pay is a transfer admission criterion or not seems to change
with the size of the fieshman class. The odds of ability to pay being a criterion decrease
by 14% for every 50 units increase in freshman class size. This indicates that a student’s

ability to pay is more likely to be used at smaller institutions, as measured by the size of

139

the fieshman class. Freshmen size is a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0039, an
odds ratio estimate of 0.997, and a Wald confidence interval between 0.995 and 0.999.
Race/Ethnicity

Whether race/ethnicity is a transfer admissions criterion or not seems to depend
on institutional control and freshmen admission rate, adjusting for each other. The odds
of race/ethnicity being a criterion decreases by 64% if an institution is publicly
controlled, after adjusting for freshmen admission rate. The chance of race/ethnicity
being a criterion decreases by 31% for every 10 units increase in freshmen admission
rate, after adjusting for institutional control. Institutional control is a significant predictor
with a P-value of 0.0444, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 0.358, and a Wald confidence
interval between 0.131 and 0.975. Freshmen admission rate is a significant predictor
with a P-value under 0.0001, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 0.963, and a Wald

confidence interval between 0.945 and 0.981.

Interest in Attending

Whether a student’s interest in attending an institution is a factor in the transfer
admission process varies with the size of the transfer class. The odds of interest in
attending being a criterion decrease by 6% for every 50 units increase in transfer class
size. Transfer class size was a significant predictor with P-value of 0.0083, an odds ratio

estimate of 0.999, and a Wald confidence interval between 0.998 and 1.000.

140

-A lumni Relations

Whether having alumni relations is a transfer admission criterion seems to change
with transfer class size. The odds of alumni relations being a criterion decrease by 9% for
every 50 units increase in transfer class size. Transfer class size was a significant
predictor with P-value of 0.013 1, an odds ratio estimate of 0.998, and a Wald confidence

interval between 0.997 and 1.000.

Interview

Whether interviews are factors in transfer applicant evaluation or not seems to
change very marginally with institutional enrollment. The odds of interviews being a
criterion seemed to decrease by only 1% for every 50 unit increase in the overall size of
the institution. Enrollment size was a significant predictor of the use of interview with a
P-value of 0.0013, but, although significant, there was not a strong association with any

of the independent variables with the use of interviews.

Received a GED

Whether receiving a GED (General Equivalency Diploma for secondary school
completion) is a factor used to evaluate transfer applicants seems to change with the
freshman admission rate. The odds of an institution using the GED as an admission factor
decrease by 34% for every 10 unit increase in fieshman admission rate (decreasing
selectivity). Freshman admission rate was a significant predictor with P-value of 0.03

and an odds ratio estimate of 0.96, with a Wald confidence interval between 0.925 and

0.996

141

Received an Associate Degree

Whether receiving an associate degree is a criterion for transfer admissions
depends on institutional control and enrollment, adjusting for each other. The odds of
associate degree as a criterion increase by 260% with public institutional control, after
adjusting for enrollment. The odds of an associate degree being a criterion decrease by
less than 1% every 50 units increase in institutional enrollment, after adjusting for
control. Institutional control is a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0038, an
adjusted odds ratio estimate of 3.62, and a Wald confidence interval between 1.516 and

8.64. Institutional enrollment was only marginally significant a with P-value of 0.04.

Attended a Community College

Whether attending a community college is a criterion for transfer admissions or
not seems to depend on institutional control. Odds of community college attendance
being a criterion increases by 117% at public institutions. Institution control is a
significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0266, an odds ratio estimate of 2. 167, and a

Wald confidence interval between 1.094 and 4.292.

Attended a Highly Competitive Four- Year College

Whether attending a highly competitive four-year college is a transfer admission
factor seems to change with the size of the transfer class. Odds of highly competitive
four-year college attendance being a criterion decrease by 6% for every 50 units increase

in the size of the incoming transfer class. Transfer class size was a significant predictor

142

with P-value of 0.0005, an odds ratio estimate of 0.999, and a Wald confidence interval

between 0.998 and 1.000.

More than 60 Hours of Transferable Credit

Whether having more than 60 hours of transferable credits is a criterion for
transfer admissions or not seems to depend on institutional control, institutional
enrollment, and the freshmen class size, adjusting for the rest. Odds of using 60 plus
hours as a criterion increase by 223% at public institutions, after adjusting for enrollment
and freshman class size. Odds of having more than 60 hours of transferable credits being
a criterion increase less than 1% with every 50 units increase in enrollment, after
adjusting for control and freshman class size. Odds of this factor being considered
decrease by 6% with every 50 units increase in the freshman class, after adjusting for
institutional control and enrollment. Institutional control is a significant predictor with a
P-value of 0.0109, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 3.23, and a Wald confidence
interval between 1.309 and 7.968. Institutional enrollment was only marginally
significant with P-value = 0.0499. Freshman class size was significant with a P-value of
0.0175, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 0.999, and a Wald confidence interval between

0.998 and 1.000.

Visited the Campus
Whether visiting campus is a transfer applicant evaluation factor seems to change
with freshman class size. The odds of visiting the campus being a criterion decrease by

4.5% for every 50 units increase in the fi‘eshman class. Freshman class size is a

143

significant predictor with a P—value below 0.0001, an odds ratio estimate of 0.999, and a

Wald confidence interval between 0.999 and 1.000.

Frequently Contacted Admissions Office

Like visiting the campus, whether frequently contacting the admission office is a
factor changes with freshman class size. Odds of frequent contacts being a factor
decrease by 7% for every 50 units increase in the freshman class. Freshman class size
was a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0002, an odds ratio estimate of 0.999, and

a Wald confidence interval between 0.999 and 1.000.

Over 25 Years Old

Whether being over 25 years of age is weighted in the evaluation of transfer
applications seems to change with institutional enrollment. Odds of using being over 25
as a criterion increase by less than 1% for every 50 units increase in institutional

enrollment. Freshman class size was a significant predictor with P-value of 0.0024.

Academic or Professional Focus

Whether the applicant’s academic or professional focus is an evaluation factor
depends on institutional control and transfer class size (adjusted for each other). The
adjusted odds of academic or professional focus being a criterion increase by 150% if at
public institutions, after adjusting for transfer class size. Adjusted odds of it being a
factor decrease by 5% for every 50 units increase in transfer class size, after adjusting for

institutional control. Institutional control is marginally significant with a P-value of

144

0.0488, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 2.51, and a Wald confidence interval between
1.005 and 6.271. Transfer class size was a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0197,
an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 0.999, and a Wald confidence interval between 0.998

and 1.000.

Plans to Enroll F ull- Time

Whether an applicant plans to enroll full-time is a factor for transfer admissions
seems to change with the size of the transfer class. Odds of planning to enroll full-time
being a criterion decrease by 6% for every 50 units increase in transfer class size.
Transfer class size was a significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0049, an odds ratio

estimate of 0.999, and a Wald confidence interval between 0.998 and 1.000.

Plans to Enroll Part- Time

Flaming to enroll part—time is weighted in the evaluation of transfer applicants
depending on institutional control and the freshmen class size (adjusting for each other).
Odds of planning to enroll part-time being a criterion increases by 2856% if an institution
is public rather than private, after adjusting for freshman class size. Odds of planning to
enroll part-time being a criterion decreases by 9% with every 50 units increase in
freshman class size, after adjusting for institution control. Institutional control is a
significant predictor with a P-value of 0.0002, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 29.56,
and a Wald confidence interval between 4.895 and 178.495. Freshmen class size was
significant with a P-value of 0.0396, an adjusted odds ratio estimate of 0.998, and a Wald

confidence interval between 0.996 and 1.000.

145

Open Response Section

The survey included an opportunity for respondents to answer an open question
on any additional factors used in the evaluation of transfer applicants for admission, and
47 of these responses were submitted. The largest category, with 18 related responses,
can be grouped as specific courses and/or grades in specific courses that must be
successfully completed prior to a student being considered for transfer admission,
although which specific courses are required was not provided. This also includes two
institutions noting that a student must have completed a minimum number of credits to be
considered for transfer admission. Six institutions noted specific requirements for
particular majors, four requiring portfolio review, one looking at compatibility with the
major and the other having specific requirements for entry into a nursing and/or
paramedic program. Five institutions listed the concept of “fit” with their institution, four
noting the importance of a specific religious belief or background. Two institutions noted
that they admit no transfer students, while another excludes any and all part-time
students, and three institutions noted that students on academic dismissal or not in good
academic standing at their prior institution are not considered. The importance of
references was noted three times, but no explanation was provided as to how, if at all,
those would differ from recommendations. Amount of credit completed was noted twice,
although it was unclear whether more or less would be more attractive. Also noted twice
was the applicant’s interest in on—campus housing, although again the issue was not
designated as a plus or a minus. Issues listed only once were: taking time off from studies
after weak performance (as a plus factor); placement tests (the Compass); and relations

with prior institutions (noting that the school gives priority to their in-state community

146

college applicants). One institution noted that it is open enrollment, and another listed a
requirement for a “transfer clearance form,” but no further explanation of what that is

was provided.

147

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction

The movement of students between post-secondary institutions, commonly
referred to as transferring, is gaining considerable attention. The issue now impacts the
majority of students in higher education, according to findings from the US. Department
of Education, “Postsecondary attendance patterns among traditional-aged students have
become far more complex, with nearly 60 percent of undergraduates attending more than
one institution” (Adelman, 2006, pp. xv-xvii). The issue was cited as one of the areas of
concern in the report from the commission appointed by US. Secretary of Education
Margaret Spellings, citing a need to establish “clearer pathways among educational levels
and institutions” (Spellings, et al, 2006, p. 17).

Access to higher education has long been a topic of research, and there is a large
volume of work in the sub-topic of access relating to student admission. Surprisingly,
despite the number of transfer students and the increasing attention to access as it relates
to transfer, nearly all of the literature in the field focuses exclusively on the admission of
students directly from secondary to post-secondary institutions, or freshman admission.
This is complicated by the lack of any national data on transfer admission practices that
would provide the ground work to guide such research.

The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) State of
College Admission has provided national data on freshman admission that has served
such a purpose for over 10 years. This study sought to create the same tool for the study

of transfer admission. At the invitation of NACAC, the researcher was permitted to craft

148

a new transfer admission section of that organization’s national survey of admission
practices. This study explored significant institutional characteristics as independent
variables that could impact which factors institutions use in the evaluation of transfer
applicants, which were the dependent variables. The results can provide insight and
guidance to institutional officers, state and federal policy makers, and prospective

students.

Methodology

This study was inserted as a new, transfer admission section in the survey of
admissions practices that NACAC conducts annually. NACAC surveys all four-year,
not-for-profit, degree-granting, Title-1V participating institutions in the United States and
outlying areas listed by the US. Department of Education. The survey was sent in both
paper and electronic formats. Responses were analyzed for frequency of responses and
associations between dependent and independent variables. Based on those results,
regression analysis was conducted on the dependent variables to determine which of the
studied institutional characteristics had a bearing on whether, and to what degree, the

surveyed transfer admission factors are in use in the evaluation of transfer applicants.

Overview of Findings
As expected, no factor can match the importance of the applicant’s grade point
average from their prior post-secondary institution in the admission process. Respondents
listed it 312 times as of moderate or considerable importance, while the next most

important factor, the similar but still distinct average of grades in transferable courses,

149

was listed in those categories only 266 times. The next closest factor, grade point average
in high school, had only 176 listings. In addition, grade point average was the
overwhelming choice for the most important factor when institutions listed their top
three, with 201 institutions selecting it as the first, 19 as the second, and 1 as the third
most important factor. The closest in the first choices, the average of grades in
transferable courses, was listed as first only 19 times, with 87 as second and 19 as third
factor. The aforementioned factors had no relationship to institutional control, admission
selectivity, or institutional size, as combining them there is no doubt that they are the
dominant factors across all the varied responding institutions. In other words, there is no
statistical relationship to be found since the factors, applicant’s grade point average from
their post-secondary institution and grades in transferable courses, are the most important
across all of these institutional characteristics. While other factors may be considered,
there seems to be little doubt that a student’s post-secondary grades are the factor that
will most likely determine transfer admissibility at the vast majority of institutions in the
United States.

Beyond the use of post-secondary grades, there is much greater differentiation in
the use of other factors. The institutional control of an institution, whether it is private or
public, is one of the institutional differences in which the results indicated a variance in
what factors are considered in admissions decisions, along with admissions selectivity
and enrollment size. The more competitive/selective and smaller the institution, for
instance, the more likely it becomes that the institution is giving weight to other factors.
Private institutions tend to consider the quality of an applicant’s high school as well as

the applicant’s essay and recommendations. Public institutions are less likely to use all

150

three of these factors, indicating that having an associates degree, attending a community
college, having completed more than 60 hours of transferable credit, and having a
particular academic focus are considered plus factors in their admission decisions.
Institutions that are more selective in their transfer admissions processes are more likely
to consider high school grade point average and standardized test scores. Colleges and
universities that have more competitive freshman admission processes are more likely to
weigh essays, work and extracurricular experiences, and recommendations.

Institutions with small fall transfer classes are likely to consider high school grade
point average, standardized test scores, quality of the prior post-secondary institution, the
student’s interest in attending, whether the student has relatives that attended the
institution, and whether a student has attended a highly competitive four-year institution.
The same institutions are more likely to add plus factors for particular academic focus
and for planning to enroll full-time. Institutions with small freshman classes are more
likely to weigh work and extracurricular experiences, a student’s ability to pay, visiting
campus, frequent contacts to the admissions office, and having over 60 hours of
transferable credit.

The results seem particularly interesting for a handful of these factors, even as
most take a back seat to the importance of post-secondary performance. As mentioned
above, high school grades are more likely to be considered at institutions that are smaller
(transfer class size) and more selective (transfer admission rate). This seems to be a fairly
prevalent practice among such institutions, as high school grade point average was rated
of moderate to considerable importance 176 times, with 2 listings as the most important

factor, 44 as the second most important, and 22 as third. As weighting this factor is more

151

likely in smaller, more selective institutions, the researcher’s initial assumption that high
school grades would only be a significant factor when there was a limited post-secondary
record seems less likely.

It appears more likely that a number of institutions place an intrinsic value on
high school performance in the transfer application evaluation process. This is bolstered
as the related factor, quality of high school, received 78 listings in the moderate to
considerable importance category, and 2 listings as third most important factor. It should
be noted, however, that quality of high school was also among the most often listed as
being of little or no importance, with 239 institutions placing the factor in one of those
two categories. The trend line and fairly high number of responses on the high school
grade point average, however, seems to indicate that a number of smaller, more selective
institutions believe that performance in high school is a good indicator of college
performance even after the student has attended another post-secondary institution.

In addition, although an applicant’s post-secondary record is the dominant factor
across institutions, baccalaureate-granting institutions appear to differ in their preference
for the applicant’s current site of attendance. Attending a highly competitive four-year
institution was of moderate to considerable importance for 159 institutions, and the
quality of the post-secondary institution was listed 151 times, with 19 as second and 21 as
third most important. These potentially related factors, attending a higher competitive
four-year institution and the quality of post—secondary institution are both more likely to
be used among institutions with small transfer class sizes. Two other seemingly related
factors were listed less often as plus factors: having an associate degree was listed 126

times and attending a community college 57 times. Both community college associates

152

degree attainment and community college attendance were found to be much more likely
to be used as transfer applicant evaluation factors at public institutions. More
intriguingly, articulations with prior institutions, which are so strongly encouraged by
state and national policy makers, were listed only 110 times in moderate to considerable
importance with 1 listing as most important, 8 as second and 18 as third most, while 205
institutions responded that articulations were of little or no importance as an admission

factor, placing it among the most often listed for being of little or no importance.

pr- a“:

Considering the current policy emphasis on the value of articulations, it seems surprising
to see this factor used less frequently than many others. It is also interesting that these
listings did not seem more prevalent in any particular type of institution.

Less surprising was how similar the number of institutions are that use
recommendations and essays. Respondents listed those factors 153 and 149 times
respectively as of moderate to considerable importance in the application review process.
These tended to be used by the similar institutions, those that were private, more
competitive, and smaller, suggesting that such institutions are more likely to look beyond
academic records in evaluating their transfer applicants. Nearly the same number of
institutions, 165 and 168 respectively, listed these factors as being of little or no
importance, and based on the trend indicators, these were likely to be the larger, less
competitive public institutions.

Although such institutions are more likely to weigh additional factors; the use of
standardized test scores, increasing for those that were smaller and more selective, may
be the factor that is most difficult to understand. Since standardized tests like the SAT

and ACT are generally meant to predict first year performance, it seems inconsistent with

153

intended use that scores on standardized tests was listed the next most often as a factor
for evaluating transfer applicants. 132 institutions placed standardized tests in the
moderate to considerable importance categories, 7 as second most important and 31 as
third most important. In addition, 184 institutions indicated that standardized test scores
were of little or no importance in evaluating transfer applicants. As with essays and
recommendations, there is a strong trend line indicating that the respondents listing test
scores as little or no importance were likely to be from larger and less selective
institutions.

The greatest similarity between survey results for which factors are used in the
evaluation of freshman applicants and the results for transfer applicants were in the
factors that are least often considered. The 2006 State of College Admission Report
(Hawkins & Clinedinst, 2006) found that race/ethnicity, state or county of residence,
alumni relations (student’s having relatives that previously attended an institution), and
ability to pay were among the least-used factors in the evaluation of freshman applicants.
These same four factors were the most often listed as of little or no importance in the
transfer applicant evaluation process, listed in these categories between 288 times
(residence) to 253 times (alumni relations). While residency did not appear to have a
relationship to any of the independent variables, weighting of ability to pay, interest in
attending, and alumni relations seem to be slightly more likely at smaller institutions.
Interviews, however, were listed as more significant for freshman consideration but are
rarely used in the transfer process as these were nearly as often listed (223 times) as being

of little or no importance as these other four factors.

154

The researcher theorized that, since many transfer students are working adults,
work and extra curricular activities would be an important admission factor. Only 98
institutions, however, listed it as being of moderate to considerable importance, while
more than twice as many, 219, said it had little or none.

Very few factors were noted as ever being a negative (minus) factor for transfer
admission consideration, but a handful (33) of institutions did indicate that students
planning to enroll part-time counted against their consideration. Having a GED,
presumably instead of a high school diploma, was listed as a negative 18 times, and just
listed that having more than 60 transferable credits was used a negative factor. A very
small number (7) counted age against students, finding it a minus factor if applicants

were over 25.

Findings Contrary to Hypothesis

Based on experience in transfer admissions at three institutions, the researcher
hypothesized that post-secondary grade point average would not only be the dominant
factor, but also that other factors would be almost exclusively classified as being of little
or no importance. While grades from post-secondary institutions were overwhelmingly
the most important and most used factor in evaluating transfer applicants; there was a
wide variety of other factors, and at private, more selective, and smaller institutions,
several of these factors had considerable weight in the transfer applicant evaluation
process.

A secondary hypothesis was that institutions with more transfer students would

use more detailed criteria, assuming that their experience with transfer students would

155

lead to more comprehensive admission review. This turned out to be the opposite of the
study’s findings. Respondents with larger transfer class sizes were more likely to use
fewer criteria, while those with smaller transfer class sizes were more likely to use a
broader array of factors.

The literature on freshman admission factors indicated that more selective
institutions would use more criteria, and the researcher hypothesized that this would be
the case for transfer admissions as well. The freshman research, however, did not suggest
that the control of an institution or the size of the incoming class would have a bearing on
the use of a greater range of factors. This study, however, found that smaller class size is
a good indicator that an institution is likely to weigh a wider range of factors, and that
private institutions are far more likely to use more factors in determining the
admissibility of transfer applicants.

Literature on transfer admissions, particularly on articulation (Healy, 1991)
suggested that high school counselors, admissions officers at four-year institutions, and
transfer counselors at two-year institutions all felt that articulation agreements between
baccalaureate-granting and two-year institutions were critical to the admission process.
As a result, it was surprising to the researcher to see how few institutional respondents
regarded these agreements as important to the evaluation of transfer applicants.

The researcher was familiar with models where transfer applicants receive lower
levels of financial aid, as their admission generally occurs after institutional aid has been
awarded to continuing students and new freshmen, usually leaving a smaller pool of
firnds. Since many admissions officers consider need in the freshman process, the

researcher believed that would be the case of the potentially more price-sensitive transfer

156

students as well. The responses, however, indicated that few institutions consider
financial need as an important factor in the evaluation of transfer applicants. It is worth
considering whether consideration of student financial need will increase when, or if, the
number of transfer applicants increases, federal and state institutional and aid funding
polices evolve, or as other institutional funding issues arise.

Finally, the researcher hypothesized that factors used to evaluate transfer
applicants would be distinct from those used for freshman applicant evaluation in cases
where the two populations of applicants have clear differences. Since transfer students
often have significant work experience, for example, the researcher assumed that work
experience would be given greater weight; and since high school grade point average,
quality of high school, and especially standardized test scores, are considered the best
predictors of first year college performance, but are considered to have lower correlations
with work beyond that first year, these would be given less weight for students applying
for transfer. Work and extracurricular experience, however, turned out to be a relatively
rare factor, as it is for evaluation of freshman applicants. High school grade point
average, quality of high school, and standardized test scores, on the other hand, are used
by a surprising number of institutions to evaluate transfer students, particularly at private,

smaller, and more competitive institutions.

Limitations

The survey response rate was the lowest in several years since NACAC has been

conducting their national survey. In addition, respondents tended to be members in the

157

association. As a result, there may be bias in responses that was introduced by either the

small sample size or by a response pool made up predominantly of NACAC members.

Implications for Practice

The results of this research offer different applications for administrators, policy-
makers, and for students.

At baccalaureate-granting institutions, few issues have as large an impact as
student enrollment. With decreases in state funding, public institutions are increasingly
dependent on student tuitions, looking more and more like private institutions in their
need for enrollment to balance budgets. Universities spend increasing amounts of their
budgets on marketing and recruitment to meet this need, attracting increasingly larger
applicant pools. The entire field of enrollment management is dedicated to maximizing
student enrollment, and particularly the persistence of students, as it is far less expensive
to retain a student than to recruit new enrollment. Enrollment managers depend heavily
on the vast data regarding freshmen admission, determining standards to at least some
extent by the impact those standards will have on freshman retention and persistence. No
such data, unfortunately, are available for transfer students. While the population of
transfers increases, baccalaureate-granting institutions will naturally come to depend
more and more on transfer enrollment to meet their revenue goals. The results of this
study provide the first step toward developing model enrollment management practices
for transfer students. The list of factors in use should, in subsequent studies, be analyzed

for their efficacy.

158

Even before future research is completed, the findings raise some areas of concern
for enrollment managers at baccalaureate-granting institutions. It is worth noting, for
instance, that private, smaller, and more competitive institutions are the ones more likely
to use a greater range of factors in evaluating transfer applicants. Larger institutions, at
least those with larger transfer populations, have the most experience with transfer
students. This disparity raises critical concerns for admissions officers. It may be that
many institutions are using a range of factors that are not usefirl in evaluating the future
performance of transfer students. If that performance is important to the receiving
institution, a reasonable assumption based on enrollment management theory; then these
institutions should be concerned about the accuracy of their decisions, and the amount of
time and money being spent on transfer application evaluation. It may be that many of
these institutions, presumably with smaller admissions staff members who may evaluate
freshman and transfer applicants, are simply replicating the systems in use to evaluate
freshmen, rather than creating a system more appropriate to the transfer population.

On the other hand, public, larger, less competitive institutions may have over-
simplified the process. They may be at equal risk of weak decisions by failing to
consider the range of factors that could offer greater insight into the firture performance
of their students.

The very limited past literature indicates, unfortunately, that both unfamiliarity
with transfer applicants and over-simplification of the process are likely impacting
baccalaureate-granting institutions. Many are using a range of factors unlikely to yield
useful data about transfer applicant performance, while others use over-simplified

models. Few are considering work experience or extra-curricular activity, despite the

159

likelihood that those factors could be much more helpful than high school records or
standardized test scores. The results of this study reconfirm that, in regards to the
evaluation of transfer applicants, the field of admissions is relatively unsophisticated. As
the numbers of transfer students is projected to grow, and already has such a massive
volume, it is hard to imagine that transfer applicant evaluation policy will not be a crucial
issue for most higher education administrators.

Community college administrators are likely to find the results of equal or even
greater interest. The suggestion that only a few schools regard having an associate
degree or attending community college as a plus factor is troubling, and even more so is
the emphasis at private, smaller, and competitive institutions on the quality of the
applicant’s prior institutions. The results strongly imply that community college students
seeking to transfer to such institutions may be a significant disadvantage. Worse,
articulation agreements between baccalaureate-granting and two-year institutions appear
to do little to alleviate this disadvantage. Such agreements are actively, and at times
aggressively, sought by community colleges and community college systems. The
results, however, make it clear that such agreements are not currently having a significant
impact on applicants’ admissibility. The reason for this finding was not identified by this
study. It may be that schools simply disregard these agreements, or that few institutions
have them in place. More likely, however, is that these agreements codify admission
policies already in place. A baccalaureate-granting institution might, for instance,
guarantee admission to all associate degree recipients from a particular community
college IF the student has a very high grade point average, has taken exactly the courses

required, and has no blemishes on his or her record. An agreement might spell that out,

160

but, in reality, that applicant would likely be admitted with or without an agreement. The
results of the study highlight a need to improve articulation agreements, change the way
they are used, or perhaps even entirely abandon the admissions related portion of those
agreements.

State and Federal policy-makers may be equally interested in these results, as a
great deal of pressure has been brought to bear on, at least, public institutions to increase
articulation agreements. If such agreements are not opening additional admission spaces,
then their purpose, at a time of increasing transfer applicant volume, may be moot.
Policy-makers will also have a keen interest in follow up research on which factors are
the most predictive of success after a student transfers. Policy leaders at the state and
federal level have looked at the expansion of community colleges, with their much lower
cost per student, as a cost effective way to expand educational opportunity. This study
raises serious concerns that the pipeline currently in place to serve those students is not
grounded on research, but more likely on what is easy to process, or to replicate from the
processes in place to evaluate freshman applicants. Those policy makers have a
tremendous interest in encouraging research that allows receiving institutions to
implement models most likely to create access for students most likely to succeed in
baccalaureate degree attainment, and firrther that identify students who will be at risk and
in need of additional support and interventions in order to be successfirl.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the independent variables, representing
broad institutional characteristics, offer potentially important insight to the process for
students seeking to apply for transfer admission, and administrators assisting students

seeking or planning to seek transfer admission, who could use the data provided as a

161

general guideline. Although admission outcomes are difficult to predict, whether for
freshman or transfer applicants; it is helpfirl to know what factors are likely to be
considered. For instance, students seeking to gain admission to private institutions,
especially those institutions that are more competitive for fieshman admission, may want
to devote additional time to their essays and recommendations.

Students attending community colleges, and especially those gaining associate
degrees and/or with more than 60 hours of transferable credit, appear to be well advised
to consider seeking admission to public institutions. The quality of a transfer applicant’s
previous institution is likely to be weighed more strongly at institutions with smaller
transfer enrollments, these institutions also favoring students from highly competitive
four-year institutions. This is particularly interesting since millions more community
college graduates are likely to be headed for baccalaureate-granting institutions in the
next decade (Adelman, 2006). It remains to be seen whether they will gravitate toward
the public institutions that favor them, or whether private institutions will begin to adjust
their standards to meet enrollment, revenue, and diversity targets.

Applicants who had weak high school grade point averages or standardized test
scores should note that those secondary records and test scores are likely to count against
them at institutions that are more competitive for transfer admission and/or with smaller
numbers of transfer students. A student with a very weak high school and standardized
test record, for instance, who successfully pursues an associate degree at a community
college, may be best served by exploring public institutions with larger transfer

enrollment and less selective freshman and transfer admission rates.

162

This study is just the beginning, providing a base line of information regarding
policies in the evaluation of transfer applicants. Without such data, however, it will be
difficult to move this area of research forward, and moving this research forward is
crucial. Administrators and policy-makers alike are clamoring for an increased
enrollment of community college transfers at baccalaureate-granting institutions. Some
believe such transfer students will cost-effectively enhance enrollment, others diversity,
while others see it largely as a way to fill in a handful of spaces that become available.
Regardless, understanding the factors in use to select such students will be a helpful start

towards the kind of enrollment management that supports fi'eshmen enrollment efforts.

Implications for Future Research

As research into the admission of transfer students is just beginning, there are
likely dozens of directions for future research. Two of the most urgent implications for
future research should begin as soon as possible, one qualitative and the other
quantitative.

Qualitative research should include in-depth case studies of the methodologies
used to evaluate transfer students. This would best be conducted with a combination of
observation, interviews, and review or artifacts to determine exactly how different factors
are being used at a variety of institutions. Such research would allow future surveys to be
more exact in their language, give a clear understanding to college and university
administrators of standard, and perhaps best, policy, and offer students and counselors a

more comprehensive understanding of the transfer admission process policy. Some of the

163

most basic facts need to be explored and questioned within such a study, including the
definition of transfer students.

This study defined transfer applicants as students who received post-secondary
credit after high school graduation who are seeking admission to a new post-secondary
(baccalaureate granting) institution. Other institutions may only classify a student as a
transfer after a particular number of transferable credits. Understanding the different
types of transfer students, the analysis of what triggers the use of the criteria in this study
will be the next step in the research. It is not clear from this study, for example, whether
high school grades are used at some institutions to evaluate every transfer applicant, or
whether they are only considered under particular circumstances, such as for an applicant
with few transfer credit hours.

On the quantitative side, the factors used in the process should themselves
be examined for their consistency and to what degree they are predictive of fiJture
academic performance. Such a study would best be conducted quantitatively, with as
large a representative sample, including as many institutions, as possible. This might first
be piloted with individual institutions, or with state-wide educational systems, but to be
comprehensive and applicable, it should eventually include a national data sample. In that
same vein, Perfetto (1999) claimed a strong link between enrollment goals and freshman
applicant evaluation criteria and methods. Since the survey did not collect data on goals
or methodology, an exploration of these topics was not possible. It is possible that these
factors might have an even greater impact on which factors are used than institutional

control, size, or selectivity.

164

APPENDIX A
Survey provided with permission of the National Association for College

Admissions Counseling.

165

 

W

18th Annual NACAC Admission Trends Survey 2006

Thank you for completing this survey. Please return to NACAC by Friday, December 15, 2006.
Mall using the enclosed return envelope. fax to (703) 836-8015, or visit www.nacacnet.org\trsnds
to fill out the survey online. These survey results are confidential and resutts M" be reported
only In the aggregate (no Individual Institutions Identified).

I. INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
1 Name of Institution:

 

(Note: This Infonnatlon will be used for response follow up and distribution of the 2007 State
of College Admission report only. Your school will not be identified in the reporting of results.)

2 IPEDS ID:

 

3 Type of institution
0 Two-year
O Four-year

4 Control of Institution
0 Public
0 Private

5 Please provide the total number of full-time degree-seeking undergraduates for Fall 2006:

 

6 Your lnstItution Is located In which state:

 

166

Il. PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AND APPLICATIONS

7 For the following questions. please Include only full-time, first-year, degree-seeking
undergraduate students In the admission cycle for Fall 2006 enrollment. Include
students who applied using all application strategies. Including Early Decision. Early
Action. and regular admission.

A) Number of inquiries received for Fall 2006 admission

 

B) Number of completed applications received for Fall 2006 admission

 

C) Number of students admitted for Fall 2006

 

D) Number of students enrolled for Fall 2008

 

8 Of the applications your Institution received for Fall 2006 admission. how many were from:
Female applicants:

 

Male applicants:

 

9 Compared to Fall 2006, the number of applications for Fall 2006:
O Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased

10 Does your Institution have any application fees?
0 Yes
0 No

10A If yes. please list the fee amount for each of the following types of applications:
Paper

 

Onllne

 

International

 

Other

 

103 If yes, can application fees be waived for applicants with financial need?
0 Yes

0N0

167

Ill. ADMISSION AND ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

11 Do you have a policy of placing students on a wait llst?
0 Yes
0 No

1 1A If yes. please answer the questlons below for Fall 2008 admission:

3) Number of applicants placed on the wait list

 

b) Number accepting a place on the wait list

 

c) Number accepting a place on the wait list who were admitted

 

d) Number admitted from the wait list who enrolled

 

11 B If yes, the number of students who were placed on the walt list for Fall 2006
compared to Fall 2005:

O Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased

no If yes. the number of students applying who were admitted from me wait list
for Fall 2008 compared to FaIIIZOOG: ‘

O Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased

12 Does your Institution offer an Early Decision plan (an admission plan that permits students
to apply early and be notified of an admission decision well In advance of the regular
notification date and that asks students to commit to attending If accepted) for first-time,
first-year (freshman) applicants for fall enrollment?

0 Yes

ONo

12A If yes, please answer the questions below for Fall 2006 admission:
a) Number of Early Decision applications received by your institution

 

b) Number of applicants admitted under Early Decision plan

 

c) Number of applicants admitted under Early Decision plan who enrolled

 

168

ram.

123 If yes. the number of students applying Early Decision for Fall 2006 compared to Fall 2006:

O Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased

126 If yes. the number of students you admitted through Early Decision for Fall 2006
compared to Fall 2006:

O Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased

13 Do you have a non-blndlng Early Action plan whereby students are notlfled of an
admission decision well In advance of the regular notification date but do not have a
commitment to attend your college?

OYes
O No

13A If yes. please answer the questions below for Fall 2006 admission:
a) Number of Early Action applications received by your Institution

 

 

b) Number of applicants admitted under Early Action plan

 

c) Number of applicants admitted under Early Action plan who enrolled

 

138 If yes. the number of students applying Early Action for Fall 2008 compared to Fall 2006:
O Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased

130 If yes, the number of students you admitted through Early Action In Fall 2008
compared to Fall 2006:

O Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased

169

14

14A

143

Does your Institution use an application process—different from the traditional
”student-Initiated" appllcatlon—In which students are sent partially completed
applications by mall or mail (l.e. snap-apps, fast-apps)?

0 Yes

ONo

If yes. please Indicate whether the following criteria are used to select students to
recelve these partially completed applications (l.e. snap-apps, fast-apps)?

 

Yes No
Contact with the admission office CI CI
Test scores D C]
High school attended a D
Participation in a summer enrichment program D D
Economic status D CI
Other 0 D

If yes, please lndlcate which appllcant pools are required to complete the followlng
appllcatlon components.

Required of All ‘ Waived for Not Required of
Applicants Snap/Fast-App Any Applicants
Applicants Only
Essay 0 D a
Test score submission CI CI 0
Letters of recommendation D 0 CI
Transcript submission CI D CI
Application fee '3 D D
Other

III B D

 

170

15

15A

15B

150

150

165

Does your Institution provide provisional admission to any group of students who
may not meet the general academic profile of the entering class. but show potential

to do college-level work?
0 Yes
0 No

if yes. is the provisional admission policy:
0 institution-specific
0 Part of a system-wide program
0 Part of a state-wide program
0 Other

 

if yes. what populations are eligible tor provisional admission? Check all that apply.

I Economically/socially disadvantaged
l Racial/Ethnic minorities
| First-generation
| Athletes
| Other

 

if yes. during which Academic Year were students first
admitted under this provisional admission policy?

 

if yes, what percentage of your Fall 2006 entering
class was admitted provisionally? %

 

if yes. please describe the conditions that students must meet and the support services
that are provided to help them succeed.

171

 

 

IV. FACTORS IN THE ADMISSION DECISION
18 How Important are the following criteria In admission decisions made at your Institution?

No Limited Moderate Considerable
Importance Importance Importance Importance
Grades In all subjects a D I: D
Grades In college prep courses CI a D D
Strength of curriculum D D D D
Class rank [3 D D D
Admission test scores (SAT. ACT) 0 D D D
SAT II scores D a CI D
Other subject test scores (AP. IB) 0 CI D 0
Essay or writing sample 0 D D D
Interview D D D 0
Work D D D D
Extracurricular Activities 0 D D D
State graduation exam scores D a D D
Counselor recommendation D D D D
Teacher recommendation CI 0 D D
Students' interest In attending 0 D D D
17 To what extent do the following student characteristics Influence how the above factors
In the admission decision are evaluated?
No Limited Moderate I Considerable
Importance Importance Importance Importance
Race/Ethnicity Ci D I: 0
Gender D D D D
First-generation status D D D D
State or county of residence D D u D
High school attended Cl C. D D
Alumni relations 1:. D D D

172

V. ADMISSIONIENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

18

19

20

21

22

According to your best estimate, please Indicate the percentage of admission
Inquiries (I.e.. requests for admission applications. information about admission
process) that were received In the following ways. (NOTE: Percentages should add
to 100.)

Written sources (letters. postcards. reply cards)

 

 

 

 

 

 

%
Telephone calls

%
Hi h school visits

9 %

Electronic sources (e-mail. Web site) %
College fairs %
Other

%

 

Does your Institution provide separate campus tours for parents and for students?
0 Yes
0 No

Does your Institution provide separate orientation for parents of first-year students (apart
from the orientation for the students)?

0 Yes
0 No

What percentage of applications did you receive online
for Fall 2000? %

 

The percentage of applications received online for Fall 2000 compared to Fall 2006:

O Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased

173

23 Please indicate whether your Institution provides each of the following services or
Inforrnatlon on your Web site.

Yes No
Online forms for requesting admission information by mail D D
Downloadable applications that are submitted via mail D 0
Online applications that are submitted via the Internet D D
Information about campus tours CI CI
Detailed admission information. including requirements. deadlines. and
admission options D C]
Online chat rooms D 0
Web log 0 CI
E-mail newsletters D D
Information for high school guidance counselors D D
Information for parents D CI
Online catalog a C]
Online course registration 0 Q
School profile/snapshot of freshman class academic qualifications D D
Financial aid information a CI
College cost information D D
Other 0 CI

 

24 Please Indicate whether your Institution uses each of the following methods to notify
applicants of their final admission status.

 

Yes No
In writing (letter) D D
By e-mail notification D D
Allow students to check admission status on institutional Web site D D
By phone D D
Other D CI

174

 

m“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 How many admission officers does your school employ? (Include all
full-time admission employees who are at least partially responsible for
reading applications. Do notlnclude administrative staff.)
26 Of those admission officers. how many are:
Male
Female
Hispanic. regardless of race
White. not of Hispanic origin
Black. not of Hispanic origin
Asian or Pacific Islander, not of Hispanic origin
American Indian or Alaskan Native. not of Hispanic origin
27 Compared to last year. the number of admission professionals at your Institution:
0 Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased
28 Please provide the total fiscal budget for the admission office. (This Information will be
used to calculate cost to recruit figures for applicants, admitted students, and enrolled
students for the Fall 2006 admission cycle, using data you provided earlier In the
Prospecflve Students and Applications Section. )
29 Please Indicate whether each of the following were included In your institution's “total
admission budget.“
Yes No
Admission staff salaries D a
Admission staff benefits 0 0
Staff travel expenses for recruitment/yield D D
Expenses for participation in college fairs and other recruitment/yield
events D D
Publication expenses CI CI
Payments made to third party contractors for admission or
recruitment/yield services 0 D
Other
Ci Cl

175

 

30 The budget specifically designated for admission activities during the past year:
0 Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased
31 According to your Institution's hiring policy. how Important are each of the following
skills or experiences for the position of chief enrollment officer?
Very Moderately Somewhat Not
Important Important Important Important
Technology/\Neb design a D D D
Statistics/Data analysis D D D D
Marketing/Public relations a D D D
Advanced degree (Master's or Doctorate) D D Q Q
Personnel/Resource management D D D D
Writing D D D 0
Business management [3 D D D
Previous admission experience 0 D D D
Higher education administration D D D C]
Other D D D '3
VI. TRANSFER ADMISSION
32 Please provide the number of degree-seeking transfer students who Inquired. applied.

were admitted. and enrolled at your Institution for Fall 2008. Transfer students are those

who received college-level credit for work completed after high school graduation.

A) Number of transfer inquiries recieved for Fall 2006 admission

 

8) Number of completed transfer applications received for Fall 2006
admission

C) Number of transfer students admitted for Fall 2006

 

D) Number of part-time transfer students enrolled for Fall 2006

 

E) Number of full-time transfer students enrolled for Fall 2006

 

176

33 Compared to Fall 2006, the number of transfer applications for Fall 2006:
0 Decreased
O Stayed the same
0 Increased
34 How Important are the following criteria In transfer admission decisions made at your

Institution? Please also CIRCLE only the top three factors that are most Important to
admission decisions for transfer students.

No Limited Moderate Considerable
Importance Importance Importance Importance

Grade point average at postsecondary institution 0 D D D
Grade point average in high school D a D D
Average of grades in transferable courses '3 D D D
Scores on standardized tests (ACT. SAT) 0 u D D
Quality of prior postsecondary institution(s) D D D D
Quality of high school D Ci 0 Ci
Articulation with prior institution 0' D D D
Essay or writing sample C] D D CI
Work/Extracurricular activities D D D D
Recommendations D D D D
Abilitytopay u D D 0
State or county of residence 0 D D D
Race/ethnicity D D D Cl
Students' interest In attending D D D D
Alurnnl relations 0 D D 0
Interview [3 D D D

177

35 Are the following factors considered as ”plus". ”neutral," or "minus" factors in the
decision to admit a transfer student?

Plus Neutral Minus
Student received a GED prior to postsecondary enrollment D D D
Student received an Associate degree D D D
Student attended a community college D D D
Student attended a highly competitive four-year institution D D D
Student has more than 60 hours of transferable credit '3 D a
Student visited the campus D D D
Student frequently contacted the admission office D D D
Student is over 25 years old D D D
Student has a particular academic or professional focus D D D
Student plans to enroll full time D D D
Student plans to enroll part time D D D

36 Please list any other factors not identified In this survey that your institution uses in
determining the admissibility of a transfer appllcant.

37 Does your institution recalculate transfer appllcants' grade point averages?
0 Yes
0 No

38 Does your Institution provide merit-based scholarships to transfer students?
0 Yes
0 No

Thank you for completing this survey!

National Association for College Admission Counseling ~ wwwnacac.com ~
1631 Prince Street. Alexandria. VA 22314-2318 ~ phone: mamas-2222 ~

W

 

178

APPENDIX B

2006 LETTERS TO SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

179

NOTE! Fill in your responses to the 2006 NACAC Admission Trends
Survey online at http:l/www.nacacnet.org\trends.

October 31, 2006
Dear Colleague:

The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) invites your institution
to participate in NACAC’s 18th Annual Admission Trends Survey.

We appreciate the time colleges and universities commit to filling out this survey. All
respondents who complete the enclosed 2006 Admission Trends Survey will receive a free
copy of the 2007 State of College Admission report in the spring of 2007. Regular prices are
$10 for members and $15 for non-members, plus $5 shipping and handling. The report can
be ordered from our Web site, ww.nacacnet.gq.

This survey examines current trends in areas including recruitment strategies, admission
criteria, Early Decision, Early Action, and the use of technology. Questions for 2006 have
been updated to collect additional information on provisional and transfer admission policies
and practices.

Please take a few minutes to complete the survey and return it by Friday, December
15, 2006. The results of the survey not only serve to inform professionals in the field, but also
are consulted by representatives of the media, research organizations, and others seeking to
learn more about the college admission process throughout the year. All information
gathered will be kept confidential and results will be reported only in the aggregate.

Please return the survey to NACAC in the enclosed business reply envelope, fax it to
NACAC at (703) 836-8015, or visit www.nacacnet.orq\trends to complete the survey online.
Please do not return the paper survey if you have already completed it via the Internet. By
responding promptly, your institution will be part of the final results and will help identify the
issues and trends that directly affect our profession. If you have any questions about the
survey, please contact NACAC staff at research@nacac.com.

Thank you in advance for completing this survey. Watch for the survey results in NACAC’s
fifth annual State of College Admission report, set for release in the spring of 2007.

Sincerely,

Mary Lee Hoganson
NACAC President

180

 

Admission Trends Survey Deadline Approaching

A Reminder to NACAC—member Post-secondary Institutions: If you haven’t already
done so, please take a moment to fill out NACAC’s 2006 Admission Trends Survey. The
survey was mailed in late October to all NACAC-member post-secondary institutions.
You can fill out the survey online by visiting http://www.nacacnetorg/trends. Survey
results will be published in NACAC’s annual “State of College Admission” report in
May 2007. If you have already completed the survey, thank you for your participation!

The deadline for filling out the survey is Friday, December 15, 2006. Please contact
NACAC Research at research@nacac.com if you have any questions about the survey.

2006 Admission Trends Survey Deadline Extended!

Because we have received a number of requests from colleges and universities, we are
extending the reply deadline for the 2006 NACAC Admission Trends Survey until
Friday, January 12, 2007.

If you haven’t already done so, please take a moment to fill out the survey. The survey
was mailed in late October to all NACAC post-secondary institutions. You can fill out
the survey online by visiting http://www.nacacnet.org/trends. Results will be published in
NACAC’s annual “State of College Admission” report in May 2007.

If you have already completed the survey, thank you for your participation!

Please contact NACAC Research at researchaiinacaccom if you have any questions
about the survey.

 

181

APPENDIX C

Supplementary Data Tables

 

182

Table 8: Associations on Scaled

 

 

Responses
Institutional Control

Factor CMH Chi-Sq
GPA at post-secondary 0.4536
institution
High school GPA 16.6338***
Average grade in 3.0893*
transferable courses
Scores on standardized 16.177***
tests
Quality of prior post- 30.0828***
secondary institution
Quality of high school 24.7814***
Articulation with prior 2.1548
institution
Essay or writing sample 37.4227***
Work/extracurricular 27.9839***
activities
Reccomendations 68.6588***
Ability to pay 19.0996***
State or county of 1.8829
residence
Race or ethnicity 7.0099“
Student’s interest in 15.4878***
attending
Alumni relations 22.882***
Interview 50.1242***

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

Table 12: Assocations for
Top Three Factors by
Institutional Control

 

Factors Chi-Sq.
Top factor 0.2794
Second factor 9.5139*
Third factor 5.9735"

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

183

Table 14: Associations for
Additional Factors
Institutional Control

 

Factors Chi-Sq.
Received a GED 1.4072
Received an associate 3.5551*
degree

Attended a community 4.0009*
college

Attended a highly l6.3475***
competitive four-year

college

More than 60 hours 8.9531***
transferrable credit

Visited the campus Z7.9608***
Frequently contacted |7.4806***
the admissions office

Over 25 years old l1.7663***
Particular academic or 0.1442
professional focus

Plans to enroll full-time 8.1566***

Plans to enroll part- 5.9633“

time
Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

184

Table 17: Associations on Scaled

 

 

Responses

Freshman Admit Rate
Factor CMH Chi-Sq.
GPA at post-secondary 0.3888
institution
High school GPA 5.1248“
Average grade in 4.4717**
transferable courses
Scores on standardized 3.8724“
tests
Quality of prior post- 4.1303"
secondary institution
Quality of high school 6.1156“
Articulation with prior 0.2799
institution
Essay or writing sample 12.419***
Work/extracu rricular 19.5162***
activities
Reccomendations 10.9536***
Ability to pay 3674*
State or county of 9.7398***
residence
Race or ethnicity 26.3937***
Student’s interest in 0.0673
attending
Alumni relations 12.8984***
Interview 0.1698

 

 

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

Table 21: Associations for
Top Three Factors by
Freshman Admit Rate

 

 

Factors Chi-Sq.
Top factor 0.0986"
Second factor 0.4824*
Third factor 1.1245

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

185

Table 23: Associations for
Additional Factors

 

Freshman Admit Rate

 

Factors Chi-Sq.
Received a GED 0.2262
Received an associate 1.7498

degree

Attended a community 1.7031
college

Attended a highly 3.8146“
competitive four-year

college

More than 60 hours 4.9284“
transferrable credit

Visited the campus 0.3713
Frequently contacted 1 .1062
the admissions office

Over 25 years old 0.7874
Particular academic or 0.0001
professional focus

Plans to enroll full-time 2.8026*

Plans to enroll part- 26.7832***

time
Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

186

 

Table 26: Associations on Scaled

 

 

 

Responses
Transfer Admit Rate

Factors Chi-Sq.
GPA at post-secondary 6.0825“
institution
High school GPA 10.3955***
Average grade in 7.0955***
transferable courses
Scores on standardized 9.0459***
tests
Quality of prior post- 10.3279***
secondary institution
Quality of high school 10.4539***
Articulation with prior 0.126
institution
Essay or writing sample 5.8531 **
Work/extracurricular 14.0179***
activities
Reccomendations 1 1 .5818***
Ability to pay 0.0136
State or county of 6.0343“
residence
Race or ethnicity 22.4797***
Student’s interest in 1.9067
attending
Alumni relations 9.7422***
Interview 0.318

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

Table 30: Associations for
Top Three Factors by

 

 

Transfer Admit Rate
Factors Chi-Sq.
Top factor 1.221
Second factor 1.4254
Third factor 0.8938

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

187

Table 32: Associations for
Additional Factors

 

 

 

 

Transfer Admit Rate
Factors Chi-Sq.

Received a GED 0.0138
Received an associate 1.9515
degree
Attended a community 1.1715
college
Attended a highly 7.066***
competitive four-year
college
More than 60 hours 2861*
transferrable credit
Visited the campus 2.6996*

Frequently contacted 0.9123
the admissions office

Over 25 years old 0.1893
Particular academic or 1.2629
professional focus

Plans to enroll full-time 5.3864“

Plans to enroll part— 20.6479***
time
Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, "*p<.01

 

188

Table 35: Association on Scaled

 

 

 

 

 

Responses

Institutional Enrollment

Factors Chi-Sq.
GPA at post-secondary 4.2974“
institution
High school GPA 8.2212***
Average grade in 5.964“
transferable courses
Scores on standardized 12.5431***
tests
Quality of prior post- 11.7083***
secondary institution
Quality of high school 13.4481***
Articulation with prior 0.2593
institution
Essay or writing sample 15.3286***
Work/extracurricular 6.2398“
activities
Reccomendations 31 .3824***
Ability to pay 15.2249***
State or county of 8.445***
residence
Race or ethnicity 0.03
Student’s interest in 25.04***
attending
Alumni relations 7.4466***
Interview 46.9544***

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

Table 39: Associations for
Top Three Factors by
Institutional Enrollment

 

 

Factors Chi-Sq.
Top factor 0.0296
Second factor 14.0372
Third factor 4.5453*

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

189

Table 41: Associations for
Additional Factors
Institutional Enrollment

 

Factors Chi-Sq.
Received a GED 0.5493
Received an associate 0.4004
degree

Attended a community 0.0087
college

Attended a highly l3.7206***
competitive four-year

college

More than 60 hours 1.7928

transferrable credit

Visited the campus 23.3665“
Frequently contacted 22.7113***
the admissions office

Over 25 years old 9.6479***
Particular academic or 0.26
professional focus

Plans to enroll full-time 7.8756***

Plans to enroll part- 0.6985

time
Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

190

Table 44: Association on Scaled

 

 

Responses

Freshman Class Size

Factors Chi-Sq.
GPA at post-secondary 3.9251"
institution
High school GPA 4.5406“
Average grade in 4.682“
transferable courses
Scores on standardized 6.2187***
tests
Quality of prior post- 8.9003“
secondary institution
Quality of high school 10.0416***
Articulation with prior 1.3683
institution
Essay or writing sample 17.527***
Work/extracurricular 6.3986***
activities
Reccomendations 27.3744***
Ability to pay 13.8241”
State or county of 11.127***
residence
Race or ethnicity 0.0901
Student’s interest in 21 .7613***
attending
Alumni relations 2.0589
Interview 34.42***

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

Table 48: Associations for

 

 

Top Three Factors by

Freshmen Class Size

Factors Chi-Sq.
Top factor 0.0484
Second factor 11.2845
Third factor 5.7467"

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

191

Table 50: Associations for
Additional Factors
Freshman Class Size

 

Factors Chi-Sq.
Received a GED 0.4839
Received an associate 0.113

degree
Attended a community 0.0043
college

Attended a highly I0.3453***
competitive four-year

college

More than 60 hours 0.3492

transferrable credit

Visited the campus 25.1982”
Frequently contacted 21.6538***
the admissions office

Over 25 years old 3.2845*
Particular academic or 0.1102
professional focus

Plans to enroll full-time 5.196"

Plans to enroll part- 0.4655

time
Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

192

Table 53: Association on Scaled

 

 

Responses
Transfer Class Size

Factors Chi-Sq.
GPA at post-secondary 1.0229
institution
High school GPA 21 .8787***
Average grade in 4.1322"
transferable courses
Scores on standardized 20.6743***
tests
Quality of prior post- 18.8828***
secondary institution
Quality of high school 16.4802***
Articulation with prior 0.6099
institution
Essay or writing sample 17.2533***
Work/extracurricular 9.6476***
activities
Reccomendations 25.3969***
Ability to pay 885*“
State or county of 5.8649"
residence
Race or ethnicity 2.5578
Student’s interest in 13.0052***
attending
Alumni relations 7354*"
Interview 29.3873***

 

 

 

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

Table 57: Associations for
Top Three Factors by
Transfer Class Size

 

Factors Chi-Sq.
Top factor 0.592
Second factor 1 1 .4282*
Third factor 1.8827*

 

Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

193

Table 59: Associations for
Additional Factors

 

Transfer Class Size

 

Factors Chi-SIL
Received a GED 2.0246
Received an associate 2.2268

degree

Attended a community 0.3632
college

Attended a highly |2.7401***
competitive four-year

college

More than 60 hours 5.7666“
transferrable credit

Visited the campus l5.0887***
Frequently contacted l1.2033***
the admissions office

Over 25 years old 11.715***
Particular academic or 1.4734
professional focus

Plans to enroll full-time |1.0881***

Plans to enroll part- 2.4188

time
Note: *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01

194

 

 

Table 60: Results of R_egression Analysis

Dependent Public Private Smaller More Selective
Variable Institution Freshmen Transfer Freshmen Transfer
Post-secondary

grade point +
average

High school grade

point average + +

Standardized tests

Quality of post-

secondary +
institution

Quality of high
school
Essay/writing
sample
Work/Extra-
curricular
Recommendation
3

Ability to pay +

 

Race/ethnicity + 4.

Interest in
attending
Alumni relations

GED +

Received an
associate degree + +

Attended
community college +

Attended highly

competitive four- +
year college
More than 60
hours of credit
Visited the +
Freqtently
contacted
admissions office

Over 25 years old

Academic or
professional focus
Plans to enroll full-
time +
Plans to enroll

part-time + "'

195

REFERENCES

196

Achen, P. (December 22, 2004). Latest Exam Tests Old and New Skills: College Board
Believes its Newest Version will Better Predict Success. The Houston Chronicle.

Adelman, C. (February, 2005). Moving into Town—and Moving On: The Community
College in the Lives Of Traditional Aged Students. US. Department of
Education, Washington, DC. www.ed. gov. Retrieved February 15, 2006 at

http://www.edpubs.org/webstore/EdSearch/Details.ItemID=EVP0002P

Adelman, C. (February, 2006). The T oolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from
High School Through College. US. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Altermatt, ER and Kim, ME. (2004, Spring). Can Anxiety Explain Sex Differences in ,.
College Exam Scores? The Journal of College Admission, 183, 6-11.

__ Tra-

 

America’s Best Colleges 2007. (2006, Fall). US News and World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex.php.

Ancis, J. and Sedlacek, W. (1997, Winter). Predicting the Academic Achievement of
Female Students Using the SAT and Noncognitive Variables. College and
University, 72 (3).

Ancrum, R. (1992). The College Application and Admission Process. New York: College
Entrance and Examination Board.

Argetsinger, A. (2004, April 13). Nudging the Needy into Nation’s Top Colleges.
Washington Post, p. A8.

Ashburn, E. (2006). Many Student who Enroll in Associate-Degree Programs Have No
Intention of Graduating, Report Says. The Chronicle of Higher Education, June
22, 2006. (Retrieved from http:/chronicle.com/daily/2006/O6/200606220ln.htm.)

Aslanian, C. (1999, November). What Will it Take to Attract and Retain Adult Students
in the New Millennium: Highlights from Adult Learning in America, Why andHow
Adults Go Back to School. Paper presented at the College Board Office of Adult
Learning Services Conference on Marketing to Adult Learners, Washington, DC.

Astin, AW. (1982). Minorities in American Higher Education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Inc.

Atkinson, R. and Pelfrey, P. (2004, September). Rethinking Admissions: US. Public
Universities in the Post-Affirmative Action Age. UK and US. Higher Education
Finance and Access Symposium, Oxford University. Research and Occasional
Paper Series: CSHE.11.04. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Berkeley,
CA.

197

Aurand, T. (1994). Segmenting the Adult Education Market. Adult Learning. 5 (3), 16-
18.

Beatty, A., Greenwood, M.R.C., and Linn, R., eds. (1999). Myths and T radeojfs: The
Role of Tests in Undergraduate Admissions. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

Bell, L.W. (2004). Critical Issues in Advising Transfer Students: Student Retention
Begins Before Matriculation. ln Jacobs, B.C. et al. (eds.) The College Transfer
Student In America: The Forgotten Student. Washington: American Association
of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers.

Bell-Rose, S. (1999). What It Takes: A Look at Black Achievers. The College Board
Review, 197, 8-19.

Berger, J .B. and Malaney, G. (2001, August). Assessing the Transition of Transfer
Students from Community Colleges to a University. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the National Association of School Psychologists, Seattle,
Washington.

Berman, L. (2004, May 30). U-M May Have Unintentionally Written Off Top Pool of
Minorities. The Detroit News. Retrieved May 17, 2006 from
www.detnews.com/nl/newsbank.com/Archives/detNews/lD/det19014546.

Blackburn, J. (1990). Assessment and Evaluation in Admission. New York: College
Entrance Examination Board.

Bollag, B. (2005, May 4). New Writing Section on SAT Draws Sharp Criticism fi'om
Association of English Teachers. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
May 4, 2005 from http://chronicle.com/dailg/QOOS/OS/2005050403n.htm.

Bond, M., Merrill, 8., and Smith, J. (1997, December). Reaching Out: How Do Adults
Find Out About Opportunities to Return to Learn? Adult Learning, 9 (4), 8-10.

Borland, K. Enrollment Management Issues. In Jacobs, B.C., et al. (eds.) (2004). The
College Transfer Student in America: The Forgotten Student. Washington, DC:
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Bradburn, E.M., Hurst, D.G., and Peng, S. (2001). Community College Transfer Rates to
4-Year Institutions Using Alternative Definitions of Transfer. Research and
Development Report. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC.

Bridgeman, B., Pollack, J ., and Burton, N. (2004). Understanding What SAT Reasoning
Test Scores Add to High School Grades: A Straightforward Approach. New York:
College Entrance Examination Board.

198

 

Brush, S. (2005) Credit-Transfer Rules Weighed in Congress. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51, (22), A37. Retrieved January 5, 2006 from
http:/chronicle.com/weekly/ /v51/i37/37a02205.htm.

Buckley, P., Mahaffey, T., and Turner, R. (1996). Educational Choices of Adult Learners.
The Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 7 (3), 1-14.

Burd, S. (2005). College Choices are Limited for Students from Needy Families. The
Chronicle of Higher Education 51 (6) A26. Retrieved April 5, 2006 from
httpz/chronicle.com/weekly/S1/i06/a2602.htm.

Burd, S. (2006). Working-Class Students Increasingly End Up at Community Colleges,
Giving Up on a 4-Year Degree. The Chronicle of Higher Education 52 (40) A23.
Retrieved June 9, 2006 from Whig/chronicle.com/weddy/vSZ/i40/40302301.htm.

Burton, N., Perfetto, G. and Sanders, N. (1997, Spring). Using Recentered SAT II Scores.
On Target, 25.

Calahan-Laitusis, C., Mandinach, EB, and Camara, W. (2003). The Impact of Flagging
on the Admissions Process. The Journal of College Admission, 178, 18-25.

Campus Trends, 1994. (1995). American Council on Education. Washington, DC.

Carter, DJ. and Wilson, R. (1995). Minorities in Higher Education. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.

Cejda, B. (2004). Nontraditional Students as Transfers. In Jacobs, B.C., et. al. (eds.) The
College Transfer Student in America: The Forgotten Student. Washington, DC:
American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Chimes, M. (2003). Selective College Admissions: What Are We Willing to Give Up?
Journal of College Admission, 180, 22-9.

Closing the Gap: Challenges and Opportunities. (2005). ACT, inc. Iowa City, Iowa. ACT
Activity Publication, 43 (1). Retrieved January 6, 2006 from
www.act.org/activity/winter2005/gap.html.

Cohen, AM. and Brawer, F .B. (1996). Policies and Programs that Affect Transfer.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Couturier, L.K. and Cunningham, A.F. (April, 2006). Convergence: Trends Threatening

to Narrow College Opportunity in America. The Institute for Higher Education
Policy. Washington, DC.

199

 

Creswell, J .W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Crisis at the Core: Preparing all Students for College and Work. (2004). ACT, Inc. ACT
Research Report Series. Retrieved January 6, 2006 from
www.act.org./path/policy/pdflcrisis_report.pdf.

Crouse, J. and Trusheim, D. (1988). The Case Against the SAT. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

C useo, J. (2001). The Transfer Transition: Student Advancement from Two-Year to
Four-Year Institutions. US. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Educational Resources Information Center. Retrieved February 13, 2006 from
www.eric.edugov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_0l/80/Od/c4/5a.pdf.

Dicroce, D. M. (2005. October 28). How to Make Community Colleges the First Leg of a
Journey. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 31, 2005 from
http://chronic1e.com/weekly/v52/i1 0/10b02201 .htm.

Degree-Granting institutions, by control and type of institution: Selected Years, 1949-50
through 2004-05. (2005). Digest of Education Statistics. National Center for
Education Statistics. US Department of Education, Washington, DC. Tables and
Figures, 2005, Table 243.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/dOS/tables/dtOS 243.asp.

Dobbs, M. (2004, November 22). Universities Record Drop in Black Admissions. The
Chronicle of Higher Education.

Dorans, N. J ., et. al. (1997, Fall). Concordance Between ACT Assessment and
Recentered SAT I Sum Scores. College and University, 73, 24-34.

DuBois, G. What’s at Stake: Community Colleges and Virginia’s Future. Virginia Issues
and Answers. Fall 2005. pp. 26-31.

Eaton, T. (2005, February 28). Texans Split on Top 10 Percent Rule. Brownsville Herald,
Retrieved May 18, 2006 from

http://www.brownsvilIeheraId.com/ts_comments.phpid=P63902_0_10_0_C.

Elliott, S. (2004, May 24). New Generation of Tests May be Coming. Dayton Daily
News. DaytonDailyNews.com.

Evelyn, J. (2005, April 15). Community Colleges Seek Their Share. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51, (32), A19-20.

Enrollment Management Report: Under the Magnifying Glass: Michigan ’s Selection
Index Worksheet. (2003, May). LRP Publications.

200

ETS Gender Bias Report a “Smokescreen.” (1997, Fall). Fairtest Examiner, 11 (3).

Evelyn, J. (2005, April 15). Community Colleges seek Their Share. The Chronicle of
Higher Education.

Ewers, J. (2005, March 14). It’s Bigger —Is It Better? US News and World Report,
http://www.usnews.com.

Fischer, K. (2005, April 22). The Contest to Qualify: Students at Texas High Schools
Focus on Where They Rank, a Ticket to the Best State Colleges. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51, (33), A33. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from
http://chronic1e.com/week1y/v51/i33/33a02601.htm.

Fischer, K. (2005, April 22). Class-Rank Plan Faces Trouble in Texas: Landed by Bush,
Guarantee of College Admissions is Now Being Challenged. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51, (33), A33. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from
http://chronic1e.com/weekly/VS1/i33/33a02501.htm.

F lagel, A. (1998, October 1 1). Theories of Adult Enrollment Patterns Based on Current
Recruitment Practices in Higher Education. Unpublished analytical paper.

Flagel, A. (1998, November 12). Theories of Adult Enrollment Patterns Based on Current
Recruitment Practices in Higher Education. Unpublished analytical paper.

Fowler, F .J . (1993). Survey Research Methods: Second Edition. Newbury Park,
California. Sage Publications.

Franck, M. (2005, February 15). New SAT Writing Section Scores Low. The Christian
Science Monitor. Retrieved on May 18, 2006 from
http://www.csmonitorservices.corn/csmonitor/displayihtmljsessionid=3Q4BA

The Future of the SAT Program. (1999). New York: The College Entrance Examination
Board.

Gabriel, G. E., et al. (2000, May). Retention Pattems of NVCC First-Time Students by
Selected Characteristics. Research Report Number 6-00. Office of Institutional
Research, Northern Virginia Community College.

Geiser, S. and Santelices V. (2004). The Role of Advanced Placement and Honors
Courses in College Admissions. Research & Occasional Paper Series:
CSHE.3.04. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved on May 18, 2006
from http://ishi.lib.berkeley.edu/cshe/.

201

 

Giegerich, S. (2006). Barrier Busters: Two-Year Institutions Help Students Achieve
Their Dreams. Lumina Foundation Focus. Lumina Foundation for Education.
Indianapolis, IN. February, 2006.

Glenn, D. (2005, January 21). Admissions Offices Misuse AP Data on Student
Transcripts, Scholars Suggest. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, (20).
Retrieved on May 18, 2006 fiom
http://chronicle.com/week1y/v51/i20/20302701.htm

Glenn, D. (2004, June 1). Admissions Questionnaire Used to Measure Noncognitive
Traits Is Said to be Nearly Invalid. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
June 1, 2004 from http://chronicle.com/dain/2004/06/2004060104n.htm

Glenn, D. (2005, April 12). Researchers Mine Two-Year College Data. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51, (33), A2. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from
http://chronicle.com/weekly/VS1/i33/33a02101.htm.

Glenn, D. (2005, August 17). Community—College Students’ Reasons for Dropping Out
are Familiar Ones, Study Finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education 52, (2), A2.
Retrieved May 18, 2006 from http://chronic1e.com/weekIy/v52/i2/02a/02402.htm.

Goral, T. (2003, May). The Battle for Affirmative Action. University Business, 6, 249.

Greene, H and Greene, M. (2003, July). Yes, Student Retention is an Admissions Issue.
University Business, 6, 312.

Guidelines on the Uses of College Board Test Scores and Related Data. (2002). New
York: The College Entrance Examination Board.

Gutierrez, DA. (2004). Articulation Agreements that Foster a Transfer Mentality. In
Jacobs, B.C., et al. (eds). The College Transfer Student in America: The Forgotten
Student. Washington, DC: Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions

Officers.

Hagedom, L., Moon, H., Cypers, S., Maxwell, W., and Lester, J. (2003). Transfer
Between Community Colleges and F our-Year Colleges: The All American Game.
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, School of Education.

Haigh, A. (2004, October 29). Legacy Admissions, A Heated Debate. The Daily
Pennsylvanian. Retrieved on May 18, 2006 from
http:www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/418lf41034ced?in_a

Handel, S. (2005). Preparing High School Students for Community College Success.
Trustee Quarterly, Fall 2005, p. 33-34.

202

 

Hawkins, D. (2004, February). The State of College Admission. Alexandria, VA:
National Association for College Admissions Counseling.

Hawkins, D. and Lautz, J. (2005, March). The State of College Admission. Alexandria,
VA: National Association for College Admissions Counseling.

Hawkins, D. and Clinedinst, M. (2006, May). State of College Admission. Alexandria,
VA: National Association for College Admissions Counseling.

Hays, C. (2004, December 20). For Some Parents, It’s Never too Early to Start S.A.T.
Prep. The New York Times, C2. Retrieved January 12, 2006 from L
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=Fl 0E1FFA39540C738EDDABO9
94DC404482.

Healy, S. (1991). School-College Articulation. New York: The College Entrance
Examination Board.

 

Helm, B. (2005, February 2). A Big Score for SAT Tutors. Business Week. Retrieved on
May 18, 2006 fiom http://www.businessweekficom/bwdaily/
Dnflash/feb2005/nf2005022_9320_db016.htm

Hilliard, AG. (1991). Testing African American Students. Chicago: Third World Press.

Hiss, W. (2004, October 1). 20 Years of Optional SATs at Bates. Retrieved on May 18,
2006 fiom http://www.bates.edu/x58835.xml.

Holloway, K. (2005, November 9). Different Paths Lead to a Degree. USA T ODA Y.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-1 1-09—college-deg1ee-
cover_x.htm. Retrieved on November 23, 2005 from
http://usatoday.printthis.clickabiligcom.

Holoday, T. and McCauley, ME. (2004, November 12). Using the Web to Enhance
Transfer Services. In Advising Transfer Students: Issues and Strategies. Kerr, T.
et. al. (eds). NACADA Monograph Series, M12.

Hong, P.Y. (2004, November 21). A Growing Gender Gap Tests College Admissions.
The Los Angeles Times, Al. Retrieved on May 18, 2006 from

http://pgasb.pgarchiver.com/latimes/access/739776021.htm1?dids+739776021 :73
9776022.

Hoover, E. (2005, June 8). Dropping Affirmative action Would Harm Black and Hispanic
Applicants but Help Asian Applicants. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved June 8, 2005 from
http://chronicle.com/daiLv/2005/O6/2005060802n.htm.

203

Hopkins, K.D., Stanley, J .C., and Hopkins, BR. (1990). Education and Psychological
Measurement and Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Horn, L., et al. (Fa112002). Profiles of Undergraduates in US. Post-secondary Education
Institutions: 1999-2000. Education Statistics Quarterly. 5, (3), 76-86.

Houston, W. and Sawyer, W. (1991, Summer). Relating Scores on the Enhanced ACT
Assessment and the SAT Test Batteries. College and University, 66, 195-200.

Hubin, D. (1987, March). The SAT: Past as Prologue. The College Board Review, 180, 4-
8.

Hunter, J .G. and Samter, W. (2000, Summer). A College Admissions Test Protocol to

Mitigate the Effects of False Negative Scores. The Journal of College Admission,
168, 22-9.

Improving Access to the Baccalaureate. (2004). American Association of Community
Colleges and American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Is the “Top 10” Plan Unfair? (2004, October 17). CBSNews.com. Retrieved May 1, 2006
from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/1 5/60minutes/main649704.shtml.

Jacobs, BC. (2004). Today’s Transfer Students: Trends and Challenges. In Jacobs, B.C.
et. al. (eds). The College Transfer Student in America: The Forgotten Student.
Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers.

Johnson, DB. and Altemara, C. (2004). Securing Future Alumni Support: Understanding
The Transfer Student. In Jacobs, B.C., et. al. (eds). The College Transfer Student
in America: The Forgotten Student. Washington, DC: American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Jones, A. (2005, January 12). Regents Review Admissions: Two-year Schools’ SAT
Minimum May End. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bl. Retrieved May 1,
2006 from http:/n1.newsbank.com/nI-lwe/Archives.2005.html.

Kinzie, J ., et. al. (2004, September). Fifty Years of College Choice: Social, Political, and
Institutional Influences on the Decision Making Process. Lumina New Agenda
Series, 5, (3).

Kipp III, S. M., Price, D. V., and Wohlford, J.K. (2002). Unequal Opportunity:
Disparities in College Access Among the 50 States. Lumina Foundaton for

Education: New Agenda Series. Lumina Foundation for Education. Indianapolis,
IN.

204

 

 

 

Kippenhan, H. (2004, Summer). Recommendations for the Recruitment and Retention of
Transfer Students. College and University Journal, 80, (1), 13-17.

Klopfenstein, K. and Thomas, MK. (2005). The Advanced Placement Performance
Advantage: Fact or Fiction? The Texas Schools Project.
http://www.utdallas.edu/research/tsp/working/.htm. Retrieved February 13, 2006
from http://www.utda11as.edu/research/tsp/pdfpapers/newpaper1b.pdf.

Knapp, L.G., et al. (Spring, 2002). Post-secondary Institutions in the United States: Fall
2000 and Degrees and Other Awards Conferred: 1999-2000. Education Statistics
Quarterly. 4, (1), 42-46.

Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates by State, Income
and Race/Ethnicity. (2003). Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education.

Knoell, D. (1990). Transfer, Articulation, and Collaboration Twenty-Five Years Later.
Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Kriel, L. (2005, February 2). College Guarantee Could Get the Ax. The San Antonio
Express. Retrieved from
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/stories/MYSAO20205. 13A.top_10
.6870d505.html.

Laanan, ES. (2001). Transfer Student Adjustment. In Transfer Students: Trends an
Issues. New Directions for Community Colleges. Josey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.
114: 5-13.

Lauren, B. (2004). Introduction and Overview. In Jacobs, B.C., et. al. (eds). The College
Transfer Student in America: The Forgotten Student. Washington, DC:
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Lauren, B. (2004). Transfer and Articulation: Survey of State Practices. In Jacobs, B.C.,
et al. (eds). The College Transfer Student in America: The Forgotten Student.
Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers.

Levine, et. al. (2004, October 29). The Biggest Challenge for Community Colleges: Six
Views. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, (10), A10. Retrieved April 17,
2006 fiom http://chronicle.com/week1y/v51/i10/10b01001 .htm.

Levitz, R. (1992). Minority Student Retention. Recruitment & Retention in Higher
Education. 6, (4), 4-5.

205

 

Lizotte, K. (2004, October 25). College Entry Trickier than Ever: Superior Grades Only
First Step, Say College Admissions Experts at Road to College. Business Wire,
httpz/fhome.businesswire.com.

Lotkowski, V., Robbins, S. and Noeth, R. (2004). The Role of Academic and Non-
Academic Factors in Improving College Retention. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.

McMillan, J.H., and Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in Education: A Conceptual
Introduction. New York: HarperCollins.

McPhail, C. (October 29, 2005). Staying Focused on Suitable Mission. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. 51, (10). a

MacGowan, B. (Winter 2005). The Student-Written Essay and the New SAT. The
Journal of College Admission. 186, 2—3.

 

Mamlet, R. (2005, February 25). Selectivity is What Produces Right Fit. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51, (25) A25. Retrieved February 15, 2006 fiom
http://chronicle.com/weeklyv51/i25/25b02401.htm.

Mangan, R. (2004, November 4). Does Affirmative Action Hurt Black Law Students?
The Chronicle of Higher Education 51, (12), A12. Retrieved February 15, 2006
from httpz/lchronic1e.com/wee1_<1y/v5 1/i12/12a03501.htm.

Marklain, M. B. (2005, November 11). Report: College Transfers Can Muddy Quality of
Experience. USA T ODA Y. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ZOOS-11-06-
students-trasnsfer_x.htm. Retrieved on November 23, 2005 from
http://usatoday.prtinthis.clickability.com.

Martin, M. (2005, February 25). A Drift Toward Elitism by the “People’s Universities.”
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, (12), B25. Retrieved February 15, 2006
From http://chronicle.com/week1y/v51/i25/25b02602.htm.

Maryland Transfer Advantage Program Provides New Access and Opportunity for PGCC
Students. (2006). Today & Tomorrow: Prince George ’s Community College
Newsletter, Spring 2006, Vol. 7, Issue 2, p. 2.

Massey, D., et. al. (2003). The Source of the River: The Social Origins of Freshmen at
America ’s Selective Colleges and Universities. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.

Matthews, J. (2004, June 1). Standardized Test Times Vary at Area Schools. The

Washington Post, Bl. Retrieved February 15, 2006 fiom
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4918-2004May3 1 .html.

206

McEntire-Mason, T. (2006). The Transfer Challenge: How to Serve the Masses While
Maintaining Quality. SEM Source, June 25, 2006. American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Washington, DC. From
http://www.aacrao.org/sem/index.cfm?fa=print&id=3222.

Miller, MT. and Nadler, DP. (2004). Transfer Trends in the Future of Higher Education
In Jacobs, B.C., et. al. (eds.) The College Transfer Student in America: The
Forgotten Student. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Naumann, W., Bandlos, D., and Gutkin, T. (2003, Fall). Identifying Variables That
Predict College Success for F irst-Generation College Students. The Journal of
College Admission, 4-9.

The New SA T: A Guide for Admission Officers. (2005). New York: The College Entrance
Examination Board.

Noble, JP. and Sawyer, R. (2004, Spring). Is High School GPA Better Than Admission
Test Scores for Predicting Academic Success in College? College and University
Journal, 79, (4), 17.

Noble, JP. and Sawyer, R. (2002). Predicting Different Levels of Academic Success in
College Using High School GPA and ACT Composite Score. ACT, Inc. ACT
Research Report Series. Retrieved April 5, 2006 from
http://www.act.org/research/reports/pdf/ACT_RR2002-4.pdf.

Omundson, B. (October 29, 2005). Fragmentation, Isolation, and Divisiveness. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. 51, (10).

O’Neill, T. (2005, March 11). Banking Our Destinies on a Test Score. The Chicago
Tribune, A24. Retrieved April 5, 2006 from
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi—

0503 1 10334mar1 1,1,1998192.story.ctrack=1&cset+true.

O’Neill, T. (2005, February 25). Test Scores Do Not Predict Happiness. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51 (25), A24. Retrieved April 5, 2006 from
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i25/25b02901.htm.

Palmer, J., et. a1. (1994). At What Point Do Community College Students Transfer to
Baccalaureate-Granting Institutions? Evidence from a T hirteen-State Study.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Palmer, J ., (1998). Fostering Student Retention and Success at Community College.

Denver, CO: Education Cormnission of the States, Center for Community College
Policy. Report Number PS-98-7.

207

Perfetto, G., et. al. (1999). Toward a Taxonomy of the Admissions Decision-Making
Process: A Public Document Based on the First and Second College Board
Conferences on Admissions Models. New York: The College Board.

Peter, K., Cataldi, K., and Carroll, CD. (2005, May). The Road Less Traveled? Students
Who Enroll in Multiple Institutions. National Center for Education Statistics.

Pincus, F .L. and Archer, E. (1989). Bridges to Opportunity? Are Community Colleges
Meeting the Transfer Needs of Minority Students? College Board. New York,
NY.

Pluviose, D. (2005). Community Colleges and U. of Md. Partner to Guarantee Transfer 1,
Admission. Community College Week, www.ccweekcom, November 21, 2005.

 

Pope, J. (2006, March 6). Elite Schools Tap Students at Community Colleges: Lower-
Income Transfers Being Courted for More Economic Diversity. Houston
Chronicle. HoustonChronicle.com. Retrieved March 13, 2006 from
http://www.chr0n.com/cs/CDA/prtinstory.mpl/nation/3702799.

 

Pope, ML. (2004). Preparing Transfer Students to Succeed: Strategies and Best
Practices. In Jacobs, B.C., et. al. (eds.). The College Transfer Student in America:
The Forgotten Student. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Questions and Answers About the New SA T for Admissions Officers. (2004). New York:
College Board.

Randall, L. (2004, November 15). Colleges Say, Don’t Bother to Dabble. The New York
Times, F4. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1 1/1S/Qing/l5RAND.htm1?ex=1258347600&en
=378a6bb429009afc&ei=5090&partner=rssuser1and.

Research Confirms Harmful Impact of SAT Gender Bias. (1998, Summer). Fairtest
Examiner 12 (3).

Retention, Graduation and Transfer Rates at Maryland Community Colleges. (2003).
Annapolis: Maryland Higher Education Commission.

Richardson, J. T. E. and King, E. (1998, January/February). Adult Students in Higher
Education: Burden or Boon? Journal of Higher Education, 69, (1), 65-88.

Rigol, G. (2002). Admissions Decision Making Models: How U.S. Institutions of Higher
Education Select Undergraduate Students. NewYork: The College Board.

Rigol, G. (2004). Selection Through Individualized Review: A Report on Phase IV of the
Admissions Models Project. New York: The College Board.

208

Rimer, S. (2005, February 15). Back in His Old Brooklyn High School, Selling Hope and
A Chance to Apply to Bowdoin. The NewYork Times. Retrieved May 18, 2006
from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestogics/subjects/a/admissions_
standards/index.html?offset.htm.

Rodriguez, L. (2005, February 15). Top Ten Percent Fight Heats Up. The HOuston
Chronicle, chron.com Retrieved May 18, 2006 from
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/30400l3.html.

Roueche, J. E. (October 29, 2005). More Students and Less Money. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. 51, (10).

Russell, J. (2005, March 9). Essay is a Small Part of Admissions. The Boston Globe,
boston.com. Retrieved May 18, 2006 from
http://www.boston.com/news/Iocal/articIes/2005/03/09/essay_is_aismall part of
_admissions/.

Salant, P. and Dillman, DA. (1994). How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sanders, N. and Perfetto, G. (1993, Winter). Information Needs of Adult Learners:

Recruitment and Enrollment Implications. The Journal of College Admissions,
138, 11-17.

Sanders, N. and Poynter, DJ. (1989, Summer). The Local Economy and the Adult

Learner Enrollment Behavior: Does a Relationship Exist? College and University,
64, (4), 356-66.

Sanoff, A. P. (2005, February 2). All Sides Filling in Dots on New SAT. USA TODAY.
USATODAY.com.

Schemo, D J. (2004, December 4). College Board Asks Group Not to Post Test Analysis.
The New York Times, www.NYTimes.com.

Schmidt, P. (2005, March 4). Study Offers Mixed Assessments of Race-Conscious
Admissions Policies and Texas’s 10% Plan. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
51, (26), A8. Retrieved January 5, 2006 from
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i26/26a02501.htm.

Schmidt, P. (2005, October 21). Public Colleges in Florida and Kentucky Criticized for
Sharp Drops in Black Enrollments. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, (9),
A9. Retrieved January 6, 2006 from
http://chronicle.com/week1y/ v5 2/ iO9/O9a02501 .htm.

209

Schwartz, B. (2005, February 25). Top Colleges Should Select Randomly from a Pool of
‘Good Enough.’ The Chronicle of Higher Education 51, 25, A25. Retrieved
January 5, 2006 from http://chronic1e.com/weekIy/v51/i25/25b02001.htm.

Sedlacek, W. (2004). Beyond the Big Test: Noncognitive Assessment in Higher
Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Press.

Sedlacek, W.E. and Sheu, HE. (2005, September). Research Supporting Value of
Noncognitive Variables. Unpublished Power Point notes from presentation at
National conference of National Association for College Admissions Counseling,
Tampa, Florida .

Selected Results (2002, November). NSSE Viewpoint.
http://nsse.iub.edu/2002_annual_report/hthpdleSSE%20Viewpoint%202002.p
d_f. Indiana University, Center for Post-secondary Research and Planning.
Bloomington, IN.

Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Statistical Reasoning for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.

Smallwood, S. (2006, February 21). Good Scores on AP Science Exams are not Good
Predictors of Success in College Science, Study Finds. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Tuesday, February 21, 2006. From
httpzl/chronic1e.com/daily/2206/02/2006022101n.htm.

Spellings, M., et. al. (2006). A Test of Leadership: Chartering the future of US. Higher
Education: A Report of the Commission Appointed by Secretary of Education
Margaret Spellings. Washington, DC: US. Department of Education.
www.cd.gov. Retrieved November 18, 2007 from
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/Iist/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf.

Steinmann, T.D., Pope, ML, and Miller, M.T. In Jacobs, B.C., et al. (eds.) (2004). The
College Transfer Student in America: The Forgotten Student. Washington, DC.
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Stetson, W. (2005, February 25). Admissions Offices Already Take Risks. The Chronicle
0f Higher Education, 51 (25), A10. Retrieved January 11, 2006 fi’om
http://chronicle.com/weekly/ v5 1/ i25/25 b02301 .htm.

Sullivan, B.L., Dyer, B.G., and Franklin, K.K. (2004). Articulation to Collaboration:
Understanding the Development of and Issues Surrounding Articulation
Agreements. In Jacobs, B.C., et. al. (eds.). The College Transfer Student in
America: The Forgotten Student. Washington, DC: American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

210

 

 

will l'IIu. i.

 

 

Swanson, K. and Jones-Johnson, N. (2004). Preparing Community College Students for
Transfer. In Jacobs, B.C., et. al. (eds.). The College Transfer Student in America:
The Forgotten Student. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Tam, MS. and Sukhatme, U. (2004, Spring). How to Make Better College Admissions
Decisions: Considering School Quality and Other Factors. The Journal of College
Admission, 12-14.

Templin, R.G. (October 29, 2005). Meeting the Needs of a Changing Society. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. 51, (10).

Test Score Optional Admissions Enhance Equity and Excellence. (1998, Fall). Fairtest
Examiner, 12, (4).

Thacker, L. Confronting the Commercialization of Admissions. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51, (25), B26.

Thibouot, P. (2005, February 25). Students are Individuals, so Admit Them That Way.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, (25), B25. Retrieved January 11, 2006
from httpzl/chronicle.com/weekly/VS1/i25/25b02402.htm.

Tienda, M. and Niu, S. Capitalizing on Segregation, Pretending Neutrality: College
Admissions and the Texas Top 10% Law.

Thomas, E. (2004, April 9). Group Urges Colleges to Disclose Admit Policies. The Daily
Pennsylvanian, http://dai1ypennsylvanian.com.

Ting, S. (2003, Spring). A Longitudinal Study of Non-Cognitive Variables in Predicting
Academic Success of F irst-Generation College Students. The Journal of College
Admission, 78, (4), 27-31.

Ting, S. and Bryant, A. (2001, Spring). The Impact of Acculturation and Psychosocial
Variables on Academic Performance of Native American and Caucasian
Freshmen. The Journal of College Admission, 171, 22-28.

Townsend, B.K. and Dever, J .T. (1999). What Do We Know About Reverse Transfer
Students? New Directions for Community Colleges. No. 106, Summer 1999, p. 5-
14.

Trounson, R. (2004, October 27). Declining Minority Admissions Rate at UC is
Criticized. The Los A ngeles Times, www.l_atimes.com.

Vogler, K (2004, Summer). College Dreams: High Stakes Testing Reality. The Journal
of College Admission, 184, 5-11.

211

Ward-Roof, J. and Cawthon, T. (2004). Strategies for Successful Transfer Orientation
Programs. In Jacobs, B.C., et. al. (eds.) The College Transfer Student in America:
The Forgotten Student. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers.

www.nces. gov

http://www.exportgov/safeharbor/sh_overview.htm1

www.5urveymonlgchom

Wyner, J. (2006. February, 10). Educational Equity and the Transfer Student. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. V52. 123. B6.
http://chronicle.com/week1y/v52/i23/23b00601.htm. Retrieved February 6, 2006
from http://chronicle.com/cgi-
bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/VS2/i23/23b006001 .htm.

Young, John. (1994, Summer). The New SAT. College and University, 69, 146-149.

Zamiska, N. (2004, November 8). Pressed to do Well on Admissions Tests, Students
Take Drugs. The Wall Street Journal, A1. Retrieved May 23, 2006 fiom
http://pqasbaggarchiver.com/wsj/access/731301261.html.

Zimar, H. (2004, December 7). University of Georgia Considering Use of Race as
Admissions Factor Again. AACRAO Newsletter, ACRAOTranscript@aacrao.org.

212

 

   
    

S

llllllljilllllllljljlllllillljllI