hannahbrukardt.weebly.comhannahbrukardt.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/8/0/38803351/... · web viewideally,...
Post on 22-May-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 1
The Other 35 Percent: An Assessment of Transfer Credit Policies at the Pennsylvania State
University
Hannah Brukardt and Ryan Fisher
The Pennsylvania State University
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 2
Abstract
Thirty-five percent of students in higher education will transfer to or co-enroll in more
than one institution during their college career. This growing demographic poses significant
procedural challenges to institutions, specifically in regards to the evaluation and applicability of
transfer credits. When transfer students leave their home institutions for new institutions, they
can face uncertainty and ambiguity related to institutional processes surrounding transfer credits.
Ultimately, this confusion can lead to increased time to degree and increased student debt. This
paper examines transfer student and credit trends, reviews Penn State credit transfer processes,
develops a methodology for transfer process assessment based on Ott and Cooper’s 2014 study,
assesses Penn State processes, and makes recommendations for improvement.
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 3
The Other 35 Percent: An Assessment of Transfer Credit Processes at the Pennsylvania
State University
The linear model of higher education no longer dominates the experiences of students
today. It has become rare that students graduate from high school, live on campus at a four-year
institution, and remain at that same four-year institution for the duration of their college career.
More and more, a pattern of nontraditional enrollment, including student and credit transfer, is
becoming the norm in higher education. This paper explores the transfer credit policies at The
Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) in the context of current transfer credit and student
trends. Through an analysis of Penn State transfer credit policies and practices, this paper
explores the main tenets and issues with current transfer credit policies in the context of higher
education.
Literature Review
National Transfer Trends
At its most basic level, college transfer indicates the student’s leaving of the original
institution of enrollment for another institution of higher education. There are basic patterns of
transfer including vertical transfer (transfer from a two-year institution to a four-year institution),
lateral transfer (transfer to a two-year institution to another two-year institution or from a four-
year institution to another four-year institution), and reverse transfer (transfer from a four-year
institution to a two-year institution) (Simone, 2014). However, there is some difference in what
constitutes a transfer student and transfer credits. According to the Transferability of
Postsecondary Credit Following Student Transfer or Coenrollment from the Institute of
Education Science, transfer students include students who leave their home institution to attend
another institution and those students who are co-enrolled at multiple institutions at the same
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 4
time, but does not include students who leave their home institution and return in less than four
months (Simone, 2014). Essentially, Simone’s (2014) report does not include study abroad
credits, summer courses, AP, or credit by exam or prior learning credits. This paper will also not
include these categories. This paper focuses on transfer students and their credits, not just
transfer credits.
Tracking transfer students can be difficult on multiple layers. Mullin (2011) discusses
the conflicting definitions of a transfer student based on the amount of credits. Some institutions
may not include students who have previously graduated from another institution as transfer
students. There is also conflict about the number of credits a student must have to be considered
transfer students (Mullin, 2011). If a student has transferred institutions multiple times, it
becomes increasingly difficult to track enrollments and credits transfers because there is no
uniform way transfer credits are reported on transcripts (Simone, 2014). Finally, tracking
transfer students from community colleges, the most popular type of student and credit transfer,
is difficult because community colleges serve several purposes. For some, community college is
where their journey ends with either an associate’s degree or professional development. For
others, it is a stepping-stone on their way to a baccalaureate degree. Because of these conflicting
goals, it is hard to accurately measure the number of transfer and potential transfer students
(Mullin, 2012; Bradburn, Hurst & Peng, 2001; Hossler, 2012).
Using data from the Postsecondary Education Transcript Study of 2009, Simone (2014)
found that 35% of college students either transferred or co-enrolled during their six-year study
period. Vertical transfer accounts for the majority of all transfers within higher education
(Simone, 2014; Government Accountability Office, 2005). Twenty-eight percent of
baccalaureate degree holders started their education at a community college and 47% of all
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 5
baccalaureate degree holders have taken at least one community college course (Mullin, 2011).
Thirty-seven percent of transfer students transferred after their second year and 22% transferred
in their fourth or fifth years (Hossler, 2012). The longer students wait to transfer, the more at
risk their credits may be.
Significance of Transfers
Students transfer for a variety of reasons: financial, personal, educational, professional.
While student transfer rates continually increase, students who transfer are still met with many
barriers to success. Foremost, credit transfer poses the largest threat to student transfer success.
When a student’s credits from previous institutions do not transfer, it can lead to additional time
to degree and even stopping or dropping out. Transfer students who take a longer time to
graduate in order to make up coursework are still eligible for financial aid and can be a strain on
federal financial aid funds (Government Accountability Office, 2005).
Government officials and higher education leaders alike have an increasing interest in
transfer student success for multiple reasons. Policy makers are concerned with student
participation rates, completion rates, and educational costs (Junor & Usher, 2008). The federal
government has a vested interest in the access and affordability of higher education. President
Obama has made the completion of higher education a priority in order to boost the economy
(U.S. Department of Education, 2015). States with public higher education systems that include
public community colleges, colleges, and universities are concerned with the taxpayer resources
being effectively and appropriately used (Laitinen, 2012).
There are also financial concerns related to the student. The rising tuition at four-year
institutions is a staggering reality. Starting off at a community college is a smart way for
students to save money and earn college credit. Many students opt to begin their college
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 6
education at a local community college to save money on room and board, as well as overall
tuition. Tuition at community colleges is usually much less expensive than four-year public or
private institutions. Students can study and save money while attending community college and
then transfer to a four-year institution for their last two years. Using data from 2003-2004,
Mullin (2011) projected students who started at community colleges and then transferred to four-
year institutions would save $22 billion. This is a good model, especially during a time when
access and affordability are major concerns. However, this model only works if a student’s
credits transfer to the four-year institution.
Junor and Usher (2008) go beyond the financial implications of transfer student success
and focus on necessity of adequate transfer pathways to increase student mobility within higher
education. When students’ credits do not transfer from one institution to another, it can increase
time to degree and decrease student persistence. Again, this increased time to degree also
increasing student debt and financial aid. The lack of appropriate transfer policies hinders
student mobility. Student mobility, both internationally and intra-nationally, increases diversity,
confidence, maturity, and academic ability (Junor & Usher, 2008).
In 2005 at the request of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
and House Education and Workforce Committee, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
examined the factors surrounding student transfer. The GAO’s report named three factors
influencing the transfer of credit: institutional type, academic transfer agreements, and
comparability of coursework. Regionally-accredited institutions rarely accept credit from
nationally-accredited or unaccredited institutions. Eighty-four percent of institutions consider
accreditation when evaluating transfer credits (Government Accountability Office, 2005).
Transfer or articulation agreements, are contracts between institutions that guarantee the transfer
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 7
of credits from one institution to the other. Usually this is done by a specific program and does
not cover all the courses the sending institution offers. Finally, most institutions will only grant
transfer credit for coursework that is similar to their own. For example, many vocational credits
do not transfer to traditional four-year institutions because they do not offer such courses (i.e.
automotive, culinary, fashion, etc.)
Although these factors still contribute to the transfer of credits, according to the most
recent National Center for Educational Statistics report by Simone (2014), Transferability of
Postsecondary Credit Following Student Transfer or Coenrollment, the student’s GPA and the
direction of the transfer also play a large role in the transfer credit process.
Transfer Credit Exchange Standards
At its core, credit transfer revolves around one main tenet: the credit hour. The
Department of Education defines the credit hour as:
an amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of
student achievement that is an institutionally established equivalency that is not less than
one hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours of out of
class work for each week for approximately fifteen weeks for one semester… or the
equivalent amount of work over a different amount of time.
In their 2015 study of MOOCs, Siemens, Dragan, & Dawson explore the changing
meaning of credentials in higher education. In the last two decades, the credit hour has come
under fire as an appropriate measure of learning assessment because of shifting ideals in higher
education. One of the major shifts focused on the economic value of the credit hour and how it
relates to the meaning of a degree (Siemens, Dragan, & Dawson, 2015).
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 8
Bahram Bekhradnia (2004) defines the credit as a type of “knowledge currency.” This
currency is accumulated then used to “purchase” a degree (Junor, Usher, & Educational, 2008).
Using this definition, Junor and Usher (2008) explain the exchange rates of credits. Just as
monetary currency has variable exchange rates among different countries, “knowledge currency”
has variable exchange rates among different types of institutions and learning.
Junor and Usher (2008) outline three different methods for evaluating transfer credits:
fluid, fixed, and pure currency exchange. Fluid transfers occur on a case-by-case basis in which
the new institution performs an in-depth credit evaluation for each credit. At Penn State, this is
referred to as Credit by Validation. Credit by validation most commonly occurs when students
from non-accredited institutions want credit for work they have completed. During this process,
the admissions office vets the course for academic quality. If the course is approved as an
academic course, the course materials are forwarded to the academic department for review. The
ultimate decision for transferability in these cases belongs to the academic departments.
Fixed credit exchange occurs when credits from other institutions are taken at face value.
This type of exchange occurs between accredited institutions. A key component to fixed credit
exchange the rate of exchange. For example, Penn State accepts other accredited semester
credits at face value. In the instance of quarter credits, Penn State uses a consistent two-thirds
factor to reduce the number of credits to align with a semester system. As long as institutions are
accredited, these rates remain the same.
Finally, pure currency union is seen within an academic institution. Departments and
colleges within a college or university acknowledge and accept credits awards by other units
within the same institution.
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 9
The true conflict over transferring credits from institution to institution addresses an issue
much more complex than the recognition of the credit hour. The major argument is whether the
universality of credit is more important than the uniqueness of individual institutions and their
programs. Most institutions, especially more prestigious ones, have strict scaffolding in place to
structure curricula and degree attainment. Universally accepting credit from outside institutions
jeopardizes this scaffolding because the institution is no longer in control of the scaffolding (i.e.
pre-requisite courses). The credit transfer process needs to take into consideration not only the
credential itself, but also how it will fit into the institution’s academic scaffolding. Laitinen
(2012) further argues that the credit hour is a poor form of “knowledge currency” because of the
variable exchange rates. In her study, Laitinen (2012) argues that if a credit hour truly measured
student learning then it would have equal value across institutions. As she argues, a dollar is a
dollar and an hour is an hour no matter where you are in the United States.
Nonetheless, when students transfer institutions, they inevitably lose accumulated credits.
The Transferability of Postsecondary Credit Following Student Transfer or Coenrollment report
by Simone (2014) provides the most up-to-date numbers on student and credit transfers. On
average, students lose 13 credits in their first transfer. Thirty-nine percent of transfer students
lost all their credits, an average of 27 credits, during their first transfer.
Students who transfer from two-year to four-year institutions are most likely to transfer
the most credits. Over 19 million credits from 1.4 million students transfer from two-year
institutions (Simone, 2014).
Common Transfer Credit Practices
In 2000, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation updated their recommendations
for higher education institutions and accrediting agencies to consider when evaluating transfer
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 10
credits to:
(1) ensure that transfer decisions are not solely based on the source of accreditation of a
sending program or institution,
(2) reaffirm that the considerations that inform transfer decisions are applied consistently
in the context of changing student attendance patterns and emerging new providers of
higher education,
(3) ensure that students and the public are fully and accurately informed about their
respective transfer policies and practices, and
(4) be flexible and open in considering alternative approaches to managing transfer when
these approaches will benefit students. (Government Accountability Office, 2005)
The Government Accountability Office’s 2005 report, Postsecondary Institutions Could
Promote More Consistent Consideration of Coursework by Not Basing Determinations on
Accreditation, urged policy makers to update the Higher Education Act of 1965 to encourage
institutions to be more open and consistent in their evaluation of transfer credits. The increasing
interest in student mobility in relation to access and affordability puts pressure on institutions to
better serve transfer students. The proceeding Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008
requires all institutions to disclose their transfer credit policies (Simone, 2014).
Accreditation. The GAO (2005) reported that 84% of the institutions they surveyed
considered institutional accreditation when evaluating transfer credits. Most traditional public
and private institutions are regionally accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies.
Other institutions, like those with vocational degrees, can be nationally accredited. According to
the GAO’s (2005) report, most regionally accredited institutions will not accept nationally
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 11
accredited credits. However, Simone (2014) found there is no difference among institutional
accreditation and the amount of credits that transfer.
Articulation agreements. Transferring credit from institution to institution depends on
several factors. The easiest way to transfer credit is through an articulation agreement between
institutions. In the GAO’s 2005 study of transfer students and institutional transfer policies, 69
percent of institutions in their study had transfer credit agreements with other institutions. The
most common agreements are among state-wide institutions or between two-year community
college and four-year public institutions (Government Accountability Office, 2005; Simone,
2014; Mullin, 2012). These types of agreements allow students to follow a cohesive curriculum
between institutions so that movement between the institutions is seamless, at least in theory.
Ultimately, the transfer of credit is at the discretion of the new institution. Transfer credits are
vetted through the admissions or registrar’s office as well as the specific academic departments
(Junor & Usher, 2008; Government Accountability Office, 2005). So while the administration
may approve the credits, the academic departments may refuse to acknowledge them as official.
This lack of usable credit can result not only in student frustration, but also in increased time to
degree and increased tuition.
Student GPA. Simone (2014) found one of the greatest predictors of credit
transferability to be the student’s grade point average at the previous institution. The higher the
student’s grade point average, the more likely she would transfer a greater amount of credit than
her lower-achieving classmates. This is in line with other findings of transfer credit policies.
Most institutions have a required minimum grade point average in order to be considered for
transfer eligibility. They also have minimum grade requirements for individual transfer courses
(Government Accountability Office, 2005; Simone, 2014). For example, some institutions will
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 12
only transfer courses in which a grade of C or better has been earned. It stands to reason that a
student with better grades has a higher chance of having more transferrable credits than a student
with lower grades.
Course comparability. Ultimately, the admissions office and the academic departments
have the final say of whether or not credits are transferrable. The credibility of transfer credits
can be analyzed on two levels. First, the academic rigor of the course is evaluated. Institutions
tend to accept credits with similar academic rigor or standards. Many institutions will not accept
remedial courses for transfer (Government Accountability Office, 2005). Many institutions will
also not accept credits for non-regionally-accredited institutions. Courses also need to be
compatible with the courses and curriculum at the incoming institution. Most traditional four-
year institutional curricula focus on academic subjects and do not offer vocational, technical, or
specialized courses. This a common reason why specialized and vocational credits do not
transfer to traditional four-year institutions.
Penn State Transfer Credit Policies
Institutional Context
Penn State’s transfer credit policies are all outlined in their student handbook
(Undergraduate advising handbook, 2013). There are two type of credit transfer for credits
earned during college. Students can either be true transfer student with work from an
institution(s) before attending Penn State, or they can be Penn State students who transfer credits
from another institution while they are still enrolled in Penn State (i.e. summer session or study
abroad programs). Although Penn State sees these all as transfer credits, there are slight
differences in the process, which will be outlined later.
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 13
An analysis of Penn State’s transfer policies offers a unique perspective on transfer
policies because of the vast size and intricacies of the university. Penn State is one university
geographically dispersed among 20 commonwealth campuses. Penn State students are generally
able to move among campuses and programs without issue. Penn State has over 160 different
majors organized into 12 academic colleges and several campus programs that house degree
programs. As first-year Penn State students, students have an option to participate in the 2+2
Plan. In this plan, students study their first two years at a commonwealth campus then transition
to University Park for their last two years. Almost all majors can be started at a campus and
completed at University Park. While this is confusing to first-year student, it is no surprise that
navigating the transfer application process and subsequent credit transfer can be daunting and
confusing.
Transfer Application Review
Penn State accepts credit from only regionally-accredited institutions. In some instances,
credit by validation can be attempted for work completed at a nationally-accredited or non-
accredited institution. These reviews are done on a case-by-case basis. Penn State imposes the
same standards for transfer students as it does for current Penn State students. To receive credit
for a course, a grade of C or better must be earned. Grade point averages are calculated using all
attempted course work. Penn State does not exclude any grades from the cumulative grade point
average. These standards are applied to evaluate the eligibility of transfer work.
Before anything can be started, non-Penn State students need to fill out an online
application. All transfer students are required to submit an online application, high school
transcripts with proof of graduation, and all college transcripts for review. All transcripts need to
come directly from the institution to be considered official. Students cannot choose which
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 14
credits they would like to be evaluated and must disclose their entire academic history; Penn
State takes omission very seriously. Depending on the severity of the omission, a student’s offer
may be withdrawn or credits from the undisclosed institution(s) will not be evaluated for
transfer.
Once the application is complete with all the required documents, an admissions
counselor reviews the student’s record. A cumulative GPA is recalculated using all of the
student’s attempted college work. If the student has a high enough GPA (minimum 2.50 for
University Park and 2.00 for other campuses) then the counselor checks for any entrance to
major requirements for the requested major. Unlike first-year students, transfer students apply
directly for a major instead of to an academic college. In order to move into that major, students
must meet the program’s required GPA as well as any prerequisite courses. Depending on the
student’s record and her intended major, there are several outcomes. First, the student meets all
requirements and is able to get an offer to their requested major. Second, the student has the
proper GPA but does not have the prerequisites. Usually, if the student has less than 60 credits
she can move into the pre-major, or the general academic college. If the student lacks the pre-
requisites and has more than 60 credits she will be referred to another program. Third, the
student does not have the appropriate GPA required for the program and is either referred to
another program or denied.
Evaluating Transfer Credit
The Undergraduate Admissions Office is the front line for evaluating transfer credits.
Admissions counselors review transcripts and, when appropriate, award credit for courses that
could possibly be offered at Penn State (i.e. similar departments or topics). Penn State will not
transfer credits for courses it does not offer, such as medical technologies, cosmetology, and
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 15
other vocational/technical courses. Credits can be awarded as either general credits within a
discipline, or as direct equivalency to established Penn State courses. Tables of previously
evaluated courses are available for counselor reference. Ideally, the academic department has
already evaluated courses to determine if the course is a direct equivalent to a Penn State course.
If a course has not been previously evaluated, and seems like it may be a direct equivalent to a
Penn State course, the counselor can request a syllabus from the student and forward the
information to the department for review. Otherwise, counselors have the authority to award
general credits. Because of the complications and time associated with granting direct
equivalency for transfer credits, the majority of transfer credits are brought in as general credits..
The departments have the final say on the applicability of general credits to a student’s degree
program. While the admissions office may bring the credit in, it is not guaranteed that the credit
can be used toward a student’s degree.
Penn State also takes into account the amount of course hours for each credit. For
accredited institutions on the semester system, eligible credits transfer on a 1:1 ratio. For
accredited courses on the quarter system, the transfer rate is 1:0.67. Finally, institutions offer
courses in a unit format transfer as 1:4. These transfer rates are of particular importance when
dealing with international college or university credits. Many international institutions use the
term “semester” but students may take up to 30 credits in that time period. In cases like these,
counselors look at the number of course hours per credit and create a ratio. Most frequently, this
is very similar to a quarter credit conversion. Direct equivalents cannot be awarded for courses
that do not have equal credit values.
As an example, a student may have taken a three credit microeconomics course at an
institution other than Penn State. Assuming the course was taken at a regionally-accredited
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 16
institution and the student earned a grade of C or better, the admissions counselor has several
options for awarding credit. Ideally, the microeconomics course has already been evaluated as a
direct equivalent by the academic department. If this is the case, the counselor can award ECON
102. If the course has not been evaluated, the counselor can award general economics credits, per
professional judgment. When a student receives this general economics credit, she can do two
things. The student can appeal the evaluation of general credits by submitting a portfolio herself,
or via the Undergraduate Admissions Office, to the Department of Economics for review.
Otherwise, she meets with an academic adviser to see how those credits can be used. The
academic advisor may choose to just use the general credits as is to fulfill a general education
requirement, or the adviser may complete a course substitution and use those three general
credits as a substitute for ECON 102, essentially granting equivalency on a case-by-case basis.
For institutions on different academic calendars than Penn State, the evaluation of credits
can become tricky. For example, if a student took a three credit microeconomics course at Drexel
University which is on a quarter system, the credit value is automatically decreased by 0.67.
This makes evaluating a direct equivalent to Penn State’s ECON 102 impossible because the
credit values to do match. In this case, the student would be awarded two credits of general
economics.
For institutions on the unit system, students may receive direct equivalent plus general
credits if courses are deemed equivalent. So a 1-unit (4 credit) microeconomics course evaluated
as equivalent to Penn State’s microeconomics course would receive three credits of ECON 102
plus one general economics credit.
Penn State makes a few exceptions for transfer students, mostly for adult learners. Penn
State has an academic forgiveness policy for college work that is more than four years old or for
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 17
any work that was completed before the student joined the military. Students who qualify for
academic forgiveness are automatically assigned a GPA of a 2.0. All courses are still available to
transfer though. Penn State will also use a series of courses at another institution to fulfill one or
more courses at Penn State. For example, students who complete CHEM 101 and CHEM 102 at
Harrisburg Area Community College receive credit for Penn State’s CHEM 110 and CHEM 111.
However if a student only completes one of the courses, she will only receive general math
credits. Multiple course equivalencies are always vetted through the academic department.
Penn State makes a few exceptions for transfer students, mostly for adult learners. Penn
State has an academic forgiveness policy for college work that is more than four years old or for
any work that was completed before the student joined the military. Students who qualify for
academic forgiveness are automatically assigned a GPA of a 2.0. All courses are still available
to transfer though. Penn State will also use a series of courses at another institution to fulfill one
or more courses at Penn State. For example, students who complete CHEM 101 and CHEM 102
at Harrisburg Area Community College receive credit for Penn State’s CHEM 110 and CHEM
111. However if a student only completes one of the courses, she will only receive general math
credits. Multiple course equivalencies are always vetted through the academic department.
Articulation Agreements
One way that Penn State can guarantee the direct transfer of credits is through drafting
and signing an articulation agreement. Articulation agreements are formal agreements between a
campus, program, department, or college at Penn State and a regionally accredited institution or
officially-recognized degree-granting institution outside of the United States to allow students
from the other institutions a clean transfer into Penn State so that they can finish their degree at
Penn State (“A-11: articulation agreements [domestic and international partners],” 2014).
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 18
Articulation agreements at Penn State are authorized by University Faculty Senate (UFS) Policy
06-20 and administered through the Academic Administration Policies and Procedures Manual
(AAPPM). The executive vice president and provost has final authority for executing the
agreement and deciding whether to extend, renew, or terminate an agreement.
Articulation agreements must go through several levels of approval before going into
effect. Articulation agreements begin formal development at the level of associate deans
(associate dean of a college, associate dean of academics for a campus, or the associate dean of
the World Campus). Academic departments, programs, or higher-level administrators may
discuss and propose an agreement for articulation, but the associate deans are responsible for
formal submission through the various channels. First, the associate dean submits a prospectus
to either the Academic Council of Undergraduate Education (ACUE) or the Academic Council
of Graduate Education (ACGE), which consist of associate deans across the university system.
This step assures preliminary consultation with all academic partners and areas within the
university system.
After the associate dean receives approval, the departments involved or someone on the
associate dean’s behalf will begin to draft a proposed Memorandum of Agreement [MOA]
Regarding Articulation. This step requires that the department or program’s representatives
elucidate:
a rationale for the agreement
suitability of the partner institution
a timeframe for the agreement to go into effect
when the agreement should come up for renewal
an “exit strategy” should either party decide to terminate the agreement
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 19
a recommended academic plan for students transferring in to Penn State, with explicit
statements on which courses will transfer, and how they will transfer (general credits
in a discipline; general education credits; direct equivalencies to Penn State courses)
o transfer courses must be evaluated by analogous academic departments at
Penn State responsible for the content area or learning outcomes
o the Undergraduate Admissions Office retains a record of all courses evaluated
in this manner.
consultation must also be sought if the outside institution operates within the service
area of another Penn State campus [within Pennsylvania]; or if another campus might
be negatively impacted by the articulation sought
The associate dean of the college or campus then submits the draft MOA to the
University Faculty Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid
(ARSSA). If ARSSA approves, the memorandum is then forwarded to the Office of
Undergraduate Education, which will review the document to make sure all of the required
information is in place and well-represents both institutions. Once the Office of Undergraduate
Education grants approval, the document can be circulated for signatures. Required signatures
include the associate dean driving the MOA, his or her dean, a representative of the partner
institution, and the Vice President for Undergraduate Education, who signs on behalf of the
senior vice president and provost. This signature is traditionally collected after all of the others,
and enters the articulation agreement into effect.
Penn State enters into articulation agreements with other institutions on its own accord;
unlike several other states in the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not
have any legal statutes or system policies requiring articulation agreements (Roska and Keith,
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 20
2008). Penn State currently has over 100 articulation agreements on file and publicly accessible
on the Web (University approved articulation agreements, 2015). Articulation agreements have
the opportunity to make the transfer process easier on inquiring students, admissions officers,
and academic advisers by providing clear-cut answers to what courses and credits will transfer,
and it what manner.
Penn State transfer credit policies are numerous and complicated, due to its size and
institutional complexity. Throughout the remainder of this paper, the authors will evaluate the
effectiveness of Penn State transfer credit policies.
Identifying Assessment Methods for Transfer Credit Evaluation Processes
In 2013, Alexander Ott, Associate Dean, Academic Enrollment Support Services at New
York Institute of Technology, and Bruce Cooper, Professor (retired) of Educational Leadership
at Fordham University authored a study of six private, non-profit, four-year colleges in New
York State comparing student transfer processes in order to determine which factors—if any—
represented best practices for handling the transferring in of students form other higher education
institutions (Ott and Cooper, 2014). They found two determining factors that indicate best
practices in transfer evaluation: (1) The ability to evaluate potential students’ transfer credits and
provide the students with an evaluation of which credits would transfer before the student pays
an admission or registration fee; and (2) the decision to provide degree-specific information on
how the credits transferred in would be utilized, and how that would affect their time to degree
completion.
In their study, Ott and Cooper (2014) noted that they were unable to find literature that
focused on the quality of the transfer credit process from the perspective of transfer credit
specialists, nor the perspectives of students involved. They needed to create their own
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 21
assessment procedure based on other variables; they selected the following processes to assess
due to their potential to impact the process: bureaucratic structure, personnel, technology,
articulation agreements, and policy. They believed that analysis of these variables in concert with
one another would determine the effectiveness of an institution’s transfer processes, or the
“quality of transfer student service” (p.18). Although these institutions differ from Penn State in
terms of size, scope, and mission, the authors of this paper believe that these variables provide a
strong foundation from which to evaluate the transfer processes of Penn State.
Bureaucratic structure. Ott and Cooper (2014) defined bureaucracy after Birnbaum
(1988) [and Blau (1956)] as, “the type of organization designed to accomplish large-scale
administrative tasks by systematically coordinating the work of many individuals (Birnbaum,
1998, p. 107). In this case, the bureaucratic structure referred to the standard operating
procedures, programs, and repertoires related to the evaluation and acceptance or rejection of
transfer credits. In their study, Ott and Cooper (2014) found that institutions that had special
units dedicated to first-year advising and evaluation of transfer credits decentralized from
academic departments returned evaluations to prospective students earlier and those prospective
students had a more pleasant experience with the process.
Technology. Ott and Cooper (2014) defined technology as information technology (IT)
used to make the transfer evaluation process more expedient. Examples included document
imaging, transfer course databases, and automated degree audits, etc. Five out of the six
institutions studied had robust information technology processes; although these may have made
the process more efficient (and made students more satisfied), the quality of the IT infrastructure
did not demonstrate a majority influence on the ability of an institution to provide degree-
specific information before the student paid to reserve his or her seat in the upcoming class. In
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 22
fact, one of the six institutions still used a file-and-paper based system, and that institution
returned degree-specific transfer information before students accepted the institution’s offer of
admission.
Personnel. According to Ott and Cooper (2014), the personnel features most relevant to
transfer evaluation processes include adequate staffing levels in contributing units and collegial
relationships between admissions staff and academic partners. Two out of three colleges that
provided late transfer credit evaluations were understaffed; one of the three colleges that
provided early transfer credit evaluations also considered itself understaffed. In that college,
however, a unit in the academic advising department handled transfer credit evaluations, but
during “peak” inquiry periods, due to a strong collegial relationship between the director of
advising and the associate director of admissions, advisers were able to assume some of the
burden from the admissions office.
Articulation agreements. Ott and Cooper (2014) found that only one college studied
reported that articulation agreements make transfer credit evaluations easier. Representatives
from all six institutions reported that articulation agreements are not worth the time it takes for
them to be drafted and put into effect. The consensus was that articulation agreements use up too
many resources to produce and take too long; by the time they are enacted, courses or curricula
agreed upon begin to change due to curricular evolution. “They are virtually impossible to keep
current,” (Ott and Cooper, 2014, p. 22).
Policies. Ott and Cooper (2014) found that an institution’s policies seemed to be the
primary factors regarding when degree-specific transfer evaluations are provided to prospective
students, and therefore, how optimal the processes can be. In some cases, the policies could
reflect negative evaluations of the other criteria mentioned—bureaucratic inefficiencies,
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 23
insufficient personnel, or lack of articulation agreements, but in other cases an institution might
just have historical precedents that require students to pay to reserve their seats in a class before
receiving degree-specific information. A comparison of yield rates for all six colleges supports
the idea that giving students degree-specific transfer information before committing a non-
refundable registration fee could affect the number of students who continue with an institution.
According to their study, the average yield rate for institutions that provided early information
was 61 percent, compared to 46 percent for institutions that provided information late (Ott and
Cooper, 2014, p. 23).
Assessing Penn State Transfer Credit Processes
To gather the information for their study, Ott and Cooper (2014) relied on document
reviews, interviews, and focus groups to evaluate the veracity of the data gathered and the
conclusions reached. Using Ott and Cooper’s (2014) research methods and organizational
framework, the authors of this paper assess the quality of Penn State’s transfer credit evaluation
processes. For the sake of scale, this evaluation focuses on the admissions processes at the
flagship campus of the Penn State system, University Park.
Penn State Policies
Official policy on transfer credit evaluation. Ott and Cooper (2014) found that an
institution’s had the greatest impact on whether or not the institution provided degree-specific
transfer credit evaluations to transfer applicants. Although Penn State has myriad policies
concerning the transferal of credit from other institutions as detailed in the literature review, the
policies may not be comprehensive. Penn State’s official policy on if students should receive
degree-specific transfer evaluations does not seem clear. The Undergraduate Admissions Office
provides a Web site that students may use to find their way through the admissions and transfer
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 24
process (“Next steps,” 2013). According to the transfer student guide, once a student has
received the offer of admission and transfer credit evaluation, the student needs to review the
offer of admission; consider applying for student aid if needed; inquire about housing if needed;
and once those other factors have been considered, decide whether or not to accept the offer of
admission. The resource first suggests “connect[ing] with your academic adviser” after the
student has accepted the offer to Penn State, but before the student registers for courses in the
given semester. A logical reading of this text implies that a student cannot contact an adviser to
determine how credits will apply to his or her degree until the student accepts the offer of
enrollment. However, by not explicitly stating such a policy, Penn State leaves the door open for
an industrious student to attempt to secure such information before accepting the offer, which
could help the university pass the litmus test developed by Ott and Cooper (2014) if the student
receives a response in a timely manner.
Penn State’s published policies regarding academic advising do not seem to clarify
matters. According to the University Faculty Senate and the AAPPM, colleges in which students
are enrolled (or the Division of Undergraduate Studies) are responsible for assigning advisers
upon enrollment (32-40, Assignment of adviser, 2014; “B-4: Assignment of adviser,” 2015). No
policy included in either UFS policies 32-00, nor AAPPM policy B-4 dictates when advisers are
allowed to have contact with students. According to a student services staff member in the
College of the Liberal Arts, in practice, that college does not discourage advisers from speaking
with students before students have accepted an offer of enrollment for an intended degree
program; however, the advisers must be clear that no suggestion, recommendation, or promise
can be made official until the student has accepted the offer (Anonymous, personal
communication, May 5, 2015).
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 25
Further complicating matters, practices regarding when advisers speak with students on
degree-specific information varies from campus-to-campus. Although Penn State World Campus
lacks academic authority, academic units offering programs through World Campus delegate
academic advising authority to the World Campus (“B-2: The nature of the university advising
program,” 2010). Transfer students applying to World Campus are encouraged to speak with
advisers to find out how transfer credits will apply to their intended degree program before they
accept their offer of admission. One of the reasons for this difference in policy might have to do
with the difference in populations served. The student demographic at the World Campus differs
from the other Penn State campuses, most notably because the students are not in residence.
Eighty-five percent of 20,000-plus students in World Campus undergraduate programs are adult
learners. World Campus students also transfer in an average of 40 credits. Because of this
volume, the World Campus employs Transfer Credit Specialists whose primary responsibility is
to scrub transcripts for potential, usable transfer credits that were either not transferred or not
transferred in a useful way. Transfer Credit Specialists then submit a credit appeal on the
student’s behalf to either the admissions office or the academic department. The high transfer
population on the World Campus encourages Penn State to make special accommodations for
World Campus, and these special accommodations appear to satisfy the litmus test for Ott and
Cooper’s (2014) qualifications for transfer-friendly policies.
With ill-defined student/adviser communication policies and inconsistent practices, Penn
State’s decision to not provide degree-specific transfer credit evaluations to all applicants
becomes difficult to evaluate. Perhaps Penn State’s practices can be viewed in terms of a simple
cost/risk analysis: maybe Penn State cannot provide the resources required to have academic
departments or advisers evaluate every course a student transfers within the context of the
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 26
student’s intended degree program in a sustainable manner, either pro bono or on the revenue
generated by the application fee alone. A more cynical view could be that perhaps Penn State
just wants to secure the registration fee and the first semester of tuition to the disadvantage of
students, and the rhetorical hedging in policies exists so that Penn State has plausible deniability
and can avoid being in a negative light. The authors will not speculate on why Penn State
maintains records that can be construed as confusing; however, assessing the other variables
identified in Ott and Cooper’s (2014) study may give more context to Penn State’s policies.
Problems with academic authority and university-wide consistency. Another critical
obstacle to providing transfer students with degree-specific information before they accept offers
of admission might rest in peculiar policies regarding the decentralization of academic authority
in academic departments. An interview with a student services staff member in one of Penn
State’s academic colleges revealed some surprising and potentially damaging practices regarding
the authority academic departments have to waive degree requirements for their programs, and
implications these practices could have on the university-wide curriculum.
Overview of the curricular approval process. AAPPM policy P outlines the approval
process for new university curriculum (“P: Curricular principles and procedures,” 2015). This
policy reiterates that academic authority rests with the faculty in the departments. Even so, it
details a proposal and approval structure for new curriculum that requires engagement and
approval with the entire university faculty in one form or another. Before formal submission,
new programs must undergo a rigorous consultation process, wherein the principal author must
consult with any academic department on any campus across the university that might have a
stake in the program, preserving disciplinary unity across the system. This procedure, ensures
collegiality, academic rigor, and curricular integrity across the entire university
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 27
Modifying established curriculum. According to formal policies, changing the content of
an established curriculum requires the same rigorous process used to create new programs,
ostensibly to protect the viability and rigor of the degrees conferred. However, that does not
mean that in extraordinary circumstances, curriculum cannot be altered in a more expedient
manner. As stated in UFS 82-60, Exceptions to Degree Requirements (1997) and AAPPM L-2:
Degree Checking (2012), the dean of a college has the authority to waive university-wide degree
requirements, such as general education requirements, or degree-specific courses. The
department head also has the authority to approve course substitutions or changes to the degree-
specific major requirements, with the approval of the dean. This allows some flexibility for the
academic units to intervene in extreme circumstances on behalf of the student, but it also has the
potential to be abused.
In practice, as reported by a contact in one of the academic colleges, departments can
delegate the authority to approve course substitutions to the academic advisers. In one program
mentioned, advisers had no authority to change make substitutions on a student’s degree audit
without the explicit permission of the department head; in another department cited, advisers are
known to make substitutions all the time. As the expertise and institutional weight of actors in
this process becomes less important, the potential increases for the validity of the curriculum to
become undermined. Even more troubling—academic departments in charge of their degree
programs seem to have the authority to decide how other departments’ courses can be
interchanged, as long as those courses are part of the degree program.
For example, the Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting (B.S. ACCTG) not only
requires the course ECON 102 [whose department exists in an different college], but students
must complete the course before being admitted into the degree program (Huddart, 2015).
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 28
Suppose that a transfer student applies for admission to the Smeal College of Business, the
academic home for Accounting, and her transcripts contain nine credits in economics from
multiple universities. An admissions counselor accepts six of those nine credits as Penn State
credits, and classifies them as general ECON credits. As long as ECON had not previously
reviewed any of those credits, an ACCTG adviser could select three of those ECON credits and
substitute those credits for ECON 102 in the student’s degree audit without ever consulting with
the Economics department. Potential for abuse notwithstanding, this practice should constitute a
serious breach of collegiality, etiquette, and curricular integrity, and appears to countermand the
quality and rigor built into the curriculum approval process.
More to the purposes of this study, the ability for advisers to hand-wave course
requirements in this regard may indicate a major factor as to why Penn State cannot provide
degree-specific information to students in a timely manner. As long as this policy remains in
place, the only way to provide accurate information in good faith is to have all courses only
transfer in as direct-equivalent courses, or as general credits at a specific level (100, 200, etc.), or
designated as general education credits. In order for this to happen, courses must be either
evaluated by departments in advance of potential requests (through articulation agreement
processes) or evaluated on-demand as the student remains in the transfer application process.
These issues will be revisited through the lenses of the other variables identified in Ott and
Cooper’s (2014) study.
Implications of not providing degree-specific information. The transfer credit
evaluation that students receive does not include any information related to a specific degree
program. Since number of transfer credits have direct impact on a student’s time to degree, and
time to degree correlates to persistence and retention, any miscommunication on how credits
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 29
transfer could disadvantage and demoralize a transfer student. If the student receives direct-
equivalent credits for Penn State courses, the student may be able to determine how those credits
will apply to the degree program of interest through the Penn State’s course and program catalog,
the Bulletin. The Bulletin provides all of the information necessary to understand the different
types of credit required to matriculate with a degree. However, higher education curriculum,
even on the associate’s degree level, can be extremely puzzling. Composition of curriculum,
degree requirements, and definitions of those requirements can vary between degree types in a
single institution, let alone across different institutions. Without the expert help of an adviser, it
would take an inordinate amount of time for the student to decode. It seems unreasonable that a
student transferring to Penn State will be well equipped to make sense of the information
provided in the transfer credit evaluation. Students may not even know how many credits will be
applicable to a degree—60 credits may transfer to Penn State, but only 45 of those may be
applicable to a Penn State degree.
Capability of supporting degree-specific transfer evaluations. Penn State’s unclear
policies on when students can seek advice on how their credits will be applicable to their degree
and how integrity of academic programs is preserved demonstrate large issues that need to be
addressed before Penn State can adequately deliver degree-specific transfer information in a
timely manner; and these processes have powerful implications on the other factors that affect
strong transfer credit practices.
Bureaucratic Structure at Penn State
In many respects, the transfer credit evaluation processes at Penn State appear to replicate
the best qualities highlighted in Ott and Cooper’s (2014) study—a document of transfer credit
evaluation is prepared by a centrally coordinated office (in this case, The Undergraduate
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 30
Admissions Office), and provided to the prospective student along with the offer letter.
Admissions counselors have the training and authority to identify credits at other institutions that
will transfer to Penn State, and tools to identify whether the courses have already been evaluated.
Admissions counselors have a single point of contact with representatives from academic
departments, with the option to submit the credits in question to departments for credit by
validation. Depending on the time of year and workload, requests for transfer course evaluations
may take days to weeks to be processed. Most evaluation requests are handled in a timely
manner. Even though Penn State does not offer degree-specific transfer credit evaluations as a
rule, the bureaucratic infrastructure in place seems capable of facilitating the process.
Technology Resources at Penn State
Penn State offers myriad open-sourced, public, and detailed information regarding all
aspects of the transfer credit process. The Undergraduate Admissions Office Transfer Students
Web page offers a comprehensive narrative of the steps a transfer student needs to follow in
order to successfully apply for admission to Penn State and receive the transfer credit evaluation
(Transfer students, 2013). Although the policy review notes the narrative fails to communicate
to students when they can contact advisers to review how credits will apply to their intended
degree, for the most part this narrative appears to be both easy to read and follow, providing high
usability to potential students and helping them manage the sheer amount of information
associated with the admissions process.
As an additional resource, Penn State offers an online transfer credit tool, where transfer
students can search for courses they completed at other regionally-accredited institutions
(Transfer course evaluation guide, 2015). This tool draws from the database that contains the
information that the Undergraduate Admissions Office utilizes when evaluating transfer credits.
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 31
The transfer credit narrative features the tool, making it available for students to consult before
they even begin application process.
Although the transfer credit tool has the potential to provide valuable information, the
user interface seems to be very outdated. The Web page divides the database into separate
functions for Penn State students and prospective students. The section for Penn State students
has the ability for students to select a Penn State course they might need for a program, and then
based on their selection, search for other institutions that offer courses as a direct equivalent.
Both sections have an option for the user to look up courses that have been reviewed for Penn
State credit from other institutions by searching for the institution, then selecting the discipline
and the course. The database will keep a catalogue of each course a student selects, but it always
displays all of the courses a student has viewed—this can make searching for several courses
cumbersome. The tool expects users to navigate through hyperlinks in the tool and not to use the
back button, the use of which returns an error (but does not affect the list of results the student
has selected). These peculiarities in user interface demonstrate a lack of attention to the usability
of the tool and creates a sharp disconnect from the modern interfaces used throughout the rest of
the transfer credit information sources.
The content in the database does not seem to be well-maintained. For instance, when
preparing an articulation agreement between the College of Liberal Arts and Coastline
Community College, located in California, one of the authors of this paper noticed inconsistent
information organization and other peculiarities. Many of the departments are listed twice;
“English,” for instance, is listed as “ENGL” and “ENGLC.” It appears that—at some point—
Coastline went through a process where they renumbered their courses, resulting in a course like
their ENGL 100 (equivalent to Penn State’s ENGL 015, Rhetoric and Composition, a general
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 32
education requirement for all Penn State students) to ENGL C100. These records may be
redundant due to Coastline inconsistently coding their degree transcripts, or it could indicate
errors in record keeping at Penn State. Also, for some unknown reason, a user can select a “100”
course under “ENGL” multiple times, although the records appear to be identical. Database
structure should prevent duplication of data in this regard, so the fault probably rests with the
programming. Furthermore, although ENGL 100 at Coastline is listed as coming in as a direct
equivalent to Penn State’s ENGL 015, ENGL C100 is listed as coming in as general English
credits, even though ENGL 100 and ENGL C100 appear to be considered by Coastline to be the
same course. The transfer credit tool does not display notes stored in the database on why
courses have been historically evaluated in different ways.
The inconsistent information presented in the tool may have serious implications on
student comprehension of the transferability of their courses. The possibility exists that other,
outside factors could account for this disparity—if the department, for instance, decided they
wanted to take a stand and no longer allow ENGL 100/C100 to transfer in as a direct equivalent
to ENGL 015 (for whatever reason), the department might tell admissions that it shouldn’t
transfer in as ENGL 015. The current status of the record may not only be misleading to
students and frustrating to use, but also may diminish the reputation and the integrity of the
university in the student’s eyes.
Upon initial review, Penn State seems to meet the basic requirements listed in Ott and
Cooper’s (2014) study as it relates to technological systems used to promote the transfer credit
process for staff and students alike. The explanation for how transfer credit works at Penn State,
and the steps involved, appears easy to navigate and understand. The narrative links to resources
scattered across the university’s Web site infrastructure (such as the transfer credit tool and the
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 33
Bulletin) in a logical manner, and admissions counselors are available to help the students with
questions up until the receive their offer letters and transfer evaluation. Still, other resources,
including the transfer credit tool, one of the most important tools available to prospective
students and current students alike, appears outdated, inefficient, and mismanaged. Penn State
still needs to make progress in its technological infrastructure tasked with supporting the transfer
credit process.
Personnel at Penn State
As a large university, it should be unsurprising that the Undergraduate Admissions Office
requires several teams to operate. The office is divided into three units—Admission Services and
Evaluation, Marketing and Recruitment, and Information Systems and Research. Twelve full-
time admissions counselors handle all transfer applications throughout the academic year. In
2014-2015, Penn State received more than 10,000 transfer applications. In addition, the
Admissions Services and Evaluation Team also reviewed over 83,000 first-year and international
applications. Other daily duties include interacting with students and families via recruitment
activities. Although the volume of applications received appears immense, admissions
counselors believe that they are well equipped to handle the amount as long as current
parameters hold.
While counselors have the most direct impact on transfer students, the other two teams
also contribute to transfer credit processes, albeit in tangential ways. For instance, Information
Services and Research is responsible for the maintenance of the transfer credit tool and related
databases. While investing more in that team could free-up more time to manage the transfer
credit tool and the technological infrastructure, it might be more reasonable to outsource
platform development to another team, either within or outside the university. The Marketing
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 34
and Recruitment team also has some involvement in the transfer credit processes, since that team
holds responsibility for updating and managing the information on the public Web sites,
including the Transfer Students page mentioned above. Overall, the Undergraduate Admissions
Office appears to have adequate personnel to operate the transfer credit processes.
Within the bureaucratic process, the staffing and personnel resources in academic
departments and colleges garners the most concern. At the current levels, the Undergraduate
Admissions Office may receive adequate support from the departmental representatives on
course validation requests and audits, however any move toward offering degree-specific transfer
credit evaluations during the admissions process would put much greater strain on the academic
departments to produce evaluations. Departments might consider delegating some of that
responsibility to academic advisers, as some do with course substitutions, in order to defray
costs, but that could create consistency and quality assurance problems later on. In reality,
departments, colleges, and perhaps even upper-level administration would have to make
investing in faculty time and positions for the review of other institutions’ credits a strategic
priority in order to deliver degree-specific transfer credit evaluations.
Articulation Agreement Processes at Penn State
The articulation agreement process at Penn State shares many of the problems noted in
Ott and Cooper’s (2014) study. One of the authors of this paper spent time working on an
articulation agreement between Penn State World Campus in conjunction with the College of the
Liberal Arts and Coastline Community College, located in Fountain Valley, California. The
process of constructing the agreement was long and arduous for many of the reasons cited by
representatives for the colleges in Ott and Cooper’s study—for instance, it was difficult to
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 35
generate buy-in from academic departments and secure necessary course evaluations for courses
outside of the intended major.
Another source of confusion arose from contradictions between Penn State policy on
seeking consultation for articulation agreements and the practices related to authority for advisers
to evaluate courses for substitution mentioned in the policies evaluation. Unlike the AAPPM
and UFS policies on advising, the policies regarding articulation agreements explicitly state that
the parties interested in articulation must consult with other academic departments on whether
any courses outside of the primary program’s discipline can be considered as direct equivalent
for Penn State courses, or fulfill general education requirements (“A-11: articulation
agreements,” 2014). When composing the agreement, World Campus advisers attempted to
designate how courses would transfer; once the College of the Liberal Arts received the
recommendations, staff had to take additional time to check with the departments, and the
discrepancy between the assumed practices of the World Campus and the policies as defined in
AAPPM generated some conflict.
However, biggest issue with the production of the articulation agreement seemed to be
the lack of strong administrative oversight. Although all articulation agreements must be vetted
by the faculty senate and approved by the Office of Undergraduate Education, that office does
not have a staff member dedicated to the administration of articulation agreements. They do not
provide official university-approved templates for the content of the final MOA. One might think
that the language concerning the responsibilities of each university in regard to administration of
the agreement, review of the agreement, and termination of the agreement should be vetted by
legal experts for the protection of both parties, even if the agreements themselves are not
required by law. The Office of Undergraduate Education encourages faculty or staff composing
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 36
the language of the agreement to consult with agreements that had previously been approved, but
that laissez faire outlook could make the university vulnerable to legal action in the event of an
extraordinary circumstance. The uncertainty on how to phrase specific passages and to prevent
ambiguity or abuse adds a significant amount of time to an already lengthy process, and, without
clear administrative oversight, may end up being ineffective.
Although articulation agreements could normalize the process of evaluating courses
before students transfer, set specific dates for when courses would need to be reevaluated, and
generate clearer data for admissions counselors to provide to students, Penn State does not seem
committed to taking full advantage of the opportunities a strong dedication to articulations
agreements would open. Once again, the ability to author, enforce, review, and maintain a large
number of articulation agreements would require a significant strategic investment from
academic departments, colleges, and upper-level administration.
Assessing University Mission
Although Ott and Cooper (2014) did not explicitly cover relation to the institution’s
mission in their study, there are some important questions to consider regarding how the
acceptance of transfer credit affects the mission and the integrity of an institution. Birnbaum
(1988) notes that “faculty and other professionals have power related to their specialized
expertise, to tradition, and to external guilds” (p. 134), and that this power circulates around the
“fundamentals areas of curriculum, instruction… and the academic aspects of student life” (p. 8).
Hendrickson, Lane, Harris, and Dorman (2013) call the curriculum the “formal statement by its
faculty, administration, and board of trustees of its educational values,” and therefore, designate
the curriculum as an integral part of an institutional mission (Hendrickson, et. al, 2013, p. 354). It
would seem, then, that protecting the integrity of the curriculum would be strongest way for
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 37
faculty to uphold the quality of the degrees conferred, and by extension, the reputation of the
institution. Should upper-level administration put a strategic emphasis on transfer credit
evaluations—increasing the number of transfer students, transfer credit accepted, and publicly
demonstrating how other universities courses are equivalent to Penn State’s—faculty may
consider this type an action a threat to their power-base and role in shared governance. Such a
plan has the potential to be highly contentious, and could have negative implications on the
mission of the university.
This idea of faculty closing ranks to consolidate their power and authority can also extend
to articulation agreements. Academic units may have the final say on what courses students may
be able to transfer in to apply to their degree, but the negotiation of articulation agreements, their
authorship, and their implementation falls under administrative purview. Any push to increase
the number of articulation agreements could be seen as an effort for administration to wrestle
authority away from the faculty, no matter how beneficial they might be to students struggling to
complete a degree.
This natural tension might also extend to the acceptance of transfer credits in general.
Birnbaum (1988) offers that higher education institutions tend to thrive by responding to societal
expectations of what they should represent and what services they should provide. As the
numbers of non-traditional students and traditional students moving from institution-to-
institution multiple times on their paths to degree completion increase, institutions that do not
provide early transfer credit evaluation could begin to lose esteem in society. However, if
pressure to increase transfer credit acceptance increases, faculty, administration, and trustees my
face a crisis on how much of the curriculum they can afford to let go without losing the
intellectual and curricular identity of the university.
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 38
Summary of Findings
With over 10,000 transfer applications received in a given year, Penn State has a strong
incentive to provide high quality transfer credit evaluation services. Ott and Cooper (2014)
provided a rough framework through which transfer credit processes can be evaluated. Ott and
Cooper (2014) determined that the greatest indicator of quality for transfer credit processes was
the ability of an institution to present student with a detailed, degree-specific evaluation of the
student’s transfer credits before the student accepted an offer of admission and paid an
acceptance fee; and that the factor most likely to contribute to this ability was a strategic
commitment to provide that service.
Penn State does not provide degree-specific transfer credit evaluations to students before
they accept an offer of admission; and Penn State policies do not clearly state why. Penn State
might be entrenched in previous administrative and curricular practices that make providing the
service impossible, or perhaps Penn State is unwilling to commit strategic resources to achieve
the goal. Political concerns or worries about maintaining the integrity of the Penn State mission
and brand could be staying the administration’s ambitions. In any case, Penn State’s current
policies do not support degree-specific transfer credit evaluations.
Despite Penn State boasts robust policies, structures, and pathways to facilitate transfer credit
processes. It seems that the infrastructure and policies exist to take the next step in elevating the
transfer credit processes at Penn State, if only the upper-level administration decided to take that
route. Penn State provides excellent resources in the Undergraduate Admissions Office and the
information technology support available, but it lacks the strategic conviction to supply resources
for academic departments to adequately support the process.
Limitations of the Study
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 39
The methodology chosen to assess Penn State transfer credit processes has several
inherent limitations. The scope of this paper limits the ability of the authors to attempt an
exhaustive review of all transfer credit processes. The size and complexity of the Penn State
system results in compartmentalization of information and the potential for critical information
to not depreciate over multiple redrafts and rewrites, compromising the integrity of the
information discovered. Qualitative research practices have their own limitations, as they rely on
accessibility of information and willing participation of figures of authority. The non-empirical
nature of findings requires subjective assessment measures, which have a greater opportunity to
introduce bias into the findings than results of empirical studies—although the authors strive to
reduce bias as much as possible. Finally, the assessment methods chosen may not be effective
due to the differences regarding size and mission between the institutions assessed in Ott and
Cooper’s (2014) original study and Penn State.
Recommendations for Improving Transfer Credit Processes at Penn State
Make improvement of transfer practices a strategic institutional priority
Penn State needs to devote permanent resources to fund new faculty and staff positions in
academic departments for the explicit purpose of evaluating student transfer credits as requested
and for the purposes of articulation. Investments in new technologies to better facilitate
communication between academic departments and the Undergraduate Admissions Office will
also improve the efficiency of this process.
Penn State should establish a position in the Office of Undergraduate Education devoted
to the creation, review, and implementation of articulation agreements. Although articulation
can be a cumbersome process, providing incentives to departments in the form of permanent
funds should generate faculty support. Articulation agreements benefit transfer students by
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 40
guaranteeing usable credit transfer, and ensuring that students will be able to complete their
degree. Articulation agreements between institutions like Penn State and community colleges
provide important financial relief for the majority of transfer students. Articulation agreements
have the extra benefit of establishing a review cycle for transfer equivalencies.
The devotion of permanent funds demonstrates an investment in transfer student success.
These resources and practices ensure that transfer students not only transfer more credits, but can
also use these credits. This aids in decreased time to degree, decreased student debt, and
increased student success.
Strengthen Transfer Credit Policies
Strengthening transfer policies requires three ideals: consistency, flexibility, and
transparency. Transfer policies across departments and colleges need to be consistent in that
courses should be evaluated via proper channels and then applied in an appropriate manner to a
student’s degree. Students across all campuses should be encouraged to speak to an advisor
about their transfer credits before they accept their offer of admission.
Departments need to be flexible in how they evaluate transfer credits without
jeopardizing the integrity of the curriculum. Evaluators need to move beyond unrestricted
disciplinary credit, and determine how credits can be optimized for a degree. These
considerations include knowledge domains for general education criteria, course level for major
requirements, or direct equivalency. More descriptive credit evaluations facilitate the ability to
produce degree-specific evaluations for students, allowing students to make more informed
decisions about potential for success at Penn State.
Most importantly, transfer credit policies must be transparent. Previous
recommendations should remove the problematic inconsistencies that could be considered
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 41
deceptive or discouraging to students. Transfer students are entitled to understand how credits
are transferred, why credits are transferred, and how these decisions impact their application.
This includes clear communication to students throughout the entire process, as well as
comprehensive degree-specific evaluations. Transparency promotes open and honest
relationships between students and Penn State.
Conclusion
Many students pursuing higher education will not stay with one institution for their entire
journey to degree. As transfer student demographics continue to rise, higher education
institutions like Penn State must adapt to the demands of society in order to better serve this
population. Ineffective transfer credit policies can harm student persistence, retention, and time
to degree. Federal and state governments pressure institutions to be receptive to transfer students
because of the financial implications for increased time to degree.
Penn State’s current transfer credit policies show remarkable promise, but need
improvement. Although few scholars have explored how to assess transfer credit policies, the
authors determined that an attempt to review Penn State’s policies could highlight areas to be
considered for improvement. The size and complexity of Penn State presents a challenge to the
formation of ideal transfer credit policies; however, updates in policies, practices, and
technologies are possible with appropriate institutional support and resources.
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 42
References
Birnbaum, B. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bekhradnia, B. (2004). Credit accumulation and transfer, and the Bologna process: an overview.
Higher Education Policy Institute, (October), 1–54. Retrieved from
http://www.bccat.ca/pubs/13CATFullReport.pdf
Bradburn, E. M., & Hurst, D. G. (2001). Community College Transfer Rates to 4-year
Institutions Using Alternative Definitions of Transfer, (June).
[Division of Undergraduate Studies.] (2013). Undergraduate advising handbook. University
Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://handbook.psu.edu/
Dunbar, A., Hossler, D., Shapiro, D., Chen, J., Martin, S., Torres, V., … Ziskin, M. (2011).
National Postsecondary Enrollment Trends: Before, During and After the Great
Recession. Herndon: National Student …. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:National+Postsecondary+Enrollment+Trends:+Before,
+During,+and+After+the+Great+Recession#0
Government Accountability Office (2005). TRANSFER STUDENTS: Postsecondary Institutions
Could Promote More Consistent Consideration of Coursework by Not Basing
Determinations on Accreditation Highlights. Report to Congressional Requesters.
(October).
Hendrickson, R. M., Lane, J. E., Harris, J. T., & Dorman, R. H. (2013). Academic leadership and
governance in higher education: A guide for trustees, leaders, and aspiring leaders of
two- and four-year institutions. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 43
Huddart, S. (2013). “Accounting.” Penn State University Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://bulletins.psu.edu/undergrad/programs/baccalaureate/A/ACCTG
Junor, S., & Usher, A. (2008). Student Mobility & Credit Transfer A National and Global
Survey, (June).
Mullin, C. M. (2012). Transfer : An Indispensable Part of the Community College Mission,
(October).
[Office of Undergraduate Education.] (2015). University approved articulation agreements.
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from
http://www.psu.edu/dept/enrmgmt/artic_agrmnts.html
[Office of Undergraduate Education.] (2014). "A-11: articulation agreements (domestic and
international partners)." Academic administrative polices and procedures manual.
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from
http://www.psu.edu/oue/aappm/A-11-articulation-agreements.html
[Office of Undergraduate Education.] (2010). "B-2: The nature of the university advising
program." Academic administrative polices and procedures manual. University Park, PA:
The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/oue/aappm/B-2-
nature-of-university-advising-program.html
[Office of Undergraduate Education.] (2014). "B-4: Assignment of adviser." Academic
administrative polices and procedures manual. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania
State University. Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/oue/aappm/B-4-assignment-of-
advisers.html
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 44
[Office of Undergraduate Education.] (2012). "L-2: Degree checking." Academic administrative
polices and procedures manual. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/oue/aappm/L-2-degree-checking.html
[Office of Undergraduate Education.] (2014). "P: Curriculum principles and procedures."
Academic administrative polices and procedures manual. University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from http://www.psu.edu/oue/aappm/A-11-
articulation-agreements.html
Ott, A. P., & Cooper, B. S. (2014). Transfer credit evaluations: How they are produced, why it
matters, and how to serve students better. College and University, 89(4), 14-25. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1651862988?accountid=13158
Roska, J., & Keith, B. (2008). Credits, time and attainment: Articulation policies and success .
after transfer. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), pp. 236 - 254.
Retrieved from http://epa.sagepub.com/content/30/3/236.full.pdf+html
Simone, S (2014). Transferability of Postsecondary Credit Following Student Transfer or
Coenrollment.
Siemens, G., Dragan, G., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the Digital University:A Review of
the History and Current State of Distance, Blended, and Online Learning.
Skomsvold, P., Radford, A. W., & Berkner, L. (2011). WEB, (July).
[Undergraduate Admissions Office.] (2013). “Next steps.” Next steps for accepted transfer
students. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from
http://admissions.psu.edu/info/future/transfer/nextsteps/
THE OTHER 35 PERCENT 45
[Undergraduate Admissions Office.] (2014). Transfer course evaluation guide. University Park,
PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from
https://www.admissions.psu.edu/my_admissions/tas/
[Undergraduate Admissions Office.] (2013). Transfer students. University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from
http://admissions.psu.edu/info/future/transfer/
[University Faculty Senate.] (2011). [University Faculty Senate policy] 06-20 articulation
agreements. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from
http://www.psu.edu/dept/enrmgmt/artic_agrmnts.html
[University Faculty Senate.] (2014). [University Faculty Senate policy] 32-40 assignment of
adviser. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from
http://senate.psu.edu/policies-and-rules-for-undergraduate-students/32-00-advising-policy/
#32-40
[University Faculty Senate.] (2014). [University Faculty Senate policy] 82-60 expectations to
degree requirements. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved
from http://senate.psu.edu/policies-and-rules-for-undergraduate-students/82-00-and-83-00-
degree-requirements/#82-60
top related