Why Haven’t Community College Transfer Rates Improved Despite Decades of Policy Reform?

This policy brief asks why community college to university transfer rates remain persistently low despite extensive policy reforms. Drawing on a broad review of existing research—including national datasets, state longitudinal data, and qualitative studies—the authors identify two main barriers: the complexity of overlapping transfer policies and poor information access. For example, only 31.6% of students starting at community colleges in 2015 transferred within six years, nearly unchanged from 2010. Structured pathways like ADTs increased associate degree attainment by up to 35%, but their effect on transfer rates was modest. The authors recommend streamlining policies and improving student advising and information systems.

Full Citation and Link to Article

Soliz, A., & Mesa, H. (2025). Improving community college to university transfer. Education Finance and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00441

Extended Summary

Central Research Question

This policy brief by Adela Soliz and Hidahis Mesa addresses a persistent question in higher education policy: Why have community college to university transfer rates (i.e., vertical transfer) remained stagnant despite decades of policy reform intended to improve them? The authors examine the complexity of the community college landscape and argue that overlapping, sometimes contradictory, transfer policies—combined with limited access to clear and accurate information—undermine the effectiveness of even well-intentioned reform efforts. They also consider how policy mediators like advising and institutional context affect outcomes.

Previous Literature

Prior studies have long debated whether community colleges democratize access to higher education or divert students from completing four-year degrees. Rouse (1995) provided evidence for a democratizing effect, but subsequent research (e.g., Doyle 2009; Long and Kurlaender 2009; Monaghan and Attewell 2015) has shown that community college entrants are less likely to attain bachelor’s degrees than peers who start at four-year institutions. A significant body of scholarship has explored the role of articulation agreements, associate degree transfer pathways, and guided pathways in supporting vertical transfer. However, findings are mixed. Some researchers (e.g., Roksa and Keith 2008; Stern 2016) find limited impact of articulation policies on transfer rates, although some show benefits in credit transfer or eventual degree completion.

Other studies suggest structural complexity and information overload impair student decision-making. Scott-Clayton (2011) and Marx and Turner (2020) argue that students face “choice overload” and may rely on irrelevant heuristics. Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2003) highlight the role of limited social capital in navigating complex systems. Qualitative studies (e.g., Schudde et al. 2021; Mesa and Soliz 2023; Wang 2020) further emphasize the difficulties students and advisors encounter in interpreting and implementing policies.

Data

The brief is a synthesis of prior research and does not involve original empirical data collection. It draws on quantitative studies using national and state longitudinal datasets, as well as qualitative studies using surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Examples are pulled from various states—most prominently Tennessee, California, Ohio, Texas, and North Carolina—to illustrate how different policy approaches have been implemented and evaluated.

Methods

As a policy review, the brief employs a qualitative synthesis of the existing literature. The authors examine three main categories of transfer policy: (1) articulation agreements, (2) structured pathways (e.g., Associate Degrees for Transfer or ADTs), and (3) Guided Pathways reforms. They explore the effectiveness of these approaches in improving vertical transfer and identify mediating factors such as access to information, advising quality, and institutional constraints. The brief also draws on descriptive statistics, such as transfer rates from the National Student Clearinghouse, and selected results from empirical studies using propensity score matching and regression analysis.

Findings/Size Effects

Despite widespread adoption of policies aimed at easing the path from community college to university, overall vertical transfer rates remain low. Only 31.6% of students who began at a community college in 2015 transferred to a four-year institution within six years—a figure virtually unchanged from the 31.5% rate for the 2010 cohort. This stagnation occurs despite numerous policy reforms across states.

Structured transfer pathways have shown some promise. In California, the introduction of ADTs led to a 35% increase in associate degree attainment in participating departments (Baker 2016). However, the effect on actual transfer rates was more modest: a 1 percentage point increase in the likelihood of transfer and a similarly small gain in bachelor’s degree completion (Baker, Friedmann, and Kurlaender 2023). In Ohio, students who completed the Ohio Transfer Module (OTM)—a transferable core curriculum—were more likely to earn associate degrees and to transfer, although only 15% of transfer-intending students completed the module (Boatman and Soliz 2018).

In North Carolina, implementation of the Comprehensive Articulation Agreement led to students earning 2–5 fewer excess credits at graduation (Worsham et al. 2021), suggesting more efficient credit transfer. Other studies show that students who complete associate degrees before transferring are 6.3 percentage points more likely to earn bachelor’s degrees (Kopko and Crosta 2016).

Yet these policies often function suboptimally because they are layered over each other without coherence. For instance, in Tennessee, students can simultaneously be subject to statewide Tennessee Transfer Pathways, local articulation agreements, and institution-specific “university parallel” programs. This proliferation of options creates confusion for both students and advisors.

Qualitative findings show that students are often unaware of the programs available to them or misunderstand the requirements. For example, in a Tennessee study, only half of successful transfer students had participated in a Tennessee Transfer Pathway, and just 14% used Dual Admission Transfer programs (Mesa and Soliz 2023). Website audits in Texas and New York found that community college sites often lacked accurate, accessible information about transfer (Schudde, Bradley, and Absher 2020; Logue et al. 2023).

Advising is a crucial policy mediator. Students often rely on advisors to make sense of the complex policy environment, but these advisors themselves face constraints. Some are poorly trained, overwhelmed, or unavailable, leading students to receive incorrect or inconsistent guidance (Harper and Thiry 2023; Jabbar et al. 2022). Informal sources like peers, faculty mentors, or family members may not have accurate information either.

Resource constraints further hinder success. Affordability remains a major barrier: students without access to transfer scholarships or student loans are less likely to succeed (Acton 2021; Marx and Turner 2019). Students also face challenges when four-year institutions reject course equivalencies, delay transcript evaluation, or impose major-specific prerequisites not included in articulation agreements.

Conclusion

The authors conclude that vertical transfer remains a complex and often ineffective pathway due to policy fragmentation and poor communication. Students face a maze of transfer options with insufficient guidance, and overlapping policies often produce conflicting requirements. Even when effective programs exist, students and advisors may be unaware of or confused by them.

To improve outcomes, the authors recommend four main policy strategies. First, states should prioritize a single, coherent reform strategy and commit to consistent, system-wide communication about it. Second, institutions should coordinate curricula and requirements within and across sectors to minimize inconsistency. Third, implementation should involve stakeholders at every level, including advisors, faculty, and administrators, to ensure buy-in and accurate advising. Finally, information systems must be improved: websites, orientation programs, and advising tools should be up-to-date, accessible, and tailored to the diverse needs of transfer students.

Ultimately, improving vertical transfer requires simplifying the policy environment and enhancing the institutional supports that mediate how students engage with policy. Without these reforms, vertical transfer will remain a broken promise for many community college students.