Transfer from Community College to University: Perspectives and Experiences of British Columbia Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through formal inter-institutional arrangements, articulated systems of postsecondary education claim to promote equality of opportunity by allowing for a seamless flow of students toward their educational and occupational goals. However, despite system wide articulation of course offerings, numerous studies indicate that the transfer experience is not unproblematic. This paper reports the findings of a qualitative study of the experiences of British Columbia university students who had transferred from community college. The central focus of this study was to portray students' experiences of the transfer process; document difficulties and successes encountered before, during, and after transfer; high- light advantages and disadvantages of transfer; and offer recommendations for improving the transfer process. In 1997, 47 indi- viduals who had transferred from one Lower Mainland Community College to one Lower Mainland University in 1996 were interviewed. The findings revealed that although the majority of students in this study support transfer as a viable and even preferable route to university degree completion, problems occur at each of the three stages of transfer as specified by Dougherty (1987). Obstacles to successful transfer by students include: difficulty gaining access to useful information; problems understanding transfer policies, practices, and procedures; and declines in GPA following transfer to university. Several recommendations for improving existing transfer policies and practices — including improving access to useful information by students; facilitating transfer through extensive coordination of transfer policies, practices, and procedures; and addressing differences in the teaching and learning experience at sending and receiving institutions — are offered to enhance successful transfer from community college to university.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".