hannahbrukardt.weebly.comhannahbrukardt.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/8/0/38803351/... · web viewideally,...

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: 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


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


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


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


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).


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 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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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,


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


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


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,


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


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).


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


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


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).


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


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


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 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


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


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


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


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 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


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.


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 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


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


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.


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.


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


[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/


[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

hannahbrukardt.weebly.comhannahbrukardt.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/8/0/38803351/... · web viewideally,...

Documents