On the surface, a proposal to make transferring from community colleges to four-year institutions easier seems innocuous, even desirable. Take another look, however, and one finds the distinct thumbprint of for-profit colleges promoting themselves and a disturbing trend toward government involvement in the selectivity of higher education.

At a recent hearing prompted by Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon's College Access and Opportunity Act, McKeon (R-Calif.) suggested that institutions that decline transfers from two-year colleges set up "artificial barriers . . .If students are blocked from transferring from a two-year institution to a four-year institution, or from a proprietary institution to any other institution for reasons considered to be territorial or political, the student is forced to repeat course work," he said, and pay—or have taxpayers cover—the extra costs.  

What Boehner did not mention is that some proprietaries (for-profits), whose less rigorous accreditation keeps their credits from easily transferring, are the ones behind the ease-of-transfer movement. Additionally, transfers are already regulated in many cases by the states. And the nature of transfers can be complicated by numerous factors well-known to administrators but foreign to the federal government Boehner suggests legislate policy.

Citing "lateral" transfer students, who go from two-year to two-year, or four-year to four-year schools; "reverse" transfers, starting at four-years and graduating from two-years; and "swirling" transfers, enrolled in two or more schools simultaneously, Jerome Sullivan, executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, highlighted the complexity of transfer issues, which also include private and public considerations, course content, rigor, faculty qualifications and more.

"There is no question that higher education needs Congressional support for a national effort" to clarify and coordinate transfers, said Philip Day Jr., president of the National Articulation and Transfer Network, in testimony for the hearing.  "But we need the encouragement to do it on a voluntary, good-faith basis, not on a mandatory basis and certainly not with burdensome reporting requirements."

David Baime, vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges, agreed. "Federal intervention in this area is likely to prove counterproductive and hamstring institutions in ways that will harm both institutions and students alike," he said after the hearing. "Federal regulation of the acceptance of credit . . . can ultimately impede the ability of the institution to certify and vouch for the quality of its graduates."

Baime and others admit the feds could play a more limited role. Government funding could help institutions develop articulation agreements, and Sullivan suggests voluntary federal data collection at the U.S. Department of Education Web site or at NATN's CollegeStepz site and a disclosure requirement to prevent institutions from misleading students about transferability.

But to regulate further from the federal level found little favor. Day later told the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), "If we hold [institutions'] feet to the fire, they're not going to be able to come to the dance." [Barbara McKenna]

May 17, 2005