Faculty Characteristics and Views: Implications for Vertical Transfer

A.W. Logue¹*, Vita Rabinowitz², Yoshiko Oka³, Nayeon Yoo³, Rhina Torres³, Kerstin Gentsch³, & David Wutchiett³

¹Graduate Center, The City University of New York, USA

²Hunter College, The City University of New York, USA

³The City University of New York, USA

Abstract

Faculty often play a key role in vertical transfer (student transfer from community college associate-degree programs to bachelor’s-degree programs), including preparing students academically, advising them, and evaluating their transfer credits. However, faculty’s knowledge and views about transfer have received little formal study. The current research surveyed the transfer knowledge and views of almost 4,000 faculty at the 20 community and bachelor’s colleges of The City University of New York. Using a conceptual lens of transfer as a strategic action field, the research examined the relationships between faculty’s characteristics and transfer views. Across both associate- and bachelor’s-college sectors, faculty evinced limited knowledge about transfer but tended to state that their sector should make credit transfer decisions. However, the two sectors’ views often differed. For example, faculty at bachelor’s colleges were more likely to state that transfer students should retake their associate courses, and that difference was larger when comparing community college faculty with faculty at the most selective bachelor’s colleges. The findings suggest specific actions that can be taken to facilitate vertical transfer, including providing faculty with more transfer information and meliorating the impact of differing sectors’ views. Facilitating vertical transfer is essential for ensuring higher education equity and social mobility.

Keywords: vertical transfer, faculty, associate college, bachelor’s college, equity

* Contact: alexandra.logue@cuny.edu

Faculty Characteristics and Views: Implications for Vertical Transfer

Many researchers and practitioners have expressed concerns about the inequities present in the leaky vertical transfer pipeline, including how to meliorate these inequities (e.g., Rosenberg & Koch, 2021; Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012; Velasco et al., 2024). Approximately 42% of postsecondary students start in associate programs at community colleges (Shapiro et al., 2018), and about 80% of these students seek at least a bachelor’s degree (CCCSE, 2023). However, only 16% of students whose postsecondary education begins in a community college vertically transfer and receive a bachelor’s degree within six years (Velasco et al., 2024). If two students, equivalent in every measurable way, both seek a bachelor’s degree, but one starts college in an associate-degree program and the other in a bachelor’s-degree program, the one who starts in the associate-degree program will be less likely to receive a bachelor’s (Schudde & Brown, 2019). Students from underrepresented racial groups and older students are more likely to be subject to the effects of starting college in an associate program because, on average, there are higher percentages of such students in associate than bachelor’s programs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Thus, postsecondary environment challenges to vertical transfer are challenges to higher education equity.

Leaks in the vertical transfer pipeline are sometimes associated with aspects of students’ environments that can be changed. Such aspects of the environment may include the information that students receive (Laanan et al., 2010), whether students’ transferred credits apply to degree requirements (Monaghan & Attewell, 2015; Public Agenda, 2025), and students’ preparation for the new college’s courses (Hagedorn et al., 2008). Here we investigate a critical part of the higher education environment: faculty, and the roles they may play in vertical transfer success.

Faculty and Transfer: Previous Observations and Research

Faculty are integrally involved in student success, including vertical transfer student success. For most students, including prospective and actual transfer students, the faculty-led classroom is the primary site through which they interact with higher education institutions and their actors (Wang et al., 2021). Faculty are usually considered to have at least advisory input, and often final control, over anything concerning curriculum, including transfer (Kulkarni, 2026). The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the largest faculty collective bargaining organization, states that “The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process” (2015, “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities,” section 5). The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges states: “faculty lead educational delivery.”

As illustrated in Figure 1, which depicts the vertical transfer relationship between a typical community and a typical bachelor’s college, it is faculty who academically prepare students for transfer, instruct students after transfer, and often make decisions about credit transfer (Schudde & Jabbar, 2024; Sutcliffe et al., 2025). Faculty may also guide policy and practice concerning transfer advising and admission, and they serve in key roles in the formulation of articulation agreements (essentially, contracts that govern transfer admission and/or credit transfer; see, e.g., Smith et al., 2022). At community colleges, faculty can influence whether students apply to transfer (Lavinson, 2021). At bachelor’s colleges, vertical transfer students may be disadvantaged in classrooms due to bachelor’s-college faculty stigmatizing them as academically underprepared or as less motivated (Fink, 2021; Robinson, 2022). Thus, in multiple ways, both in terms of policy and practice, faculty appear to have considerable influence over transfer student success.

A graphic showing the progressive flow of a student starting in an associate’s program and then doing a vertical transfer compared to a student starting in a bachelor’s program with no transfer. — Figure 1. Functions of a Typical Community College and a Typical Bachelor’s College Engaged in Vertical Transfer

However, the influence of faculty on transfer student success is not uniform across the faculty. Not only do some faculty engage in more transfer-related activities, such as transfer advising or transfer credit evaluation, than do others, but faculty appointed in associate- and bachelor’s-degree programs (hereafter referred to as associate and bachelor’s faculty) do not appear to have the same influence over vertical transfer (Reed, 2022; Schudde et al., 2021). In Figure 1, it is the bachelor’s faculty and institutions, not the associate, that decide whether a vertical transfer applicant will be admitted to an institution or major, and what will happen with that applicant’s credits. Although the associate faculty have an essential—and independent—role in preparing students for transfer and encouraging them to apply, they usually have no control over what happens after the student applies. Transfer is, by its nature, a multi-institution event, and one institution, including that institution’s faculty, does not control what happens at another institution. If the faculty at a bachelor’s institution decide not to count towards its requirements the credits for a particular associate-degree course, there is little or nothing that the associate institution, including its faculty, can do about that.

Yet, despite their often-prominent roles in transfer, there has been relatively little empirical work on faculty’s involvement in and views about vertical transfer, and what research exists involves relatively few participants and colleges. One study (Senie, 2016), conducted at two community colleges and one regional university, obtained faculty views concerning a new transfer policy. Data consisted of observations of seven faculty meetings of 10–20 faculty each, a focus group of 7 people, and interviews of 2 department cochairs and 1 chair (details about participants’ roles were not given). The results identified cultural differences between the community colleges and the university, including a “desire of [the university] faculty to have ‘complete control’ over a student’s academic program. As a result, fewer credits are accepted for transfer, increasing the time, expense, and risk in completing a bachelor’s degree” (p. 281).

A new study of vertical transfer conducted at three University of Texas System institutions (Sutcliffe et al., 2025) included focus groups with 11 full-time academic faculty and 19 faculty holding significant administrative positions. This study found that a common perception of the faculty interviewed was that the students transferring into their universities were insufficiently prepared for upper-level bachelor’s courses due to inadequacies in community college courses.

Additional studies include Hyatt and Smith (2019), who interviewed 12 faculty at a small, private university concerning their perceptions of vertical transfer students, and showed that these faculty were not aware of transfer student supports and opportunities. Smith et al. (2022) gave a questionnaire to 179 faculty, staff, and administrators (only the total number for the three groups was given) concerning resources that should be provided to STEM vertical transfer students from underrepresented groups. Both associate and bachelor’s program employees frequently mentioned tutoring. Payne et al. (2022) surveyed 30 associate and 28 bachelor’s cybersecurity faculty, finding that they were, in general, relatively uninformed about transfer policies. Two final studies (Bowker, 2021; Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012) interviewed a total of fewer than two dozen faculty, with limited findings. Bowker (2021) concludes that “The most effective way to find out what [the university faculty] are thinking is to ask them” (p. 304).

Conceptual Framework

Schudde and Jabbar (2024) provide a useful conceptual framework with which to consider the roles of institutional actors, including faculty, in vertical transfer. Growing out of organizational theory, these researchers conceive of transfer as occurring within strategic action fields in which actors (such as staff and faculty) create and maintain rules and norms. Some actors are dominant and others are dominated (or nondominant). These strategic action fields operate within a political-ecological context. Using this conceptual lens, transfer student success is seen as a complex function of the actions and influence of multiple higher education constituencies (not just, for example, community college transfer advisors), as well as of the surrounding environment (e.g., institutional interdependencies, state policies, home environment, etc.).

Within this conceptual framework, Schudde and Jabbar (2024) see particular faculty’s power over transfer as being a function of a specific faculty characteristic: They see faculty appointed in more selective institutions as holding more power over transfer, and as being more dominant in the transfer strategic action field, than faculty appointed in less selective institutions. The more selective institution faculty are seen as having influence on the curriculum that is offered at, not only their own institutions, but less selective institutions as well. The curriculum of the less selective institutions must conform to that of the more selective institutions if students from the former are to be able to transfer to and graduate from the latter. In addition, according to Schudde and Jabbar, members of more selective institutions are particularly likely to defend their control over transfer policies and actions by objecting to external influences such as state transfer policies. Although other faculty characteristics, such as educational history, might also be associated with dominance in the transfer strategic action field, such other characteristics are not discussed by Schudde and Jabbar.

The Current Research

Within the context of Schudde and Jabbar’s (2024) conceptual framework, the current research examines how faculty characteristics may be associated with vertical transfer pipeline views. We particularly focus on comparisons of faculty working with prospective (not-yet-transferred, associate-degree) versus actual (transferred, bachelor’s-degree) vertical transfer students, including comparisons involving faculty appointed in bachelor’s institutions of some or more selectivity. The overall goal was to obtain information about faculty members’ perceptions of their roles, and of rules and norms within the strategic action field of vertical transfer, including how those perceived rules and norms may differ for different faculty sectors and characteristics. The specific research questions were:

1) What are the participants’ characteristics, such as current home institution selectivity, educational history, and relative experience with and knowledge about transfer?
2) What are the participants’ views about transfer?
3) In what ways are participants’ characteristics associated with their views?

Given Schudde and Jabbar’s (2024) conceptual lens, which includes that associate and bachelor’s faculty have different types and levels of power over transfer, and given that different types and levels of power are associated with different roles, rules, and norms, we can predict that associate and bachelor’s faculty will differ in their views about transfer. More specifically, we can predict that associate and bachelor’s faculty will differ in their views about what should and should not happen concerning transfer students, including about who or what should have control over transfer. We can further predict that the views of faculty working in bachelor’s institutions of varying selectivity will differ. Other faculty characteristics, such as education history, including community college attendance (which is often stigmatized; Fink, 2021; Robinson, 2022), may also be associated with the level of power within the transfer strategic action field and thus with transfer views.

We therefore surveyed almost 4,000 full-time and part-time faculty in all 20 City University of New York (CUNY) associate and bachelor’s colleges. The survey examined faculty’s specific reported transfer experiences and views and allowed us to determine the relationships between those views and multiple faculty characteristics, including the selectivity of faculty’s home institutions.

Together, this information can help us understand how the views of faculty reflect the power differences they hold within the strategic action field of transfer. The current research can also help identify areas for which any gaps in faculty’s knowledge and perceptions may be inhibiting transfer success. More generally, the results can inform conversations and actions aimed at decreasing the challenges involved in students transferring vertically and obtaining a bachelor’s degree.

Method

Research Site

This research was conducted at CUNY, a system of 20 undergraduate colleges divided into three sectors: seven community (associate) colleges, three comprehensive (associate and bachelor’s) colleges, and 10 senior (bachelor’s) colleges. The senior colleges can themselves be divided into what CUNY terms selective colleges (relatively lower freshman SAT scores) and most selective colleges (relatively higher freshman SAT scores). CUNY was chosen as the research site because it has:

(1) Multiple associate and bachelor’s colleges.
(2) Large numbers of students, especially vertical transfer students. In fall 2021, CUNY had 191,454 total degree-seeking undergraduates, with 36.4% enrolled in associate programs and 63.6% in bachelor’s. Close to 20,000 undergraduate students transfer into a CUNY college each year. The largest proportion of these (about one third) consists of within-CUNY vertical transfer students, and over 40% of bachelor’s graduates consists of vertical transfer students (CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, 2020; Z. Tang, personal communication, June 29, 2023). At least two thirds of CUNY associate freshmen state their goal is to attain at least a bachelor’s (Logue et al., 2022).
(3) Over 17,000 total full-time and part-time faculty (see below).
(4) High percentages of students from underrepresented groups and, consistent with national data, higher percentages of students from underrepresented groups in CUNY associate than bachelor’s programs. The fall 2021 associate percentages of Black/Hispanic, Pell recipient, and first-generation students were 66, 57, and 65, respectively, while for bachelor’s they were 50, 56, and 57, respectively (CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, 2021).
(5) Centralized human resources databases.
(6) Due to the 20 CUNY colleges all being located within the five boroughs of New York City, with all colleges accessible by public transportation, and due to the many CUNY-wide meetings and conferences, CUNY faculty often have direct opportunities to form views about faculty and students from many different CUNY colleges.

Survey Instrument

The survey items were designed to obtain faculty characteristics information that could not be obtained from the CUNY central Human Resources Office, as well as obtaining faculty views about transfer. A copy of the survey can be viewed at https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_pubs/975/. Given there had been no previous general surveys of faculty on transfer, the current survey’s items were developed and refined based on: (a) prior research concerning challenges to transfer student success; (b) prior research concerning faculty transfer experiences and information; (c) review and testing of survey drafts by a panel of about 30 transfer researchers, professionals, and students (members of CUNY’s Transfer Opportunity Project—TOP), as well as by CUNY’s 20 colleges’ institutional research directors; (d) TOP focus group results from 27 faculty (Sutcliffe & Condliffe, 2020); and (e) pilot tests of successive survey drafts by 25 associate and bachelor’s faculty.

Questions were in true/false, yes/no, agree/disagree, multiple choice, ranking, continuous 7-point Likert scale, and open-ended formats. The survey was divided into four sections. The Background section included questions concerning a faculty member’s educational history (e.g., whether the faculty member had attended community college). The Experience section included questions about a faculty member’s current work situation and direct experience with transfer (e.g., whether the faculty member typically knew which students were transfers). The Transfer Information section included questions about a faculty member’s transfer knowledge (e.g., whether the faculty member knew how credits transfer). The Views section asked about a faculty member’s transfer attitudes and beliefs (e.g., how much the faculty member agreed that CUNY should do more to facilitate credit transfer).

Participant Recruitment and Survey Administration

All participant recruitment and treatment aspects were approved in advance by CUNY’s Institutional Review Board (IRB File #2018-1223). Between October 18 and November 1, 2021, initial emails with a survey link were sent to all 17,381 full-time (36.1%) and part-time (63.9%) CUNY faculty for whom the CUNY Office of Human Resources had a valid address. A copy of an initial email can be viewed at https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_pubs/975/. The Human Resources list included every faculty member with professorial rank (assistant, associate, full, and distinguished professors; clinical professors; distinguished lecturers; instructors; and part-time and adjunct faculty who were hired to teach, mentor, and/or advise undergraduate students). We excluded 327 faculty with job titles not involving student contact (e.g., research professors), and 45 faculty on medical or unpaid leave. The initial emails specified a completion deadline of November 1, 2021. Five email reminders were sent to nonresponding faculty, and these included a final response deadline of November 20, 2021.

Several other steps were taken to increase participation. One of the researchers addressed a plenary session of the University Faculty Senate and a meeting of CUNY central’s Faculty Affairs Advisory Board. We also sent emails to CUNY college leaders (presidents, provosts, and institutional research department heads), both prior to and during the survey’s fielding, urging them to encourage faculty participation. During the survey’s fielding, each of these emails included a table showing every college’s current response rate. Further, the University Executive Registrar posted a notice about the survey on CUNY’s course management system website, and many CUNY leaders and researchers encouraged faculty participation using social media.

The survey was administered using the Qualtrics platform. The faculty emails’ survey links were unique to each faculty member. This allowed us to match a faculty member’s survey responses to other information about that faculty member in Human Resources databases. We thus had information about, e.g., each faculty member’s primary appointment college, tenure status, and job title without having to request that information via the survey.

Each participant was asked whether they had more experience with prospective or current vertical transfers and, depending on the answer, was given some questions tailored to that experience (in addition to questions that all participants received). For example, faculty with primarily prospective transfer student experience were asked “Do you typically know which students in your classes intend to transfer to a bachelor’s-degree program?” whereas faculty with primarily current transfer student experience were asked “Do you typically know which students in your classes are vertical transfer students?” Thus, there were two groups of faculty: those working primarily with prospective vertical transfer (associate) students, and those working primarily with actual vertical transfer (bachelor’s) students. There were 47 total questions for associate faculty and 51 for bachelor’s faculty (45 of those questions were the same for both). If faculty answered that they had about the same amount of experience with both types of students, they were asked which student type they preferred to answer questions about and were then given the questions consistent with their stated preference. Faculty who did not state which type of student they had more experience with were classified as associate or bachelor’s faculty depending on the college of their primary appointment, and they received only the initial general questions that all participants received.

Analytic Strategy

We report all responses to survey questions concerning faculty characteristics, experience with and knowledge about transfer, and transfer views. The results sections, first, using both descriptive and inferential statistics, compare associate and bachelor’s faculty in terms of their characteristics and survey responses, including their experience with and knowledge about transfer (research question #1) and their transfer views (research question #2).

An additional results section reports regressions exploring the relationships between faculty characteristics (including college selectivity) and faculty transfer views (research question #3). For this section we used logistic (for binary outcome variables) or linear/ordinary least squares/OLS (for continuous outcome variables) regression. The logistic regression model can be expressed as:

logit(p_i) = b₀ + b₁SELEC_i + b₂ EXP_i + b₃BACK_i,

where p_i represents the probability of participant i answering “Yes,” “Agree,” or “True” to a question y_i with binary answers. The linear regression model can be expressed as:

y_i = b₀ + b₁SELEC_i + b₂ EXP_i + b₃BACK_i + e_i,

where y_i represents the response of participant i on a continuous outcome variable. In both models SELEC_i is a categorical variable which indicates the selectivity of participant i’s institution (community college, selective bachelor’s college, or most selective bachelor’s college; community college is the reference category), EXP_i is a vector of variables that indicate participant i’s experience and current work situation (the number of years they have worked in CUNY, as well as indicators for being full-time, tenured, and having a leadership/advising role), BACK_i is a vector of variables related to the participant’s educational history (whether the participant ever attended a community college, received an associate degree, received a need-based scholarship while in college, and whether English was their first language), b₀ is the intercept; and b₁, b₂, and b₃ are vectors of coefficients. Finally, the linear regression model contains an error term, e_i. Given that we had data for numerous participant characteristics, lasso regression was used to identify the subsets of variables best able to parsimoniously predict the answers to each survey question (Tibshirani, 1996).

Finally, we examine in detail faculty responses to several survey questions concerning who should have control over curriculum and transfer, and whether those responses differed as a function of the faculty member’s college’s selectivity (research question #3). All individual question response percentages and means were calculated using only responding participants. Additional analysis details are given in the Appendix.

Response Rates and Participant Representativeness

This section reports response rate information, analyses exploring participants’ representativeness compared to the entire invited population, and potential response bias.

In the present survey, a faculty member was categorized as a participant if they gave consent and answered at least one question (99.9% of participants answered more than one). There were 3,871 participants (1,817 part-time and 2,054 full-time) from 17,381 invitees, a 22.3% overall response rate (ranging from 14.8% to 46.2% per college). The tenured faculty response rate was 33.0%. Of all participants, 40.8% were categorized as associate faculty and 58.2% as bachelor’s (see Table 1).

Table 1. Comparisons Between Associate and Bachelor’s Faculty
Characteristic	n = 1,580	n = 2,251
	Group
	Associate	Bachelor’s
CUNY Employment
% full-time	54.7	52.4
% tenured	34.9	35.7
Years in CUNY (M (SD))	14.5(10.0)	13.9(10.3)
Demographics
Gender (% Female)	56.1	57.3
*Race/Ethnicity (% White)	57.4	63.6
Age (M (SD))	54.1(11.6)	54.1(13.6)
Experience (%)
*Ever attended community college	24.2	15.7
*Earned associate degree a	60.8	49.6
Rec’d need-based scholarship	47.8	48.2
*English first language	69.4	73.5
*Leadership/Advising role b	29.8	35.2

Note. CUNY Human Resources could only provide demographic information for participants, not nonparticipants. In addition, CUNY HR provided values for participants divided into associate’s and bachelor’s faculty according to HR’s records of college affiliation, not according to the faculty’s self-reported affiliations on the survey, which were used for all analysis purposes.

a Among those who attended a community college.

b Faculty with at least one role.

*p < .01.

Associate and full-time faculty were more likely to participate than bachelor’s (including comprehensive) and part-time faculty, respectively (p < .01). Part-time faculty were significantly more likely than full-time to answer “don’t know” for the questions for which this was an option (p < .05). Participants were also significantly more likely to be tenured, to have more years at CUNY, to be female, and to be White than were CUNY faculty as a whole. Given these significant differences, we used logistic regression to weight the survey’s answers to reflect the demographics of the invited population. However, weighting did not appear to substantially affect responses (with and without weighting, most multiple-choice answers were within three percentage points, and no Likert scale question answers were more than 0.1 point different). Further, there was only one question whose answers were significantly different for early (N = 1,108) and late (N = 520) responders with a larger-than-small effect size.

Finally, the general background question response rates were all greater than 97%, and most participants answered more than 90% of the remaining questions. Therefore, the opportunity for response bias did not differ substantially across questions.

Results

Associate and Bachelor’s Participant Characteristics, Their Experience With Transfer, and Their Knowledge About Transfer (Research Question #1)

Table 1 shows the characteristics of both the associate and bachelor’s participants. The associate faculty were significantly less likely to be White, to have English as their first language, and to have served in a leadership and/or advising role. They were significantly more likely to have attended a community college and to have earned an associate degree.

The top sections of Tables 2 (Likert-scale questions) and 3 (multiple choice questions) summarize the responses of the associate and bachelor’s faculty on questions related to their transfer experience and knowledge. The two groups gave significantly different answers on 10 out of the 12 questions asked of both groups. The associate faculty were more likely to report that they had been involved in transfer-related activities. The associate faculty were also more likely to state that they knew which students were (prospective) transfers, and that they obtained that information by asking students directly.

However, even though close to one third of the total participants held, or had recently held, administrative or advising roles (see Table 1), both associate and bachelor’s faculty were not very confident in their knowledge about transfer (for associate and bachelor’s faculty, respectively, mean ratings were 3.4 and 3.2 on a 7-point scale from 1 [“not at all confident”] to 7 [“very confident”]). In fact, both groups evidenced little accurate knowledge about transfer policies, as these survey responses indicate:

Table 2. Responses to Yes/No, Agree/Disagree, True/False, and Likert-Scale Questions
Question	n = 1,548	n = 2,129
	Associate	Bachelor’s
Transfer Experience and Knowledge
**†Know which students are transfers a	52.0(319)	34.7(286)
**†Helped organize transfer events a	27.7(364)	22.8(420)
*†Interacted with colleagues on transfer activities a	36.4(479)	25.5(469)
Participated on transfer policy committees a	21.9(286)	19.9(366)
*†Worked on transfer communications a	23.2(302)	19.4(354)
**†More credits transfer with associate a	42.8(552)	24.6(443)
*†Transfer changes major credits to electives a	38.2(492)	34.5(620)
**†Confident in knowledge about transfer policies a	3.4(1.6)(1,148)	3.2(1.7)(1,431)
Transfer Views
Transfers’ performance depends on associate college a	-	4.1(1.6)(1,525)
**††Other sector helpful with course equivalencies a	4.3(1.4)(1,200)	4.8(1.4)(454)
**†Central office should facilitate credit transfer more a	70.8(888)	49.4(841)
**††Students learn more c	4.5(1.2)(1,185)	5.4(1.4)(1,567)
**††Academically prepared d	4.5(1.5)(1,118)	5.0(1.4)(1,548)
**†Concerned about coursework and careers d	4.0(1.4)(1,071)	4.2(1.2)(1,512)
**†Financially secure d	4.9(1.6)(1,093)	4.7(1.5)(1,492)
Innate academic ability d	4.4(1.1)(1,102)	4.5(1.1)(1,510)
**†Resilience and grit d	3.9(1.3)(1,080)	4.1(1.2)(1,503)
Motivated and exerts effort d	4.2(1.3)(1,092)	4.3(1.1)(1,509)
**†Should take general education courses in associate a	61.5(742)	56.7(941)
**††Should take major courses in associate a	42.4(511)	21.0(348)
*†Colleagues try to understand transfers’ challenges b	5.1(1.6)(1,173)	4.9(1.6)(1,580)
**†Transfers get tailored information/advice a	62.9(769)	48.2(807)
Transfers get same support/advice amount b	-	5.2(1.5)(1,586)
College cares about transfer graduation rates b	-	5.5(1.4)(1,590)
**†Faculty value transfers a	75.0(916)	66.0(1,120)
**††Bachelor’s programs inadequate making transfers feel valued b	4.6(1.4)(1,133)	3.3(1.6)(1,364)
**††Is stigma to community college attendance b	5.4(1.5)(1,151)	4.6(1.7)(1,477)
**††Transfers should retake associate’s courses b	3.4(1.8)(1,063)	3.9(1.7)(1,430)
**††Bachelor’s programs expect transfers to perform as well b	4.5(1.5)(1,137)	4.8(1.6)(1,532)

a Percentages (Ns) of all participants who answered “Yes,” “Agree,” or “True” to that question

b From 1 (low) to 7 (high); M(SD)(N).

c From 1 (more in associate-degree course) to 7 (more in bachelor’s-degree course); M(SD)(N).

d From 1 (more common in associate program starter) to 7 (more common in bachelor’s program starter); M(SD)(N).

*p < .05. **p < .001. If p < .05: †small effect size < .20. ††medium effect size .20–.49

• A total of 43% of associate faculty and 25% of bachelor’s faculty stated that more credits transfer with an associate degree, which is incorrect at CUNY (at CUNY, individual course credits transfer independently of whether a student has a degree, a student’s major, other courses a student is taking, or anything else).
• Less than 40% of both groups reported knowing (correctly) that transfer can change major credits to elective credits.
• Over 60% of both groups said they did not know what happens to students’ GPAs when they transfer.
• In answering this question “To the best of your knowledge, about what percentage of the graduates of your primary college every year are vertical transfer students?” two thirds (66.7%) of bachelor’s faculty answered “Don’t Know” and 14.3% chose 0–25%. The actual percentage for 2020–2021 was 43.1% (Z. Tang, personal communication, June 29, 2023). Only 10.9% of bachelor’s participants chose 26–50%.

Associate and Bachelor’s Participant Views About Transfer (Research Question #2)

The bottom sections of Tables 2 and 3 summarize the responses of the associate and bachelor’s faculty on questions related to their views about transfer (except for questions concerning the faculty’s views about control over curriculum and transfer, which are presented in a later section). As reported previously for the top sections of Tables 2 and 3, consistent with our predictions, the answers in the bottom sections are often significantly different between the associate and bachelor’s faculty (19 out of the 25 questions asked of both groups).

Table 3. Percentages (Ns) of Multiple Choice Question Responses
Response	n = 1,548	n = 2,129	(effect size)
	Associate	Bachelor’s	Chi-square p
Transfer Experience and Knowledge
**†How do you know which students are [prospective] vertical transfer students?
I ask students	70.1(211)	20.8(59)	< .001(0.17)
By academic performance	11.6(35)	20.1(57)
By behavior	8.3(25)	4.6(13)
From administration	3.3(10)	7.7(22)
Students tell me	58.5(176)	59.9(170)
Other	8.6(26)	24.6(70)
How often did you communicate with other offices at your primary institution about transfer?
Few times per week	6.7(20)	10.6(41)	.22(0.04)
Few times per month	29.6(88)	33.2(128)
Few times per year	48.1(143)	42.3(163)
Never	14.1(42)	11.9(46)
I wasn’t a faculty member	1.3(4)	1.8(7)
**†How often did you communicate with colleagues at other colleges about transfer?
Few times per week	2.3(25)	1.4(20)	< .001(0.12)
Few times per month	8.5(90)	5.3(74)
Few times per year	39.5(420)	29.2(405)
Never	47.7(507)	60.2(835)
I wasn’t a faculty member	2.1(22)	3.8(52)
What percentage of graduates of your primary college are vertical transfers?
≤ 10%	-	5.4(98)	-
11–25%	-	8.9(161)	-
26–50%	-	10.9(196)	-
≥ 51%	-	8.1(146)	-
Don’t know	-	66.7(1,203)	-
**†After transferring, vertical transfers typically experience a
Temporary GPA decrease	18.4(233)	21.2(381)	< .001(0.10)
Temporary GPA increase	1.7(21)	2.2(39)
Permanent GPA decrease	4.8(61)	9.4(170)
Permanent GPA increase	1.6(20)	2.2(39)
No GPA change	4.1(52)	3.2(58)
Don’t know	69.5(882)	61.8(1,112)
Transfer Views
**†For which transfer process aspects should faculty at your primary college make final decision?
Credit transfer	52.5(598)	59.1(943)	.20(0.02)
Transfer admission	-	26.4(421)
Courses transfers should take	64.2(731)	63.6(1,014)
Other	6.7(76)	6.9(110)
**†Three most important factors determining transfers’ academic performance
Effort/motivation	64.1(759)	60.5(970)	< .001(0.06)
Financial/food/housing security	43.6(516)	36.6(587)
Academic supports’ quality	35.6(421)	41.9(615)
Current/past instruction quality	26.2(310)	38.4(672)
**†Three greatest transfer process challenges
Getting transfer credits applied	62.6(674)	57.4(838)	< .001(0.07)
Having financial aid last	60.5(652)	52.5(766)
Being admitted to desired bachelor’s major	52.4(564)	35.8(523)
Getting credits evaluated timely	40.1(432)	54.8(800)
Getting good grades	33.0(355)	44.3(646)
**†What info/resources would better enable you to support prospective/current vertical transfers?
Data on students’ performance	49.2(583)	43.2(698)	< .001(0.06)
Advising training	47.1(558)	37.0(598)
Resources to better align courses	56.2(666)	43.8(707)
Other	6.5(77)	9.1(147)
None, I have sufficient information	3.0(36)	6.1(99)
No opinion/don’t know	12.9(153)	19.9(322)

Note. Cell dashes = group did not receive that answer choice. The most frequent answers for each group are shown. Chi square tests used the most frequent answers for each group, and only answer options that were the same for both groups.

*p < .05. **p < .001. If p < .05: †small effect size <.20. ††medium effect size .20-.49

A total of eight of these comparisons have a larger-than-small effect size of .20. Following are four examples, all of which indicate the low opinions that many members of the two sectors have for aspects of the other sector:

• “The amount students learn in an associate’s-degree course and a bachelor’s-degree course that have the same name is” (from 1, Students learn more in the associate’s-degree course to 7, Students learn more in the bachelor’s-degree course). The mean is 4.5 for associate faculty and 5.4 for bachelor’s.
• “Bachelor’s-degree programs do not do enough . . .” (given to associate faculty) or “My colleagues do not do enough . . .” (given to bachelor’s faculty) “to make transfer students from associate’s-degree programs feel like they are valued and supported” (given to all faculty), with answers ranging from 1, Strongly disagree, to 7, Strongly agree. The mean is 4.6 for associate faculty and 3.3 for bachelor’s.
• “In some people’s minds, there is a stigma attached to attending a community college” (with the same answer options as the previous example). The mean is 5.4 for associate faculty and 4.6 for bachelor’s.
• “I find most of my colleagues in [bachelor’s-degree programs for associate faculty, and associate-degree programs for bachelor’s faculty] cooperative and helpful in creating course equivalencies with our courses” (with the same answer options as the previous example). The mean is 4.3 for associate faculty and 4.8 for bachelor’s.

An examination of the answers to other transfer views questions finds that, although there is substantial variation within each group, bachelor’s faculty think less highly of transfer students than do associate faculty, with the bachelor’s faculty being more likely to say that transfer students are not as well prepared, or as concerned about their coursework, or as motivated, or as possessed of resilience and grit as are students who begin college in bachelor’s programs. In contrast, the associate and bachelor’s faculty did not significantly differ in their views of whether vertical transfer students or students who start college in a bachelor’s program have more innate academic ability or are more motivated (both faculty groups, on average, rated students who start in a bachelor’s program as being somewhat higher on both traits).

However, many bachelor’s faculty’s views of vertical transfer students apparently vary depending on the CUNY community college from which the student transferred. When the bachelor’s faculty were asked “How much does a vertical transfer student’s academic performance in bachelor’s-degree programs at your . . . college depend on which CUNY associate’s-degree-granting college the student attended?” with responses ranging from 1, “Does not matter at all,” to 7, “Matters a great deal,” the mean response was 4.1 with a standard deviation of 1.6.

In some ways, the bachelor’s faculty seem to acknowledge that their support of transfer is not excellent. The bachelor’s faculty were less likely than the associate faculty to state that their colleagues try to understand transfers’ challenges, that transfers get tailored information and advice, and that faculty value transfers.

At the same time, bachelor’s faculty seem to defend their treatment of transfer students by giving, on average, relatively high ratings to:

• The view that transfers get the same amount of support and advice as students who begin college in a bachelor’s program (5.2).
• The statement that their college cares about transfer students (5.5).
• The statement that they expect transfer students to perform as well as students who begin college in a bachelor’s program (4.8).

Finally, despite their reported relative lack of transfer knowledge, less than half of both associate and bachelor’s participants responded that more data or training would help them better support vertical transfer students, and only about half responded that they wanted more resources to help better align associate and bachelor’s courses.

Relationships Between Faculty Background Characteristics and Transfer Views (Research Question #3)

In this section we explore the relationships between faculty characteristics (including college selectivity) and faculty’s views about transfer.

The wide range in selectivity of the 20 CUNY undergraduate colleges allows for more detailed comparisons of faculty views related to college type than simply associate versus bachelor’s faculty. For the college selectivity variable, we divided faculty into three groups: faculty whose primary appointment (as stated in the survey and according to Human Resources) was at an (open-access) community college (7 colleges), faculty whose primary appointment was at a selective bachelor’s college (5 colleges), and faculty whose primary appointment was at a most selective bachelor’s college (5 colleges). We then examined whether participants’ characteristics, including college selectivity, were associated with their answers to the questions requesting participants’ views,

Table 4 shows the results of regressions examining the associations of 19 transfer views questions with nine participant characteristics (treating “Bachelor’s Selectivity” as a single characteristic). Each Table 4 row shows the results of one regression for a specific transfer views survey question. Each Table 4 column shows the relationships (marginal effects at means for dichotomous outcome variables, and fixed effects for continuous outcome variables) of particular participant characteristics with each views question.

Table 4’s columns (each column corresponding to a participant characteristic) are ordered according to the number of views questions with which a particular participant characteristic has a significant association. Consistent with our prediction, the participant characteristic of appointment in a most selective bachelor’s college (the left-most characteristic of Table 4) was significantly associated with many, in fact most, views questions (18 significant relationships). The two participant characteristics significantly associated with the least number of views questions (one each, the two right-most columns in Table 4) are community college attendance and receipt of an associate degree (both associated with questions concerning transfer curriculum).

The rows in Table 4 (each row corresponding to a views question) are also ordered in terms of the numbers of significant relationships, this time with participant characteristics. The first of the two views questions significantly associated with the most (five) faculty characteristics (the top row of Table 4) was whether “resilience and grit” more characterize vertical transfer students or students who begin college in a bachelor’s program, with long-employed faculty at selective institutions tending to say it was vertical transfer students, and faculty who had had advising roles, had a scholarship, or for whom English was their first language tending to say it was students who begin college in a bachelor’s program. The other question significantly related to the most (five) faculty characteristics was “Do faculty at your primary college value vertical transfer students?” with long-employed, full-time, advising-role-experienced, and first-language-English faculty tending to say yes, but faculty at selective institutions tending to say no. The views question related to the fewest faculty characteristics (one; the bottom row of Table 4) was asked only of bachelor’s faculty and concerned whether transfer students’ performance differed depending on which associate college they had attended.

Table 4. Regressions Relating Participants’ Characteristics to Their Views
Views	Bachelor’s Selectivity		Years in CUNY	English 1st language	Had a scholarship	Full-time	Tenure	Advising role	Attended Comm. Coll.	Assoc. degree	Constant	N / R²
	Characteristics
Views	Selective	Most selective	Years in CUNY	English 1st language	Had a scholarship	Full-time	Tenure	Advising role	Attended Comm. Coll.	Assoc. degree	Constant	N / R²
Resilience and grit b^,c	0.27**	0.23**	0.0078**	−0.15**	−0.12*	−0.13	−0.079	−0.15*	0.044	0.063	3.98	2,061
Resilience and grit b^,c	(0.068)	(0.057)	(0.0027)	(0.056)	(0.051)	(0.071)	(0.076)	(0.063)	(0.10)	(0.13)	3.98	.027
Concerned about coursework and careers b^,c	0.18*	0.20**	0.065*	−0.17**	X	−0.15*	X	−0.11	0.13	X	4.05	2,057
Concerned about coursework and careers b^,c	(0.069)	(0.058)	(0.0027)	(0.057)	X	(0.073)	X	(0.065)	(0.10)	X	4.05	.029
Transfers get tailored information/advice a	−0.14**	−0.30**	0.0026*	−0.034	0.020	0.11**	0.019**	0.20	−0.031	0.077	-	2,283
Transfers get tailored information/advice a	(0.030)	(0.026)	(0.0010)	(0.026)	(0.022)	(0.032)	(0.032)	(0.027)	(0.042)	(0.054)	-	.097
Should take general education courses in associate’s a	−0.046	−0.097**	0.0024*	0.011	0.054**	−0.0021	0.015	0.11**	0.063*	X	-	2,265
Should take general education courses in associate’s a	(0.029)	(0.024)	(0.0010)	(0.024)	(0.021)	(0.030)	(0.030)	(0.025)	(0.029)	X	-	.022
Central office should facilitate credit transfer more a	−0.22**	−0.29**	0.000062	−0.076**	0.062**	−0.038	0.012	0.029	0.049	0.069	-	2,323
Central office should facilitate credit transfer more a	(0.029)	(0.025)	(0.0010)	(0.025)	(0.022)	(0.031)	(0.030)	(0.025)	(0.040)	(0.054)	-	.065
Should take major courses in associate’s a	−0.22**	−0.29**	X	−0.11**	−0.028	−0.036	−0.061	X	0.022	0.10*	-	2,263
Should take major courses in associate’s a	(0.025)	(0.022)	X	(0.021)	(0.020)	(0.027)	(0.026)	X	(0.036)	(0.044)	-	.10
Is stigma to community college attendance b	−1.11**	−0.84**	−0.0043	0.032	0.18**	0.24*	X	X	X	X	5.37	2,093
Is stigma to community college attendance b	(0.086)	(0.071)	(0.0033)	(0.070)	(0.065)	(0.090)	X	X	X	X	5.37	.11
Bachelor’s faculty expect transfers to perform as well b	0.48**	0.25**	−0.0015	−0.27**	X	−0.019	−0.27**	X	0.0052	X	4.76	2,118
Bachelor’s faculty expect transfers to perform as well b	(0.086)	(0.072)	(0.0033)	(0.070)	X	(0.091)	(0.10)	X	(0.13)	X	4.76	.039
Students learn more in bachelor’s course b	0.97**	1.03**	0.013**	X	X	0.10	X	X	X	X	4.13	2,180
Students learn more in bachelor’s course b	(0.069)	(0.058)	(0.0027)	X	X	(0.072)	X	X	X	X	4.13	.16
Academically prepared b^,c	0.33**	0.63**	0.014**	X	−0.075	0.025	X	X	−0.16	−0.037	4.34	2,119
Academically prepared b^,c	(0.079)	(0.066)	(0.0031)	X	(0.060)	(0.083)	X	X	(0.12)	(0.15)	4.34	.065
Financially secure b^,c	−0.39**	−0.20**	−0.0011	0.026	X	X	0.25**	X	X	X	4.89	2,059
Financially secure b^,c	(0.084)	(0.070)	(0.0033)	(0.068)	X	X	(0.093)	X	X	X	4.89	.025
Motivated and exerts effort b^,c	X	0.084	0.0041	−0.12*	−0.12*	−0.21**	X	−0.045	X	X	4.44	2,071
Motivated and exerts effort b^,c	X	(0.054)	(0.0025)	(0.053)	(0.049)	(0.068)	X	(0.060)	X	X	4.44	.022
Transfers/nontransferstudents get same support/advice amount b	-	−0.22**	0.0087*	X	−0.069	0.27*	X	0.13	0.010	X	4.98	1,328
	-	(0.077)	(0.0040)	X	(0.077)	(0.12)	X	(0.10)	(0.16)	X	4.98	.032
College cares about transfer graduation rates b	-	−0.26**	0.0078*	0.063	−0.13	0.52**	−0.18	0.080	0.068	0.20	5.28	1,328
College cares about transfer graduation rates b	-	(0.074)	(0.0038)	(0.077)	(0.074)	(0.12)	(0.11)	(0.10)	(0.15)	(0.21)	5.28	.039
Transfers should retake associate’s courses b	0.16	0.88**	0.012**	−0.089	−0.029	X	X	−0.33**	X	X	3.39	1,989
Transfers should retake associate’s courses b	(0.10)	(0.083)	(0.0039)	(0.081)	(0.076)	X	X	(0.093)	X	X	3.39	.067
Other sector helpful with course equivalencies b	0.46**	0.29**	0.0043	X	0.020	X	−0.19	0.059	X	X	4.26	1,247
Other sector helpful with course equivalencies b	(0.13)	(0.10)	(0.0039)	X	(0.076)	X	(0.11)	(0.092)	X	X	4.26	.028
Academic ability b^,c		0.084	0.0071**	X	−0.11*	X	X	−0.046	−0.015	X	4.35	2,085
Academic ability b^,c		(0.049)	(0.0023)	X	(0.044)	X	X	(0.054)	(0.087)	X	4.35	.014
Colleagues try to understand transfers’ challenges b	X	−0.39**	0.0074*	X	X	0.019	X	0.085	X	X	4.97	2,186
Colleagues try to understand transfers’ challenges b	X	(0.072)	(0.0033)	X	X	(0.090)	X	(0.080)	X	X	4.97	.025
Transfers’ performance depends on associate’s college b	-	0.014	0.0053	−0.19*	0.14	0.10	0.10	0.056	X	0.37	3.92	1,265
Transfers’ performance depends on associate’s college b	-	(0.085)	(0.0045)	(0.089)	(0.085)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.11)	X	(0.24)	3.92	.020

Note. Both the rows and the columns are ordered according to the number of significant findings in each row and column, with the greatest number of significant findings in the top row and left-most column of results (treating the two bachelor’s selectivity columns as one participant characteristic). X = variable not selected by lasso regression. Dashes = bachelor’s selectivity variable not included in regression because question was asked only of associate’s- or bachelor’s-degree faculty. Regression reference groups: Bachelor’s selectivity: Community college; FT: PT; Tenure: Not tenured; Advising role: No advising role; Attended community college: Did not attend; Associate’s degree: no associate’s degree; Had a scholarship: No scholarship; English first language: English not first language

a Logistic regression; cells = marginal effects at means (SEs), R² = pseudo R².

b OLS regression; cells = coefficients (SEs).

c From 1 (more common in associate’s program starter) to 7 (more common in bachelor’s program starter)

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Control Over Curriculum and Transfer (Research Question #3)

Given that being currently appointed in a most selective college was by far the faculty characteristic most associated with transfer views, we particularly examined, for survey questions concerning control over curriculum and transfer, the views of the three groups of faculty (community college, selective bachelor’s college, and most selective bachelor’s college). Figure 2 shows the responses of these three groups of faculty to the four such questions. This figure shows that, not only are there differences between the associate and bachelor’s faculty, but there also appear to be differences between the selective and most selective colleges’ faculty, with the most selective colleges’ faculty being more different from the associate faculty than are the selective college faculty. For example, consider the survey question asking participants whether they agreed with this statement: “It is sometimes advisable for vertical transfer students to retake courses in their majors when they transfer to bachelor’s-degree programs, even if they did well in those courses at the associate’s-degree level” (rated from 1 Strongly disagree to 7 Strongly agree). The associate faculty had a mean rating of 3.4, the selective bachelor’s faculty a mean of 3.6, and the most selective bachelor’s faculty a mean of 4.3. The most selective bachelor’s faculty are also the group least likely to agree that vertical transfer students should take many general education and major courses in the associate program, or that the central office should do more to facilitate transfer.

An additional survey question concerned the control of faculty over transfer practice and policy decisions: “For which of the following aspects of the transfer process should faculty at your primary college make the final decision?” Approximately two thirds of all three faculty groups thought that faculty at their colleges should make the final decision about which courses transfer students should take (associate faculty were asked this question about prospective transfer students). Most faculty did not think that course-choice decisions should be made jointly across the associate and bachelor’s sectors. Similarly, over 50% of the faculty in all three groups thought that faculty at their respective colleges should be deciding how associate credits transfer to bachelor’s programs. Note that, at CUNY, as at many other colleges, associate faculty make none of these decisions and bachelor’s faculty make all of them.

A graph with four sets of three columns comparing percentages of responses of three groups of faculty to four questions about faculty control over students’ curriculum and transfer. — Figure 2. Comparison of Community-, Selective Bachelor’s-, and Most Selective Bachelor’s-College Faculty Responses to Survey Questions Concerning Control Over Curriculum and Transfer

Note. For the data in this figure only, faculty at the comprehensive colleges and faculty whose self-reported survey college affiliations were not consistent with the CUNY Office of Human Resources information were not included in the analyses.

Discussion

This study examined the characteristics and transfer views of almost 4,000 faculty at 20 undergraduate colleges, including the relationships between those characteristics and views. The colleges varied in type, consisting of community colleges, selective bachelor’s colleges, and most selective bachelor’s colleges. The number of faculty participants was far larger than those in any previous study of faculty and transfer.

Consistent with Schudde and Jabbar’s (2024) conceptual framework, in the present study the associate and bachelor’s faculty, who have different types and levels of power in the strategic action field of transfer (see Figure 1), differed significantly in, not only their transfer experience and knowledge (research question #1), but in their views about transfer (research question #2). In addition, again consistent with Schudde and Jabbar’s conceptual framework, whether a faculty member was appointed in a most-selective bachelor’s institution was the faculty characteristic that was most predictive of a faculty member’s transfer views, including their views concerning the control of transfer curriculum and credit transfer (research question #3). For example, as shown by Figure 2, only 12% of faculty at most-selective bachelor’s colleges thought that students should take many of their major courses while enrolled in their associate programs, compared to 42% of associate faculty; only 36% of faculty at most-selective bachelor’s colleges thought that the CUNY central office should do more to facilitate transfer, compared to 71% of associate faculty; and on a scale ranging from 1, strongly disagree, to 7, strongly agree, concerning the statement that vertical transfer students should retake associate-program courses, faculty at most-selective bachelor’s colleges gave a mean answer of 4.3 compared to 3.4 by associate faculty. As a final example, compared to community college faculty, Table 4 shows that faculty at the most-selective colleges had a 30% lower probability of saying that their department’s or program’s vertical transfer students get information and advice tailored to them as a transfer student.

In contrast, two other characteristics (whether a faculty member had attended a community college and whether a faculty member had an associate degree) were each associated to a statistically significant degree with only one views question (both questions concerning transfer curriculum). It is useful to note that each of these two faculty characteristics can be, and sometimes is, publicly hidden (Muniz, 2024), and so may not affect a faculty member’s role or power in the transfer strategic action field. Regardless, where faculty stand on transfer issues is less related to where they once sat in the higher education ecosystem, and more to where they sit now.

The survey reveals many specific differences between the typical associate faculty member and the typical bachelor’s faculty member, both in terms of their characteristics and their transfer views. For example, in general, the associate faculty are less likely to be White or to have English as their first language, and are more likely to have attended a community college and received an associate degree (see Table 1). Regarding their views (see Tables 2 and 3), the associate faculty are relatively more likely to believe that there is stigma towards community colleges and are less confident in the other sector (bachelor’s colleges) being helpful with credit transfer. The bachelor’s faculty, on the other hand, consistent with the findings of Sutcliffe et al. (2025), are more likely to believe that students learn more in bachelor’s programs. The bachelor’s faculty are also more likely to believe that community colleges vary in their preparation of students and are more negative in their assessments of transfer students (findings that may help explain students concealing their having transferred vertically). Faculty at the most selective bachelor’s colleges are particularly likely to believe that students should not take many general education or major courses at community colleges prior to transfer, that associate courses should be retaken in bachelor’s programs, and that the CUNY central office should not do more to facilitate transfer. Whether a faculty member’s appointment was in a most-selective college was more predictive of transfer views than any other faculty characteristic (see Table 4). However, where the associate and bachelor’s sectors do not differ is that both evidence little accurate knowledge about transfer or desire for more transfer-related data or training.

The faculty’s inadequate transfer knowledge is perhaps not surprising given that approximately a third or fewer reported involvement in particular transfer-related activities (see Table 2). In addition, faculty have many time-consuming nontransfer responsibilities. As stated by one CUNY community college faculty member: “We have to teach four classes in one semester and five classes in one semester. That’s a lot of teaching. With that kind of load, where are faculty going to spend time looking at the big picture?” (Sowl & Brown, 2021, p. 152).

Understanding what is happening with transfer requires understanding what is happening beyond your classroom, your department, and even your college. Faculty do not ordinarily have access to such information, information that can even be hard for administrators to obtain (Anacki & Steiger, 2023). However, that information is essential to providing transfer students with appropriate support. Consider an example. Suppose a community college faculty member, believing strongly (and correctly) that the advanced courses they teach are excellent, advises a student to take those courses, unaware that the bachelor’s college to which the student will transfer will only count them as electives. The student will then have to repeat those courses, costing the student both time and money. Ensuring that faculty are aware of such information is a first step towards faculty facilitating vertical transfer.

Even though the most-selective-college faculty had the most negative view of the courses transfer students have taken in the community colleges, they were less likely than other faculty to report stigma being associated with community college attendance (see Table 4). This finding has multiple possible explanations. Perhaps the most-selective-college faculty tend to believe that their negative views about vertical transfer students and their associate courses are based on facts, not opinions. Or perhaps most-selective-college faculty have greater concerns about appearing biased against vertical transfer students. Whatever the explanation, these faculty also report little confidence in their knowledge of transfer policies and express little transfer knowledge—even of which of their students are transfers (see Table 4). However, at the same time, as predicted by Schudde and Jabbar’s (2024) conceptual framework, the most-selective-college faculty were the least likely group to report wanting CUNY central to do more regarding transfer (see Figure 2).

Two examples of associate- and bachelor’s-college faculty reporting incompatible views are that each group tended to report that faculty at their primary college should make the final decision about credits transferring and about the courses transfer students should take. For the bachelor’s faculty, such views are consistent with Schudde and Jabbar’s (2024) conceptual framework and with other public statements about curricular control in transfer. As stated by Eloy Ortiz Oakley, former Chancellor of California’s 116 community colleges, the top problem in California is that there is a “culture that the academic senates of the CSU [California State University] and the UC [University of California] have, that no one should be telling them what they should do, whether it’s the Legislature or the public, that they are the most qualified people to determine what is the best course of major preparation for students coming to the CSU and the UC” (Smith, 2023, “Pinpointing the pushback” section). Matt Reed, a former Inside Higher Ed blogger, stated that the CSU Academic Senate is not “simply objecting to community colleges offering bachelor’s degrees; the universities want to be granted a unilateral and uncontested veto power over them” (2022, third paragraph). However, the results obtained in the current study show that, not just the bachelor’s faculty, but also the associate faculty, tend to feel that their decisions should determine what happens with credit transfer and transfer curriculum. Such findings have not previously been discussed in the research literature (though see the Sowl & Brown, 2021, case study, which is titled: “We Don’t Need a Four-Year College Person to Come Here and Tell Us What to Do,” p. 143).

A difference, though, between the CUNY associate and bachelor’s faculty is that the associate faculty are much more willing to have the CUNY central office do more regarding transfer. This is likely due to the associate faculty, unlike the bachelor’s faculty, currently having no control over credit transfer at CUNY, and so being more tolerant of what could be considered external intervention, consistent with predictions based on Schudde and Jabbar’s (2024) conceptual framework.

This study has at least two limitations. First, the data were obtained largely from a survey. As is true for all surveys, participants reported what they chose concerning their subjective impressions. Second, the colleges surveyed, and therefore perhaps the faculty, may differ from other colleges, possibly limiting the findings’ generalizability. Although the present findings are from almost 4,000 faculty at 20 colleges, all the colleges are part of one (CUNY) system, all are in New York City, and most of the students are not White, are Pell recipients, and will be first in their families to graduate from college. Further, the faculty from these 20 colleges have more opportunities to interact than would be the case for 20 randomly selected colleges. However, the large size of the present sample, the substantial consistency of the findings with those from other studies, and the focus here on improving vertical transfer for underserved students, provide confidence in the value of the lessons to be learned from the current research.

Implications and Contributions

This is the first assessment of the transfer knowledge and views of a large number (almost 4,000) of faculty, at more than a few institutions, including the relationships of the faculty’s characteristics to their transfer views. The results reported here thus offer unique insights into why it is difficult to achieve close articulation of different colleges’ programs, including seamless credit transfer, and how to address these difficulties.

First, faculty need more information about transfer to be able to advise and support transfer students well. They need knowledge about transfer policies and processes, as well as transfer student behavior and outcomes—where and how do different types of students who have had different types of preparation in their associate programs fare once they enroll in bachelor’s programs? Faculty need this information in order to align effectively curriculum and processes and enhance transfer student success.

Given the lack of transfer activity involvement by most faculty, their often large teaching and service workloads, the substantial requirements for their scholarly and creative activity, and their lack of access to cross-institutional and other transfer information, faculty are not going to have sufficient information about transfer unless their colleges’ administrations obtain and share that information. It is the responsibility of administrations to obtain and distribute this information, using whatever means at their disposal (written communications, webinars, small-group discussions, etc.), including by convening faculty from across higher education sectors so that they can learn from each other.

However, even if information inadequacies are addressed, colleges largely operate independently of each other, and no college operating by itself can ensure an optimal vertical transfer process. Sending and receiving colleges have different missions, responsibilities, and aspects of control over different parts of the process, with receiving (bachelor’s) colleges having more control (see Figure 1). In addition, consistent with Schudde and Jabbar’s (2024) conceptual framework, these differing levels of control by the different faculty groups examined in this study are correlated with different, sometimes incompatible, views concerning transfer, including willingness to have a third party (the CUNY central office) intervene in transfer. Faculty, as well as other institutional actors, are likely to, and their positions may even obligate them to, act in their own (including their own institutions’) self-interest (Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board, 2023; Logue & Shrank, 2015; Schudde et al., 2021). This is the case for both associate and bachelor’s faculty.

These factors help explain why it can be difficult for committees of faculty from different higher education sectors to develop effective articulation agreements (Lane et al., 2022), and why involvement by third parties (e.g., a system office or a state legislative body), in setting transfer policies and/or providing incentives for cross-sector cooperation, may be needed to facilitate vertical transfer (Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board, 2023; Schudde et al., 2021; The Editorial Board, 2023). As Oakley has stated: “Change . . . will need to come from the top down” (Smith, 2023; “Pinpointing the pushback” section). Nevertheless, faculty are, by definition, their institutions’ curriculum experts—administrators (or legislators) are not—and transfer-related decisions are inherently tied to curriculum. Finding ways to balance these considerations is difficult but essential to facilitating vertical transfer. One possibility might be to base transfer course equivalency decisions on information generated by faculty, but not by faculty immediately involved in the decisions’ consequences (see, e.g., Pardos et al., 2019).

Ensuring that students who begin postsecondary education in an associate program can attain a bachelor’s degree with no more difficulty than equivalent students who begin in a bachelor’s program is not just a college degree attainment goal. Given the greater frequency of poverty and discrimination experienced by community college students, enabling vertical transfer is a social justice and equity imperative (Rosenberg & Koch, 2021). Research such as that reported here can help us meet that imperative.

Author Note

Portions of this research were presented at the 2023 Annual Conference of the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students, and were reported in: Rabinowitz, V., Oka, Y., & Logue, A. W. (2022, September 8). What faculty know (and don’t know) about transfer—and why it matters. Inside Higher Ed. https://bit.ly/3RLzeK3; Logue, A. W., Rabinowitz, V., & Oka, Y. (2023, February 27). Community college bias? Study of 3,000 CUNY educators shows skewed views of students & their credits. The 74. https://bit.ly/3sMfMpo; and Rabinowitz, V., Oka, Y., & Logue, A. W. (2023, April 13). Where faculty sit is where they stand. Inside Higher Ed. https://bit.ly/3CdERuG. We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded by The City University of New York and by Grant R305A180139–19 from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the Department of Education (the contents of this paper do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and endorsement by the Federal Government should not be assumed). For contributions to all stages of the research, we thank many members of CUNY’s Office of Applied Research, Evaluation, and Data Analytics, led by University Dean C. Chellman, particularly M. Shields, N. Bellettiere, and Z. Tang; D. Marxuach, K. King, and S. Sivasingam of CUNY Human Resources; M. Burke, M. Cotter, and J. Verzani of the CUNY University Faculty Senate; A. Nicols-Grinenko, D. Lemons, and V. Upadhyay of the CUNY Office of Academic Affairs; members of CUNY’s Transfer Opportunity Project (TOP) and Institutional Research Council; B. Condliffe, S. Sutcliffe, and M. Weiss of MDRC; A. Monday of Ithaka S+R; the 25 CUNY faculty who tested the survey; and the many CUNY college leaders who encouraged their faculty to participate.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to A. W. Logue, Center for Advanced Study in Education, Graduate Center, The City University of New York, 365 5^th Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Email: alexandra.logue@cuny.edu, https://lexalogue.bsky.social, https://www.facebook.com/alexandra.logue.1/

References

American Association of University Professors. (2015). Policy documents and reports (11^th ed.).

Anacki, A., & Steiger, J. (2023, May 11). The (50) state(s) of transfer data. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/beyond-transfer/2023/05/11/50-states-data-student-transfer

Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board. (2023, February). Unpacking financial disincentives: Why and how they stymie degree-applicable credit mobility and equitable transfer outcomes. SOVA. https://sova.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Beyond-Transfer-Unpacking-Financial-Disincentives-Feb-2023.pdf

Bowker, L. (2021). Exploring faculty perspectives on college-to-university transfer in a large Canadian university. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 45(4), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1703845

CCCSE. (2023). Helping community college students climb the transfer ladder. https://www.ccsse.org/NR2023/Transfer.pdf

CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2020, April 23). Undergraduate advanced standing transfers by type of sending college fall 2019. https://bit.ly/3n5Vftn

CUNY Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2021, Fall). A profile of undergraduates at CUNY senior and community colleges: Fall 2021. https://www.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/page-assets/about/administration/offices/oareda/research-and-data-hub/reporting-analytics/ug_student_profile_f21.pdf

Fink, J. (2021, February 4). Don’t blame students for institutional barriers to equitable transfer success. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/tackling-transfer/don’t-blame-students-institutional-barriers-equitable-transfer-success#

Hagedorn, L. S., Cypers, S., & Lester, J. (2008). Looking in the review mirror: Factors affecting transfer for urban community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(9), 643–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920802026113

Hyatt, S. E., & Smith, D. A. (2019). Faculty perceptions of community college transfer students: The private university experience. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 44(6), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1610673

Kulkarni, S. (2026). Role of faculty in credit transfer and mapping in higher education. In M. Dennis & C. Montagnino (Eds.), Student-centric policies in higher education: TEAMS model and other solutions (pp. 145–176). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-7635-5.ch006

Laanan, F. S., Starobin, S. S., & Eggleston, L. E. (2010). Adjustment of community college students at a four-year university: Role and relevance of transfer student capital for student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 12(2), 175–209. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.12.2.d

Lane, J. E., Khan, M. I., & Knox, D. (2022, March). The emerging role of public higher education systems in advancing transfer student success: Results of a national study. National Association of System Heads. https://nash.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Power-of-Systems-Transfer-Report-2022.pdf

Lavinson, R. (2021, January 28). Articulation agreements are just a small part of the answer. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/tackling-transfer/articulation-agreements-are-just-small-part-answer?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed

Logue, A. W., Oka, Y., Wutchiett, D., Gentsch, K., & Abbeyquaye, S. (2022). Possible causes of leaks in the transfer pipeline: Student views at the 19 colleges of The City University of New York. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 26(3), 721–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251221117276

Logue, A. W., & Shrank, I. (2015, August 2). An ignored conflict of interest. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/08/03/essay-conflicts-interest-regarding-faculty-members-and-curricular-decisions

Monaghan, D. B., & Attewell, P. (2015). The community college route to the bachelor’s degree. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714521865

Muniz, E. (2024, May 23). From transfer student to transfer administrator. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/beyond-transfer/2024/05/23/journey-transfer-student-transfer-administrator

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023, August). Characteristics of postsecondary students. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csb/postsecondary-students

Pardos, Z. A., Chau, H., & Zhao, H. (2019, June). Data-assistive course-to-course articulation using machine translation. Proceedings of the Sixth (2019) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. Article No.: 22, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330430.3333622

Payne, B. K., Vandecar-Burdin, T., & Cigularova, D. (2022). Attitudes about cybersecurity articulation agreements and transfer students: A statewide survey of faculty members and advisors. NACADA Journal, 42(2), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-21-30

Public Agenda. (2025, February). Beyond transfer: Insights from a survey of American adults. https://publicagenda.org/resource/beyond-transfer/

Reed, M. (2022, November 28). Public institutions aren’t built to compete with each other. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/confessions-community-college-dean/2022/11/27/public-institutions-arent-built

Robinson, S. (2022). From the president’s desk: #EndCCStigma: Social media as a tool to change public perception of 2-year colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 197, 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20503

Rosenberg, M. J., & Koch, A. K. (2021). Reframing transfer as a social justice imperative. In J. N. Gardner, M. J. Rosenberg, & A. K. Koch (Eds.), The transfer experience: A handbook for creating a more equitable and successful postsecondary system. Gardner Institute and Stylus.

Schudde, L., & Brown, R. S. (2019). Understanding variation in estimates of diversionary effects of community college entrance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sociology of Education, 92(3), 247–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040719848445

Schudde, L., & Jabbar, H. (2024). Discredited: Power, privilege, and community college transfer. Harvard Education Press.

Schudde, L., Jabbar, H., & Hartman, C. (2021). How political and ecological contexts shape community college transfer. Sociology of Education, 94(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040720954817

Senie, K. C. (2016). Implementing transfer and articulation: A case study of community colleges and state universities. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(4), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1038667

Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P. K., Bhimdiwali, A., Nathan, A., & Youngsik, H. (2018, July). Signature report 15: Transfer and mobility: A national view of student movement in postsecondary institutions, fall 2011 cohort. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Signature-Report-15.pdf

Smith, A. A. (2023, May 17). Despite decades of calls to action, California community college students face roadblocks to transfer. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2023/despite-decades-of-calls-to-action-california-community-college-students-face-roadblocks-to-transfer/689984

Smith, D. J., Spott, J. L., Higgins, R., & McNaughtan, J. (2022). Beyond articulation agreements: Fostering success for community college transfer students in STEM. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 46(9), 676–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2021.1961923

Sowl, S., & Brown, M. (2021). “We don’t need a four-year college person to come here and tell us what to do”: Community college curriculum making after articulation reform. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2021(195), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20473

Sutcliffe, S., & Condliffe, B. (2020). Mapping the college transfer process: Barriers to student success and opportunities for improvement. MDRC. https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/mapping-college-transfer-process

Sutcliffe, S., Dorimé-Williams, M., Perri, G., Saunier, C., & Ozley, J. (2025, June). How faculty members influence credit transfer at four-year institutions: Building knowledge to improve transfer student outcomes. MDRC. https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/how-faculty-members-influence-credit-transfer-four-year-institutions

The Editorial Board. (2023, August 15). PD Editorial: Transferring to UC should be easier. The Press Democrat. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/opinion/pd-editorial-transferring-to-uc-should-be-easier/

Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 58(1), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x

Tobolowsky, B. F., & Cox, B. E. (2012). Rationalizing neglect: An institutional response to transfer students. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2012.11777249

Velasco, T., Fink, J., Bedoya-Guevara, M., Jenkins, D., & LaViolet, T. (2024, February). Tracking transfer: Community college and four-year institutional effectiveness in broadening bachelor’s degree attainment. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/tracking-transfer-community-college-and-four-year-institutional-effectiveness-in-broadening-bachelors-degree-attainment.html

Wang, X., Felten, P., Gooden, L., Iuzzini, J., & Kittrell, E. (2021, August 11). Supporting transfer student success: Five key faculty practices. National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students. https://www.nists.org/post/five-key-faculty-practices

Appendix

Additional Details About the Results

Classification of Faculty as Associate’s or Bachelor’s

Each participant was asked whether they had more experience with prospective or current vertical transfer students. If faculty answered that they had about the same amount of experience with both prospective and current vertical transfer students, they were asked if they preferred to answer questions about prospective or current vertical transfer students and were then given the questions consistent with their stated preference. Faculty who did not answer the survey question about with which type of student they primarily worked—prospective or actual transfer student—were classified as associate’s or bachelor’s faculty depending on the college of their primary appointment, and they received only the initial general questions that all participants received. However, there were 40 faculty who did not answer that question and whose primary appointment was in a comprehensive college, so it was not clear with which type of student they primarily worked. These faculty received no further survey questions and are not included in the associate’s or bachelor’s columns of Table 1.

Participant Representativeness

Given the significant differences in the characteristics of participants and nonparticipants, we used logistic regression to weight the survey’s answers to reflect the demographics of the invited population. However, because some demographic characteristics were available only for participants, the variables in the regression had to be limited to part-time/full-time status and years employed at CUNY (tenure status was highly correlated with part-time/full-time status, and therefore tenure status was not included). Weighting did not appear to have made any substantial differences in responses (with and without weighting, most multiple choice answers were within three percentage points, and no Likert scale question was more than 0.1 point different). We also examined whether participants’ responses about transfer differed depending on whether they responded before they received any reminders (N = 1,108) or following the second-to-last reminder on November 15 (N = 520). There was only one question whose answers were significantly different for early and late responders with a larger-than-small effect size. This suggests that, had the survey continued until a larger percentage of faculty had responded, the survey responses would not have differed substantially, and that the early responders’ survey answers may have been sufficient to obtain an assessment of faculty’s stated views.

Finally, we examined the response rates for individual questions. Response rates for the general background questions were all greater than 97%. In addition, most participants answered more than 90% of the remaining questions. Thus, the opportunity for response bias did not differ substantially across questions. For the following results, all individual question response percentages were calculated using only the responding participants.