A Longitudinal Analysis of the College
Transfer Pathway at McMaster
Karen Menard
Ying Liu
Jin Zhang
Marzena Kielar
Office of Institutional Research and Analysis, McMaster University
Pathways in Higher Education Conference, Toronto, January 27, 2012
2
Overview of the Literature
• College transfer students are disadvantaged
in terms of degree attainment. The impacting
factors are:
• Cultural
• Goal of education
• Education cost
• Social economic background
3
Overview of the Literature
• College transfer students are more likely to be
non-traditional (older, part-time, commuter)
• More likely to drop out than traditional students
• Outside environmental factors play a more
significant role than to traditional students
4
Overview of the Literature
• Further factors affecting college transfer
students:
• Challenges: academic standards, university size,
location, and competition among students
• Opportunities: faculty/staff advice, career
counselling, transfer readiness, and graduation
requirements
5
Research Focus
•What are the differences between college
transfer and direct entry
•What factors impact the progression of
college transfer compared to direct entry
•Longitudinal perspective: factors affecting
college transfer students
6
Methodology
• Eight cohorts of undergraduate students entering
directly from high school and college (2000 2007)
• Each cohort followed from entrance to 2009/10
• Both time-invariant and time-variant variables are
included
7
Potential Impacting Factors
Time invariant
variables
– Cohort year
– Student source (college transfer
vs. direct entry)
– Age entering institution
– Gender
– Registration status (full-time vs.
part-time)
– Immigration status
– Major of study
– Home province
– Marital status
Time variant
variables
– Average grade
– Student loans
– Student grants
8
Demographic Distribution of Data
9
Progression Status as of 2009
100.00%
60.00%
Graduated
40.00%
Dropout
20.00%
Persistence
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Direct
Transfer
Direct
Transfer
Direct
Transfer
Direct
Transfer
Direct
Transfer
Direct
Transfer
Direct
Transfer
0.00%
Direct
Transfer
Proportion
80.00%
2007
Entering Cohort
10
Graduation by Term Distribution
11
Probability of Persistence
Direct
Entry
College Transfer
12
(1)
What are the differences between
college transfer vs. direct entry
• 2000 to 2006 cohort (followed for at least 4 years)
• 1612 from college, 28680 direct from high school
• Multinomial logistic regression model
• Dependent variable: student outcome with three nominal
categorical levels: graduation, dropout, and persistence
(reference level)
• Tested various models
•
Model: further control gender, admission average, and financial support
13
Results
• Students with any of following features are more likely to
graduate:
• Younger students
• Female
• Full-time
• From Ontario
• Receiving higher amount of loan
• Higher session average grade
• College transfer
• Model global test: Χ2 (LR)=14331, df=52, p<0.0001, Pseudo R2
=34.3%
14
Major factors affecting college
transfer students over time
• 1903 from college (2000 to 2007 cohorts)
• Time variant discrete proportion hazard models
• Events: graduation and dropout, persistence as
right censoring
• Dependent variable: number of registered terms
• Independent variables: all 12 variables including
time variant ones
15
Time invariant
variables
– Cohort year
– Student source (college transfer
vs. direct entry)
– Age entering institution
– Gender
– Registration status (full-time vs.
part-time)
– Immigration status
– Major of study
– Home province
– Marital status
Time variant
variables
– Average grade
– Student loans
– Student grants
16
Results
• College transfer students are more likely to drop out if they have
the following features:
• Older
• Part-time
• Low session average grade
• Majored in specific areas
• When separating full-time and part-time, age does not affect parttime dropout
• Model global test: Χ2 (LR)=718, df=25, p<0.0001, Pseudo R2
=7.9%
17
Summary of Findings
• More college transfer students were part-time and they were
older on average
• Overall graduation rate of college transfer students was lower
and dropout rate was higher than direct entry students
18
However
• A young college transfer student who enrolls in full-time status is
as likely to graduate as a direct entry student
• Further control other variables, college transfer students are
more likely to graduate than direct entry students
• College transfer students with lower grades are less likely to
graduate
19
Implications
• Academic performance is nevertheless a very
important impacting factor
• Age and registration status
causes the retention
issues through many mediating factors
• Ensure the appropriate institutional supports (student
services, academic, etc) for university
• Policies need to support program transfers and
collaborative programs
20
Thank You
• A Modeling Degree Attainment of College
Transfer Students at a Four-year
Canadian Institution Abstract is available
upon request
• Email: avpira@mcmaster.ca
21