Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Gatekeeping is Exclusionary, Study Finds
Truth is stubborn. It resists fads. I’m glad to see some truth start to poke out from behind all the rhetoric. I look forward to the next dispatch from Obvious Studies.
So very true!
Were those 30 credits of CJ in an AS program, or were they rejecting a humanities class "just because"?
I ask because the biggest problem is when there are a dozen colleges in the area that have a dozen different incompatible ways of meeting social science and humanities and even science and math requirements. On the flip side, we have some AS programs that contain classes that will not transfer to an AA even at our own institution.
I'll grant that, as someone who has actually transferred from a CC to a 4 year, it was abundantly obvious that the gatekeeping can hurt students. However, particularly in fields with very regimented prerequisites (engineering, I'm looking at you), and in the cases where "normal" sophomore courses aren't available (O chem absent at my CC, I'm looking at you), it certainly seemed plausible to me that starting at a CC put you at a legitimate disadvantage in a practical sense. Did the study look at whether it's true across all fields? Did they look at whether the students who take what gets counted as transferable coursework are better prepared than students in general? Did the study find a way to control for the fact that students that are capable of planning in such a way that they can actually identify a desired transfer institution early enough to plan coursework accordingly, and follow a coherent "plan of study" in a particular direction toward a major, are likely at a pretty high relative advantage on conscientiousness cores? (i.e., most of the transfer students I knew figured out the major requirements much more easily than the "native" 4 year students. BS gets easier with practice). All things considered, it actually strikes me as a good empirical question.