Today's Transfer Students: Who Are They?

The author used statewide databases to examine a sample of students who transferred from North Carolina's community colleges to its public universities in 1993. Identified by social security numbers, students were classified by program codes as college transfer or technical students. The two groups were compared using a variety of demographic and academic variables. Students from technical programs constituted 30% of the students who transferred from North Carolina community colleges to public four-year institutions. Twice as many Black students transferred from technical programs as from college transfer programs. Technical students earned slightly higher grades after transfer than designated college transfer students, but students who transferred from college transfer curricula had higher persistence rates.

For much of this century, transfer and occupational education were considered two discrete functions of the two-year college, drawing different student populations with different educational goals. One group intended to pursue a baccalaureate degree, and the other group intended to enter the workforce before or after completing a terminal degree. Since the 1980s, however, research has suggested that many community college students may not follow such clearly defined paths (Barkley, 1993; Bender, 1991; Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Grubb, 1991; Knoell, 1990; Palmer, 1986; Prager, 1988). Cohen and Brawer (1989) have suggested that up to half of all community college students who transfer to four-year institutions come from occupational programs, and the multiyear Transfer Assembly Project chose to include all community college students meeting certain criteria, regardless of their programs of origin, in determining a national transfer rate (Cohen, 1992). "Community college programs do not stay in neat categories when the concepts underlying them are scrutinized. Collegiate, career, continuing education--all are intertwined" (Cohen & Brawer, 1996, p. 19).

Even though North Carolina has historically emphasized the occupational mission of its community colleges (Wiggs, 1989), a 1990 profile of community college students supported the overlapping educational goals of students in college transfer and technical programs. Whereas only 19% of students surveyed had enrolled in community college transfer programs, 48% of all students responded that they planned to work toward a four-year degree (Shearon, Brownlee, & Johnson, 1990). The reason for continuing their education? The response was the same for students from the two areas: (a) to earn more money and (b) to get a better job. Similar findings have been reported by other researchers (Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Cross, 1982; Gonzenbach, 1993; Dixon, 1986). "The world has changed regarding programs this system and other educational systems offer in support of workforce preparation," observed Bryan Brooks, past president of the North Carolina Association of Community College Presidents. "There is a blurting of the lines between vocational, technical, and college transfer programs" (Brooks, 1995, p. 2).

Who, then, are today's transfer students? To what extent do students from occupational programs transfer compared to students from college transfer programs? What are the similarities and differences demographically and academically between students from the two groups?

Methodology

This study was designed to profile transfer students in North Carolina based on their classification at their respective community colleges as college transfer or technical students. College transfer students were enrolled in a two-year curriculum program leading to the associate in arts or the associate in science degree for the purpose of transferring to a university in pursuit of a bacclaureate degree. Technical students were enrolled in a two-year curriculum program leading to the associate in applied science degree for immediate use in the workplace. The three objectives of the study were (a) to determine the extent that technical and college transfer students transfer, (b) to describe and compare transfer students from the two groups and within the different technical areas, and (c) to analyze the findings and make predictions about the transfer population. Through the generous cooperation of research departments at the University of North Carolina General Administration and the North Carolina Community College System, the study used existing statewide databases to gather and analyze information about transfer students identified through their social security numbers.

The sample studied was composed of students who first enrolled at one of the 16 public universities that constitute the University of North Carolina System (UNCS) in the fall of 1993 after having last attended a North Carolina community college in 1990, 1991, 1992, or 1993. This four-year time frame was selected because an earlier study revealed that 95% of North Carolina community college students transferred within four years (Nagy & McKay, 1991). These parameters yielded a sample of 5,425 students who were then grouped by program codes assigned to all students who register in credit courses at a community college. Students whose program codes began with a "T" were grouped as "technical," and those with a "C" code were grouped as "college transfer" students. Students with the two remaining codes of "V" for "vocational" and "G" for "general education" were omitted from the study because in North Carolina, at the time of the study, the vocational code indicated focused skills training of one year or less, and the general education code, used by community colleges in a variety of ways, did not identify a uniform set of programs or group of students. With the elimination of the "V" and "G" codes, the total sample used was 4,753 students. Of that number, 3,305 had college transfer codes and 1,448 had technical codes.

No limitations were placed on the number of credits completed, full- or part-time enrollment, or previous attendance at another two- or four-year college. This decision was made based on known characteristics of community college students: They drop in and drop out of higher education, they swirl from one institution to another, they stop out for a period and then return, they reverse directions; in essence, they fit coursework into the available spaces of their busy adult lives (Barkley, 1993).

Once the 4,753 students were identified, data for a total of 19 variables were collected. In addition to breakouts by program codes, variables included basic demographic data, attendance and employment patterns while at the community college, time interval between attending the two institutions, and attendance patterns at the four-year institution.

Analysis of the data proceded along two planes. First, basic descriptive information was tabulated to profile this sample of transfer students based on their program codes. Second, inferential statistics were used to test hypotheses and make predictions about the general population of students who transfer from either college transfer programs or from technical programs. The chi-square test was used with categorical data to compare the proportion of technical program students with a characteristic of interest to the corresponding proportion of college transfer program students with the same characteristic. Among the data tested using chi square were gender, race, enrollment patterns, work patterns, graduation from community college, and persistence after transfer.

The two-sample t-test was used for numerical data to compare the mean values for different variables from the sample of technical students to their corresponding values for college transfer students. The Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) multiple comparison procedure was used to check the results. Among data tested using the t-test were age, date students left the community college, and grade point average after transfer.

A two-tailed test of significance was used for both statistical tests since little is known about the two sample groups of transfer students. Statistical significance was set at 0.05, but most tests yielded much smaller p-values due to the large size of the sample.

General Findings

Seven out of 10 of the students who enrolled in a UNCS institution in the fall of 1993 came from college transfer programs whereas 3 out of 10 came from technical programs. Aggregating the data, the following profile emerged: The typical transfer student was a 26-year-old white woman. During her last quarter at the community college, she worked part-time and also attended college part-time. By the time she left the community college in 1992--a year before entering a university--she had earned a total of 22 credits, far short of the number required to graduate with an associate's degree. This student was both successful and persistent following her transfer. She enrolled as a full-time student the first semester at the university and earned a 2.6 grade point average, which rose to a 2.75 average at the end of the first year. She returned to the university the following fall.

A closer examination of data from the student sample revealed relatively large contrasts as well as similarities between students transferring from college transfer programs and from technical programs. All statistical tests were significant with the exception of the test for gender.

Table 1 presents basic demographic information for the sample of students who transferred from both technical and college transfer programs. The biggest variation for this sample is in the percentage of Black students. Statistical tests for age and race were significant at a p-value of 0.000; however, the test for gender yielded a p-value of 0.059, suggesting that there is no association between gender and classification as either a college transfer program student or a technical program student.

Table 1 Age, Gender, and Race (N=4,753)

             College
Variables    Transfer   Technical   Composite

Age (M)        25.2       27.5        25.9

Gender (%)
  Female       54.8       57.7        55.6
  Male         45.2       42.3        44.1

Race (%)
  White        87.7       77.0        84.4
  Black         8.3       18.4        11.4
  Other         4.0        4.6         4.2

Similarities and differences also emerged when the enrollment and work patterns of the two groups of students were compared. Surprisingly, the data revealed that community college transfer program students were employed for more hours than their technical program counterparts, but students from technical programs graduated from the two-year institutions in slightly higher numbers, although the percentage for both groups was relatively low. It should be noted that at the time of the study, associate's degrees in North Carolina did not transfer in block to universities. Rather, articulation was with individual universities on a course-by-course basis. Statistical tests for the enrollment patterns yielded a p-value of 0.002, and tests for work patterns and graduation rates had p-values of 0.000.

Both college transfer and technical students in the sample pursued their education in stops and starts before enrolling in a UNCS institution in the fall of 1993. Less than one-third of the students transferred from community colleges to universities in the same year. Half left the community college in 1992, and almost 20% of the 4,753 students waited two to three years before continuing their education. As might be expected, data indicated that college transfer program students continued with less of a time lag than technical students. This finding was statistically significant with a p-value of 0.000.

Following transfer, both transfer program and technical program students were academically successful, and persistence rates were high after one and two semesters at the university. Although technical program students earned slightly higher grades at the university, college transfer program students posted higher persistence rates. The unexpected finding for students after transfer was the shift in their attendance patterns. Even though the majority of the students attended community colleges part-time (58.2% for college transfer program students and 62.9% for technical program students), the majority of students enrolled full-time following transfer, as Table 4 shows. Statistical tests for grade point averages and persistence following transfer were significant with p-values of 0.000.

Table 4
GPAs and Enrollment Patterns after Transfer (N=4,753)

                      College
Variable              Transfer   Technical   Composite

Grade Point Average
  1st Semester           2.6       2.8          2.6
  2nd Semester           2.7       2.9          2.7

Enrollment (%)
  Full-time              85.9     74.2         82.4
  Part-time              14.1     25.8         17.7

Persistence (%)
  2nd semester           87.1     81.8         85.5
  3rd semester           75.4     70.1         73.8

What did these students study following transfer? A total of 132 majors were chosen by the former community college students who listed a major upon enrolling at a UNCS institution. Their choices ranged across the curriculum with many choices mirroring programs of study available for the associate's degree. A total of 53% of the community college students enrolling in a university chose one of 10 majors, with nursing the overwhelming choice selected by more than 1 student in 10. Other top choices for university enrollment included elementary education, business management and administration, general psychology, criminal justice, accounting, general biology, engineering technologies, English, and political science and government.

Findings for Technical Students

Of the 4,753 students in the sample, 1,448 had technical program codes for their community college studies from 91 different programs representing areas as diverse as laser technology and interpreter training. With programs consolidated by general category, 70% of the students (1,018) were from 1 of 5 broad technical program areas: business, engineering, human services, nursing, and a special designation of T301 given to walk-in students without a major. Surprisingly, 42.7% of the students from the five technical areas were coded T301, 18.5% were from business programs, 13.9% were from engineering programs, 13.2% were from human service programs, and 11.8% were from nursing programs.

Descriptive statistics were collected for the sample of students from these five technical areas, and, as might be expected, similarities as well as great differences emerged. The mean age of students was relatively consistent with a low of 26.1 for students from engineering and a high of 28.5 for students from nursing and the special designation of T301. However, large differences were found in gender and race: 88.3% of all students from nursing were female, but only 12.1% from engineering programs were female. Business programs had the highest number of Black students who transferred (22.3%), whereas engineering programs had the lowest (10.6%).

Data involving enrollment, work, and graduation patterns showed much variation. In fact, only one finding was consistent across the five groupings: The majority of technical program students who transferred to a university worked either part-time or full-time while attending the community college. The majority of students from engineering and human service programs attended the community college on a full-time basis and worked part-time. T301 students stood out because of the large percentage (83.9%) who attended community colleges part-time and because of the large percentage (40.5%) who were not employed while enrolled. Nursing students were almost evenly divided between those who worked part-time and those who worked full-time while attending the community college.

Graduation rates also showed great variation with almost half of the students in human services (49.3%) and engineering (48.2%) graduating with an associate's in applied science degree prior to transfer compared to 16.7% of students in nursing programs. No T301 students graduated because they had not enrolled in a specific program.

Wide variation was found in the time between leaving the community college and entering UNCS institutions for students from the five areas. Only one similarity stood out: Few students transferred in the same year that they left the community college, and 67% to 83% of the students waited at least one year before continuing their post-secondary education. Surprisingly, more T301 students (32.9%) transferred within the same year than did students from the other technical areas. Approximately 75% of students from business, engineering, nursing, and human services waited one or two years before enrolling at a university.

Although considerable differences among community college students from the five broad technical program areas existed for other variables, the students were more similar in attendance and performance patterns after transfer to universities. The students demonstrated that they were focused and successful in their academic work. Unlike their enrollment patterns at the community college, they tended to enroll in full course loads after transfer. They earned solid grades, and they returned the following semester and following year.

The greatest variability among the five groups occurred in enrollment patterns with 52.5% of students from community college nursing programs taking full course loads at a university. In contrast, the statistics were more similar for grade point averages and persistence. After one semester at a university, students from four of the five technical areas had GPAs of 2.7 to 3.0. Persistence rates after a semester at the university ranged from a high of 87.9% for engineering program students to 76.7% for nursing program students.

Some Broad Conclusions

Although most research about transfer either aggregates data about all students who transfer or narrows its focus to students from college transfer programs, this study revealed some of the complexities and variations that characterize transfer students. Three broad observations stand out.

First, students from community college technical programs are a significant proportion of the students who transfer from North Carolina community colleges to UNCS institutions. As the one-year sample revealed, 3 out of 10 transfer students had a technical program code. This proportion did not represent half of the transfer population as suggested by Cohen and Brawer (1996); however, the sample only included students transferring to public universities in the fall semester in a state that historically has emphasized technical preparation instead of the transfer function. Different results might emerge if the study included private institutions or was conducted in a state with a historical emphasis on transfer for both technical program and college transfer program students.

Second, transfer students are characterized by considerable demographic and academic heterogeneity at the community college. Just as students from college transfer programs demonstrate demographic, enrollment, and employment differences from their technical counterparts, so do students within the different technical programs. In fact, for some variables, students from certain technical areas are more like college transfer program students than they are like students from other technical concentrations.

Third, the academic patterns of community college students who transfer to universities, regardless of program of origin at the community college, become more homogeneous following transfer to UNCS institutions and reflect a high level of success. Most students who enroll part-time at the community college enroll in full-time course loads upon transfer to a university. In the sample studied, 4 out of 5 students who transferred took full course loads at UNCS institutions, double the number who had enrolled full-time at the community college. Likewise, more than 4 out of 5 students (85.5%) returned to the university a second semester, and almost 3 out of 4 (73.8%) returned the following year. Their collective grade point averages climbed from 2.6 to 2.7 by the end of their first year after transfer.

Summary

Every year community college students from both technical and college transfer programs transfer to North Carolina's public universities. In 1993, 3 out of 10 transfer students enrolling in a UNCS institution from a community college had a technical program code, and statistical tests were significant for a variety of variables for students transferring from technical programs and for students transferring from college transfer programs. Concurrently, data also indicated many differences among the sample of students who transferred from five broad technical program areas.

When considered collectively, students who transfer from community colleges to UNCS institutions may be characterized as much by what they do not do as by what they do. That is, they do not follow a prescribed time frame just as they often do not follow narrowly defined plans of study that lead to associate's degrees. Rather, they pause before, during, and after attending community colleges.

These transferring students share some characteristics in common, as well. When enrolled at two-year colleges, they frequently balance part-time academic loads with part-time employment. They are successful following transfer, and they persist in large numbers. The majority of students in the sample also chose majors at UNCS institutions that complemented programs offered at the community college.

Table 2
Enrollment, Work, and Graduation Patterns (N=4,753)

                 College
Variables        Transfer   Technical   Composite

Enrollment
  Full-time        41.8       37.1        40.4
  Part-time        58.2       62.9        59.6

Work Patterns
  Full-time        36.2       29.8        34.2
  Part-time        48.0       41.9        46.1
  Not employed     15.8       28.4        19.7

Graduation         17.2       21.8        18.6

Note. Values represent percentages of respondents.

Table 3
Year Left Community College (N=4,753)

       College
Year   Transfer   Technical   Composite

1990      2.1        7.6         3.8
1991     12.1       23.6        15.6
1992     54.1       43.7        50.9
1993     31.7       25.1        29.7

Note. Values represent percentages of respondents.

Table 5
Age, Gender, Race (N-I,018)

Variables    Business   Engineering   Nursing   H.S.   Special

Age (M)        27.8       26.1         28.5     26.6    28.5

Gender (%)
 Female        58.5       12.1         88.3     59.0    63.5
 Male          41.5       88.0         11.7     41.0    36.6

Race (%)
 White         75.0       83.7         78.3     76.9    78.9
 Black         22.3       10.6         16.7     20.9    16.1
 Other          2.7        5.7          5.0      2.3     5.1
Table 6
Enrollment, Work, and Graduation Patterns(N=1,018)

Variables       Business   Engineering   Nursing   H.S.   Special

Enrollment
 Full-time         38.3        53.2        46.7     53.7     16.1
 Part-time        61.7        46.8        53.3     46.3     83.9

Work Patterns
 Full-time        30.9        23.4        39.2     28.4     25.5
 Part-time        41.5        53.2        38.3     50.8     34.0
 Not employed     27.7        23.4        22.5     20.9     40.5

Graduation        29.3        48.2        16.7     49.3      0.0

Note. Values represent percentages of respondents.

Table 7
Year Left Community College (N=1,018)

Variables   Business   Engineering   Nursing   H.S.   Special

1990          10.6         5.0         9.2      2.2     6.9
1991          33.5        15.6        40.0     23.9    12.0
1992          37.8        57.5        34.2     52.2    48.3
1993          18.1        22.0        16.7     21.6    32.9

Note. Values represent percentages of respondents.

Table 8
GPAs and Enrollment Patterns after Transfer (N=1018)

Variables                 Business   Engineering   Nursing

Grade Point Average (M)
 1st semester               2.8         2.7          3.0
 2nd semester               2.8         2.7          3.0

Enrollment (%)
 Full-time                 73.9        80.9         52.5
 Part-time                 26.1        19.2         47.5

Persistence (%)
 2nd semester              77.7        87.9         76.7
 3rd semester              69.2        79.4         63.3

Variables                 H.S.   Special

Grade Point Average (M)
 1st semester              2.4      2.9
 2nd semester              2.6      3.0

Enrollment (%)
 Full-time                82.8     69.2
 Part-time                17.2     30.8

Persistence (%)
 2nd semester             83.6     80.9
 3rd semester             73.1     71.0

References

Barkley, S. M. (1993). The community college transfer function: Current issues in articulation. Community College Review, 20(4), 38-50.

Bender, L. W. (1991). Applied associate degree transfer phenomenon: proprietaries and publics. Community College Review, 19(3), 48-53.

Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brooks, B. (1995, February 24). Minutes from meeting of Policy Committee on Semester System Conversion. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Association of Community College Presidents.

Cohen, A. M. (1992). Calculating transfer rates efficiently. Community, Technical and Junior College Journal 62(4), 31-35.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1987). The collegiate function of community colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, K. P. (1982). Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dixon, G. R. (1986). A study of the characteristics, motivations and perceptions of adult part-time students at North Carolina State University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(11), 3843.

Gonzenbach, N. M. (1993). Factors affecting decisions by office occupational students to continue education beyond the community college. Community College Review, 21(2), 22-31.

Grubb, W. N. (1991). The decline of community college transfer rates: Evidence from national longitudinal studies. Journal of Higher Education, 62(2), 194-222.

Knoell, D. (1990). Transfer, articulation, and collaboration: Twenty-five years later. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Nagy, P., & McKay, S. (1991, March). Trends and performance data for college transfer programs in the North Carolina Community College System. Paper presented at the joint conference of North Carolina Association of Institutional Research and South Carolina Association of Institutional Research, Myrtle Beach, SC.

Palmer, J. (1986). Sources and information: The racial role of the community college. In L. S. Zwerling (Ed.), The community college and its critics (pp. 36-51). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 54. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Prager, C. (1988). The other transfer dream: Enhancing articulation and transfer. In C. Prager (Ed.), Enhancing articulation and transfer (pp. 77- 87). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 61. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Shearon, R. W., Brownlee, I. A., & Johnson, D. N. (1990). Student diversity and the emerging workforce: The changing profile of students in North Carolina community colleges. Raleigh, NC: Department of Adult and Community College Education, North Carolina State University.

Wiggs, J. L. (1989). The community college system in North Carolina: A silver anniversary history, 1993-1988. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

Janyth Fredrickson serves as associate vice president for Academic and Student Services at the North Carolina Community College System in Raleigh, North Carolina (email to [e-mail]).