Search News


Browse Archives

News

Tough Questions for Transfer Students

December 4, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Say you’re a student, trying to save some money, and you're trying to figure out which local institution to attend. Do you go for the least expensive or the best quality? According to new research, your best investment is to spend the money, which many times would lead someone to a four-year institution.

“The benefits are clear and significant,” said one co-author of the study, Rey Hernandez-Julian, an assistant professor of economics at Metropolitan State College of Denver. The study -- which comes at a time of increased attention to transfer issues, because so many students attend multiple institutions -- was published by the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute. “The students from four-year institutions are better prepared than the transfer students from a community college,” he said.

To derive these findings, the researchers examined the grades of students who transferred to Clemson University. The students were divided into those who came from less selective versus more selective institutions. (The less selective institutions were generally, but not exclusively, community colleges.) Students transferring from more selective education programs garnered slightly higher grades in their upper division courses. Although small, this increase was statistically significant. Further, calculated across a lifetime of earnings, these better grades translate into more income than the higher cost of attending a more selective institution for the first two years.

“They learn more by going to high quality schools,” said the other co-author, Angela Dills, an assistant economics professor at Clemson. “And it is worth it economically.”

Tim Sass, a professor of economics at Florida State University whose research explores similar issues, said that the study provides good, convincing evidence that lower division classes at selective colleges are better. But he remains cautious about the economic conclusions. “The general concept is sound, but I would be less confident in the dollar value of that differential,” he said.

The research on community college transfer students remains mixed, said Joshua Wyner, vice president of programs for the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. A number of variables may be at play and not accounted for in the study. He noted that students from two-year colleges have more difficulty adjusting to university academics than their competitors transferring from four-year colleges. This report may be measuring that outcome.

“The alternate explanation is that Clemson is not doing enough to ameliorate this effect,” he said.

But Dills said that the report should help students make better choices when investing their money in higher education. The Clemson transfer students came from a broad background of institutions, matching similar trends found at other universities. “Our sample looks like much of what is occurring across the U.S.,” she said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Tough Questions for Transfer Students

  • Posted by tab on June 28, 2007 at 1:20pm EDT
  • The real findings:

    The study actually says more about the ability of the Clemson’s faculty to conduct quality research.

    Perhaps its worth asking what kind of education Clemson students are getting when their instructors trade in such flawed works and draw clearly biased conclusions?

    Maybe tuition at Clemson is higher there in order to cover the costs of indoctrination, brain washing and propaganda. And perhaps the market definition of a quality institution is: one that invent data that can convince you that you’re sunk without them.

  • Terminal Degree and Instruction Skill
  • Posted by LAP on February 12, 2008 at 11:35am EST
  • I agree with much of the comments above regarding the flaws of the study but I also wnated to comment on terminal degrees and instructor ability.

    There is an assumption that having a terminal degree, researching and publishing ensure that an individual is an able teacher. The reality is many college professors may be brilliant at the research aspect but they are not necessarily skilled teachers. Doctoral students are not being prepared to teach, but being prepared to research.

    So quality of instruction is based more on a persons natural ability along with a willingness to improve instruction skills.

  • major flaw
  • Posted by PS on December 4, 2006 at 7:20am EST
  • This study has a major flaw. It does not take into account the fact that lower income and first-generation students - those who happen to receive lower grades in the first place - attend less selective and less expensive institutions. If the study had controlled for those variables, it is probable and even likely that institutional selectivity would have been meaningless. (Interestingly, the variables used by the author to measure "quality" have nothing to do with that construct. Percent admitted, tuition [as opposed to net price], and SAT scores are input measures and say a lot about the students who enter, but absolutely nothing about the 'quality' of the college!)

    What this study is probably measuring is the fact that lower-income and first-generation students are more likely to receive lower grades when they transfer, regardless of the first institution they attend, which is very likely to be community colleges and less selective - or "low quality" - institutions as defined by this author.

    Thus, this study provides very weak to no evidence that institutional "quality" is an accurate or valid predictor of success in one's upper-division or transfer institution.

  • Posted by L S on December 4, 2006 at 9:15am EST
  • And what does this mean for the future of these students? What effect has it had on their job performance or what types of job they have later on? I.e. does it really matter in the long run?

  • Waste of Time
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on December 4, 2006 at 9:16am EST
  • As the previous commentor made the points I was going to, I will just ask, why did they do this study, and how much money did it cost(Waste)?

  • Out-of-field adjuncts at CC's in South
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , DIr., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on December 4, 2006 at 9:40am EST
  • Why should it surprise us that “students from four-year institutions are better prepared than the transfer students from a community college” and that they “garnered slightly higher grades in their upper division courses”?
    Aren’t faculty better prepared, don’t they have more training and education for what they are teaching at the 4-year institution? Why should this surprise anyone?

    Although the research into the reasons behind this result is only in its infancy, I have my own suspicions. The big question is: what is being measured?

    Prof. Tim Sass (FSU) finds similar results in Florida, and agrees that “lower division classes at selective colleges are better.” Given the prevalence of out-of-field teaching in the community colleges in the south, this may account help to account for the Clemson study results, since like Florida, faculty standards throughout the region that Clemson draws its students from, are haphazardly enforced and monitored. The harm to students is compounded when part-time out-of-field adjuncts are used to staff classrooms at community colleges in the south.

    This month, in fact, SACS will be voting to further push faculty standards to the margins of accreditation. http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/Proceedings-Spring-2006.pdf , pages 4 and 5.

    Why should it surprise us that those institutions that can, will staff their classes with out-of-field adjuncts rather than in-field full-timers better prepared to educate students? Why should this surprise anyone? It should only surprise us that the harm to student learning isn't greater than it is.

  • consider me skeptical
  • Posted by bradley bleck , instructor at Spokane Falls CC on December 4, 2006 at 9:41am EST
  • Perhaps the article should be titled "Tough Questions for Clemson's Transfer Students?"

    But what would you expect, I teach at a CC. I'm not sure about Clemson or the state of S. Carolina in general (I do have the right state, don't I?) but this seems to apply to them, almost exclusively. In the state of Washington, students who first earn an AA (who are then guaranteed admission to one of the four-year schools) graduate at a rate roughly equivalent (I think slightly higher, but I'm hedging) to those students who begin at a four-year school. I'm not sure about their grades in intermediate classes to be honest. (Did the research state how the income differences play out among students who work in their home state or head away to more lucrative areas in more lucrative fields? If so, I missed it.)

    Again, consider the source (me), but I have a hard time believing, based on a single report, that students who work more with TA's and GA's who may or may not know how to teach, much less want to teach, will do a better job than those CC faculty who have dedicated themselves to teaching, many of whom have earned their doctorates. Might this more appropriately be addressing a shortcoming, if such is even the case, with the S. Carolina CC system/schools? The data didn't make clear, at least to my quick, and early morning Pacific Standard Time reading, where these students actually came from, whether from S. Carolina or other states in the region or across the country. Maybe only those CC's and less selective four-years that feed Clemson?

    Are these intermediate level (junior I guess) grades merely an the result of the adjustment transfer students are making from one environment to another? How do they perform as seniors? How about overall gpa when graduating? Never mind that many students start at a CC because they are not ready for a selective R1. Could it be that CC's show greater increase in the human capital the research is focused on based on where students start? Those transferring from the selective institutions were likely better students at the start, not having as much catch up to do as the typical community college student. I can't recall from my quick reading how this was or wasn't controlled for. And while our CC has a lot of trouble getting students through the math sequence, our major stumbling block, I wonder how much this variable, which seems key to the study, influences the overall outcome.

    Maybe I'm just feeling defensive this morning, but I don't think too much stock should be put in this report outside the state from which most of those CC students originate (did I miss that state and the number of them in the report?).

  • The "Before and After" Effects are greater in CC
  • Posted by Lee on December 4, 2006 at 9:45am EST
  • If the differences between the Community College students and selective Colleges are small, although statistically significant, it actually suggests that Community Colleges are doing better jobs preparing students. Why? Do the math! If you have more underprepared students, who tend to have lower grades, how can the average be similar? The students who attended Community College but belong to more "selected" group are actually having higher grades and bring up the average! When you measure a "before and after" effect, no matter you are underprepared or quite "selective", the addend values (not to mention the economic values) are greater at the Community Colleges.

  • Clemson should know better
  • Posted by Martin on December 4, 2006 at 10:30am EST
  • While I don't have a problem with the study, it's important to understand who is doing well at senior universities, I do have a problem with Clemson allowing a faculty member to address concerns about transfer students to the media. I South Carolina, we are required by law to accept students from the technical college system if the students are enrolled in the Associate of Arts or Sciences at the technical colleges, which by the way act as community colleges most of the time. I know that statistics and studies are often interpreted to meet the expectations of those doing the study, so I usually don't take much stock in these kinds of research. I believe that community college students do have some trouble adjusting to senior college life, not so much the academic side of it as the social/emotional adjustment side of the house. I DO think that senior universities have a sort of ivory tower attitude about their institution that says no other college can teach the basics like we can. Well, time to wake up and realize that as college tuition costs continue to rise, more and more students, including the acadmically gifted ones, will be forced to seek out less expensive alternatives for their general education coursework. Finally, since when did English 101 differ from a junior college to a senior university? Students can either do the work or not.

  • It may be so at Clemson but...
  • Posted by Wm. M. Wood on December 4, 2006 at 10:35am EST
  • from where I sit it is not so. Unfortunately in Michigan the schools our students transfer to are not required to send us back information on our graduates performance. For those that do, our students do as well or better than the native students who started at the four year college/university.

    I also have to agree as stated above, that the possible value added is greater at the CC since we seem to be getting the majority of underprepared students that we then prepare for future education and work.

  • Posted by JRW at Century College on December 4, 2006 at 10:45am EST
  • A study in Minnesota some years ago found exactly the opposite: students who transferred from a community college to the University of Minnesota graduated with a slightly higher (maybe not at the statistical level of significance) GPA than those who started their degree at the four-year school.

  • What about......
  • Posted by Befuddled on December 4, 2006 at 12:45pm EST
  • How about the kids taking college level courses at CC while still in high school? I have to believe this group would be "statistically significant" in the findings, but no mention of it that I could see.

    The students that MUST HAVE a 4.0 will get it and those that don't, won't. Is there an overall comparison of graduation rates between these groups?

    How are they measuring this so-called gap? What good is this gap to a student who does not complete his/her degree at the 4-year institution?

    Clearly more/wider research is needed.

  • Quality Code Word
  • Posted by Michael Simpson on December 4, 2006 at 12:50pm EST
  • Quality equals white, middle-class above, right? Selective means white, middle-class above , right?

  • Tough Questions for Transfer Students...
  • Posted by Cheryl Stewart , Librarian at Coastline Community College on December 4, 2006 at 1:20pm EST
  • The tone of this article is offensive, and the article itself is misleading. The researchers made an assumption that transfer courses offered by community colleges are naturally and universally less academically rigorous and less beneficial than the same courses offered by four year institutions.

    As mentioned in other responses to this article, many community college students have lots of obstacles to college success: full time jobs, families, less-than-stellar high school grades, second language issues, money.

    The "findings" in this research only serve to further criticize, marginalize, and undercut the hard working, underfunded community colleges of this nation.

    Many outstanding high school students choose the local community college because of it offers more individualized support and affordable education than a university. Who wouldn't want to get a BA for half the price and keep their student loans down to a manageable amount, if given a choice?

    In California, our transfer students do better in upper division than students who started in the four year institution to begin with.

  • Which CC? It matters!
  • Posted by E.S. , Ed.D. aspirant at university of Kansas on December 4, 2006 at 2:21pm EST
  • I agree with the above comments about this study's flaws. For instance, what are the average class sizes at the various "non-selective" institutions vs. Clemson? Here at Johnson County CC, where I work, many students tell us they learn better here than when they transfer to one of the large state colleges. Why? Because we have small classes, and professors (many with terminal degrees) who care about their students and the students' success in their future education. I realize many CCs have a high percentage of adjuncts (we use them, too), but I would venture that many of those adjuncts are excellent teachers with great experience in their fields, as well as good teaching experience. I'm a graduate student, and one of my professors has NO teaching experience, but she teaches core courses for MA/MS/PhD/EdD students. Are we learning much? Not really. Are the students at JCCC probably learning more in their classes--I think so.

    This study is not generalizable to anyone, really, so I hope Clemson can use it! There are just too many variables not controlled for, and too many questions not answered.

  • whoa!
  • Posted by Glen McGhee , Dir., at FHEAP on December 4, 2006 at 4:35pm EST
  • ES says, "I’m a graduate student, and one of my professors has NO teaching experience, but she teaches core courses for MA/MS/PhD/EdD students. Are we learning much? Not really."

    So, where are the accreditors to ensure that you are getting quality education? It would seem the endemic faculty qualification problems that plague the South are, sadly, elsewhere as well. I am deeply disappointed with the NCA. They have a noble history of leading the country in accreditation, but have now fallen behind, apparently. Sad, very sad.

    If the problem is at the PhD level, think how much worse it is at the community college level, where administrators in the South have historically accepted a 20%-30% OOF rate! Caveat emptor!

  • What about testing?
  • Posted by Bart on December 4, 2006 at 4:40pm EST
  • As a former CC student and puublic Ivy grad -- IMHO, this is just inane.

    There is so much varibility among CC students and what they are trying to accomplish, to try to make a blanket statement is an exercise in futility.

    Solution? Testing. Yes, have them retake the SAT. A hard-nosed, pencil-to-paper exam.

    There will be complaints. And most people don't voluntarily go to work, either.

    See if there is improvement. If yes -- good. If not -- take a look in the mirror.

  • re: McGee
  • Posted by PS on December 4, 2006 at 8:50pm EST
  • McGee stated earlier that another professor's study confirmed this study's findings, in that courses at selective colleges are better. But the author McGee cites fails on two fronts (like the author of this article): 1. equating selectivity with quality (selectivity measures inputs but not what students learn) and 2. failing to control for the student characteristics that are the most predictive of success in college, namely income and first-generation status. That is why the study cited in this article is meaningless and absolutely no practical value. I am shocked the review board at CHERI let it get published.

  • Posted by Kris Duffy , Associate VP of Enrollment at Onondaga Community College on December 4, 2006 at 8:50pm EST
  • In a time when we are contiually being pressured about access for all students (remember the Spellings report?), to lead the storyline (On Academic Impressions) with "TOP STORIES
    Tough Questions for Transfer Students
    The Cornell Higher Education Research Institute has found that students from four-year institutions are better prepared than the transfer students from a community college."
    only feeds into this perpetual battle of defining quality as 4 year must be better than 2 year. The Cornell Higher Ed Research Institute did not find that ALL students from four year institutions are better prepared, Clemson University found this. So, let's not feed the media frenzy around selective colleges being the primary source of quality education in this country. As my colleague in Michigan pointed out, our state also did a similar study a few years back and found that transfers from community colleges did as well and in some cases better than native students. Until this country's colleges and universities embrace each others' strengths, we will continue to confuse the public and create suspicion around the value of a college education.

  • Response to Comments
  • Posted by Angela Dills on December 4, 2006 at 8:50pm EST
  • Rey and I appreciate the feedback generated here in the comments and would like to address some of your criticisms. We test whether students transferring credits from higher quality universities perform better in their intermediate courses at Clemson than students transferring credits from lower quality institutions. We measure college quality using the student-faculty ratio, listed tuition, the percent of applicants admitted, the percent of faculty with a PhD, and (when available) average student SAT scores. We consider students transferring from a wide variety of institutions: from community colleges to institutions of higher quality than Clemson. We control for a variety of student characteristics. SAT scores control for some measure of student ability. Zip codes and legacy status control for some measures of socioeconomic status. In-state status and transfer credits timing (before Clemson, summer school, or both) control for additional aspects of student quality. Holding these student characteristics constant, we consistently observe that students taking intro courses at lower quality institutions – as measured by these factors – perform worse in their intermediate courses. This is true even outside of community colleges. Among four-year schools, transferring introductory courses from a higher quality school translates to higher grades in intermediate courses. This is true even for students just taking summer school courses – avoiding the concern that there may be adjustments to a new school when transferring. These results suggest that, on average, colleges with lower student-faculty ratios, higher listed tuition, lower admission rates, a greater fraction of PhD professors, and higher average SAT scores better prepare students for intermediate-level coursework.

    We haven’t considered effects on graduation rates, but that is an excellent suggestion of an alternative outcome we could consider. Unfortunately, we do not observe students’ job choices or income after graduation – other studies have reported that higher college grades translate to higher wages and we rely on those estimates to put our grade results in context. Clearly all institutions of higher education offer so much more than classroom learning. Our study addresses only one aspect of higher education that students may value: the preparation introductory courses provide for later coursework. There are other school characteristics we cannot observe. Schools we view as identical may be quite different in other respects. In fact, we observe some schools that appear to be of lower quality producing excellent student outcomes. We continue to try to identify aspects of institutions that produce better student outcomes. We’d love to see some of the studies mentioned in the comments – if the commenters would provide more complete references either here or via e-mail it would be greatly appreciated.

  • CAVEAT EMPTOR APPLIES TO RESEARCH
  • Posted by John R. , Associate Dean at East Los Angeles College on December 4, 2006 at 8:50pm EST
  • What a stupid study, and even stupider comments to follow! Ample previous research (not cited by the study's authors) documents the fact that community college transfers do approximately as well as students who begin university as freshmen. (See http://www.ucop.edu/sas/publish/transfer_ar2000.pdf, page 12) This despite the fact that CC students are from lower income background, less prepared in high school, more more ethnically diverse, and from families with less education.

    As for the assertion that "adjunct, out-of-field" CC instructors are short-changing the education of transfer students -- the inherent falsity of the claim answers itself. In California (which enrolls 1/4 of the nation's CC students) no instructor, adjunct or otherwise, teaches without an M.A. or equivalent IN THE FIELD OF TEACHING. Instructors are not burdened by publish-or-perish research standards, and students are not burdened with inexperienced TAs, 300-student lecture halls, or tuitions ranging from 10 to 20 times higher than CC tuition. If Clemson can't cope with the transfer students that are just looking for a quality education, then transfer students would be smart to look somewhere else.

  • Community College Education
  • Posted by Future CC Educator , Academic Consultant on December 5, 2006 at 4:25am EST
  • Thank you most for the comment prior to this one regarding the falsity of underprepared teachers/professors at the cc level and for the comment regarding what is actually being measured by this study. To add, many college professors teach at cc's part-time. Furthermore, community college educators can and do pursue advanced study. The Doctor of Arts in Community College Education is a good example of a degree designed to create expert educators in undergraduate education. Don't sleep on community colleges and those that contribute tremendously to them.

  • student ability?
  • Posted by PS on December 5, 2006 at 4:25am EST
  • The comment that "SAT scores control for some measure of student ability" shows the bias of this researcher. SAT scores are not a measure of ability. They are a measure of 1. the income of the student (a common joke among institutional, or the real researchers, is that SAT are perfectly correlated with the square footage of the test taker's homes) and 2. how well of a test taker the student is. it is remarkable that the authors of this study actually think test scores and other input measures measure quality. These are characteristics students hold before they even set foot on the college and say nothing about the value the college adds to the student. What is so hard to understand about this?

  • Tough Questions for Transfer Students
  • Posted by Larry Calloway , Adjunct Faculty at Tarrant County Community College on December 5, 2006 at 8:36am EST
  • I am a retired CPA with a Masters Degree in Accounting and 40 years experience as a Controller in major industry and 25 of those years as Controller at a major university.I have been an adjunct faculty for 30 years and many of my students are executives with major industries. I scoff at the idea that I am not putting out a quality student when I bring to the classroom not only what is in the text book but 40 years of practical experience.I thank many of the 4 year institutions for some of my first year accounting students who are flunked out of their classes as the instructor was unable to teach the subject or didnt care enough to take the time to teach the subject. Yes, my students are more than a number to me as I know all of them by first name and I care about them as if they were my own. That is the intangible benefit of a community college that the average atudent wont get from a larger institution. This benefit from a caring instructor rather than a GA plus a good education based on years of first hand experience is invaluable.

  • Why the south?
  • Posted by Martin on December 5, 2006 at 9:55am EST
  • I see from many of the comments that this problem with transfers from JC or CC's is viewed as a southern issue. While I realize that many of the CC students in the south come from academically challenged backgrounds, be they white or African-American, we must understand that often times the CC's are the only option open for these students. And yes, we must make sure that all students have the basic academic achievements to move to the senior college level. In South Carolina, it appears that the Commission on Higher Education is pushing more and more students toward the Technical College system by forcing senior universities to increase their minimum standards for admission. This forces many of the universities into a situation of having to reduce the number of minorities accepted and thus hurting diversity. While I am NOT a proponent of forced Affirmative Action, I do believe that there should be equal access to all students who are willing to put the time and effort in to rise above their beginnings. Having said all that to say this, technical colleges and community colleges should be utilized to help disadvantaged students to be able to atttend and achieve a university degree. Anything less and we create a "subclass" of workers who will not have the skills necessary to compete in today's job market.

  • wrong target?
  • Posted by M.T. Sheridan on December 5, 2006 at 9:55am EST
  • the authors aren't saying that community colleges are bad or that they aren't fulfilling their mission. nor are they saying that 4-year institutions are unambiguously better in every way, or that those with low incomes shouldn't be given a leg up.
    instead, their results are saying that maybe community colleges could be doing a better job if they had access to some of the same resources--more professors, more professors with terminal degrees, more money--that 4-year colleges have. one resource that would also help them is having better students, and some post that this is the only reason the authors are seeing any difference at all. i think the authors make a pretty convincing argument that they have controlled these to a large degree, so even if student SES is part of the explanation for this paper's findings, it can't be all of it.

    maybe studies like this could be used by the leadership of community colleges to argue that they need more funding to better prepare their students for transferring.

  • Purely Economics?
  • Posted by Just Curious on December 5, 2006 at 11:20am EST
  • Interesting...could economics be at play here? Let's say more and more savvy students begin to realize the benefits of attending a community college and choose to attend for two years. Ummm, how much loss of revenue ("quality tuition") is that to the "quality" institutions. In today's competitive market 4 year institutions nationwide are scrambling to find money. Should it really surprise anyone that "quality institutions” would want to discredit the competition? Look who co-authored this study, Rey Hernandez-Julian, an assistant professor of economics at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Doesn’t take a “quality” 4 year economics student to figure out this one.

  • Tough questions for transfer students
  • Posted by Charles T. Lord on December 5, 2006 at 3:45pm EST
  • I don't believe the question is tough at all. You need only look at the increased enrollment at the CC level and, the fact that four year institutions continue to knock on our door to have our students transfer to their schools, to understand that we fill a niche in the education system. Community Colleges are willing to accept students that are less than perfect academically. However, to make an assumption that an education from a CC is of less value than that of a four year institution is to deny the reality of what the CC has been able to accomplish with students that could not make the initial grade to get into a four-year school. Community Colleges take the under-prepared student to a level that the student themselve did not know they could achieve when they first came to us. Tough question? Not at all. Success is measured based upon where a person starts and how far they get in life. If you really want to do a study, try checking out why so many students are dropping out of the four year institutions (I might add that they usually appear back at our door to catch up) before they get their degree. By the time you get our CC transfer students, they have already achieved some success and know what they want to do and how to go about getting the job done.

  • The OTHER major flaw
  • Posted by TH on December 8, 2006 at 3:10pm EST
  • As Bradley Black mentions above, the another aspect of this study that doesn't appear to have been covered is the change of environment factor. If the students stayed in the same institution for four years, they are more likely to score higher grades simply because they understand the system they are in.

    I think this study is useful as a contribution to the body of knowledge, but to draw overarching conclusions from it is reckless.

  • Clemson study
  • Posted by lmoser , Director, Secondary Career Center at South Arkansas Community College on December 8, 2006 at 5:05pm EST
  • I am always amazed at the lengths to which some institutions and their faculty will go to demonstrate an academic smugness and insularity. Such is this ridiculous study. Would that Clemson had the high concentration of students with hideous personal, family, educational and economic barriers to overcome. It is miraculous what most CC's do achieve against major odds. An institution of Clemson's "stature" (as measured by the elevation of their academic nose)would be hard-pressed to be so innovative or student-centered as to accomplish what the CC's accomplish. Are CC students always prepared for the stuffed-shirt climate of non-support evidence by many so-called "elite" universities...probably not. Can these poor performers succeed in life, probably so. My experience has been that many two-year students make as much or more than those of us with 3+ degrees after our name. Interestingly, many of those AAS and AA folks go back to school and earn additional degrees because they discover value in practical, applied training, training that meets the demands of the changing marketplace. How long does it take to most universities to adapt to changing times?
    There's another glaring issue in this study...did Clemson contrast residential students on its campus against its own commuter students? Bet they would find their own commuter students performed no better than those 2-year folks. Check it out...there are a ton of studies supporting the fact that it is as much about focus and time as it is about previous preparation. Those commuters have better things to do than just worry about grades! They have to put bread on the table, get day care, juggle two jobs, and then find time for school! Betcha that would have some impact on the results!