Factors affecting transfer decisions

Monroe, Anne M

The study attempted to understand the factors affecting the transfer behavior of community college students. A survey was mailed to students from 10 of the 28 community colleges in Michigan with a total sample size of 481 respondents.The findings include: (aj among those with the intention to transfer, academic program was the most important factor influencing the decision; (b) of those not intending to transfer, 35% would transfer based on the location of the institution; (c) among undecided students, location of the institution was the most important factor affecting transfer. Qualitative responses to two questions were grouped into themes according to areas that community colleges and universities could improve. Suggested areas of future research include college choice models for community college transfer students, examining state policies that influence transfer, and methods to improve communication between universities and community colleges.

Introduction

As long as admissions officers have been responsible for the recruitment of students, they have been looking for insights into marketing techniques that will help them identify strategies to enhance student recruitment. Increased competition for students, coupled with public demand for access and scrutiny of institutional costs reveals the need for better information on the variables affecting the college choice of students. While many studies have examined college choice among high school students (Chapman 1981; Hossler, Schmidt & Vesper, 1999; Martin & Dixon, 1991), few have looked at an often-ignored population of potential recruits - community college transfer students.

Numerous factors have been identified in literature addressing college choice including the advice of others (peers, friends, counselors and alumni) with the primary influence coming from parents. Institutional factors such as size, financial aid availability, academic reputation, academic program offerings and location also influence college choice (Chapman, 1981; Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; Hossler, Schmidt & Vesper, 1999). However, these models have primarily been tested on the traditional high school students' decisions regarding college choice, a much different population from community college students. A clearer understanding of the factors that impact transfer students' choices in selecting a four-year institution can help ensure that the appropriate information reaches the transfer audience, create more effective and efficient recruiting techniques, manage institutional enrollments and potentially increase baccalaureate attainment of transfer students.

The community college population

Assessing the relative influence of specific factors on a community college student's decision to transfer to a four-year institution requires some basic knowledge of community college students. Public community colleges enroll 52% of all undergraduates in the United States, making community college students the largest single group of higher education students. The popularity of community colleges stems in part from their philosophy of open access and admission. Students attending community colleges are diverse in terms of ethnic background, age and work patterns. Community colleges serve traditionally underserved populations, who, without two-year institutions, might not have attended college at all. The mix of students varies from state to state and from community to community, but on average, minority students make up 30% of all community college students (Phillipe & Patton, 1999).

In addition to ethnic and racial minorities, community colleges also serve a higher percentage of students with disabilities than any other sector of higher education (Phillipe & Patton, 1999). Nearly two-thirds of community college students attend part time, compared with just 22% of their counterparts at four-year colleges, while often balancing job and family responsibilities. In the academic year of 1995-96, 50% of community college students had full time jobs, and approximately 30% of full-- time students worked full-time as well (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999h). Community college Students are older than their four-- year counterparts, with 32% being over age 30 and 46% over age 25 (Phillipe & Patton, 1999). These marked differences illustrate the need for better information regarding factors affecting the four-year college choices of this population of students.

The transfer mission

Community colleges play a large role in the post-secondary educational process as transfer agents. Community colleges offer a general education curricula designed to equip students with the skills necessary for successful transfer to bachelor degree granting institutions. Much of the literature on community colleges focuses on the trend of declining student transfer rates and the need to reverse it. Recent statistics show that only about 15 to 20 percent of all students entering the community college are transferring to colleges for four-year degrees, down from 43 percent in the mid 1970's (Nora & Rendon, 1998; Tinto, 1998). The link is being lost somewhere. Community colleges have a comprehensive mission that is becoming more difficult to clearly define (Berquist, 1998; Cross, 1985, 1990). Functions such as vocational training, remedial programs and community education compete with the transfer mission once central to community colleges. Criticism regarding students transferring from community colleges to senior institutions has largely been aimed at community colleges (Adelman, 1988; Cross, 1990; Dougherty, 1992; Piland, 1995), assigning the responsibility of transferring on the community college rather than looking at how community colleges and four-year institutions can work together to increase transfer.

While many studies have looked at the impact of student-related characteristics (age, race, socioeconomic status) and still others have examined the institutional factors (size, cost, programs of study) related to transfer, few have examined the factors related to the actual decision to transfer. The fact that a relationship exists between certain factors (race, socioeconomic status, parental influence) and transferring has been demonstrated (Frederickson, 1998; Harbin, 1997). However, the specific conditions surrounding these factors that positively and negatively affect students' decisions to transfer, or how community colleges and universities may be able to affect the decision-making process, is not clearly identified.

What role does the community college play in baccalaureate attainment? Why do some students choose to transfer to get a baccalaureate degree rather than enter the work force? When is the right time to recruit transfer students, and what type of information about the four-year institution is most important to them? Is there a particular type of institution that transfer students gravitate toward or particular programs of study they are more inclined to enter? This investigation will attempt to provide insight into the answers to these questions by examining Michigan community college students.

If community college and university admission officers are indeed to focus upon increasing transfer rates, one of the major challenges ahead is to ferret out the variables affecting students' decisions to transfer and to cooperatively address their needs to facilitate the transfer process. University and community colleges have worked together to create pathways that they hope facilitate transfer. To assist students who want to transfer, many states, including Michigan, offer articulation agreements between its public community colleges and universities. In fact, articulation agreements are used by admissions staff as a major recruitment incentive, and educators generally agree that they can be important in increasing transfer (Hendley, 1997). Many community colleges have transfer counselors and advising offices, yet they must rely on information given to them by four-year institutions in the advising process. In addition, universities often use the same techniques that have worked for recruiting high school students to recruit community college students and are left wondering why they cannot recruit more transfer students to their institutions.

Hypotheses

This investigation measures the extent to which selected factors affect Michigan community college students' decision to transfer to a bachelor degree granting institution. The factors hypothesized to be the most significant are academic program offerings of the four-year institution, location of the institution, ease of degree completion (transferability of credits, length of time to degree), financial aid assistance, and student services (admissions recruiters, transfer guide sheets, and other university contacts). The primary hypothesis in this investigation is that academic program offerings and institutional location are the two most important factors affecting transfer student decisions. A secondary hypothesis is that the decision of students who were not intending to transfer could be changed if some conditions were altered. The final intent of the research was to identify techniques which could be adopted by both community colleges and four-year institutions that would assist transfer student recruitment.

For the purposes of the investigation, transfer student is defined as a student who earns at least 12 credit hours in one full time semester or two or more part time semesters at a community college, and continues his or her education at a public four-year institution in Michigan, consistent with the work of Cohen (1991).

Data collection

The researchers used a cross-sectional survey design (Wiersma, 1995) to measure which specific pre-selected factors impact, positively and/ or negatively, Michigan community college students' decision to transfer to a baccalaureate institution. The design measures the selected factors at a specific time: academic program offerings, ease of degree completion, location of campus, financial aid packages, and student service offerings; as well as other factors identified by respondents through the pilot questionnaire. Respondents also had space to write responses to two open-- ended questions.

Sample

Written requests for participation in the study were mailed either to the registrar or transfer counselor at each of the 28 community colleges. Ten community colleges responded affirmatively (Delta College, Gogebic Community College, Henry Ford Community College, Kirtland Community College, Lake Michigan College, Lansing Community College, Mid Michigan Community College, Montcalm Community College, Mott Community College, Muskegon Community College and North Central Michigan College). The population included students who had accumulated at least 12 credit hours in the academic year September 1998 through August 1999 at one of these ten public community colleges in Michigan. The investigator requested that each participating community college select a representative sample of students at its institution in terms of gender, age, and ethnic background. Ten percent of the students at each participating community college were added to the sample, for a total sample population of 3250. Eight of the community colleges requested that questionnaires be sent directly to the community college for distribution to students via mail; two others (North Central Michigan College and Muskegon Community College) sent student address labels to the investigator. In total, 13.7%, or 481 questionnaires were returned. Only Lake Michigan College returned none of the questionnaires.

Instrumentation

After designing the questionnaire, researchers tested it on a pilot population of community college students from Delta College, Lansing Community College and North Central Michigan College due to ease of sample access and cooperation of participating community colleges. The strengths of the design are that it allows students to respond in categories as well as give answers that may not fit in a category. One weakness inherent in the design was that the community colleges themselves selected the participants and mailed out the questionnaires, creating a context in which the investigator had no control. (See the Appendix for the Transfer Student Questionnaire used in the investigation.)

Data analysis

Through measures of central tendency, the researchers tabulated the average scores for the group using frequency tables for categorical data and mean scores for numerical data. Inferential statistics allowed for the use of probability statements about the population of transfer students based on findings from the sample. The open-ended response questions were coded for key words that appeared in the responses then sorted into themes according to their prevalence of occurrence (Huberman & Miles, 1994).

Quantitative summary of survey results

Respondent demographics

The demographic profile of the survey respondents, looking at age, ethnicity and academic program of study, roughly mirrors that of the state of Michigan. Because of the study's sampling method and the demographic profile of students represented at the community colleges that elected to participate, one should be cautious in generalizing the results to all transfer students. Nevertheless, survey respondents' demographics are presented alongside Michigan community college student demographics (Burke, 2002) in Table 1.

Are the five hypothesized factors relevant?

Of the 481 respondents, 61% (294) indicated they intended to transfer, 24% (116) did not intend to transfer, 12% (60) were undecided about the decision and 2% (11) did not answer the question. Of students intending to transfer, the majority, 79%, indicated their intent was to transfer to a public four-year school in Michigan. Of those who were planning to transfer, 80% are between the ages of 17 and 30 years; conversely, 70% of those not planning to transfer are over 30 years old.

Those planning to transfer (N=294) responded to the question, "What has made an impact on your decision to transfer?" generating 978 total responses. Researchers measured response rates by looking at the number of responses in each category compared to the number of students responding since respondents could select more than one factor. The examination of factors affecting the students' decision to transfer indicated that academic program offerings (70% selected) was the most important factor. Other important factors were location (being close enough to commute, 49%), student services (44%), affordability with financial aid (38%), ease of degree completion (36%) and friends or family had attended the institution (37%) (See Figure 1).

When asked to select the most important factor affecting the decision to transfer, 29% of students transferring selected academic program, followed closely by the ability to commute to the institution, selected by 22%. The second finding was reinforced with the use of a chisquare comparing distance from the community college to four-year institutions and whether the student had applied there. Applications to institutions indicate there is reason to believe location does impact decision, where observed applications exceeded expected applications in the areas of closest (less than 50 miles away) and nearby institutions (within 100 miles),?2 (3) = 21.2, p = .000.

Can we change their minds?

Of those not intending to transfer (N = 116), 35% indicated that their decision could be altered if factors changed. The most common response for what needed to change was location of campus (27%), followed by financial aid assistance (24%). Being decided on an area of study and being able to complete the baccalaureate degree within two years were selected equally (12%); other reasons accounted for 17% of responses. None of the respondents selected positive college contacts. Undecided students (N = 60) most often selected location (35%), followed by financial aid (24%). Knowing where the academic program is offered (11%), being decided on an area of study and being able to complete the baccalaureate degree within two years were also selected equally by this group (9%). Positive college contacts was selected by 7% of the undecided respondents (See Figure 2).

Qualitative summary of open ended questions

Two open ended questions asked specifically what community colleges and universities could do to ease the transfer process for students: "In your opinion, what could your community college do (that they are not already doing) to assist students who want to transfer? In your opinion, what could four-year institutions do (that they are not already doing) to assist students who want to transfer?" In total, 161 responded to the first question and 143 responded to the second question. The themes and exemplars of each follow in this section.

Improvements at the community college level

Three themes emerged from the responses to the question, in your opinion, what could your community college do (that they are not already doing) to assist students who want to transfer?

Theme 1: Improving counseling and advising

Comments on counseling and advising accounted for 37% of the responses. Students mentioned the training of counselors, the personalities or attitudes of counselors and the knowledge base of counselors on the transfer process as areas for improvement.

* Academic advisors need to help students narrow down ideas. I saw advisors on two occasions and I ended up taking classes I didn't need. They don't seem to CARE (i.e. apathetic, confused). Some are out of touch with the times.

* They could give us more help. I have gone to see many counselors about transferring and I have got the run-around each time. They don't seem to have any clue of what's going on. I had to get answers from a professor.

* A good majority of the students do not have the slightest idea where to start and when to start. You should not have to ask a counselor for help, someone should automatically contact you and assist everyone.

* Train advisors better to know the courses that are most recent. Have them know the criteria.

* Be more concerned with the student's affairs. Anytime if I tried to get information on classes, the advisor acts like it's a problem rather than offering a helping hand.

* Make it easier to be able to even speak to someone.

Theme 2: Availability of transfer information

Transfer information responses included references to ease of attaining information in the form of publications, web based materials, catalogs, etc., that contained specific instructions regarding course transfer, course availability and the steps necessary to take in order to start and complete the transfer process.

* Make brochures and workshops on transferring more visible and available. Provide lists to students of what credits will transfer.

* As to what my community college could do to help those who want to transfer, they could have a clear list on what credits will transfer to any college in Michigan.

* Post more information about universities around the college regarding campus visits, programs they have and how to find housing.

* Have course catalogs available for all Michigan colleges and universities.

* Publicize a summation of advantages/disadvantages to particular four-year institutions.

Theme 3: Communication with universities

Many students recognize the importance of relationship building between universities and community colleges as a way not only to gather information on transfer, but also to keep academic advisors and students up to date about new transfer agreements, changes in course require. ments and admission procedures and deadlines.

* They (community colleges) could work more closely with the four-- year universities. It seems like they are afraid to do that because they think four-year schools don't like transfer students.

* I think that all the schools should work together, so that most classes will transfer. Getting credit when you transfer from a community college is hard. Why take a class if you don't get credit for it?

* Get in touch more with four-year colleges so we are not spending money on classes we will not use.

* Have counselors from major Michigan colleges come here to talk with interested students.

* Set up more transfer agreements with four-year colleges.

* I personally think both community colleges and four-year institutions should devote more of their time to developing a more clear and easy to understand system of class require. ments and transferability.

Improvements at the university level

Three predominant themes emerged from responses to the question in your opinion, what could four-year institutions do (that they are not already doing) to assist students who want to transfer?

Theme 1: Communication with students

Forty-five percent of responses noted how universities communicate with students either as recruiters or advisors. Participants expressed concern with how they hear information about the process of transferring, about academic programs and student services and about university life in general. Many students feared not directly receiving information from four-year schools and did not understand why universities do not seek them out.

* Visit the community college. I received information from Large, four,year colleges in high school, but not while I have been attending a community college.

* They should stop acting as if students who are transfers are a hassle.

* Be more friendly and understanding. Don't be grumpy about us asking questions.

* Find out which community college students are interested in their college programs and keep them abreast of any curriculum changes directly. Share specific dates with them re: orientation deadlines, etc. even if they have not applied yet. Some of us make last minute decisions due to complex personal variables.

* Just by regularly getting in contact with community colleges students interested in them. It makes you feel more at ease when someone from the four-year college is willing to talk with you about their school.

* My senior year of high school I received many colleges admission information. Now that I'm in my third year at community college, I receive nothing. It seems like they would contact a would-be transfer student.

* Make it a little easier to receive information about transferring. Most of the offices that could answer my questions close by 5:00 p.m. This does not fit into my schedule.

Theme 2: Acceptance of Cro-ditc

The acceptance of transfer credits raises an equally important issue for respondents.

* Make sure all credits transfer so students don't have to take the same classes over.

* Accept more classes the student has already taken. Classes that are good here aren't always good at universities, so you have to retake the same class over.

* Allow more classes to be transferable than currently available.

* Honor more general education and other credits from community colleges. For example, one school was willing to accept more credits from my community college than another for computer information systems. While I like the school, it is too far to commute. However, it frustrates me that the closest university would require someone to take a class over again. It makes me feel like they are more interested in my money than my education.

* I was generally misled in my course of studies. One school would accept 32 credit hours out of 80 whereas another accepted 52. Why is there such variation for universities? This is a question that needs addressing so more students will continue with education instead of being frustrated in the process. Why are the transferable credits so hard to be accepted?

Theme 3: Communication with community colleges

In addition to noting that the community college has a role in open communication with universities, students also commented on room for improvement by the universities in communicating information on transfer to community colleges.

* Send community colleges class listings that certain areas of study will need to take at the transfer school to complete their B.A.'s or B.S.'s.

* Get in regular contact with the community colleges.

* Work with the local community colleges and provide more information about the requirements and changes to their degree programs.

* Work jointly with the community college. I can't seem to coordinate advice between the schools. My community college counselors don't know about the courses I can do at the university and vice versa.

* Give each community college a list of which courses will transfer to which fouryear universities (in Michigan of course). Counselors need to know because the requirements are always changing.

Discussion

Location of the transfer institution is clearly an important factor for all types of students surveyed. Among students undecided or not intending to transfer, location rated as the most important factor that would affect or change their transfer decision. Among those students already intending to transfer, location rated second after academic program. Although admissions personnel cannot alter location of the home institution, it can become a marketing advantage for potential transfer students in the surrounding geographic area. In addition, since students consider location within 100 miles attractive, strengthening relationships with community college personnel and students in a geographic area seems worthwhile.

Institutions can make the most change in other important factors including financial aid, ease of degree completion and student services in order to recruit transfers that might otherwise attend the institution closest to them. The qualitative responses indicate communication between universities and community colleges, especially regarding the transfer of credits, holds much room for improvement. The student perceptions that universities and community colleges do not communicate enough with one another to meet student needs appears to be the core of the problem, often obvious in the individual frustrations students face with the transfer process.

The implications of these findings on transfer recruitment can appear somewhat contradictory for admissions personnel. If location is the strongest indicator if and where a student will transfer, the best potential for attracting transfers to four-- year institutions focuses on students in their own backyards-something most are already doing. However, for this study, a distance of 100 miles presents a strong indicator for transfer, so expanding recruitment territories and markets still makes sense. Although admissions offices cannot control the academic programs offered by the institution, they do have the ability to promote and market their locations and programs in the most attractive ways. Even more importantly, they can examine and change the types of services potential transfer students receive, including communication with community colleges and student advising.

Articulation agreement

One attempt to enhance the transferability of credits for Michigan students, created the MACRAO (Michigan Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers) Articulation Agreement. The agreement allows students to complete their general education requirements at a community college and transfer to a four-year school to complete program requirements and graduate in a timely manner. However, the implementation of the agreement among the institutions in the state has been shaky at best. Not all community colleges or four-year institutions honor MACRAO, and many community college students attending face transfer challenges because not all four-year institutions impose the same general education requirements. Often students face a maze of frustration, as evidenced by the qualitative comments of respondents trying to transfer credits.

University Center Concept

In order to further ease the transfer process, Michigan as one of only four states has established the University Center Concept (Schmidt, 1999). The concept is simple. If students do not or cannot leave their hometowns to transfer to the university, why not bring the university to them? Michigan currently operates four centers, the most in the country, followed by Texas, Maryland and Virginia as the only other states with University Centers. In 1991, the University Center at Macomb Community College became the first center to open in the country. Its mission: increase the proportion of county residents who have bachelor's degrees. According to Albert Lorenzo, president of Macomb Community College, "What we were trying to create was a model that was positioned somewhere between the traditional university campus and the typical university extension center" (Schmidt, 1999, p. A41). The community college makes most of the decisions, using student surveys to help determine which universities will be allowed to offer what programs.

Higher education governance

One of the main reasons that Michigan public institutions have been unable to develop a unified transfer agreement, or even better working relationships with community colleges similar to other states, is arguably linked to its unique system of higher education governance. The public institutions have their own governing boards, not directly controlled by a state system of governance. The governor of the state appoints the Boards of Trustees at all but three of the public institutions. The remaining "big three" (University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University) publicly elect officials. The system leads to competition among institutions for students rather than a sense of urgency to meet the needs of all of the students of the state. In addition, most of the public institutions are comprehensive, offering the same or similar academic programs as the others. Consequently, the public institutions in Michigan compete largely against one another for students in the state and use their autonomy for their own best market interests. Admissions officers at four-- year institutions need to recognize that as receiving institutions of transfer students, they may need to take the initiative to change communication patterns. By doing so, they gain the ability to position their institutions for increased transfer student enrollment.

Transfer decision-making models

Examining models of decision making for transfer students may enhance future research on transfer student recruitment. One model often employed for traditional students from high school is Hossler's college choice model. However, it has been adapted to students selecting graduate school (Robinson & Golde, 1999), and others have noted the similarity between the decision-making process of high school seniors and transfer students (Smith, 1990; Smith & Bers, 1989). The Hossler model can shed light on the general decision-making process transfer students go through and identify a starting a place for university admissions officers and community college advisors as they design their recruitment and advising programs.

Hossler and his colleagues (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; Hossler, Schmidt, & Vesper, 1999) have summarized the literature regarding college choice. According to Hossler, the college choice process takes place in three discrete phases (a) preference or predisposition; (b) search and exclusion and (c) evaluation and choice. At each stage, students gather and process information about colleges to consider. The process is iterative: information generated and conclusions made at the end of one stage signal the beginning of the next stage. Hossler also describes how the social context of the students (parents, peers, teachers, advisors) places constraints upon the information they are able to gather and the visions they have of their futures.

The predisposition phase identifies not the intention to do something, but the decision to attend college. Students forgo other choices such as entering the work force when they decide to pursue higher education. Students' background characteristics and their prior educational experiences greatly influence the decision to attend college. The stage of search and exclusion involves students seeking further information about educational opportunities. The search process includes both the search for institutions to attend and the attributes of the institutions. Hossler and his colleagues assume that the choice list will be tempered by students' current social conditions and influenced by the information they gather about various institutions. In the final stage, evaluation and choice, students continue to narrow their choices based on previously determined criteria. They compare academic and social attributes of each institution to which they have applied and seek the best value with the greatest benefits.

Conclusion

The results of the current study indicate that transfer students may be similar to other students deciding to attend college. They look at many of the same factors (location, academic program, financial aid, services and degree completion) in weighing their options. They seek out information from their community college counselors, friends and university admissions officers to make informed choices. They consider the benefits and costs (such as location vs. ease of degree completion) when deciding to apply to an institution. Consequently, admissions professionals at universities and counselors at community colleges alike must be poised to offer information that can assist transfer students in their college choices.

Community college counselors are likely to have contact with students in the earliest phase of choosing whether to transfer at all. Well-informed, trained community college counselors can help students evaluate options. Connection to a prepared university admissions office assists potential transfer students in understanding the offerings of a particular institution. Flexibility in admission procedures such as deadline dates for applications, ease in registration and availability of admission personnel help facilitate the transfer process at any stage of decision-making. The ability to facilitate admissions procedures for transfers rather than throw up barriers still boils down to what the students themselves point out-optimum communication between community colleges and universities. Although community college counselors and university admission officers do not make some of the university decisions which affect transfer students, they do formulate procedures for communication to serve students. As agents of communication, university admissions officers must take responsibility to facilitate the process of transfer with both students and community college advisors if they want to realize increases in transfer students on their campuses.

References

Adelman, C. (1988). Transfer role and the growing mythologies: A look at community college patterns. Change, 20 (1), 38 - 41.

Berquist, W. (1998). The post modern challenge: Changing our community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1998, (102), 87 - 98.

Burke, R. (2002). Michigan community colleges demographic enrollment profile 2000 - 2001. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Career Development, Postsecondary Services, Community College Services Unit.

Chapman, D.W. (1981). A model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education, 52 (5), 490 505.

Cohen, A.M. (1991). The transfer indicator. In Transfer Working Papers, 2 (2). Washington,DC: American Council on Education.

Cross, K.P. (1985). Determining missions and priorities for the fifth generation. In W.L. Deegan & R. Tillery (Eds.), Renewing the American Community College (pp. 34 - 52). San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Cross, K.P. (1990). Transfer: Major mission of community colleges? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED322972).

Dougherty, K. (1992). Community colleges and baccalaureate

attainment. Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 188-214.

Frederickson, J. (1998). Today's transfer students: Who are they? Community College Review, 26(1), 43-54.

Harbin, C.E. (1997). A survey of transfer students at four year institutions serving a California community college. Community College Review, 25(2), 21.

Hendley, V. (1997). Recruiters hear a "me, too!" from community college students. American Society for Engineering Education Prism, 6, 20 - 26.

Hossler, D., Schmit, J.L. and Vesper, N. (1999). Going to College: How Social, Economic, and Educational Factors Influence the Decisions Students Make. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Huberman, A. M., and Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428 - 444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Martin, N.K. and Dixon, P. N. (1991). Factors influencing students' college choice. Journal of College Student Development, 32,253 - 257.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999h). National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey: 1995 - 96. (NSPAS:96) Data Analysis System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Nora, A. and Rendon, L.I. (1998). Quantitative outcomes of student progress. Report prepared for the

Ford Foundation. New York: Ford Foundation.

Phillipe, K.A. and Patton, M. (1999). National Profile of Community Colleges: Trends & Statistics. 3d edition. Washington, D. C.: Community College Press, American sociation of Community Colleges.

Piland, W.E. (1995). Community college transfer students who earn bachelor's degrees. Community College Review, 230), 35 - 44.

Robinson, S. and Golde, C.M. (1999, November) Waffling and flailing: Undergraduates in pursuit of a Ph. D. Paper presented at the 24" annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Schmidt, P. (1999). Concept of university centers has appeal in several states. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A41.

Smith, K.E. (1990). A comparison of the college decisions of twoyear and four-year college students. College and University, 65, 109 - 126.

Smith, K.E. and Bers, T.H. (1989). Parents and the college choice decisions of community college students. College and University, 64 (Summer), 335 - 348.

Wiersma, W. (1995). Research methods in education, 6" ed. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon Publishers.

Anne M. Monroe

Rena E. Richtig

Ms. Monroe is the Director of Admission and Enrollment Management at Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan.

Ms. Richtig is the Chair of the Department of Educational Administration and Community Leadership at Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant Michigan.

Copyright Schoolcraft College Fall 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved