|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Report of the Task Force to Consider Transfer Student Issues (April 28, 1999) To: Marsha A. Chandler, Senior Vice Chancellor – Academic Affairs
The California Master Plan calls for UC to maintain an undergraduate student profile of 60% upper division and 40% lower division, a ratio which provides an efficient and effective use of our resources. Transfer students are therefore an important asset to UCSD, not only in diversifying and strengthening our student body, but in maintaining our commitment to the Master Plan. We find that important campus objectives are to increase the number, quality and academic preparedness of transfer students, and to ease their transition into the campus. As you requested, we have met to learn about transfer student issues and to suggest strategies to improve our efforts to recruit transfer students and to accommodate them at UCSD. We have greatly benefited from a detailed data gathering and analysis completed for us by Darlene Morrell, Director of Student Research, Student Affairs. We have interviewed a panel of Assistant Deans who work closely with transfer students from all the Colleges; panels of active transfer students, including students who are both strong and weak academically; and selected faculty who have been involved in transfer student activities. We have also conducted a written survey questionnaire of Department Chairs. In general, we find that transfer students to UCSD can be academically very sound and agree that we should focus added attention on recruitment of the very best transfer students. Their most serious problems are receiving correct advice and acquiring preparation for the major at the community colleges, and then making the transition to UCSD’s intense quarter system. After talking with current UCSD transfer students, college Assistant Deans, faculty and staff members, it became clear that during the initial period at UCSD transfer students suffer from simply not knowing where to go to find the various kinds of information, advice, help, and counseling that they need.We have reached consensus on the following major summary findings and recommendations. Additional detail and discussion is provided in the sections below.
Since the committee was confronted with a great deal of anecdotal information we found it very useful to have the services of Darlene Morell, who collected and analyzed transfer student profile data. She was able to present substantial data, including demographic profiles, enrollment trends, academic performance, retention and graduation rates, and some post baccalaureate outcomes. The relevant tables are attached as Appendices I and II. Transfer students represent about 20% of the students admitted to campus each year, or close to 1000 students. The demographic profiles involving gender, ethnicity, home location, and disciplinary area are all similar to the freshman student profile. More significant differences occur for age, College affiliation, financial income, and first generation college status. Two-thirds of the transfers are in the age bracket 20-22, and 21% are older than 25. The distribution of transfers into our Colleges follows the acceptance of the IGETC (Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum) lower division curriculum to meet the various College general education requirements. The largest effects, when compared with the freshman profiles, are the reduction in proportions of transfer students accepted into Roosevelt and Revelle, which do not accept IGETC without completion of additional UCSD lower division general education courses, and the significant increase in transfer students to Warren and Muir, which do accept IGETC as completion of lower division general education requirements. Warren College has become particularly attractive to students considering engineering majors. The household income of the average transfer student is significantly less than that of the freshman student. Not surprisingly, in our interviews with transfer students, we found that many students go to community colleges for financial reasons alone. The percentage of first generation college status for the transfer student is nearly twice that for the freshman student. Nearly 70% of the transfer students are admitted under the IGETC curriculum, and this number is expected to grow. It is a UC-wide obligation that we accept the IGETC articulation agreement. Despite the fact that TAG students enter with a slightly higher average gpa in their community college course work (3.38 compared with 3.26) than IGETC students, both cohorts obtain nearly the same average gpa during their first year at UCSD and have very similar retention rates and average gpa at graduation. Also surprising to the committee was the data which suggested that the first-year drop in gpa is slightly greater for freshmen, based on high school gpa, than for transfer students, and further that the UCSD graduation gpa was quite similar for the transfer student and the student admitted as a freshman. Many chairs supported the notion that they see little difference in the final academic performance of transfer students compared to freshman admitted students. There was some sense that the width of the distributions measuring preparation and performance was broader for transfer students than the freshman admitted students, but we did not pursue this factor. Nevertheless, the fact that about one-quarter of the transfer students entering UCSD do not graduate is of concern to us.A cause of concern expressed by chairs in some disciplines such as engineering, biology, and chemistry, which have explicit, often laboratory, lower division requirements, is that the preparation for the major was felt to be inadequate for transfer students. A closer look at graduation gpa by individual departments is not entirely consistent with this view. Chemistry transfer student majors did have the largest decrease in graduation gpa when compared to freshmen (3.31 to 2.87) but the engineering students in AMES, CSE, and ECE graduate with an almost identical gpa. The problem may be better correlated with the graduation rate. First-year retention rates for freshmen and transfers are nearly the same. However, graduation rates are somewhat different. While 63% of the transfer students finish in three years at UCSD, 75% of the freshmen students finish in five years at UCSD. While this delayed graduation rate may be due to academic preparation, it is also likely influenced by other factors such as the first-year transition and financial support.Perhaps the most significant difference between the transfer student and the student admitted as a freshman is the post-baccalaureate outcome. Clearly more freshmen continue towards an advanced degree (63% compared with 47%), especially in the health sciences. Given the similar academic performance of transfer students, further attention should be given to possible causes and how they might be addressed to increase the rate of advanced study for transfer students. Possible factors that should be investigated are financial need and debt levels at graduation, degree of integration into the major department and the discipline, affiliation with faculty, participation in undergraduate research, family socioeconomic factors, and career objectives and aspirations. After reviewing this type of data and input from Department Chairs, the committee concluded that the academic ability of transfer students is not at issue. However, it became clear that we should improve: our recruitment of the best transfer students, communications regarding our requirements both in the Colleges and in the Departments, and the transition for transfer students during their first year. We discuss these issues further below.III. IGETC and the Colleges Two colleges, Revelle and Eleanor Roosevelt, accept IGETC, but not as fulfillment of all of their lower division general education requirements. Ironically, the other three colleges that do "accept IGETC" impose additional upper divisional requirements. We recommend the preparation and dissemination of a simple IGETC-based chart that would show, by College, the remaining requirements (upper division and/or lower division) needed upon transfer. Such a chart should point out those requirements that would usually be met by courses in the major, for example the calculus and science requirements of Revelle for science and engineering majors. Student Outreach should work with Revelle and Eleanor Roosevelt to promote transfer to those colleges, just as it does with colleges wanting to attract freshmen. As a marketing approach, the committee feels these two Colleges could attract more transfer applicants by being clearer and more positive in their literature about their efforts to accommodate the IGETC transfer student, rather than the current negative language emphasizing that they do not accept IGETC. [We were pleased to learn recently that language in the new General Catalog is already moving in this direction.] A college dedicated to transfer students would seem to solve many of the functional issues we have been able to identify regarding academic preparation, recruitment, and transition into UCSD. When we raised this as a solution to the groups of students and staff who met with us, they acknowledged the benefits of such an entity focusing on transfer students, and they realized such a college could be a center for socialization and community for all transfers. However, they nearly unanimously rejected the concept because it would appear to "ghettoize" transfer students and impede their integration into the general student body. They felt it would simply send the wrong message to the community colleges and might hinder recruitment. In contradiction, one of the strong arguments in favor of a Transfer College is that it could focus on transfer student outreach, recruitment, and coordination with the Departments, and strengthen the quality of recruitment. We also considered a compromise idea brought to us by former Warren Provost and Engineering Dean Lea Rudee to provide resources to Warren College to significantly expand its capabilities to accommodate transfer students and serve as an advocate for them, a `virtual’ transfer college attached to Warren College. In the end, the consensus of the committee is to reject the Transfer College concept as well as the expansion of Warren College. The overriding goal is to integrate transfer students into the UCSD community and the Colleges. The concept of a transfer center, discussed below, can be viewed as a compromise and has broad support from the students, staff, and members of our committee.IV. Admission of
Transfer Students by Major V. Recruitment of Transfer
Students
A strong recommendation for creation of a transfer center came from nearly all people we interviewed -- transfer students, college deans, faculty, and staff. It is clear that during the initial period at UCSD, transfer students suffer from not knowing where to find the various kinds of information, advice, help, and counseling that is needed. Although the primary motivation for a center from the staff and students was coupled to common socialization needs of transfer students, such as a place to meet, organize social functions, and share information and experiences, there was also the expressed need to have a centralized place to obtain information -- a transfer referral center. The age, experience, and maturity of the transfer student raises a particular set of issues which might call for such a Center, analogous to the reasons the campus established centers dealing with cultural and gender issues. The committee spent considerable time discussing the potential usefulness of such a transfer center, what the goals for it might be, what relation it might hold with the Colleges and the Departments, where it should be located, and to whom it should report. Although such a concept requires more detailed discussion, we have a consensus regarding what we would recommend for such a unit, which could be called either a transfer center, a transfer office, or a transfer transition center. We would recommend a small office led by an academic colleague with one or two staff members, perhaps along the lines of the Faculty Mentor Program. The transfer office would stand independently of both the Colleges and the Academic Departments, as a central office supported by both Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. The primary goals of the transfer office would be: (1) improve departmental and faculty involvement with outreach, recruitment, preparation, and transition into Departments; (2) serve as an information/referral center explicitly for transfer students, a place where their questions can be answered or where they can be referred to the appropriate College or Departmental staff or programs, and where information about transfer student activities is readily available; and (3) serve as a proactive advocate for transfer students. Since the committee feels that transfer students should be integrated into the campus as efficiently as possible, we were not able to support the notion of a transfer center primarily to serve as a focal point of social activity. Some felt that having a social component in such a center might displace, or at least compete with, colleges and their social activities in an adverse manner for the transfer student. The transfer office will have to have the proper resources, be proactive, and must avoid duplicating what the Colleges and the Admissions and Outreach Offices are doing, while concentrating on what the current system is failing to accomplish for the transfer student. VII. Oral and Written Communication SkillsWe heard a great deal of anecdotal information that the writing and speaking skills of transfer students are poor and contribute to their difficulties in courses at UCSD. We discussed the need for ESL-type skill courses and the weak IGETC writing requirement. Further discussion and input from Department Chairs made it clear that many faculty feel that the writing and speaking skills of most UCSD students are weak, including students admitted as freshmen, despite the strong effort made in our lower division writing courses. Feedback from the chairs varied from "this is the biggest problem of all for transfers," to "transfer students are sometimes better prepared for written work." We were not able to determine a method that would permit us to assess the communication skills of the transfer student versus the freshman student. We concluded that lack of adequate communication skills is a serious problem for those who are affected by it, but we do not have sufficient information to determine how extensive the problem is, or how it pertains to transfer students, as opposed to all students. It is clear that the campus needs to further address the speaking and writing skills of all of our students. Further, it does not appear to be simply a transfer student issue. Some members suggested that consideration be given to assembling a special task force to collect data to determine the extent of the problem, whether it is a campus-wide problem or one particular to transfer students, and to recommend solutions. We recommend that CEP consider this issue further. VIII. Housing for Transfer
Students IX. Other Comments and
Conclusions In general, we find that the transfer student to UCSD can be academically very sound, and we want to recruit the very best. A stronger mentoring system would significantly help them deal with the first-quarter transition and the observed drop in achievement as measured by the gpa. The transfer student is a mature student who brings several facets of diversity to our campus. Their interaction with our freshman admitted students in the upper division majors should be mutually beneficial. In conclusion, we have found that transfer students perform well, but often after a difficult transition. They bring a level of maturity and diversity to the campus, sharing of which should prove beneficial to all. Their most serious problems are receiving correct advice and preparing for their major at the community colleges, and making the difficult transition to our intense quarter system. This is the basis for our proposed transfer center. A strong mentoring system using continuing students by major could also complement the existing staff mentor and college mentor programs. Transfer students report that transition from the semester to the quarter system is particularly difficult, especially when they must quickly learn their way around a complex system of colleges, departments, and student services.Our major recommendations are that: (1) UCSD should establish a transfer center to aid the first-year transition and to improve communications between academic departments and community colleges; (2) transfer students should be admitted by major to impacted programs; (3) we must improve communications with community colleges and potential transfer students, especially in the UCSD General Catalogue, about IGETC and how it affects the requirements in each College; and (4) while we do not recommend that all Colleges must accept IGETC, we think a majority should, and we encourage the new Sixth College to accept the lower division IGETC curriculum. Submitted by: TASK FORCE TO CONSIDER TRANSFER STUDENT ISSUES
Table Title
Table Title
(Note: The following appendices are in .pdf format.)
|
Copyright ©2007 Regents of the University of California. All rights
reserved. |
