csm Research Briefs
College of San Mateo / 1700 West Hillsdale Blvd. / San Mateo, CA 94402
San Mateo County Community
College District Transfer and Degree/
Certificate Completion Rates
Fall 1997 - Spring 2000
INTRODUCTION
In compliance with the 1998 Amendments to the
Federal Higher Education Act of 1965, it is the
policy of the Colleges to make available standardized
measures of educational effectiveness to all current
and prospective students. Known as the “StudentRight-To-Know Act,” all colleges and universities are
required to report on student educational outcomes–
viz., degree completion and transfer–as prescribed by
this legislation.
This Research Brief reports on the most recent data
gathered by the Federal Integrated Postsecondary
Education System’s (IPEDS) annual Graduation Rate
Survey and the results distributed by the State
Chancellor’s Office of the California Community
Colleges.
Beginning Fall 1997, a cohort of all Associate Degree,
Certificate, transfer-seeking first-time, full-time
students at each District College were tracked over a
three year period, through Spring 2000. These data
are reported in terms of the following rates:
• “Completion Rate” refers to all students in the Fall
1997 cohort who earned an AA/AS Degree or
Certificate or became “transfer-prepared” (earned
at least 56 UC/CSU-transferable credits) between
Fall 1997 and Spring 2000.
• “Transfer Rate” refers to all students in the Fall
1997 cohort not listed as “Completers” (above) who
enrolled at any UC/CSU, or other public or private
postsecondary educational institution between
Spring 1998 and Spring 2000.
F ig u re 1
G RE AT E R S . F . B AY ARE A C O M M UNIT Y C O L L E G E D IS T RIC T S
AC AD E M IC S UC C E S S RAT E S *
1997 - 2000
[*Tr a n s f e r R a te s & As s o c ia te D e g r e e /C e r tif ic a te C o m p le tio n R a te s C o m b in e d ]
Sta te wid e Ave ra g e
5 8 .2 %
8 0%
Academic Success Rate %
7 1 .5 %
7 0%
6 6 .6 % 6 6 .2 % 6 5 .8 %
6 0%
6 2 .5 % 6 1 .6 % 5 9 .8 %
5 9 .4 % 5 8 .4 %
5 6 .2 % 5 5 .6 % 5 5 .6 % 5 5 .4 %
5 1 .8 %
5 0%
4 0%
3 0%
2 0%
1 0%
No te : * = M u lti-C a m p u s D is tric t
So
la
no
An
za
*
ar
in
D
e
M
Fo
ot
hi
ll-
Ro
sa
)
Va
lle
y
a
(S
an
ta
N
ap
a
So
no
m
lo
Fr
an
cis
co
Ca
br
il
Sa
n
C
is
ha
si
on
bo
*
t-L
as
Po
sit
as
Fr
*
em
on
t-N
ew
ar
k
Co
nt
Sa
ra
n
C
os
Jo
ta
se
*
-E
ve
rg
re
en
*
lta
*
yM
Pe
ra
W
es
tV
al
le
M
at
eo
*
0%
Sa
n
Volume 11 / Number 1 /September 2001
Office of Articulation & Research
T a b le 1
C AL IF O R N IA C OM M U N IT Y C O L L E GE S
D IS T R IC T W ID E AS S O C IAT E D E G R E E & C E R T IF IC AT E C OM P L E T ION R AT E S
1997 - 2000
Ra nk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7*
8
9
10*
11
12*
13
14
15
16*
17*
18
19*
20*
21
22
23*
24*
25
26
27
28*
29
30
31
32
33*
34
35
36*
N o te :
Dis tr ic t Na m e
F eather River
Im perial
S anta B arbara
S an F ranc is c o
M onterey P enins ula
Hartnell
Chabot-Las P os itas
W es t K ern
A llan Hanc oc k
S a n M a te o
S onom a
W es t V alley -M is s ion
P alo V erde
A ntelope V alley
M endoc ino-Lak e
P as adena
Contra Cos ta
S ierra Joint
Coas t
S outh O range
F rem ont-N ew ark
G avilan
F oothill-DeA nz a
Y os em ite
B utte-G lenn
G lendale
Cabrillo
S tate Center
Las s en
S anta Clarita
S anta M onic a
S an Luis O bis po
Ranc ho S antiago
M t. S an A ntonio
S equoias
Los Rios
* = M u lti-ca m p u s d istrict
Com ple tion
Ra te
50.0%
48.6%
45.1%
42.6%
42.0%
41.5%
41.3%
41.2%
40.1%
39.9%
39.8%
39.6%
38.5%
37.5%
37.5%
37.3%
36.5%
36.3%
36.0%
36.0%
35.7%
35.3%
35.2%
34.7%
34.5%
34.5%
34.2%
34.1%
33.8%
33.7%
33.6%
33.4%
33.3%
33.3%
32.9%
32.7%
• “Academic Success Rate” is a combined measure
consisting of “Completers” and “Transfers”
(above). This combined rate is not reported by the
Chancellor’s Office but is included here as another
way to view educational outcomes.
As these data indicate, SMCCCD rates for all three
measures of institutional effectiveness are considerably higher than the average for all 71 California
Community Colleges Districts. (See Table 1 - 3) In
terms of the combined “Academic Success Rate,”
SMCCCD ranks 5th in the State with a 71.5% “Academic Success Rate.” (See Table 3)
In addition, comparative “academic success rate” data
is presented for 14 California Community Districts
located in the greater (10 counties) San Francisco Bay
Ra nk
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45*
46*
47
48
49*
51*
52
53
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61*
62*
63*
64
65
66
67
68*
69
70*
71
Dis tric t Na m e
S outhwes tern
E l Cam ino
M erc ed
S olano
P alom ar
S an Joaquin Delta
S has ta-Teham a-Trinity
Des ert
K ern
G ros s m ont-Cuy am ac a
Lak e Tahoe
M arin
V entura
S an Diego
M iraCos ta
Long B eac h
Chaffey
W es t Hills
M t. S an Jac into
Y uba
Redwoods
Citrus
S is k iy ou Joint
Napa V alley
P eralta
Los A ngeles
North O range
Rio Hondo
Cerritos
B ars tow
Rivers ide
S an Jos e
V ic tor V alley
S an B ernardino
Com pton
Com ple tion
Ra te
31.8%
31.8%
31.8%
31.7%
30.7%
30.7%
30.7%
30.7%
30.2%
29.6%
29.5%
29.2%
29.1%
29.0%
28.3%
27.8%
27.7%
27.7%
27.5%
26.2%
26.1%
25.6%
25.6%
24.8%
24.6%
24.5%
24.3%
24.0%
23.2%
22.0%
17.5%
17.3%
16.3%
14.6%
6.9%
S T A T E W ID E
A VE R A G E
3 2.7%
area. As these data indicate, the SMCCCD combined
“Academic Success Rate” ranks 1st among surrounding
community college districts. (See Figure 1)
INTERPRETING RATES OF STUDENT SUCCESS
It is important to note that the calculation of these
rates using the IPEDS methodology has some obvious
anomalies when applied to California’s community
colleges. First, the size of the pool of students
tracked is greatly limited insofar as only first-time, fulltime, degree-, certificate-, or transfer students are
included. Statewide, only 41,000 students are included
in the final rate calculations--of a total of over 1.5
million students (approximately 3%) attending the
CCC system in Fall 1997. Second, students counted
as “completers” cannot also be counted as “transfers,”
T a b le 2
C A L IF O R N IA C O M M U N IT Y C O L L E G E S
D IS T R IC T W ID E T R A N S F E R R A T E S
1997 - 2000
Ra n k
1*
2*
3*
4*
5*
6
7
8*
9
10 *
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 *
18
19
20 *
21 *
22
23 *
24 *
25 *
26 *
27
28
29
30 *
31 *
32 *
33
34
35
36
N o te :
Dis tr ic t Na m e
N o rt h O ra n ge
R a n c h o S a n tia g o
S a n Jo s e
P e ra lt a
S a n D ieg o
S a n L u is O b is p o
L ak e Tah o e
S a n M a te o
N a p a V a lle y
L os A n g e le s
S a n ta B arb a ra
S is k iy o u Jo in t
S a n ta C la rita
R e d w o od s
M ira C o s ta
P a lo m a r
L os R io s
R io H o nd o
F re m o n t -N e w a rk
W e s t V a lle y -M is s io n
G ro s s m o n t -C u y a m a c a
M a rin
K e rn
S ta t e C e n te r
C a b rillo
C o n tra C o s ta
F e at h e r R ive r
C e rrit os
G a vila n
C h a bo t -L a s P os ita s
V e n tu ra
Coast
M t . S a n Ja c in to
M t . S a n A n to n io
C h a ffe y
M e n d o c in o -L a k e
* = M u l ti -c a m p u s d istri ct
T r a n s fe r
Ra te
5 9 .5 %
4 6 .0 %
4 2 .6 %
4 2 .0 %
4 0 .0 %
3 2 .5 %
3 1 .8 %
3 1 .5 %
3 1 .4 %
3 1 .2 %
3 0 .8 %
3 0 .5 %
2 9 .2 %
2 9 .2 %
2 8 .3 %
2 8 .2 %
2 7 .7 %
2 7 .1 %
2 6 .8 %
2 6 .6 %
2 6 .4 %
2 6 .4 %
2 6 .4 %
2 6 .3 %
2 5 .2 %
2 5 .1 %
2 5 .0 %
2 4 .8 %
2 4 .6 %
2 4 .5 %
2 4 .5 %
2 4 .4 %
2 4 .2 %
2 4 .0 %
2 3 .7 %
2 2 .7 %
Ra n k
37
38
39
40
41
42*
43
44
45
46
47
48*
49
50
51
52*
53
54
55*
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63*
64
65
66
67
68*
69
70
71
Dis tr ic t Na m e
E l C a m in o
M o n te re y P e n in s u la
P a s ad e n a
Y uba
W e s t H ills
S o u th O ra n g e
D e s ert
R ive rs id e
C it ru s
B u tt e -G le nn
H a rt n ell
F o ot h ill-D eA nz a
S o la n o
L as s e n
S ie rra Jo in t
A n te lo p e V a lle y
S a n Jo a qu in D e lt a
C o m p to n
V ic t or V alle y
G le n d a le
L on g B e a c h
S a n ta M o n ic a
S e q uo ia s
S o n om a
S a n F ran c is c o
A llan H a n c oc k
Y o s em it e
S h a s t a -Te h a m a -Trin ity
S o u th w e s te rn
M e rc e d
B a rs t ow
S a n B e rna rd in o
Im p e ria l
P a lo V erd e
W e s t K e rn
T r a n s fe r
Ra te
2 2 .5 %
2 2 .3 %
2 2 .1 %
2 2 .1 %
2 1 .5 %
2 1 .3 %
2 1 .2 %
2 1 .0 %
2 0 .8 %
2 0 .7 %
2 0 .6 %
2 0 .2 %
2 0 .1 %
1 9 .7 %
1 9 .6 %
1 9 .6 %
1 7 .5 %
1 7 .2 %
1 7 .0 %
1 7 .0 %
1 6 .9 %
1 6 .4 %
1 5 .9 %
1 5 .8 %
1 5 .7 %
1 5 .4 %
1 5 .2 %
1 4 .4 %
1 4 .2 %
1 3 .8 %
1 3 .6 %
1 3 .2 %
8 .7 %
7 .7 %
4 .4 %
S T A T E W ID E
A VE R A G E
2 5.5%
thus reducing the number of students that are
computed in the transfer rate. Third, many students,
especially those who are working and attend District
Colleges part-time or in the evenings only, take an
extended time (more than three years in which
students are tracked by IPEDS) to complete their
objectives. Fourth, these rates do not include students
who only want to take a few courses to prepare for a
job, upgrade skills, or to test whether college is for
them. Although these students are “successful”
insofar as they fully satisfy their educational goals,
their achievement is not captured by the IPEDS
indicators. Fifth, rates are influenced by a wide range
of factors including student demographics, community demographics, curricular offerings, and local
economies.
CONCLUSION
Despite these limitations, the student advancement
indicators contained in this report--rates of “completion,” “transfer,” and the combined “academic
success rate”--are potentially useful measures that are
valid, reliable, and consistent with Federal and State
laws and regulations. For several decades, the most
commonly agreed upon summary measures of
student success have been graduation rates, program
completion rates, and transfer rates. Until IPEDS
began collecting and calculating these rates in 1994,
American higher education was without a standardized definition or uniform methodology for measuring student success. Moreover, without a uniform
methodology for calculating student advancement
indicators, it was impossible to make valid compari-
Ta ble 3
C A L IF O R N IA C O M M U N IT Y C O L L E G E S
D IS T R IC T W ID E A C A D E M IC S U C C E S S R A T E S *
1997 - 2000
[*T ra n sfe r R a te s & A sso c i a te D e g re e / C e rtific a te C o m p le tio n R a te s C o m b i n e d ]
Ra n k
1*
2*
3
4
5*
6*
7*
8*
9
10*
11
12
13
14
15*
16
17*
18*
19*
20
21
22*
23
24
25
26
27
28*
29*
30
31
32*
33
34
35*
36
N o te :
Dis tr ic t Na m e
N o rt h O ra n g e
R a n c ho S a n tiag o
S a n ta B a rb a ra
F e a th e r R ive r
S a n M at e o
S a n D ie go
P e ra lta
W e s t V a lle y -M is s io n
S a n L u is O b is p o
C h a b ot -L a s P os ita s
M o n te re y P e n in s u la
S a n ta C la rita
F re m on t -N e w a rk
H a rt n e ll
C o n tra C o s ta
L a k e Ta ho e
L o s R io s
Coas t
S ta t e C e n t er
M e n d o c in o -L a k e
G a vila n
S a n Jo s e
P a s a de n a
C a b rillo
P a lo m a r
S a n F ra nc is c o
Im pe ria l
M t . S a n A n t on io
S o u th O ra n g e
A n te lop e V a lle y
M ira C o s ta
K e rn
N a p a V a lle y
S is k iy o u Jo int
G ros s m on t -C u y a m a c a
S ie rra Jo int
* = M u lti-c a m p u s d i stric t
Ac a d e m ic
S uc c e s s
Ra te
83 . 7 %
79 . 3 %
75 . 9 %
75 . 0 %
71 . 5 %
68 . 9 %
66 . 6 %
66 . 2 %
65 . 9 %
65 . 8 %
64 . 4 %
62 . 9 %
62 . 5 %
62 . 1 %
61 . 6 %
61 . 4 %
60 . 4 %
60 . 4 %
60 . 4 %
60 . 2 %
59 . 9 %
59 . 8 %
59 . 4 %
59 . 4 %
58 . 9 %
58 . 4 %
57 . 3 %
57 . 3 %
57 . 2 %
57 . 1 %
56 . 6 %
56 . 6 %
56 . 2 %
56 . 1 %
56 . 0 %
55 . 9 %
Ra n k
37*
38
39*
40
41*
42
43
44
45*
46
47
48
49
50
51*
52
53*
54*
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70*
71
Dis tr ic t Na m e
L o s A n g e le s
S onom a
M arin
A lla n H a n c o c k
F o o th ill-D e A n z a
Redwoods
B u t te -G le n n
E l C a m in o
V e n t ura
Las s en
S o lan o
D e s e rt
M t. S a n Ja c in t o
C h a ffe y
G le n da le
R io H o n d o
S a n t a M o n ic a
Y o s e m ite
W e s t H ills
S e q u o ia s
Y uba
S a n Jo a q u in D elta
C e rrito s
C itru s
P a lo V e rd e
S o u t hw es t e rn
W e s t K e rn
M erc e d
S h a s ta -Te ha m a-Trin ity
Long B eac h
R ive rs id e
B a rs to w
V ic to r V a lle y
S a n B e rn a rd ino
C o m pt o n
Ac a d e m ic
S uc c es s
Ra te
5 5 .7 %
5 5 .6 %
5 5 .6 %
5 5 .4 %
5 5 .4 %
5 5 .3 %
5 5 .2 %
5 4 .3 %
5 3 .6 %
5 3 .5 %
5 1 .8 %
5 1 .8 %
5 1 .7 %
5 1 .5 %
5 1 .5 %
5 1 .1 %
5 0 .1 %
4 9 .9 %
4 9 .2 %
4 8 .8 %
4 8 .3 %
4 8 .2 %
4 8 .1 %
4 6 .4 %
4 6 .2 %
4 6 .1 %
4 5 .6 %
4 5 .5 %
4 5 .1 %
4 4 .7 %
3 8 .5 %
3 5 .6 %
3 3 .3 %
2 7 .8 %
2 4 .1 %
S T A T E W ID E
A VER A GE
5 8 .2 %
sons between and among institutions. In short, by
imposing standardized calculation protocols for key
student advancement indicators, IPEDS has enabled
institutions to make meaningful comparisons across
time.
These data are also important insofar as they provide
a beginning point for addressing some of the critical
questions asked by institutional stake-holders regarding the key accountability indicators of graduation,
program completion, and transfer:
• Is the institution’s performance as good as other
similar colleges/districts?
• What are the Statewide and Regional graduation,
program completion, and transfer rates?
• Are the institution’s graduation, program completion, and transfer rates changing?
For further information, contact the
Office of Articulation and Research.
Phone: (650) 574-6196
Fax: (650) 358-6831
Internet: www.smccd.net/accounts/sewart/research