User:Mb1055/sandbox

Transfer shock refers to the tendency of students transferring from one institution of higher education to another to experience a temporary dip in grade point average (GPA) during the first or second semester at a new institution.

Early Cases
In September of 1926 at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), H.M Showman observed data on GPA gathered from 53 junior college transfers and 250 freshman students (natives) entering UCLA. The mean GPA of students transferring to UCLA from junior colleges was 1.79. The native students of UCLA were split into two divisions based on GPA, with the lower division averaging a GPA of 1.31, and the higher division 1.54. The observed effect on transfer students was a severe drop in performance upon transfer with little recovery; average grades by semester only rose from 1.27 to 1.30 between the fifth and eighth semesters. During the same period, natives of UCLA saw a rise in their GPA ranging from 1.47 to 1.72.

Taking place at the same time as Showmans research, G.M. Ruch, D.C. Baker, and E. Ryce reported on both native students and transfer students entering the University of California (Berkeley) in the fall of 1926. Among transfer students, there was a drop in GPA from 1.87 to 1.17 while at the same time, natives entering the university averaged between 1.35 and 1.44. Transfer students displayed signs of recovery in their eighth semester, raising their average GPA from 1.17 to 1.61. Only sixty six percent of transfers graduated or remained in attendance in the December of 1928, compared to seventy eight percent of the natives.

J.P. Mitchell and W.C. Eells of Stanford offered data that contradicted that of Showman, Ruch, Baker, and Ryce. From 1923 to 1927, Mitchell and Eells studied 510 junior college transfers entering Stanford. Unlike the above research, Mitchell and Eells compared transfers and natives based on both academic performance and intelligence tests. Junior college transfers scored higher on intelligence tests than natives and performed superior to that of natives academically with their superiority to natives increasing markedly each successive semester after their first quarter. This case still implies transfer shock since superior performance occurred after the first quarter.

Noticing disagreement amongst studies published, R.R.G. Watt and F.C. Touton conducted a similar study at the University of Southern California (USC). Watt and Touton examined transfers entering USC from 1922 to 1928 and compared them to 100 randomly chosen native students. Transfer students in their junior colleges were found to have obtained a .3 grade average above that of native students. After transfer, during the fifth and sixth semesters, the difference dropped to less than a .1 letter grade in favor of the transfer students which provided evidence for the idea that students were suffering from transfer shock. By the eighth semester, the natives exceeded the transfers by .4 letter grades, showing that the transfers failed to recover from the transfer shock experienced. Also, Watt and Touton observed that transfers from state teachers colleges suffered less shock than the junior college transfers.

J.R. Gerberich and F.L. Kerr of the University of Arkansas studied junior college transfers entering the school from 1928 to 1932 with two years of advanced standing. 215 transfers were chosen and compared to 436 natives chosen on a stratified-random basis to match the transfers on sex, age, and class. The GPA’s of the first four semesters for both groups came out to be statistically significant in favor of the transfers with natives averaging 2.36 in the University of Arkansas as compared to the 3.25 average attained by the transfers in their junior colleges. After the fifth semester (with all students attending the University of Arkansas), transfer shock led to more than a letter grade drop amongst transfers, bringing them to an average GPA of 2.16 compared to that of the natives who averaged 2.43. By the eighth semester, natives averaged 2.55 and the transfers 2.25. Transfers showed recovery from the shock observed in the fifth semester but only regained only about 10 percent of the grade average lost. By 1932, sixty five percent of the natives, and fifty six percent of the transfers observed received degrees.

More Recent Cases
After the discussed studies, questions began to arise regarding the difference of transfer students based on from where it was they were transferring. From 1946 to 1955, C.H. Holmes observed students transferring from both junior colleges and four-year colleges to the College of Liberal Arts of Syracuse. During this period, there were 1,553 students transferring from four year institutions and 385 students transferring from junior colleges. Among the four year institution transfers, nineteen percent of the students had a GPA above 2.0 before transfer, and that number grew to twenty four percent after transfer. Among junior college transfer students though, twenty six percent held GPA’s above 2.0 before transferring, and that number dropped to fourteen percent after transferring. Transfer shock amongst junior college transfers led to the average GPA earned before transfer of 1.6 to drop to an average of 1.3. Honors at graduation were received by twenty two percent of the total student body of the College of Liberal Arts. Among that, fifteen percent of those students were transfers from other four year institutions while only ten percent were transfers from junior colleges. The data presented by Holmes implies that the junior college transfers obtained lower average grades than either the natives or the transfers from other four-year institutions.

During the annual meeting of the Southern Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers in 1963, R. Godfrey reported on the admission of transfer students to the University of South Carolina. Godfrey examined the records of 398 transfers from 29 colleges and universities who entered in the fall semester of 1960 and completed one or more semesters at the University of South Carolina. It was observed that out of the total number of transfers, 175 students earned an average grade of C or better before transfer and remained above that point on their university work. Transfers from junior colleges had the lowest percentage of students who earned C or better before transferring and held that standard during their time at the University of South Carolina. Only 33 out of the 56 junior college transfers managed to keep their grade average above at or above a C. Amongst the rest of the transfer students, eighty eight percent of students who transferred from large out of state institutions, eighty one percent of transfers from public South Carolina senior colleges and sixty two percent of students from what were deemed as “other” colleges earned grade averages at or above a C.  Godfreys report brought to light academic weakness amongst junior college transfers as compared to those transferring from other schools.

Effects of Transfer Shock
The studies discussed focused on the academic affect of transfer shock amongst transfer students compared to their native associates, rates of recovery from transfer shock, and the difference between transfer students and their exposure to transfer shock depending on the institution that they transferred from. First and foremost, data observed shows that one can expect to have an appreciable drop in their college grades upon transferring with lower average grades than that of their fellow native students, with a possibility of recovery. Recovery from transfer shock, to some degree, is about as prevalent as the shock itself, but there is a noticeable variation in the degree of recovery amongst different reports. Also, data comparing the performance of transfers amongst themselves supports the idea that performance of junior college students is not as strong as those transferring from other kinds of institutions. When looking forward to graduation, natives of universities graduate sooner and in greater proportions than transfer students; transfers are less likely to reach graduation from a four-year college than if they were a native. There is also evidence supporting the idea that students will have the most trouble as a transfer in qualitative subjects and will particularly be handicapped if the college to which they desire to transfer to is a major state university.

Recommendations for Avoiding Transfer Shock
A number of different issues account for a decrease in GPA and rate of persistence at the university level for transfer students. Students from smaller colleges transferring to university describe an atmosphere that is more compact, friendlier and more supportive in their previous schools as compared to the universities to which they transferred, which were described as big, confusing, cold, and impersonal with more difficult workloads and offered a more challenging work environment. Students found their prior colleges to have instructors that were more approachable and accessible, and classes that made it easier to speak out and offered opportunities for discussion and clarification of course material. Students also cited issues with adjustments to the grading systems used in larger universities, specifically marks on a curve, which made the criteria for determining grades much more stringent and competitive and would depend on the class average. This put transferring students in a situation where they were forced to compete with students already acclimated to larger university life. A change in study strategies was also cited, with transfer students claiming the techniques used at their prior schools for time management and information acquisition that worked before did not serve them well in a university atmosphere. Finding these to be some of the issues faced, the British Columbia Council on Admission and Transfer provided recommendations for institutions which include:


 * 1) 	A user friendly “Transfer Handbook for Students” which would serve to explain the mechanisms and process of transferring to potential transfer students in a clear, unambiguous, easily understandable manner.
 * 2) 	Receiving institutions should provide transfer students with a written explanation for each course that was not fully transferable.  This in turn can be used for statistical purposes for both sending and receiving institutions to address recurrent incompatibilities in their systems.
 * 3) 	The process of imparting information about the transfer process should be reviewed.  Students should be informed that advising is available at both sending and receiving institutions.  Advisors should be responsible for ensuring that students receive accurate information.  Availability of advisors should correspond to the needs of students.  Mandatory advising sessions for all students intending to transfer could reduce the amount of confusion and frustration experienced by transfer students.
 * 4) 	Community colleges and universities should continue to address the problem of declining grades after transfer.  Ongoing dialogue and examination of teaching and learning practices at each type of institution could help facilitate a smooth transition from community college to university for transfer students.

Student interactions with peers and the development of close personal relationships with other students were also found to be related to persistence in university life. Institutions should make every effort to encourage students to join different student organizations and to get all students involved in different activities. Also, working off-campus was found to have negative effects on one’s persistence in university life while those who held on-campus jobs did suffer from such effects. This implies that institutions should consider providing more job opportunities on their campuses, especially for those in need of financial aid.