Tag: Transfer

  • Why Not Flexible Transfer for All, Not Just in Crisis?

    Why Not Flexible Transfer for All, Not Just in Crisis?

    Meet Estevan, featured by Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi as a Transfer Student Success Story. Estevan benefited from a high degree of personalized support—including advising on course selection and financial aid planning—that helped him identify a clear path to transfer in his major of choice. Such personalized support helped Estevan thrive and make the dean’s list after transferring.

    Estevan’s story is one of the many inspiring success stories about transfer students we hear every day, even when the odds seem stacked against them. For example, we know that 80 percent of community college students nationwide intend to complete a bachelor’s degree, yet only 31 percent transfer to a four-year institution within six years of entry. When they succeed in transferring, transfer students often outperform their peers who start and stay at the same institution. And yet, we do not make transfer easy. For one, learners face a confusing set of ever-changing rules that varies across institutions, making it difficult to know which courses are transferable and applicable to their intended program of study.

    Added to that, we know life is unpredictable and even a learner’s best-laid plans can be derailed by one lost job, one sick family member or one unexpected change in financial aid. When the unpredictable happens, can institutions better flex to meet learners where they are?

    The signs point to yes—if you look at the examples of incredible institutional flexibility in response to the recent rise in institutional closures and mergers. As reported by Inside Higher Ed, nearly 100 institutions closed in the last academic year alone due to declining enrollments and financial pressures. When institutions close, accreditors and their member institutions step up to support students through a process called teach-out. Teach-out policies, while they differ by accreditor, are generally designed to help other institutions flexibly accept and apply students’ coursework to a degree or credential in order to help affected students complete their studies in a timely fashion. In such arrangements, the expressed goal is to apply the rules in ways that help bring students in and flex those rules that would effectively leave students out.

    Teach-out policies are exactly the type of thoughtful guidance that should be in place to support students. But as we’ve described, institutional closure is not the only reason students transfer, and it is not the only crisis students face. So this leads us to ask, if institutions can be flexible when faced with one type of student transfer, can they be similarly flexible in other transfer scenarios as well?

    We are excited to share that we had the opportunity to ask that question of the members of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (for which one of the authors, Heather Perfetti, serves as president). In fall of 2024, MSCHE, WASC Senior College and University Commission, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges partnered with the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board and Sova to design and field the Survey on Transfer and Learning Mobility to their institutional members. The survey sought to determine members’ perspectives on student transfer and learning mobility and to discern the role of accreditors in these processes through the institutional lens.

    In one of the most striking survey results, half of MSCHE’s responding institutions said they believe that institutions should apply similar flexibility for students who transfer and/or have previous learning as they do for students in teach-out situations (138 institutions responded to the survey, with a 30 percent response rate). Members of the PAB shared this finding at MSCHE’s Annual Meeting in December 2024, and a MSCHE member voiced the following powerful reflection: “We flex that way all the time for our own self-interest when we want to close one of our own programs.”

    We share these findings not to throw open the doors on academic rigor and quality, but rather to ask the field to pause and reflect on why credit transfer policies are stringent, knowing the barriers they may pose for students. We recognize the claims that strict credit transfer policies protect student preparation and program cohesion. If that’s true, what data are used to prove that students are not well prepared if they don’t take courses in a linear sequence? What evidence is used to understand and control for program cohesion? And if it’s not true, what are the real reasons, and can we discuss them openly so that we can better serve students? We can’t identify real solutions if we’re not honest about the actual problems.

    From MSCHE’s perspective, this survey finding feels like a call to pause, reflect and inspire us into action. MSCHE is proud of its existing transfer policies, which are crafted to support students and the mobility of their learning. But MSCHE is also willing to revisit its policies and accreditation activities through the lens of how principles related to teach-out during crises, like closures, can inform transfer more generally.

    Through the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, in collaboration with WSCUC and SACSCOC, we’ll talk to our peer accreditation agencies as well about key questions for accreditors and how accreditors can and should:

    • Engage governing boards and member institutions about the importance of transfer and learning mobility;
    • Leverage self-study as a moment for institutions to review and revise policies that are barriers to transfer;
    • Celebrate with institutions the ways they are supporting stronger transfer policies and the awarding of credit;
    • Remind constituents that accreditors want to see and support institutional innovation to better serve students;
    • Promote what accreditation policies actually require, and bust myths around statements such as “the accreditor won’t let me do that” (because, quite frankly, those statements are rarely true);
    • Elevate how the accreditor complaint and third-party comment process can be used by students to bring institutional transfer policies, procedures and decisions to accreditor attention; and
    • Quite simply: Be student centered, all the time.

    We hope this post gives you food for thought. Through our partnership and aligned efforts such as the Learning Evaluation and Recognition for the Next Generation Commission (led by Sova and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers and on which MSCHE, WSCUC and SACSCOC all sit), we will be looking to support the field with additional thinking about strong principles for student-centered credit evaluation and transfer. In the meantime, we’ll leave you with this question: How do you flex for students?

    Source link

  • How Being a Mother and Academic Helped Me Fix Higher Education’s Transfer Crisis

    How Being a Mother and Academic Helped Me Fix Higher Education’s Transfer Crisis

    Dr. Alicia M. AlveroWhen my daughter transferred to Queens College in Spring 2019, I could not have been more excited. As associate provost at the college, I’ll admit I was biased but even two decades of experience in higher education couldn’t fully prepare me for her struggle to transfer credits. 

    Queens College is one of The City University of New York’s 25 colleges. My daughter transferred from another school within the system yet despite mastering course material, she was told to take what was basically the same course all over again. 

    Fortunately, I understood the appeals process and was able to point her in the right direction. As a result, she obtained credit for the course, which counted toward her major. At the same time, reality struck: A student should not need to have an associate provost as a parent to transfer college credits. Frankly, they shouldn’t even need to appeal credits within the same system. 

    Nationally, the transfer system has been set up to let students fail for decades. On average, students lose a fifth of their credits when transferring to a four-year college, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This leads to wasted tuition dollars and makes it more challenging to earn a bachelor’s degree. A 2023 report by the Community College Research Center found that only 16% of community college students earned a bachelor’s program within six years and just 10% of low-income students did. 

    As the largest public urban university system in the nation, CUNY had a real opportunity to make a change. In 2023, CUNY’s Board of Trustees charged the University’s leadership – including myself – to fix the transfer system. 

    CUNY has long been dedicated to eliminating the obstacles that result when a student transfers. In fact, the expectation that CUNY should provide a seamless ability to transfer between its constituent colleges dates to its formation as a centralized system in the 1960s. 

    Enshrined in New York state education law is the mandate for CUNY to “maintain its close articulation between senior and community college units.” Each year, up to 15,000 CUNY students – like my daughter – transfer between campuses, most commonly from a community college to a four-year college. 

    The purpose of an integrated university system is to offer an array of options for students which transfer seamlessly across all colleges. And over the years there have been efforts to achieve that at CUNY.  

    In 2013, the University implemented the Pathways initiative which established the seamless transfer of general education courses across its undergraduate colleges.  There are also many individual articulation agreements between colleges. But such agreements, between a singular CUNY community college’s program and a corresponding bachelor’s level program at another college, could only go so far in addressing a systemic problem and sometimes result in credits transferring as blanket elective, which does not help a student make progress in their major. Truly universal transferability would require faculty buy-in and better digital tools. 

    And so, one of the first things I knew I needed to do was engage our University Faculty Senate, both out of respect for their role in our decision-making process as part of shared governance and to leverage their expertise. This would come to be one of the most important steps in making this effort successful. 

    As we engaged faculty in discussions about transfer, we shifted the focus from simply identifying equivalent courses to defining the essential competencies students must master in the first half of their major. Faculty across institutions readily reached consensus on the core knowledge and skills students needed to succeed in the second half of their program.

    This competency-based approach then led to productive conversations about how specific courses developed these critical skills. Initially, the goal was to group courses into equivalent “blocks,” ensuring students could transfer seamlessly. In some cases, this process led faculty to align their individual courses more closely; others maintained course groupings but ensured consistency across institutions. Both approaches resulted in universal transfer pathways, guaranteeing students full credit toward their major at any receiving college. 

    At the same time, faculty helped us navigate practical roadblocks. For instance, we recognized that a universal approach could not always apply to programs leading to licensing exams— such as the CPA exam— where external accrediting bodies impose strict curricular requirements. While this nuance was clear to accounting faculty, it underscored for others the importance of discipline-specific constraints in shaping transfer policy. 

    Ultimately, this collaborative process ensured that transfer credit advances students’ progress toward degree completion rather than being lost as elective credit. Through collaboration, more than 300 courses, or blocks of courses, are now universally equivalent to each other across all colleges. 

    Starting in fall 2025, for over 75% of students transferring anywhere within the system, they will carry over most credits in their major. The University tackled the six most common transfer majors first – accounting, computer science, biology, math, psychology and sociology – ensuring credits transfer retroactively. We will work to align 100% of majors next. 

    The new system creates consistency on what students across CUNY campuses need to learn in the first half of their major and is expected to save students an average of $1,220 in wasted credits. 

    The CUNY Transfer Initiative extends beyond curricular alignment; it also involves evaluating the tools, policies, and practices that affect transfer student success. By reviewing policies, we identified gaps where new policies were needed and determined where existing policies required adjustments to better achieve their intended outcomes. We enhanced the CUNY Transfer Explorer (T-Rex), a tool that shows students how their credits transfer across the system, by adding leaderboards with key transfer metrics for each college and a feature that estimates how much of a degree would be completed at any CUNY school. 

    On January 21, the University automated a critical process in its student information system, known as CUNYfirst, ensuring admitted transfer students can immediately see how their credits apply at their new college. Previously, this was a manual, campus-specific process that required student advocacy and often caused delays. On its first day, the automation benefited 18,850 students, reducing stress and supporting informed academic decisions. 

    Fixing the transfer crisis will take continued effort. 

    To make sure that this system does not break again, we will be working with faculty to  adjust how we develop the curriculum for new courses. This means we will now proactively consider how a potential new course will transfer across the CUNY system before it even exists. As the initiative grows, we will have 100% of credits in the first half of a major count towards a degree when students transfer from one of CUNY’s associate programs to the same major in a CUNY bachelor’s degree program.

    The conversation is also continuing across the country. In 2023, the United States Department of Education hosted a summit of 200 higher education leaders on improving the transfer process. Then-U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. Miguel Cardona acknowledged that the current state of the college transfer system is broken, saying that it, “stacks the deck against community college students who aspire to earn four-year degrees.” 

    As part of my research when starting this effort, I reached out to my colleagues from colleges across the country to see what I could learn about what may work in improving outcomes for our transfer students. The collective response? “If you find a solution, please let us know.” 

    Everyone sees that the current state of our higher education system does a great disservice to students who transfer, presenting logistical and financial challenges that derail students who are otherwise dedicated to enhancing their education. While there is still work to be done, I am proud to say that we’ve truly begun to dismantle those barriers in an effort that I hope other public institutions of higher education will take inspiration from. 

    Dr. Alicia M. Alvero is the interim executive vice chancellor and university provost at The City University of New York. A professor of organizational behavior management for nearly two decades at CUNY’s Queens College, she also served as the college’s associate provost for academic and faculty affairs.   

    Source link

  • Improving Transfer Based on Success Stories

    Improving Transfer Based on Success Stories

    A new transfer playbook, released by the Aspen Institute and the Community College Research Center, offers strategies for improving outcomes for transfer students by examining higher ed institutions with the best records.

    The playbook notes that, for a decade, fewer than a fifth of community college students have successfully transferred and earned bachelor’s degrees, though many aspire to reach that goal. But the playbook stresses that better outcomes are possible. At colleges with the best overall transfer outcomes—those in the top 10 percent for all institutions—at least 52 percent of students transfer and at least 61 percent of transfer students earn bachelor’s degrees, far exceeding national averages. If all community colleges achieved these kinds of results, they could double the bachelor’s degree attainment rates for community college students from 16 percent to 32 percent, the playbook concludes.

    Based on interviews with college leaders, students and staff members at campuses with successful transfer pathways and partnerships, the playbook’s authors offer three core strategies for improving transfer, with examples of relevant practices and case studies.

    First, they recommend that executive leadership spearhead partnerships between community colleges and universities so improvements to transfer can be made at scale. They also suggest working toward more timely bachelor’s degree completion rates within majors by better aligning curriculum and instruction with transfer pathways. Lastly, they recommend tailoring advising and other supports for transfer students in ways that “foster trust and engagement.” For example, the playbook encourages community colleges to ensure transfer advising is offered to all students and occurs before, during and after the transfer process, with outreach to prospective students about transfer options as early as high school.

    “There is immense potential in the dreams and ambitions of bachelor’s-intending community college students—and the many who may have counted themselves out but have the ability to complete a bachelor’s and expand their career horizons,” the foreword to the playbook reads.  

    Source link

  • Ithaka’s New Transfer Explorer Maps Transfer Courses to Degree Requirements

    Ithaka’s New Transfer Explorer Maps Transfer Courses to Degree Requirements

    Over two-thirds of adult Americans who have attempted to transfer academic credit report having at least one negative experience, according to a recently released survey from Public Agenda. Student mobility is increasing, as is student access to college-level learning from multiple sources. But as evidenced by the Public Agenda survey and slow progress toward improving outcomes for transfer students, higher education institutions are still struggling to improve the transfer experience.

    Part of this continued struggle is the siloed and opaque nature of information about how prior learning will be accepted and applied toward a credential upon transfer to a new institution. With 1.2 million students transferring between institutions in 2024—a 4.4 percent increase from 2023—it is more critical than ever to overcome the barriers students face moving academic credit to and between institutions to earn a degree.

    To help address these complex and longstanding challenges, our teams at not-for-profit Ithaka have launched a new, public, national credit mobility website, Transfer Explorer. Currently in its beta release, Transfer Explorer will expand in 2025 to contain data from a growing number of institutions across four states, thanks to collaborations with the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system, the City University of New York, the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, and the Washington Student Achievement Council.

    To break down transfer data silos, Transfer Explorer member schools establish an automated data feed of evaluated course equivalencies, course catalog information and program requirements directly from their institutions’ student information and degree audit systems. This enables Transfer Explorer to create exploration tools with the most accurate and up-to-date information and allows institutions to easily maintain accurate information on the website simply by maintaining data within their existing systems. Data integration from member college source systems is powered by CampusAPI Requisite and Equivalency services from the nonprofit DXtera Institute.

    Students can use Transfer Explorer beta to:

    • Create a personal wallet of courses they have taken or plan to take at one or more schools
    • Explore how courses in that wallet transfer and apply to degree requirements at Transfer Explorer member schools
    • Create multiple explorations and research different schools and degrees
    • Save and share explorations by creating a personal, unique, and editable hyperlink
    • Discover information about Transfer Explorer member schools

    Three schools in South Carolina are the first to be featured as destination schools on Transfer Explorer: Aiken Technical College, Coastal Carolina University and Lander University. These represent three different source systems (Colleague, Banner and DegreeWorks), but their data are normalized for a consistent exploration experience in Transfer Explorer.

    Lander University was the first institution to launch Transfer Explorer in February 2025.

    “At Lander University, we have made major changes over the past five years to make our institution more transfer friendly: We have streamlined our general education curriculum, modified the maximum number of credit hours we will accept and added staff to enhance the transfer student onboarding experience,” said Lloyd Willis, dean of the College of Graduate and Online Studies.

    “We view Transfer Explorer as the next step of this evolution. We love the tool’s user interface, the level of data it contains and the functionalities it contains that empower students to engage in course articulation and transfer conversations with their academic advisers.”

    Community and technical colleges play a critical role in student mobility both as preparers of students for transfer and careers, as well as receivers of transfer students from all sectors of higher education. Aiken Technical College is planning to use Transfer Explorer in its recruitment and admission activities for new students, as well as to support students planning to transfer to a university.

    “Aiken Technical College is excited to be a part of the Transfer Explorer project. The website is very user-friendly for students and advisors and will go a long way in avoiding lost college credits for students upon transfer,” said Chad Crumbaker, vice president of academic affairs and workforce innovation at Aiken Technical College.

    Crumbaker is also eager to see how Transfer Explorer can help Aiken improve transfer processes and rules: “It also will help us identify additional opportunities to analyze course equivalencies to ensure that students get credit towards their programs for the courses they have already taken and to confirm that our transfer agreements are in practice in our transfer process.”

    Transfer Explorer will continue to expand and grow in 2025 and beyond. Upcoming additions to the site include enabling users to add credit for prior learning experiences (e.g., exams, military training) to their explorations, improving the interoperability of school data by allowing comparisons across destinations and enhancing the user experience in collaboration with member schools and systems.

    Transfer Explorer is inspired by and builds upon the groundbreaking CUNY Transfer Explorer (T-Rex) created by the City University of New York and Ithaka S+R in 2020, which has helped hundreds of thousands of people explore, discover and use the over 1.6 million credit transfer rules for the CUNY system’s 20 undergraduate colleges.

    Transfer Explorer and the broader Articulation of Credit Transfer Project have been generously funded by Ascendium Education Group, the Gates Foundation, the Carroll and Milton Petrie Foundation, ECMC Foundation, the Heckscher Foundation for Children, and the Ichigo Foundation.

    Chris Buonocore is product manager for Transfer Explorer at Ithaka and founding member of the CUNY Transfer Explorer platform.

    Alex Humphreys is vice president for innovation at Ithaka, where he leads a team that scouts and develops the future of research and education through projects, partnerships and investments.

    Martin Kurzweil is vice president for educational transformation at Ithaka S+R and principal investigator of the ACT project.

    Emily Tichenor is a senior program manager at Ithaka S+R leading initiatives and research focused on credit mobility, including Transfer Explorer.

    Source link

  • The holy grail of credit transfer?

    The holy grail of credit transfer?

    • Helena Vine, Lead Policy Officer for England at the Quality Assurance Agency, considers what we might learn from American researchers Lauren Schudde and Huriya Jabbar’s recent study of ‘Discredited: Power, Privilege and Community College Transfer’.

    When it comes to the more intractable issues in higher education policy, we’re often tempted to look wistfully overseas to supposedly sunlit uplands where the knotty issue has, at least on the surface, been resolved.

    This has never been truer than in the case of credit transfer – the process by which a provider recognises the credit a student has successfully accrued at another institution, exempting them from modules or even whole years of learning that they have already undertaken elsewhere. If I had a pound for every person who’s suggested I look at how the USA does it, I might be able to fund a neat solution here in the UK.

    I understand the appeal – the community college system and the transferable nature of credit are much more embedded within the United States than in the UK, even if each state takes a slightly different approach. It’s tempting to see such a system as the ‘holy grail’ of credit transfer models, where students can accumulate and transfer credit between institutions – and where the path of attending a community college before moving onto an institution offering four-year degrees is well-trodden.

    Finding a way forward feels particularly pertinent right now. The potential for a coherent and consistent sector-wide approach to credit transfer has been highlighted by growing government aspirations across all four nations of the UK to promote lifelong learning, widening participation and regional economic development. This is why we at QAA published guidance on credit recognition and research into credit transfer practices across the UK last year and why we’re currently working with colleagues across the sector to produce an in-depth study of those practices.

    We’ve naturally looked to the US ‘holy grail’ model to inform our thinking about how credit transfer might work under the Lifelong Learning Entitlement in England – and more broadly across the rest of the UK. But rather than discovering an abundance of convenient solutions that we could apply here in the UK, we were struck by the number of challenges and barriers that our systems share. It turns out that the US perhaps doesn’t have it entirely figured out after all.

    Credit transfer systems appear difficult for students to navigate in both the UK and the US. Research in the US exposed conflicting sources of information, guidance documentation that is difficult for students to digest, and protocols which place the onus firmly on students to show they have the requisite learning.

    These findings may feel all too familiar to those who’ve been engaged in credit transfer processes in the UK, which our own research found could also prove extraordinarily opaque.

    In their study of the credit transfer practice across Texas – Discredited: Power, Privilege and Community College Transfer (Harvard, 2024)– Lauren Schudde and Huriya Jabbar refer to this issue as the ‘hidden curriculum of transfer’. They argue that the series of hoops students must jump through almost feel designed to make them ‘demonstrate that they are worthy’. The students most ably navigating the system could do so because they took no information at face value and instead triangulated it across various sources to identify what was accurate. Such an approach indicates a significant amount of effort is therefore required to do something supposedly so essential to the smooth operation of a tertiary education system.

    Despite there being much clearer routes between community colleges and four-year degree providers in the United States than those we have between further education colleges and universities in the UK, Schudde and Jabbar’s research identifies an underlying assumption in some institutions that community colleges are of lower quality and their students are not necessarily academically prepared for transfer to higher levels of study.

    Academic faculty and administrators at those four-year institutions sought instead to preserve their institutions’ prestige and reputation for selectivity. In doing so, they fostered unwelcoming and unreceptive transfer processes and cultures, inevitably contributing to poorer outcomes for the students involved. Indeed, Discredited cites one administrator at a selective institution who questioned whether the students who failed to navigate its own complex system were the right candidates for such a prestigious place of study.

    And in the traditionally hierarchical education system we have known in the UK – and particularly in England – it’s not impossible to imagine that there have been similar pockets of resistance that have impeded credit transfer and student mobility here too.

    Delving further into the body of research on credit transfer in the US, we find that attempts to streamline and standardise these processes have often encountered concerns around the impact on institutional autonomy. While state-wide, policy-level initiatives are much more common in the US than in the UK, measures as simple as the introduction of a common system for course numbering have been met with resistance. Similar concerns abound across the UK, where efforts to acknowledge some consistency across provision raise fears of a slippery slope towards external interference in admission policies.

    Ultimately, Schudde and Jabbar argue that efforts to improve support for students (and for community colleges) in navigating these transfer processes are insufficient within a system not designed to ease their paths and where the players with the most power are sometimes the ones most resistant to a reformed system.

    Their argument rings true in the UK. On an individual level, providers are open and willing to engage with students with prior learning and support them in finding a route into the institution that recognises their potential and sets them up for success. Many are also willing to acknowledge that their practice in this area could be enhanced. But if the conversation continues to happen solely at an individual level, we risk a system which remains disjointed, opaque and disheartening to engage with. In doing so, we will fall far short of our ambitions for lifelong learning, a skills revolution and a more flexible imagination of higher education.

    Sector reference points, such as the UK Quality Code and the Credit Framework for England coordinated by QAA, have a strong track record of facilitating appropriate consistency across a diverse sector. They recognise the common ground the sector shares while enabling providers to adapt it to their own context. The same approach could be taken with further guidance around credit transfer. Every provider’s credit transfer policy may include slightly different requirements and limits, but a sector-led agreement coordinated by QAA on what information goes in those policies and how they’re communicated to applicants would go a long way towards easing the burden on learners and providers, who know they need to do more in this space but aren’t sure where to start.

    Learning that the US is far from perfect in this area could easily disincentivise action. Instead, I think it demonstrates that it’s not simply a waiting game for slow cultural and system change to emerge. Instead, it shows that, without proactively tackling the entrenched barriers in the system, the challenges continue to linger no matter how smooth and shiny it looks on the surface.

    Source link

  • Illinois guarantees transfer for all state high school grads

    Illinois guarantees transfer for all state high school grads

    Students who graduated from an Illinois high school, no matter where they’re currently enrolled, will soon be guaranteed transfer admission to any University of Illinois system institution—including the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which has a regular acceptance rate below 50 percent. 

    Illinois’s new policy, set to take effect this fall, builds on its previous transfer guarantee, which applied only to current Illinois community college students. Typical state transfer guarantee programs apply only to those currently enrolled in another state institution; Illinois’s more expansive approach may help bring back former residents who left the state for college.

    To be eligible, students must have graduated from an Illinois high school, earned at least 36 transferable credit hours toward their transfer institution and maintained a minimum 3.0 GPA in all transferable courses. Students will still have to apply, but if they meet the requirements, they’ll be automatically accepted. Admission to specific programs and majors, however, is not guaranteed. 

    Source link

  • Building a Better Transfer Experience for Modern Learners 

    Building a Better Transfer Experience for Modern Learners 

    In 2022, 36.8 million students under the age of 65 fell into the category of Some College, No Credential (SCNC)–a population that grew by nearly 3% year-over-year by 2024. These learners, who started but did not complete a credential, represent a growing population with significant potential for re-enrollment. Understanding their needs is essential to support their return to higher education.  

    For SCNC students, one key factor can significantly influence their decision to re-enroll—transfer credit policies. The Education Reengagement Report, conducted in collaboration with DegreeSight, provides a comprehensive overview of this subset of modern learners, uncovering key strategies to re-engage these students by addressing their unique needs, particularly surrounding maximization of previously earned credits and awareness of credit transfer policies. Explore the report’s findings to gain deeper insights into how institutions can effectively engage and support SCNC students on their path to completion.  

    Who are Some College, No Credential (SCNC) Modern Learners? 

     SCNC students represent a noteworthy portion of the Modern Learner population, and their unique profile merits deep consideration when developing approaches to re-engagement. For more insights into the challenges faced by stopped-out students and strategies to support their return, read our previous article on addressing their barriers. In the context of the Education Reengagment Report, SCNC students are defined as those seeking reenrollment or who have already reenrolled elsewhere.  Their experiences and motivations reflect diverse life experiences, making them a unique yet significant audience for higher education institutions.  

    SCNC students comprise of diverse demographic and professional profiles. Most are aged between 25-29 (66%), and a significant portion (33%) identify as first-generation college students. Their employment status also varies, with 59% working full-time, 20% employed part-time, and 16% not currently employed. Many SCNC students were previously enrolled in associate degree programs (43%), while others sought bachelor’s degrees (57%), reflecting a broad range of academic aspirations.  

    SCNC students pursue a wide range of academic interests, with certain fields emerging as particularly popular. The areas of study with the highest levels of enrollment for SCNC students include Business (24%), IT, Computers, and Technology (20%), and Health-related fields (13%). Additionally, learning format preferences reveal a demand for flexibility, with 47% favoring on-campus programs, 29% opting for hybrid options, and 20% preferring fully online programs. These findings emphasize the need for flexible program offerings to meet SCNC students’ varying needs and schedules. 

    Career advancement is a primary motivation for SCNC students when initially enrolling. Sixty percent enrolled in an undergraduate program to improve their earning potential or launch a new career, while 40% sought careers better aligned with their interests. Additionally, 30% pursued a degree as a next step following high school or technical school.  

    However, financial challenges, competing responsibilities, and various program limitations are common reasons for stopping out. Survey results show that the main barrier to continuing education for SCNC students is cost, with 32% citing it as their primary reason for stopping out. Other reasons include Covid-19 related reasoning (20%), lack of flexibility in the program (19%), and inability to use federal financial aid (15%).  Understanding these critical factors is essential for institutions looking to reengage this population. By addressing the root causes of their stop-outs, institutions can better connect with SCNC students and deliver personalized solutions to them. 

    The report surveyed both SCNC and transfer students. While these groups differ in some ways, they share similarities in their focus on career outcomes and expectations for the enrollment process.  

    The key difference to keep in mind include: 

    • Age: SCNC students tend to be older, with a median age of 37 compared to 31 for Transfer students  
    • Motivation: Transfer students top motivation stems from their career aspirations, while SCNC students place greater emphasis on program affordability 
    • Level of study: Transfer students are more likely to pursue bachelor’s degrees, while SCNC students often have a mix of associate and bachelor’s degree goals 

    Despite these differences, both groups share a unifying goal to leverage their existing credits to further their higher education career and achieve their personal and professional goals, making them a significant opportunity for higher education institutions.  

    Why are Transfer Credit Policies So Important for SCNC Modern Learners?

    Many SCNC students have already earned a decent number of college credits, with 32% having completed 16 to 30 credits, indicating that they have completed at least one semester of coursework. This progress underscores the importance of transfer credit policies easing their return to higher education. With the many notable reasons for stopping out, the barrier to re-entry only rises without clear credit transfer or support systems in place. For these students, the financial burden of repeating coursework and the desire for swift completion of their degrees are top priorities.  

    Survey data highlights the overwhelming importance students place on credit transfer policies. Ninety-three percent of SCNC students say that the number of transferrable credits impacts their enrollment decision, with 55% indicating it as a primary factor. Additionally, 36% of students rank credit acceptance as a key consideration in their reenrollment decision, second only to tuition cost (44%) and closely followed by the availability of online programs (35%).  

    Clear and favorable transfer credit policies not only can alleviate the financial pressures of reenrollment but can also expedite the path to graduation. However, navigating these policies is not a simple process for many students. Thirty-five percent of students report that understanding transfer credit policies is the most difficult part of the enrollment process, followed by getting previous credits transferred (34%) and completing financial aid forms (34%). Institutions should view this as a call to action to refine their policies and streamline processes, addressing these critical pain points to better meet student needs and enhance both enrollment and retention outcomes. 

    How Can Institutions Better Support SCNC Modern Learners with Transfer Credits?

    Supporting SCNC students requires institutions to prioritize transparency, personalized support, and flexibility—particularly where transfer credits are concerned.  Many SCNC students face unnecessarily complicated processes during their reenrollment processes, making it imperative for institutions to make their policies accessible.  

    To better meet this demographics’ varied needs, institutions can implement the following strategies to support SCNC students: 

    • Promote Transparent Transfer Policies: 

    Institutions should make transfer credit policies easy to understand and accessible across websites, marketing materials, and additional platforms. Clearly communicating how previous credits apply to degree requirements empowers students to make informed decisions.  Online tools like credit transfer calculators, chatbots for common inquiries, and infographics can further empower students to understand their credit situation and feel confident making enrollment decisions.  

    • Highlight Cost Savings and Financial Support: 

    To address cost barriers, institutions should clearly communicate how credit transfers reduce tuition expenses and emphasize available financial aid options. Offering flexible payment plans helps students manage their finances more readily, allowing them to focus on their education without financial stress. 

    • Provide Comprehensive Support Services: 

    Having a dedicated credit transfer advisor can make a pivotal difference in the SCNC enrollment experience. These advisors can help guide students in navigating complex processes, equipping them with vital information on financial aid options, available transferrable credits, and program pathways.  Support can be offered through online channels, advising, and assistance with application and registration processes. Partnering with EducationDynamics’ Enrollment Management Team can help institutions scale this support effectively. 

    • Expand Flexible Learning Options: 

    Expanding online and hybrid program offerings is crucial to supporting the growing SCNC population. These flexible formats can better serve SCNC lifestyles, as these students often juggle work and family responsibilities in addition to their course load. Flexible online and hybrid-based programs are imperative to be promoted to this population, as many have changed their learning modality from classroom-based to online or hybrid. By assessing current offerings and identifying areas of expansion, institutions can better support the needs of Modern Learners.  

    Unlock Opportunities for SCNC Student Success

    SCNC students have spoken—there is a clear need for institutions to adapt their policies and support services to meet their unique needs. By prioritizing clear transfer credit policies, personalized support, and flexible learning options, universities can attract this demographic while helping them achieve their academic goals. As institutions continue to navigate evolving enrollment challenges, adapting to the needs of SCNC students will be instrumental in building success and shaping the future of higher education.  

    Ready to reengage SCNC students? Explore how EDDY’s market research services help your institution effectively reach SCNC students and create successful pathways from re-enrollment to graduation.  

    Source link