Interesting findings on students transferring from four-year universities to two-year colleges

Countless circumstances can prompt the need to transfer from a four-year university to a two-year institution, ranging from finances to family. A new report by the National Student Clearinghouse took a look at this oft-ignored student demographic and highlighted several notable characteristics and behavioral patterns, including:

• Within six years, 14.4 percent of the first-time students who started at a four-year institution in the fall of 2005 subsequently enrolled at a two-year institution outside of the summer months.
• More than half of reverse transfer students did not return to the four-year sector by the end of the study period.
• The majority of reverse transfer students (71.1 percent) stayed at a two-year institution for more than one term.
• By the end of the six-year study period, two-thirds of reverse transfer students neither had a credential from nor were still enrolled at a four-year institution.
• Only one in 10 of the students who left their original four-year institution to enroll at a two-year institution in nonsummer months completed a degree or were still enrolled at the original four-year institution by the end of the six-year study period.

The data also showed that only 1 in 10 students had either earned a bachelor’s degree or had returned to their original four-year institution in six years. Additionally, within six years two-thirds of the students were not enrolled in school and had not earned a degree. Researchers associated with the report say the data provides a bevy of information for educators and stakeholders to work with when discussing and implementing policies geared toward improving college completion.

“The findings from this study have implications for policy at the institutional, state, and national levels,” stated Dr. Doug Shapiro, executive research director of the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. “Institutions can use this information to craft policies that help them reach enrollment goals. Students will be able to make better decisions about their educational pathways. Both institutions and public policymakers will have more comprehensive measures of student success, and better indicators for institutional accountability.”