“Lost in the Shuffle”: How Relationships and Personalized Advisement Shape Transfer Aspirations and Outcomes for Community College Students

Abstract

Objective: Few community college students who aspire to transfer ever do so. Prior research suggests that relationships with advisors, faculty, and administrators may play an important role in promoting successful transfer outcomes, particularly for traditionally underserved students. This study examines how students identified and weighed possible transfer destination colleges, and how dedicated and personalized advisement shaped students’ transfer plans and contributed to their transfer outcomes. Method: This mixed-methods study uses interviews to explore students’ transfer planning processes, as well as student record data to examine transfer outcomes. Analyses compare students who received personalized transfer advising through a community college honors program and similarly qualified transfer-aspiring peers attending the same six community colleges who received “business as usual” advising. Results: Findings suggest that personalized advisement and relationships with transfer advisors contributed to higher rates of transfer and may support transfer to more-selective destinations. Contributions: This research extends the literature on community college transfer by tracing students’ planning processes, exploring factors that raise or lower transfer aspirations, and estimating the effects of an advising-intensive honors program on students’ transfer outcomes, including the selectivity of their transfer destinations. We also offer more empirical support for the importance of personal relationships and transfer agents in facilitating successful transfer outcomes.

Keywords

community colleges honors program vertical transfer transfer advisement personalized/intrusive transfer advising

Although a majority of community college students seek to transfer to 4-year colleges, only about a third do so (Jenkins & Fink, 2016). Even among students who perform well in community college, just 60% successfully transfer within 6 years of initial enrollment (LaViolet et al., 2018; Monaghan & Attewell, 2015). Community college transfers also tend to “undermatch,” or to choose less-selective transfer destinations that are below their level of academic qualification (Glynn, 2019).

Low rates of transfer are a particular concern in regard to low-income students and other historically underrepresented groups, who comprise a large proportion of community college students. In 2020, 55% of students enrolled in community colleges were minoritized students of color, 34% received federal need-based grants, and 29% were the first in their family to attend college (“first-generation” students; American Association of Community Colleges, 2020). Despite the importance of community colleges as a gateway to higher education for traditionally underserved populations, these students are less likely than more-privileged peers to transfer to a 4-year college and earn a bachelor’s degree (Crisp & Nunez, 2014). For example, among community college students from lower-income neighborhoods (i.e., the bottom two quintiles of neighborhood income) only 28% transfer to a 4-year college, compared to 36% of their peers from higher-income neighborhoods (Jenkins & Fink, 2016). Given the large proportions of low-income, first-generation, and minoritized students of color who attend community college, addressing barriers to transfer—including barriers to entering more-selective transfer destinations—may help close bachelor’s degree attainment gaps (Gandara et al., 2012; Melguizo, 2009).

Researchers have suggested a range of strategies to improve community college transfer, including building a strong “transfer culture,” improving transfer articulation agreements, and ensuring that course articulation frameworks are accessible to and understandable for students (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Hagedorn, 2010; Jain, et al., 2011; Monaghan & Attewell, 2015; J. L. Taylor & Jain, 2017). However, without personalized guidance, students may not know when or how to make effective use of articulation frameworks; moreover, low-income or minoritized students, in comparison to more privileged peers, may feel less empowered to seek such guidance (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2003; Felix, 2018). Thus, some researchers have suggested that personal relationships with “transfer agents”—authority figures such as advisors, faculty, or administrators that “act as bridges to facilitate the transfer process”—may be particularly important (Pak et al., 2006, p. 6). Transfer agents may raise students’ postsecondary aspirations, helping them to make sense of unfamiliar opportunities and act on the transfer-related information they receive (Dowd et al., 2006).

Purpose of the Study

Building on research that points to the importance of the structural and relational aspects of transfer support for community college students, this study seeks to explore how a community college honors program designed to promote transfer to selective colleges affected students’ transfer aspirations and outcomes.¹ We compare qualitative experiences as well as transfer outcome data between “American Honors” (AH) students who received intensive transfer advising, and similarly high-achieving (non-AH) students at the same colleges who received “business-as-usual” advising. Our research questions included:

How do AH versus non-AH students describe experiences with academic advising and transfer support?

How do AH versus non-AH students describe how they identify and weigh possible transfer destinations?

How do transfer outcomes—including likelihood of transfer, in-state or out-of-state transfer, and selectivity of transfer destination—compare for AH versus non-AH students?

Theoretical Framework

We draw on Coleman’s (1988) conceptualization of social capital and Nora’s (2004) student/institutional engagement model to understand whether and how personalized advising support may be important to successful transfer. Coleman’s (1988) concept of social capital suggests that a network of social relationships creates robust information channels, and that for a given channel, a deeper personal relationship creates greater trust in the information received. Community college students who build a strong relationship with a particular advisor may not only receive more useful information, but may also gain trust in the advisor’s judgment and be more likely to apply that information (Riegle-Crumb, 2010). Nora’s (2004) model posits that community college students experience a range of environmental “pull factors” such as family and work responsibilities, which detract from academic and social integration in the college environment and can derail momentum toward transfer. Bolstering college-based personal and social connections may reinforce students’ educational goals and commitments, strengthening their “push” toward transfer in the face of ongoing pull factors. A positive relationship with an institutional authority figure may provide a particularly strong “push” for students by building their own sense of academic self-worth, institutional belonging, aspirations for transfer, and confidence that they can execute those aspirations (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Hatch & Garcia, 2017; Karp et al., 2010). Overall, a personal relationship with an advisor may provide students with more accurate and actionable information, as well as support the student’s ability and motivation to apply that information—thus allowing students to both accrue and “convert” social capital in the transfer process (Crisp & Nunez, 2014, p. 309). Support and encouragement from advisors may help students envision themselves at a more-selective 4-year college than they might otherwise consider.

Review of the Literature

Challenges to Community College Transfer

The transfer process is confusing and challenging for students to navigate; for example, most students are surprised to discover they will “lose credits” in the process of transfer (Kadlec & Gupta, 2014; Xu et al., 2018). Most community colleges offer passive supports and resources for transfer, including posters and slogans encouraging students to transfer, or web-based information and tools which are difficult for students to access and to use (Schudde et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2018; Z. W. Taylor, 2019). Transfer advisement is often structured as a “drop-in” model that requires students to take the initiative to seek out information and guidance (Felix, 2018). However, many students do not realize they need help, are unaware of available supports, or are intimidated to seek help (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2003). In her study of community college students aspiring to transfer in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs, Wang (2020) reported that 48% of students in the sample rarely or never discussed transfer with academic advisors or counselors.

Students may also hesitate to use available transfer support due to a lack of personalization. At most community colleges, advisors deal with large volumes of students, and students may see a different advisor each time they visit the office (Allen et al., 2014; Jaggars et al., 2019). Students often report negative experiences with transfer advising, such as receiving inaccurate information that results in time and credit loss; a lack of personalization in advising; and that advisors do not know them or understand their education goals and plans (Allen et al., 2014; Felix, 2018; Musoba et al., 2018; Packard & Jeffers, 2013; Pak et al., 2006; Wang, 2020). In general, proactive outreach from advisors or coaches seems more effective than drop-in advising in terms of improving student outcomes (Bettinger & Baker, 2014;Donaldson et al., 2016; Earl, 1988;).

Confusion and hesitation around transfer may be exacerbated for traditionally underserved students, as they have lower reserves of the social and transfer capital that enable students to successfully navigate the transfer process, though such students also bring familial, aspirational, and navigational capital that serve as assets in the transfer process (Bourdieu, 1986; Brooms & Davis, 2017; Coleman, 1988; Dowd & Melguizo, 2008; Laanan et al., 2010). Although these populations tend to have even higher transfer aspirations than more privileged students, they are less likely to transfer to a 4-year college; and when they do transfer, they are more likely to “undermatch” into a college which is less selective than their qualifications merit (Crisp & Nunez, 2014; Dowd et al., 2008; Glynn, 2019). Undermatching behavior decreases the likelihood of ultimately earning a bachelor’s degree, as students enrolling in a more-selective college are more likely to graduate than otherwise-similar peers who attend a less-selective college, which are often under-resourced in comparison to more selective institutions (Cohodes & Goodman, 2014; Howell & Pender, 2016; Jenkins & Fink, 2016). Undermatching seems largely driven by a lack of information, as well as an understanding of how and when to apply it. For example, high-achieving low-income students often have difficulty understanding the economic payoff of investing in a more-expensive college; may believe they cannot qualify to attend, afford to attend, or be successful at a selective destination; or may miss deadlines or fail to complete other logistical requirements involved in applying to such colleges (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Hoxby & Avery, 2013; Roderick et al., 2008).

Using Transfer Agents to Navigate Challenges

Relationships with community college faculty and administrators may improve transfer outcomes by giving students access to transfer-related information and building their confidence (Packard & Jeffers, 2013; Starobin et al., 2016). Such relationships with a “transfer agent” may be most critical for low-income, first-generation, and minoritized community college students. In a detailed study of 10 mostly low-income and first-generation community college students who transferred to highly selective 4-year colleges, participants described relationships with faculty or administrators who played a pivotal role in their academic trajectories (Pak et al., 2006). These authority figures noticed students’ potential and went out of their way to nurture it, providing encouragement and support. The benefit of these relationships was as much psychological as logistical, encouraging students to overcome feelings of inadequacy, learn to see themselves as college material, and build their educational aspirations. However, falling into the path of a transfer agent is a matter of luck for many community college students (Pak et al., 2006; Wang, 2020). As a result, while many community college students receive basic facts about the logistics of transfer, they may fail to translate that information into plans and actions (Dowd et al., 2006).

The studies summarized in this section provide important insights into the challenges that community college students face as they seek to transfer. Few studies have examined students’ transfer aspirations, how they identify and choose among possible transfer destinations, or factors that facilitate or hinder the transfer process for students. The work of Pak et al. (2006) and Dowd et al. (2013) shed light on the importance of relationships with transfer agents; however, the authors note that each study’s small sample size limits the generalizability of their conclusions. By comparing the transfer experiences and outcomes of students in the AH program who received personalized transfer support, versus those of students who qualified for entry to the program but did not join, this paper offers a deeper examination of the role that transfer agents may play in raising educational aspirations and in facilitating transfer.

Methods

Study Context

Our analysis is drawn from a larger mixed-methods study of six community colleges and multi-college districts (hereafter referred to as six “colleges”) which partnered with a for-profit company, Quad Learning (QL), to offer the American Honors (AH) program. The six community colleges offered the AH program in hopes of competing with local, less-selective 4-year colleges in the recruitment and enrollment of high-achieving low-income students (Farakish et al., 2020; Treat & Barnard, 2012). QL designed the AH program to help academically-talented community college students overcome the challenges inherent in transferring to more selective 4-year destinations, primarily through dedicated transfer advising and a mandatory transfer seminar. AH admissions criteria varied across the six colleges, but the typical AH student had a high school GPA of 3.48 and scored around the 60th percentile on the ACT/SAT.

On average students paid an additional 50% on top of their regular community college tuition to participate in AH, although many AH students reported that the cost premium was covered by grants or scholarships. The cohort-based program included a set of honors courses, two support-oriented courses, including a Transfer Seminar (taught by college-based AH advisors who were recruited, trained, and employed by QL), and intensive advising services. Each AH advisor managed a caseload of approximately 100 honors students and met with each student at least once per semester to discuss a variety of academic and non-academic issues.

The six colleges were located in four states and included a mix of smaller and larger campuses located in large-city, suburban, or small-city areas. The research team visited each of the six community colleges in 2016, where we conducted 181 hour-long, semi-structured interviews with students, faculty, staff, and key administrators after obtaining informed consent; each stakeholder was interviewed one time. Although interactions and relationships with faculty undoubtedly affect student experiences with transfer, for this analysis we focus on student interactions and relationships with advising staff; faculty interviews were not analyzed.

This study utilized a mixed method design to understand whether and how participation in AH may influence transfer experiences and outcomes (Creswell, 2003). The quantitative data suggest that the program had some positive influence in terms of transfer outcomes, but cannot disentangle how or why. Thus, in this study, we prioritize the qualitative data analysis, which sheds light on how the program influenced students’ perceptions of, and preparations for, transfer to a 4-year college. To answer research questions 1 and 2 (exploring student experiences) we draw on the qualitative interview data to illuminate the importance of relationships in the transfer process, how students experience the transfer process, facilitators and barriers to transfer, and transfer aspirations. To address research question 3 (exploring transfer outcomes), we include a quantitative analysis of AH applicant data matched to the National Student Clearinghouse. The quantitative data examine the extent to which AH and non-AH students successfully transferred, as well as the selectivity and location of their transfer destinations.

Qualitative Data, Researcher Positionality, and Analysis

To understand students’ transfer aspirations, engagement with the transfer process, and experiences with transfer advising, we draw on N = 58 interviews with students in the honors program (hereafter referred to as AH or honors students) and N = 53 interviews with high-achieving non-honors students (hereafter referred to as non-AH or non-honors students). We also include excerpts from N = 8 interviews with AH advisors.

Student interviewees either were currently enrolled in AH or were enrolled at the same community college with an academic record that qualified them for entry to AH (but had not applied to the program, or had declined an offer of AH admission). All would have initially qualified for 4-year college entry; indeed, many had been accepted to local 4-year colleges but chose to enroll in community college instead. In general, interviewees chose to begin at a community college because they were anxious about incurring debt, were unsure of their major or career choices, or preferred to start college at a smaller institution closer to home. AH students were also attracted by the prestige and promise of academic rigor of an honors program, which “took away that stigma” of starting at community college. Non-AH interviewees were either unaware of the program, felt it was not a good fit for their postsecondary plans, and/or were unwilling or unable to pay the additional tuition to participate (Farakish et al., 2020; Jaggars et al., 2019). Of student interviewees, 84% were attending college full-time, 64% were female, 17% were Black, and 8% were Latinx; these proportions were roughly similar between AH and non-AH interviewees.

Interviews were semi-structured and covered a variety of topics related to the student’s college experience. For the purposes of this analysis, we focus on the portion of the interviews dealing with transfer: all student interviewees were asked when and where they planned to transfer, how they had chosen their transfer destinations, what factors they considered important for choosing possible transfer colleges, how confident they felt about credit transfer, and who provided them with transfer-related advice.

All interviews were recorded with participant consent, transcribed, and uploaded to the qualitative data analysis software Dedoose for analysis. As a first step, each researcher read through a set of assigned transcripts and applied codes reflecting broad areas of inquiry such as advisor support and the transfer process. Guided by a grounded theory analytic approach, we inductively surfaced a secondary set of themes by identifying patterns across the AH and non-AH student interviews, including discussion of access to and use of advising, and the quality of relationships with advising staff (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This analytic approach allowed us to emphasize the categories of meaning offered by respondents themselves and elucidate how students felt that their experience with advising affected their college search process, transfer aspirations, and confidence about transfer outcomes (Charmaz, 2006). To ensure consistency of coding across researchers, the qualitative team met regularly during the coding process to surface themes in the data, and define, refine, and clarify codes. We also made use of Dedoose’s inter-rater reliability function, and assigned second coders to review one-fifth of the transcripts to check for discrepancies in code applications.

In addition to the process described above, to answer research question two, investigating transfer destinations, we examined transcript excerpts coded as “transfer considerations” and “transfer destinations” to identify factors that students considered important in choosing a transfer college, and the names of specific colleges to which each student planned to apply (or had already applied). College names were matched with the federal IPEDS dataset in order to classify each college’s sector, cost, and selectivity. We then conducted descriptive analyses regarding the types of colleges to which students planned to apply (or had already applied).

Quantitative Data and Analysis

To understand the characteristics and outcomes of AH and similar non-AH students, we obtained electronic AH application records for the program’s Fall 2014 through Fall 2016 admission cycles, which included nearly 12,000 domestic (non-international) applicants. Applicant records included relatively complete information on the student’s gender, first- generation status, neighborhood median income, and intent to attend college part-time versus full-time. Some records included academic information (high school GPA and standardized test score), while others did not. The availability of academic information in the electronic record depended on how the student’s record entered the AH system. Some applicants were recruited by AH via a database purchased from standardized exam providers, and these students’ academic records were relatively complete; other applicants were recruited at high school or community college campus events, and their academic records were often submitted to AH separately and were unavailable within the electronic application database. Supporting application materials such as recommendation letters and admissions essays were also submitted separately and were not available in our electronic database. In the Summer of 2018, we matched applicant records with the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that compiles transcript data for 97% of enrolled postsecondary students. This allowed us to track the Fall 2014 cohort of AH students for nearly 4 years from their initial community college enrollment, the Fall 2015 cohort for nearly 3 years, and the Fall 2016 cohort for nearly 2 years. For this paper, we focus on students who entered one of the six community colleges immediately after high school, and who fell into two groups: (1) N = 889 “AH Enrollees” and (2) N = 557 “Declined AH” students, who were admitted into AH but elected to decline program enrollment and instead enter the “regular” program at the same community college. As shown in Table 1, the two groups were relatively similar in their demographic characteristics and academic metrics, although non-AH students had somewhat lower neighborhood median household incomes.

Table 1.

Student background characteristics for the NSC analysis.

All cohorts (2014–2016)	Declined AH	AH enrollee
All cohorts (2014–2016)	n = 557	n = 889
Female	65%	59%
Age	18.47	18.41
First generation (when reported)	40%	39%
First generation missing	4%	4%
GPA (when reported)	3.47	3.48
GPA missing	57%	61%
Neighborhood median income	52,962	56,860
Test percentile (when reported)	56.60	59.95
Test missing	46%	40%
AP credits: Any reported	47%	55%
Full-time intent (when reported)	95%	96%
Full-time intent missing	14%	13%
Prior credits: Number reported	2.24	1.55

To answer research question 2 (understanding transfer outcomes for AH vs. non-AH students), we used NSC data to determine which students in our quantitative sample entered a 4-year college before the end of the tracking period, as well as the sector and selectivity of each college. We used logistic regression to compare transfer rates (and among those who transferred, the selectivity of the destination college) between the AH and non-AH groups, controlling for the background characteristics listed in Table 1, as well as fixed effects in terms of which of the six community colleges the students attended, and their cohort of college entry (e.g., Autumn 2014). Given that distributions of academic metrics were similar across groups (when reported) and that large proportions of academic metrics were missing, our primary Model 1 excludes academic metrics. As a sensitivity check, Model 2 restricts the sample to students who had at least one academic metric on record, and includes all available academic metrics as well as missing indicators where metrics are unavailable (Blake et al., 2020). The results for the two models are similar, although Model 2 tends to have larger standard errors due to its smaller sample sizes.

Study Limitations

This study has several limitations. For the quantitative analysis, we cannot parse the separate effects of various components of the honors program. In addition to receiving more intensive advising, AH students took over a third of their credits in honors-level courses, which had smaller class sizes and included familiar peers. It may be that exposure to the honors curriculum and to other high-performing peers raised students’ confidence in their abilities, their prospects for transfer, and their chances of admission to more selective colleges. Consequently, the results of the quantitative analysis should be interpreted as an upper bound estimate of the impact of advising on transfer outcomes. We cannot unequivocally state that advisement was the most impactful element of the AH model. However, in the qualitative interviews, AH students consistently emphasized advising as the most valuable and important component of the AH program (Jaggars et al., 2019).

While AH and non-AH students were similar in many ways, they were not identical. For example, although the two groups differed only slightly in their overall neighborhood income, the qualitative data reveal that many non-AH students declined the program due to its cost. In terms of academic metrics, the two groups differed slightly in their extent of missing data; although we included a control for missingness as well as all available academic metrics in Model 2, non-AH students with missing data may have had systematically lower test or GPA scores than did AH students with missing data, which could artificially magnify our coefficients. Additionally, we lacked data on student race/ethnicity in the quantitative and qualitative data sources, which limited our ability to examine how race/ethnicity contributed to experiences with transfer advising or transfer outcomes.

For the qualitative analysis, the importance of the advisor as a “transfer agent” (providing not just transactional but also personal relationship-mediated support) emerged inductively from the data and had not been posed as an explicit question to students. Our data are based on students’ responses to more general questions about the quality of advisement, confidence about transfer, and the nature of their on-campus social relationships.

Finally, our qualitative interviewees represent a slightly different population than our quantitative dataset, as our interviewees included some international students, older continuing students, and other high-achieving students who never applied to the AH program. Due to anonymization procedures required by IRB, our qualitative interview dataset and quantitative analysis dataset cannot be linked. Thus, while we can track the overall pattern of transfer destinations for AH versus non-AH students in our quantitative dataset, we cannot know which destination each of our interviewees ultimately attended.

Results

In the following sections, we compare AH students’ experiences with advising and transfer versus those of high-achieving non-AH students attending the same colleges. We first compare students’ descriptions of the accessibility and quality of general advising and then transfer-specific advising, with a focus on personal relationships with advisors. We then discuss AH students’ and advisors’ perceptions of the role and function of Transfer Seminar, a course designed to prepare AH students for transfer. Next, to shed light on the extent to which differences between AH and non-AH students’ experiences with general and transfer specific advising effected transfer aspirations and plans, we apply descriptive analytic techniques to the qualitative data to compare AH and non-AH students’ planned transfer destination colleges, and the factors they considered most important in selecting a transfer destination. Finally, we present quantitative findings comparing transfer outcomes for AH and non-AH students.

Accessibility of and Relationships With Advisors

A key mechanism through which the AH program sought to facilitate successful transfer outcomes was dedicated advisement. AH hired and trained its own cadre of advisors, who were assigned a relatively small caseload: around 100 students per advisor, compared to around 1,000 advisees for regular college advisors.

Access to advisors

AH students consistently said their advisors were proactive about checking in and providing support and responded to requests quickly. To characterize AH advising, one student compared it against the college’s regular advising services:

The support is a lot better, it’s just more interaction. And then my advisor checks up on me every day, and any time I have any problems, I just email him and he replies within one or two hours when he can. It has just made this whole process and this whole situation of being full-time and trying to balance everything, it has made it a lot easier.

In contrast, fewer non-AH students reported that they felt well-supported by college advisors. Many were aware that advising was available but did not seek it out. For example, when asked whether there was anyone on campus to answer questions about transfer, one non-AH student replied, “Yeah, there’s a lot of people here. There are advisors, our department chairs of our major. I just haven’t taken the initiative yet to go actually talk to them about it.” Echoing this theme, another non-AH student remarked that students must take the initiative to access support: “Yeah, so we have advisors that will set up an education plan for us, but it’s up to us to go meet with them and say, ‘this is my end goal, how do I get there?’” The onus placed on students to initiate contact and seek out help meant that many students failed to access general advisement services. However, not all students saw this autonomy as a drawback; for example, one non-AH student explained: “I basically had to figure everything out for myself, which I didn’t really mind so much, because I kind of like having control over – I always do my schedule online.”

Non-AH students’ lack of connection to advisors was due not only to a failure to reach out, but also to the fact that advisors were often overwhelmed and unable to provide individualized attention. As one student explained, “It’s very difficult not having enough student advisors to actually know who you are, and know your career path and things like that.” Most non-AH students reported figuring things out, whether it was major selection or transfer requirements, on their own. Lack of access to advisors made it difficult for students to form personalized relationships with advisors, which in turn made it difficult for advisors to provide advisement tailored to students’ specific goals and plans.

Relationships with advisors

The accessibility of AH advisors facilitated closer and more personal relationships between advisors and students. In explaining how the AH program was different from the regular college, many honors students specifically cited their relationship with their advisor. As a non-traditional aged AH student explained:

Unfortunately with just being a regular student, you can get lost in the shuffle. For me coming back. . . as an older student, it’s scary. Having the support and the people there, to remind you that you are worth it and they see your potential and you are not just a mere statistic or a number, I think that goes a long way.

AH students reported that they felt comfortable going to advisors with personal issues, or that AH advisors had supported them through rough patches, enabling them to persist with college. This AH student described her close relationship with her advisor: “She has been a part of my life since . . . she called to let me know I got accepted into the program. Whenever anything is going wrong or if I’m having a life issue I talk to her.” When asked about relationships on campus, several AH students reported that their honors advisors were their closest friends at the college.

Among the non-AH students, most had no personal relationship with an advisor. Some said they found advisors helpful but could not provide names of specific advisors who had helped them, because they saw whichever advisor was available when they dropped into advising centers. Students described these relationships as transactional, for example: “I don’t see my academic counselor very often. So it’s like business relationship.”

Non-AH students involved in specialized programs at the colleges, such as Phi Theta Kappa (PTK), TRIO, or specialized programs for students of color, were an exception to this trend. For example, one student observed that he preferred to see his TRIO advisor rather than general college advisors:

I pretty much never see my general advisor. Not anything bad about that, it’s just I had more of a connection with TRIO just from when I started here. TRIO was more open and the advisor thing was ‘I’m your advisor, here’s my number.’ I was like. . . ‘OK cool.’

The proactive and accessible design of advisement in specialized programs, as well as the fact that advisement was tailored to the needs of a specific group of students, appeared to positively contribute to students’ likelihood to use the services.

Finally, a small proportion of non-AH students reported negative experiences which caused them to stop visiting advisors. These students recounted being told to take classes they did not actually need, or reported a general lack of confidence that advisors had correct and up to date information. As one non-AH student said, “I don’t like the advising center at school, because I feel like they don’t know. They do, but if they’re not interested they will not help you. They’ll misguide you sometimes.” General advisors must master vast amounts of information about dozens of major requirements, and some mistakes are inevitable. However, the weak social ties between advisors and students contribute to advising errors and diminish student trust in advising services. In the following section, we discuss AH and non-AH students’ experiences with transfer specific advising and confidence in the transfer process.

Transfer-Specific Advising and Confidence in the Transfer Process

For AH students, receiving transfer advice was straightforward: they could go to their AH advisor with any transfer-related questions. Most AH students said that, due to the support and resources they received from their advisor, they did not feel apprehensive about the transfer process, or felt it would be fairly easy; and they felt confident their credits would transfer. This AH student compared her experience with transfer advisement to that of her friends at the college who were not in AH: “. . .especially for transferring, [AH] gives you security that regular students don’t have, unfortunately. When you’re a regular student, your advisement is divided between all types of people across campus. . . unlike American Honors where I regularly see [AH Advisor]. . .”

For non-AH students, receiving transfer advice was less straightforward. Depending on the college, students might set an appointment with any generalist advisor, or with a transfer-specific advisor. In either case, advisors’ caseloads were high. It was much less common for non-AH students to report receiving advice from college advisors or other staff about the transfer process. Echoing themes from the previous section on general advising, non-AH students typically said advisors were available to support them with transfer, but they had not sought them out. For example, when asked if there was anyone at the college who could help her with the transfer process, one non-AH student responded: “Yes, there is. Do I know who they are? No.”

Non-AH students who used transfer advising reported that advisors were helpful in terms of answering specific questions or directing students to online tools and resources but were not available to help explore options for transfer nor develop a strategy for doing so. As one non-AH student recounted:

I’ve actually gone to the Transfer Office maybe a couple of times. . . They’re not usually very helpful to me. Well, they were helpful to me this last time, because I had specific questions about getting my transcripts there, and who should I use for my recommendation letter. Specific questions that I couldn’t really find the answers to on my own. But in the past when I was trying, still trying to figure things out, and I’d go to them and be like, “So what do you think I should do?” They’d just kind of be like, “Well what do you want to do?” And I’d be like, “Well I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking you.”

Some non-AH students did report receiving strong advisement around transfer and feeling well-prepared for and confident about the transfer process. However, non-AH students’ sense of confidence about the transfer process was more varying than that of AH students. Non-AH students were also more likely to report apprehension about credits transferring successfully; as one non-AH student observed, “That is the biggest fear I have really. . .the whole transferring credits part, simply because I know horror stories of people who are like, ‘Only 30y of my credits transferred.’” Among non-AH students, those planning to transfer in-state—and particularly those in states with laws guaranteeing credit transfer or with direct transfer agreements—felt the most confident about credit transfer.

The Transfer Seminar and Aspirations for Transfer

In addition to regular appointments with their advisor, AH students had another structure to connect to their advisor and get support with transfer. The Transfer Seminar (referred to as the “seminar” throughout this section) was a non-academic course taught by AH advisors which AH students were required to complete to earn an Honors diploma. Students typically took the seminar in the autumn of their second year to identify possible transfer destinations and complete applications to their selected colleges over the winter (including drafting a personal statement, obtaining letters of recommendation, and applying for financial aid).

To help students explore potential “good fit” destination colleges, the seminar instructor coached students to identify factors such as learning environment, location, and available majors that were important to them in a college. Students were encouraged to identify two potential destinations within each of the following three categories: solid schools, target schools, and reach schools. “Solid” colleges were likely to grant admission based on the student’s baseline academic performance, “target” schools were feasible options if the student put forth some additional effort, and admission to “reach” schools might require the student to retake the SAT or certain courses. Encouraging students to consider “reach” schools often entailed pushing them to look outside their home state. As one AH advisor explained, students tended to gravitate toward a group of “usual suspect” transfer destinations, often local state colleges or the state’s flagship university. This advisor considered it part of her role as the seminar instructor to nudge students to broaden their horizons for transfer:

The Transfer Seminar class, the good thing about that is, we start to introduce them to the [AH transfer] network, and how you don’t have to stay in [State], you have the opportunity to go farther if you want to. . . . What are your dreams and what are your hopes? That’s what they work on in Transfer Seminar, so we’re going to definitely change that culture mindset of them thinking [In-State Flagship] is the only school they can go to, because all of them want to go to [In-State Flagship]. All of them.

One of the goals of the seminar was to encourage students to “dream big” (a slogan incorporated into the AH program’s national brand marketing) and apply to colleges that students may have perceived as being beyond reach. As another seminar instructor explained, students were often intimidated by “dream schools” and resisted applying to them:

Most of them have these dreams, these reach schools; and so they are like ‘I don’t know if I can get in, I’m not going to apply to that school.’ That’s when we say like ‘oh yes you are, because it’s your dream.’ That’s our whole saying: ‘If your dreams don’t scare you, they are not big enough.’”

Some students entered the seminar with a clear transfer destination in mind and did not find the exploration portion of the course helpful. One student observed, “But [AH advisor] also told us to apply to like, four to five, six different schools, and I’m like, ‘I really just want to apply for this one. I don’t want to spend all my time applying to different schools.’” On the other hand, students who had limited prior knowledge about transfer were thankful for the course. For example, this first-generation college student explained:

And as someone from a family, where no one else has gone to college in my family. . .I was completely lost on [the college application process] . . .I wouldn’t have been as successful with my transfer as if I had done it straight out of high school. I have nine colleges I’m applying to. I never would have applied to those.

In general, the seminar provided structure, support, and dedicated time to help students complete transfer applications. An AH advisor noted: “Setting aside an hour and a half is hard probably, when you have Netflix and a boyfriend and other places you want to go, so this is the time to sit down and really get started. . . So that’s what the transfer seminar is really for.”

As discussed in this section, one of AH’s key goals was to help students “dream big” in terms of transfer. In the following section, we draw on student interview data matched with data on institutional characteristics in IPEDS to compare planned transfer destinations of AH versus non-AH students, and provide insights into whether AH students indeed developed higher-level transfer aspirations compared to other high-performing students at the same community college.

Transfer Considerations and Destinations

During each interview, students discussed their transfer plans, including the list of specific 4-year destinations they were considering and the reasoning behind those choices. Using the names of the transfer colleges students identified, we matched the interview data with the federal IPEDS dataset to classify each college’s sector, cost, and selectivity. Some students in each group were not yet at the point of considering specific destinations, and two non-AH students had decided not to transfer (at least, not within the next few years). The dataset for this analysis consisted of N = 53 AH and N = 43 non-AH students, who discussed 176 unique destinations, for a total of 246 combinations of student and destination (hereafter termed “mentions”).

In this section, we describe differences between AH and non-AH students in terms of the destinations to which they planned to apply, themes in terms of transfer considerations, and the institutional types, selectivity levels, and average costs of target colleges.

Factors affecting choice of destination colleges

When discussing the reasoning behind their choices, students focused on the availability or quality of particular programs or majors, college costs, proximity, ease of transfer, and the selectivity or reputation of transfer destinations. The most common factor, by far, was the availability and quality of programs or majors, cited by 58% of AH and 47% of non-AH students. Cost was the second most important factor, particularly for non-AH students (cited by 9% of AH and 42% of non-AH students). Third, some students focused on proximity (21% of AH and 16% of non-AH students), including those who wanted to remain close to their family, and those who wanted to remain within the state (which often included considerations of cost and ease of transfer, in addition to proximity). Fourth, some mentioned ease of transfer as an important factor (4% of AH and 19% of non-AH students). Finally, a few cited the selectivity or reputation of the college as an important factor (8% of AH and 5% of non-AH). In general, students did not mention whether an institution was public or private, nor cite this as a consideration in their decision-making.

Destination selectivity

While few students cited a college’s selectivity as a basis for consideration, our IPEDS match revealed that most students listed at least one “more selective” destination (colleges in the top category of the three-level Carnegie Selectivity index). AH students were much more likely to consider more-selective destinations: 71% of colleges mentioned by AH students were more-selective, compared to 45% of those mentioned by non-AH students (χ² = 17.34, df = 2, p < .001). This was in part because non-AH students were more likely to focus on public in-state colleges, while AH students considered a wider variety of out-of-state or private colleges. About 52% of colleges mentioned by AH students were out of state, compared to 26% of the colleges identified by non-AH students (χ² = 15.26, df = 1, p < .000). Due to higher levels of selectivity, colleges mentioned by AH students had higher graduation rates (60% of colleges mentioned by AH students had graduation rates above 75%, compared to 31% of colleges mentioned by non-AH students). However, these more selective colleges also had higher costs.

At the time of the interviews, many students were still in the planning phase and had not yet applied to colleges; the vast majority did not yet know the outcomes of their transfer process. To understand differences in transfer outcomes, in the final findings section, we use student data to examine whether students transferred, and the selectivity of their transfer destinations.

Transfer Destinations

As discussed earlier (see Methods), we explored student outcomes using AH applicant data matched with the National Student Clearinghouse. Table 2 includes descriptive data from three different cohorts of students (from the 2014 cohort, which was tracked for over 3 years, to the 2016 cohort, which was tracked for over 1 year). Across cohorts, AH students seemed less likely to transfer after only 1 year at the community college, likely because AH students were encouraged to finish 2 years in the AH program prior to transfer. However, after 2 years, AH students caught up to and exceeded non-AH students in rates of transfer. After 3 years, AH students had much higher transfer rates: 56% had transferred by the end of the tracking period, compared to 41% of their non-AH peers. Moreover, among those who transferred, AH students seemed more likely to enroll in a more-selective institution (44% vs. 26%).

Table 2.

Descriptive Transfer Outcomes.

All cohorts	Declined AH	AH enrollees
Cohort 2016	n = 214	n = 417
Transferred by 1 year later	10%	6%
Cohort 2015	n = 191	n = 331
Transferred by 1 year later	13%	9%
Transferred by 2 years later	38%	44%
Cohort 2014	n = 152	n = 151
Transferred by 1 year later	11%	5%
Transferred by 2 years later	27%	44%
Transferred by 3 years later	41%	56%
Those ever transferred	n = 178	n = 299
Out-of-state (vs. in-state)	16%	26%
Private (vs. public)	25%	26%
Inclusive	31%	22%
Somewhat selective	42%	34%
More-Selective	26%	44%

To explore the extent to which these descriptive differences might be driven by observable background characteristics, we used logistic regression to compare the two groups in terms of four different transfer outcomes, controlling for the characteristics listed in Table 1 (refer to the Methods section for details regarding Model 1 vs. Model 2).

In Table 3, for each of the two models and four outcomes, the top row provides the logit coefficient and standard error for the predictor of AH program membership, and the second row provides the change in predicted probability of the outcome when AH membership shifts from “no” to “yes.” For example, Column 1 examines students who entered community college in 2014 (tracked until Summer 2018, or more than three full academic years) in terms of whether they had transferred 3 years later. After controlling for background characteristics in Model 1, AH students were 12 percentage points more likely than non-AH peers to transfer in 3 years—a difference slightly smaller than the 15-point difference suggested by Table 2. In general, Table 3 supports initial impressions from Table 2: after controlling for background characteristics, AH students seemed to have higher rates of transfer overall, as well as higher rates of transfer to more-selective institutions. They may also have been more likely to transfer out-of-state.

Table 3.

Transfer Outcomes: Logit Coefficient, Standard Error, and Change in Predicted Probability, Controlling for Background Variables.

Sample	2014 cohort	Students who ever transferred
Outcome	Transferred within 3 years	Transferred out-of-state	Transferred to private	Transferred to more-selective
Models
Model 1	0.53 (0.26)	0.53 (0.26)	−0.01 (0.24)	0.65 (0.22)
Model 1	.12*	.06*	0.00	.10**
Model 2	0.40 (0.29)	0.33 (0.32)	0.08 (0.29)	0.68 (0.27)
	.09*	0.03	0.01	.11*
		−0.01 (0.24)

Group difference is significantly different from zero at p < 0.05. **Group difference is significantly different from zero at p < 0.01.

Discussion and Implications for Future Research and Practice

This research extends the literature on community college transfer by exploring how students experience the transfer process and by identifying factors that support and impede transfer aspirations and facilitate transfer from community colleges to 4-year institutions. We also offer more empirical support for the importance of personal relationships and transfer agents in facilitating successful transfer outcomes. While this study cannot make a causal connection between personalized advising and transfer outcomes, the quantitative results suggest that participation in AH supported transfer (and transfer to more-selective institutions in particular). The qualitative interviews suggest that personalized advisement helped students create more concrete plans for transfer (including to more-selective institutions) and to be more confident in the execution of those plans. Other elements of the AH model—such as honors coursework or enhanced connections to high-achieving peers—may also influence the observed transfer outcomes. We can interpret the quantitative results as only an upper bound estimate of the impacts of personalized advising. It may also be the case that elements of the model worked together in synergetic ways, reinforcing one another to produce stronger outcomes. The qualitative results strongly reinforce and build on findings from the literature regarding the importance of transfer agents for low-income, first-generation, or minoritized college students.

Researchers have noted that relationships with transfer agents often form haphazardly and therefore do not provide systematic support for all transfer-aspiring students (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Wang, 2020). This pattern was evident among non-AH interviewees: only a handful who were in specialized programs (such as the federal TRIO program) described advising experiences that were similar to those of AH students. Like AH, these specialized programs provided advising that was tailored to students’ experiences, identities, and aspirations; however, at the sites under study and more generally across the country, these programs were small-scale and served only a small proportion of the students who qualify for them. In contrast, AH was designed to operate on a large scale.

Consistent with Coleman’s (1988) theory of social capital, stronger social bonds with advisors yielded greater trust in the information students received about transfer, and engendered positive behavioral norms such as planning early and consistently for transfer, applying to a wider range of colleges, and reaching for colleges students might perceive as being inaccessible. Students without dedicated advisors were less likely to seek advising at all. These students noted that the lack of personalization made advising information less useful, and some doubted that advisors had accurate and up to date information. For AH students, advisors’ belief in their potential to be successful, which was communicated and emphasized through the channel of a meaningful personal relationship, served as an important “push factor” helping them to maintain momentum and aspirations in the face of competing priorities (Nora, 2004). AH students translated this information and support into more concrete and ambitious plans around transfer. They considered a wider variety of transfer destinations, were more likely to transfer in general, and were more likely to transfer to more-selective destinations in particular—which in turn should improve their likelihood of completing a bachelor’s degree and attaining upward mobility in the labor market.

The AH program was not accessible for all students, which raises important implications for equity and social stratification. As an honors program, AH was designed to benefit only “high-achieving” students, which raised concerns about elitism among some faculty at participating community colleges (Jaggars et al., 2019). The program’s “pay to play” model was also a point of concern for many faculty, and indeed, many non-AH interviewees declined the program because they were unable or unwilling to pay for its premium price (Jaggars et al., 2019). Yet the provision of personalized advising is expensive. How, then, can colleges create sustainable ways to infuse more personalization into transfer advising for all students? This research helps shed light on two approaches which may be helpful: (1) infusing more personalization into existing caseloads and (2) decreasing caseloads. We discuss each of these approaches in more detail below.

Colleges can work to infuse more personalization within existing caseloads in two ways. First, colleges might consider how spatial accessibility of advising staff might be enhanced. Several honors students noted that by attaching AH advisors’ office to the honors lounge, where honors students hung out between classes, the program engineered more frequent, casual interactions between advisors and students. By placing advising offices in areas with high levels of student traffic, students may become more familiar with individual advisors and more comfortable with the idea of seeking advising. Second, students seemed to feel that advisors’ unique value lay not in logistical assistance—or the provision of factual information which students could look up on their own—but rather in formative assistance. For example, students appreciated help with thinking through the qualities they wanted in a transfer destination; developing an application strategy based on their unique educational goals, financial situation, and personal context; creating time-management plans for completing each discrete step of the application process; and receiving nudges to complete each step of that plan in a timely fashion. To create time and support for this work, “e-advising” tools can relieve advisors from repetitive logistic assistance and provide more seamless handling of an individual student’s case from one advisor to another (Miller et al., 2020). The recent COVID-19 crisis demonstrated that remote face-to-face advising is feasible and effective; continuing the provision of remote advising in parallel with in-person advising may provide some efficiency gains for advisors, as well as improving access for some types of students (Bouchey et al., 2021).

To improve transfer rates and decrease advisor caseloads, colleges might also consider offering, or better yet requiring, that transfer-intending students participate in a one-term tuition-bearing transfer seminar taught by advising staff, or by faculty in the transfer field. Such courses would require hiring more advisors but would help cover those advisors’ costs without raising fees or per-hour tuition. For colleges in rural areas, the availability of qualified advisors may have historically posed a barrier to either of these ideas. However, remote face-to-face advising or teaching may now be more acceptable to students in the post-COVID-19 era, making it more feasible for all types of colleges to recruit and retain additional high-quality advisors. Because some students still struggle with the “digital divide,” and lack the technological infrastructure to attend virtual class or advising sessions, remote sessions should not be the only available option for face-to-face meetings. However, remote options can certainly be offered in parallel with in-person options (Bouchey et al., 2021; Hart et al., 2021).

Due to data limitations, this study was not able to explore how student race/ethnicity contributed to experiences with academic and transfer advising. Given the importance of vertical transfer for economic mobility, particularly for Black and Latinx students, it is critical to discuss the implications of this research for improving transfer rates for students of color. Our results reinforce the importance of building a trusting relationship with advisors and of training all advisors to provide culturally responsive support to students from a variety of racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. As part of this process, institutions should also make explicit efforts to hire advisors that mirror students’ demographic identities (Lee, 2018).

More broadly, Brooms and Davis (2017) found that students of color possess forms of cultural wealth, including aspirational, social, and familial capital, which are instrumental to building and maintaining postsecondary aspirations. Colleges might build on the unique cultural assets of students of color to improve transfer supports in several ways. First, to reinforce aspirational capital, colleges could intentionally incorporate media (such as movies, documentaries, or television series) that feature college students of color into community building events for transfer students and organize visits to Minority Serving Institutions. Second, to strengthen social capital for college students of color, community colleges could host panels of alumni who successfully transferred and ensure that members of the panel reflect the racial and ethnic identities (as well as the gender identities and socioeconomic backgrounds) of their student body. Colleges might also consider incorporating transfer support into existing affinity groups for students of color. Third, to build upon familial capital, colleges might host events for transfer students and their families, such as picnics or field days, that inform family members about important benchmarks in the transfer process, and factors to consider in weighing transfer destinations such as cost, graduation rates, quality of programs, and proximity.

Overall, this study supports the findings of prior literature that, while transfer information is abundantly available at community colleges, students often lack the ability to interpret, form a strategy, and effectively act upon this information (Schudde et al., 2020; Z. W. Taylor, 2019). Proactive and personalized assistance from a trusted advisor can help students convert information into appropriate actions (Crisp & Nunez, 2014; Wang, 2020). Future research might explore the costs and benefits of different strategies for personalization, such as leveraging e-advising to provide formative assistance, raising tuition to decrease caseloads, or adding a required transfer seminar. Researchers should also examine how students from different socioeconomic and racial/ethnic groups respond to and benefit from a range of advisement structures offered at different points during their progression through community college (Hartman et al., 2021; Hatch & Garcia, 2017).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors extend thanks to Davis Jenkins and Serena Klempin for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of the manuscript and to the crew at the Community College Research Center for general support of this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

ORCID iD

Maggie P. Fay

Notes

Author Biographies

Maggie P. Fay is a senior research associate at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University. Fay conducts research on reforms to developmental education, the high school to college transition and guided pathways reforms.

Shanna S. Jaggars is an Assistant Vice Provost at The Ohio State University and directs the Student Success Research Lab, where she leads both qualitative and quantitative research projects focused on academic support programs, patterns of student academic progression, and instructional improvement initiatives.

Negar Farakish is Assistant Dean of the Division of Programs in Business and Clinical Associate Professor at the NYU School of Professional Studies. Farakish has over 25 years of experience in teaching and leadership at higher education institutions and has continuously engaged in planning, development, supervision, and evaluation of academic and student services programs.

References

Allen

J. M.

Smith

C. L.

Muehleck

J. K.

(2014). Pre-and post-transfer academic advising: What students say are the similarities and differences. Journal of College Student Development, 55(4), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0034

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (2020). Fast facts. Author. https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-facts/

Bensimon

E. M.

Dowd

(2009). Dimensions of the transfer choice gap: Experiences of Latina and Latino students who navigated transfer pathways. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 632–659. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.4.05w66u23662k1444

Bettinger

E. P.

Baker

R. B.

(2014). The effects of student coaching: An evaluation of a randomized experiment in student advising. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 3–19.

Blake

H. A.

Leyrat

Mansfield

K. E.

Tomlinson

L. A.

Carpenter

Williamson

E. J.

(2020). Estimating treatment effects with partially observed covariates using outcome regression with missing indicators. Biometrical Journal, 62(2), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201900041

Bouchey

Gratz

Kurland

(2021). Remote student support during COVID-19: Perspectives of chief online officers in higher education. Online Learning, 25(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2481

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

J. G.

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.

Brooms

D. R.

Davis

A. R.

(2017). Exploring Black males’ community cultural wealth and college aspirations. Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men, 6(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.2979/spectrum.6.1.02

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/papers/v86n0.825

10.

Cohodes

S. R.

Goodman

J. S.

(2014). Merit aid, college quality, and college completion: Massachusetts’ Adams Scholarship as an in-kind subsidy. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(4), 251–285. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.6.4.251

11.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943

12.

Creswell

J.W.

(2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.

13.

Crisp

Nuñez

A. M.

(2014). Understanding the racial transfer gap: Modeling underrepresented minority and nonminority students’ pathways from two-to four-year institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 37(3), 291–320. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2014.0017

14.

Deil-Amen

Rosenbaum

J. E

. (2003). The social prerequisites of success: Can college structure reduce the need for social know-how? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586(1), 120–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716202250216

15.

Donaldson

McKinney

Lee

Pino

(2016). First-year community college student’ perceptions of and attitudes toward intrusive academic advising. NACADA Journal, 36(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.12930/nacada-15-012

16.

Dowd

A. C.

Bensimon

E. M.

Gabbard

Singleton

Macias

Dee

Giles

(2006). Transfer access to elite colleges and universities in the United States: Threading the needle of the American dream. Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. https://www.jkcf.org/research/transfer-access-to-elite-colleges-and-universities-in-the-united-states-threading-the-needle-of-the-american-dream/

17.

Dowd

A. C.

Cheslock

J. J.

Melguizo

(2008). Transfer access from community colleges and the distribution of elite higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(4), 442–472. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0010

18.

Dowd

A. C.

Melguizo

(2008). Socioeconomic stratification of community college transfer access in the 1980s and 1990s: Evidence from HS&B and NELS. The Review of Higher Education, 31(4), 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0004

19.

Dowd

A. C.

Pak

J. H.

Bensimon

E. M.

(2013). The role of institutional agents in promoting transfer access. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 21, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n15.2013

20.

Earl

W. R.

(1988). Intrusive advising of freshmen in academic difficulty. NACADA Journal, 8(2), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-8.2.27

21.

Farakish

Jaggars

Fay

(2020). Public-private partnership: How and why six community colleges loved and left a for-profit partner. Innovative Higher Education, 45(3), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09500-2

22.

Felix

E. R.

(2018). Using Ethnography to understand how policy reform influences the transfer process at one community college. Berkeley Review of Education, 7(2), 77–114. https://doi.org/10.5070/b8bre7229718

23.

Gandara

Alvarado

Driscoll

Orfield

(2012). Building pathways to transfer: Community colleges that break the chain of failure for students of color. The Civil Rights Project. https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/college-access/diversity/building-pathways-to-transfer-community-colleges-that-break-the-chain-of-failure-for-students-of-color/Fullpaper-Building-Pathways-final-2-1-12b.pdf

24.

Glynn

(2019). Persistence: The success of students who transfer from community colleges to selective four-year institutions. Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. https://www.jkcf.org/research/persistence/

25.

Hagedorn

L. S.

(2010). The pursuit of student success: The directions and challenges facing community colleges. In Smart

J. C.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 24, pp. 321–358). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8598-6_5

26.

Hart

C. M. D.

Hill

Alonso

(2021). COVID-19 and community college instructional responses. Online Learning, 25(1), 41–69. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2568

27.

Hartman

Callahan

(2021). Optimizing intent to transfer: Engagement and community college english learners. Research in Higher Education, 62, 789–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-020-09619-3

28.

Hatch

D. K.

Garcia

C. E.

(2017). Academic advising and the persistence intentions of community college students in their first weeks in college. The Review of Higher Education, 40(3), 353–390. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0012

29.

Howell

J. S.

Pender

(2016). The costs and benefits of enrolling in an academically matched college. Economics of Education Review, 51, 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.06.008

30.

Hoxby

C. M.

Avery

(2013). The missing “One-Offs”: The hidden supply of high achieving, low-income students. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2013a_hoxby.pdf

31.

Jaggars

S. S.

Fay

M. P.

Farakish

(2019). American honors: The life and death of a public-private partnership. (CCRC Working Paper No. 108). Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/american-honors-life-death-public-private-partnership.html

32.

Jain

Herrera

Bernal

Solorzano

(2011). Critical race theory and the transfer function: Introducing a transfer receptive culture. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(3), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2011.526525

33.

Jenkins

P. D.

Fink

(2016). Tracking transfer: New measures of institutional and state effectiveness in helping community college students attain bachelor’s degrees. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/tracking-transfer-institutional-state-effectiveness.html

34.

Kadlec

Gupta

(2014). Indiana regional transfer study: The student experience of transfer pathways between Ivy Tech community college and Indiana University. Public Agenda. https://www.publicagenda.org/reports/indiana-regional-transfer-study/

35.

Karp

M. M.

Hughes

K. L.

O’Gara

(2010). An exploration of Tinto’s integration framework for community college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 12(1),69–86. https://doi.org/10.2190/cs.12.1.e

36.

Laanan

F. S.

Starobin

S. S.

Eggleston

L. E.

(2010). Adjustment of community college students at a four-year university: Role and relevance of transfer student capital for student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 12(2), 175–209. https://doi.org/10.2190/cs.12.2.d

37.

LaViolet

Fresquez

Maxson

Wyner

(2018) The talent blind spot: The case for increasing community college transfer to high graduation rate institutions. The Aspen Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/the-talent-blind-spot/

38.

Lee

J. A.

(2018). Affirmation, support, and advocacy: Critical race theory and academic advising. The Journal of the National Academic Advising Association, 38(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.12930/nacada-17-028

39.

Melguizo

(2009). Are community colleges an alternative path for Hispanic students to attain a bachelor’s degree? Teachers College Record, 111(1), 90–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100103

40.

Miller

Cohen

Yang

Pellegrino

(2020). Using technology to Redesign college advising and student support: Findings and lessons from three colleges’ efforts to build on the iPASS initiative. MDRC. https://www.mdrc.org/publication/using-technology-redesign-college-advising-and-student-support

41.

Monaghan

D. B.

Attewell

(2015). The community college route to the bachelor’s degree. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714521865

42.

Musoba

G. D.

Jones

V. A.

Nicholas

(2018). From open door to limited access: Transfer students and the challenges of choosing a major. Journal of College Student Development, 59(6), 716–733. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0067

43.

Nora

(2004). The role of habitus and cultural capital in choosing a college: Transitioning from high school to higher education, and persisting in college among minority and non-minority students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 180–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192704263189

44.

Packard

B. W. L.

Jeffers

K. C.

(2013). Advising and progress in the community college STEM transfer pathway. NACADA Journal, 33(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.12930/nacada-13-015

45.

Pak

Bensimon

E. M.

Malcom

Marquez

Park

(2006). The life histories of ten individuals who crossed the border between community colleges and selective four-year colleges. Center for Urban Education. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.usc.edu/dist/6/735/files/2016/01/The-life-histories-of-10-individuals-who-crossed-the-border-from-community-colleges-to-4-year.pdf

46.

Riegle-Crumb

(2010). More girls go to college: Exploring the social and academic factors behind the female postsecondary advantage among Hispanic and White students. Research in Higher Education, 51(6), 573–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9169-0

47.

Roderick

Nagaoka

Coca

Moeller

(2008). From high school to the future: Potholes on the road to college. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2018-10/CCSR_Potholes_Report.pdf

48.

Schudde

Bradley

Absher

(2020). Navigating vertical transfer online: Access to and usefulness of transfer information on community college websites. Community College Review, 48(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552119874500

49.

Starobin

S. S.

Smith

D. J.

Santos Laanan

(2016). Deconstructing the transfer student capital: Intersect between cultural and social capital among female transfer students in STEM fields. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(12), 1040–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1204964

50.

Strauss

Corbin

J. M.

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. SAGE.

51.

Taylor

J. L.

Jain

(2017). The multiple dimensions of transfer: Examining the transfer function in American higher education. Community College Review, 45(4), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117725177

52.

Taylor

Z. W.

(2019). Inarticulate transfer: Do community college students understand articulation agreements? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(1), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1382400

53.

Treat

Barnard

T. C.

(2012). Seeking legitimacy: The community college mission and the honors college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(9), 695–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903178979

54.

Wang

(2020). On my own: The challenge and promise of building equitable STEM transfer pathways. Harvard Education Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2022.2046209

55.

Jaggars

S. S.

Fletcher

Fink

J. E.

(2018). Are community college transfer students “a good bet” for 4-year admissions? Comparing academic and labor-market outcomes between transfer and native 4-year college students. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(4), 478–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1434280