SANTA MONICA, CALIF. — No community college in the state of California successfully transfers more students into the elite University of California system than Santa Monica College, and it doesn’t take much time on this sun-splashed campus to see why.
Even before students arrive here, they are surrounded with messages designed to encourage their move to a four-year school after they finish a two-year degree. The school’s ubiquitous ads on Santa Monica city buses announce that it is “No 1 in transfers.” Its expansive counseling department nudges students to map out an academic plan for transfer almost as soon as they step on campus. The school’s administration has pressed professors and academic department leaders to bang the gong about pursuing a four-year degree. “If you walk into the athletic department,” says Daniel Nannini, the coordinator of the school’s Transfer Center, “they can talk to you about transfer.”
Few states have devoted as much energy as California to improving the transfer process between two- and four-year schools. But it may be an underappreciated opportunity to broaden opportunity in a higher-education system that many critics fear is evolving into a stratified two-tier structure that does more to harden than dissolve class divides.
Some experts believe that one way to both restrain costs and expand diversity across the higher-education system is to build a sturdier bridge between two-year schools, which enroll disproportionate numbers of low-income, minority, and first-generation students, and the elite four-year universities, where students from mostly white, mostly affluent families still fill most seats. As a Century Foundation task force on community colleges concluded last year, “Among the most promising strategies of reducing stratification [in higher education] is to find ways to connect what are now separate two- and four-year institutional silos.”
California is about to provide perhaps the nation’s largest test of that proposition. The nine-campus, roughly 230,000-student University of California system already ranks among the national leaders for selective institutions in accepting community college transfers. In mid-May, the University Regents received a report from a task force that concluded the system could do much more to “streamline and strengthen” the transfer process. “They are a national leader on transfers,” said Richard Kahlenberg, who directed the Century Foundation community college study. “And now they are trying to go deeper.”
The University of California task force, which was appointed last December by Janet Napolitano, the system’s new president, pointed to many positive trends in the system’s handling of transfer students. Overall, the report noted, 29 percent of the system’s entering students in 2012-13 arrived as community-college transfers. That was slightly below the system’s goal of one-third but remains “unique nationally” and much higher than the numbers at many schools that are comparably rigorous in their admissions.
Just over half of the admitted transfer students, the study found, were first-generation students, slightly above the proportion in the freshman class. Perhaps most impressively, the study found that 86 percent of transfers graduated within four years after arriving, almost exactly equal to the 84 percent of freshman students who finish after six years.
But other measures were more troubling. The analysis found that one-fourth of all community-college transfers into the UC system came from just seven campuses, with Santa Monica College leading the list (with 783 transfers). Half of the transfers came from just 19 of the state’s 112 community colleges — many of them located in affluent areas like Cupertino, Pasadena, Santa Barbara, and San Diego.
That concentration helped explain the incongruous finding that the transfer pipeline actually diminished the UC system’s racial diversity. Although African-Americans and Hispanic students make up nearly 46 percent of the state’s huge community-college student body, they represented only about 25 percent of those who transferred into UC. That was actually less than their share of the entering freshmen class for the UC system.
To encourage more demographic and geographic diversity, the report recommended that UC build partnerships with the community colleges that send few students into the transfer pipeline; increase its visibility on every two-year campus; broaden its own direct outreach to community-college students; expand the transition services it provides to transfer students; and, perhaps most important, establish more consistency in the course requirements that each UC campus sets for admission.
Santa Monica College’s success at guiding students toward four-year institutions captures the opportunity that might be available if more community colleges, in California and elsewhere, stressed a culture of transfer. SMC’s former president, Richard Moore, established transfer as a priority in the 1980s, and the school has now developed a thick array of services to encourage it among its 30,000 credit-taking students.
The school’s class schedule gives students many chances to obtain the courses that four-year institutions require. With 45 full-time and 70 part-time counselors, it provides extensive guidance on the transfer process, scheduling not only general workshops and regular visits from “admission evaluators” at nearby four-year colleges, but also sessions on the specific requirements of each system. Near the application deadline in the fall, it staffs “panic rooms” for students completing their applications. “We sit with them, we hold their hands, we read their essay,” said Brenda Benson, the college’s dean of counseling and retention.
Yet, Nannini argues, no matter how many services either community colleges or receiving schools provide, the complicated lives of many community-college students, who are often balancing complex work and family demands, make it difficult to establish a reliable assembly line of transfer-ready applicants. An orientation session on campus this week for students who were transferring in the fall to Loyola Marymount University, a local private school, showed that almost all of them took circuitous routes that required overcoming dead ends and wrong turns before completing their two year degree, usually after many years of perseverance.
Adonis Burrell, for instance, started at Santa Monica College in 2006, but struggled with his classes and dropped out. After several years in the work force, though, he returned (“I realized I needed to get more education” to get ahead, he says) and after navigating work and school for three years, he is finishing a degree in communications in June. Sarah Yoseph entered Santa Monica College directly from high school in 2010 and is finishing her degree now after changing her major three times and balancing multiple part-time jobs.
Several of those at the Loyola session, which may be a self-selected group, said they found the UC transfer requirements unduly daunting. Burrell, for instance, said if he tried to take all of the varying courses that UC Berkeley and UCLA required to even consider him for admission, “I thought, there is no way I am going to get out of here [at Santa Monica College] on time.”
Some of that difficulty is the inevitable result of a highly selective university system trying to maintain standards while reaching deeply into a community-college population whose academic skill varies widely; in one sense, the high graduation rate for the system’s transfer population demonstrates that UC has set the bar at the right level in terms of the preparation it is demanding.
But Michele Siqueiros, executive director of the Campaign for College Opportunity, a group that advocates for expanding access to college in California, says UC has added unnecessary barriers by allowing its campuses to maintain divergent requirements for transfer.
While Siqueiros praises the task force report as a “positive step” for expanding access, she says it should have gone further in requiring the UC campuses to unify behind common course requirements for transfer — as the less selective California State system has done under a 2010 state law. “Because there are so many pathways and so many choices [at UC],” she says, “students are having a hard time figuring out how to get there.”¦ The UC system should be able to align their requirements for the different majors within the system, and that would allow students to prepare.”
Steve Montiel, the director of media relations for Napolitano, says control of the major requirements rests not with the system’s administration, but its faculty, which must balance “the desire to simplify and streamline” against steps to ensure that transfer students are equipped to succeed once they arrive. “The incoming transfer students need to be prepared to hit the ground running and complete their degrees successfully and on time,” he said in an email. “This is not a cookie-cutter process.”¦ Our goal is not simply to get the students into UC campuses, but to get them out as well.
Back at Santa Monica College, Benson sees the central challenge somewhat differently. If California views community-college transfers as a way of ensuring economic and racial diversity in its four-year systems, she says, it will need to provide the two-year schools more resources to equip their students — many of whom arrive with uncertain academic preparation.
Kahlenberg agrees. “While this UC report is a big step forward,” he says, “what’s missing is a comprehensive plan to improve community colleges to make this ambitious transfer program work.”