• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Review of literature
 Analysis of the data
 Discussion of data
 Summary, conclusions, and...
 Appendices
 References
 Biographical sketch






Group Title: study of problems encountered by students
Title: A Study of problems encountered by students
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098313/00001
 Material Information
Title: A Study of problems encountered by students transferring from baccalaureate degree-granting institutions with implications for the University of Florida
Physical Description: xi, 140 leaves : ; 28cm.
Language: English
Creator: Hite, Carl Meredith, 1946-
Publication Date: 1975
Copyright Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Students, Transfer of -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 136-139.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Carl M. Hite.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098313
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000163518
oclc - 02752690
notis - AAS9875

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 5 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
    Abstract
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Review of literature
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Analysis of the data
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
    Discussion of data
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
    Summary, conclusions, and implications
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
    Appendices
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
    References
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
    Biographical sketch
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
Full Text










A STUDY OF PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY STUDENTS
TRANSFERRING FROM BACCALAUREATE DEGREE-
GRANTING INSTITUTIONS WITH IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA











by

Carl M. Hite


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY











UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1975










ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The support and assistance needed to complete this

study came from many individuals and this writer wishes to

express appreciation to all those who provided such. A

special word of thanks is given to Dr. James Wattenbarger

for his help and guidance as chairman of the doctoral committee

and director of the dissertation.

Special recognition is also due Drs. Harold C. Riker and

George S. Henry for their assistance in the formulation and

completion of the study and their guidance as members of the

doctoral committee.

The writer would also like to thank Alice Price for her

help with and typing of this study.

Thanks are also due Dr. Michael Nunnery and the students

in his proposal writing class, whose help was invaluable in

completing the proposal associated with this study.

Finally, the writer wishes to express particular

appreciation to his wife, Clare, and their son, Kevin, for their

patience, unwavering support, and many personal sacrifices

in making this effort possible.











TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . .

LIST OF TABLES . .

ABSTRACT . . .

CHAPTER


Page


. . iv



. .viii


I


I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .

The Problem . . . . .
Sources Of The Data and Procedures Used.

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . .

II ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . .

The Data in Review . . . . .

IV DISCUSSION OF DATA . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . .

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS .

Summary . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . .
Implications . . . . . . .


5
. . 1



. . 543
S. 8711

. . 18

. . 43
. . 87

. . 91

. . 110

. . 113

. . 113
. . 119
. . 122


APPENDIX

A Questionnaire Used to Gather Data

B Request Letter to Transfer Students..

C First Follow-up Letter . . . .

D Second Follow-up Letter. . . .

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . .


. 129

S133

S134

. 135

S136

S140


iii











LIST OF TABLES


Table

1 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Sex . . . . .

2 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Race . . . .

3 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Marital Status . .

4 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Age . . . . .

5 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students by Payment of Fees . .

6 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Living Arrangement

7 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Veteran Status . .

8 Distribution of Most Commonly
Identified Majors . . . .


Page


. . . 49


. . . 49


. . . 50


9 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By College Enrolled in, Fall
Quarter, 1974 . . . . . .

10 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Approximate Grade Point
Average at Previous Institution . .

11 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Financial Aid Situation

12 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Educational Goals . .


S 54


13 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Student Classification,
Fall Quarter, 1974 . .. . . . ... . 56







LIST OF TABLES Continued


Page


Table


14 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Student Status, Fall
Quarter, 1974 . . . . . . .

15 Frequency Distribution of Transfer
Students By Parents' Estimated Annual
Income . . . . . .

16 Frequency Distribution of Multi-College
Transfer Students By Types of College
Previously Attended . . . . .

17 Frequency Distribution of One-College
Transfer Students by Type of Control
of College Transferred From . . .

18 Frequency Distribution of One-College
Transfer Students by Size of College
Previously Attended . . . . .

19 Frequency Distribution by States of
Institutions Previously Attended . .

20 Number and Rank Order of Responses to
Reasons for Leaving Previous Institution
of One-College Transfer Students. . .

21 Number and Rank Order of Responses to
Reasons for Leaving Previous Institution
of Multi-College Transfer Students. .


S . 57



. . 57



. . 59



. . 60



. . 61


. . 62



. 64



. . 65


22 Frequency Distribution of "Other"
Reasons for Leaving Previous Institution.

23 Number and Rank Order of Responses to
Reasons for Transferring to the University
of Florida of One-College Transfer Students

24 Number and Rank Order of Responses to
Reasons for Transferring to the University
of Florida of Multi-College Transfer
Students . . . . . . ... ..







LIST OF TABLES Continued


25 Frequency Distribution of "Other"
Reasons for Transferring to the University
of Florida . . . . . . . . . 70

26 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order
of Responses to Academic Problems
Encountered by One-College Transfer
Students . . . . . . . . .. 71

27 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order
of Responses to Academic Problems
Encountered by Multi-College Transfer
Students . . . . . . . . . 72


28 Frequency Distribution of "Other"
Academic Problems Encountered by
Transfer Students . . . . .

29 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order
of Responses to Procedural Problems
Encountered by One-College Transfer
Students . . . . . . . .

30 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order
of Responses to Procedural Problems
Encountered by Multi-College Transfer
Students . . . . . . . .

31 Frequency Distribution of "Other"
Procedural Problems Encountered by
Transfer Students . . . . .

32 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order
of Responses to Extracurricular
Problems Encountered by One-College
Transfer Students. . . . . .

33 Frequency Distribution and Rank Order
of Responses to Extracurricular
Problems Encountered by Multi-College
Transfer Students . . . . .

34 Frequency Distribution of "Other"
Extracurricular Problems Encountered
by Transfer Students . . . . .


. . 75


. . 77


S 80


. . 81


Table


Page






LIST OF TABLES Continued


Page


Table

35 Summary of Responses to Open-
ended Question . . . . . .

36 List of Major Problems Identified
by One-College and Multi-College
Transfer Students by Type of Problem


. . 84


37 List of Student and Institutional
Characteristics Associated With
Identified Major Problems of Transfer. ... .85


vii











Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
Council of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


A STUDY OF PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY STUDENTS
TRANSFERRING FROM BACCALAUREATE DEGREE-GRANTING
INSTITUTIONS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

by

Carl M. Hite

August, 1975


Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Administration (Higher Education)


The focus of this study centered on the characteristics

of, and problems encountered by, students transferring from

baccalaureate degree-granting institutions to the University

of Florida, the characteristics of the institutions from which

they transferred, the reasons they transferred, and the impli-

cations this study has for adjustment theories as summarized

by Arkoff.

From an analysis of the data, collected by questionnaire,

the findings which follow were derived.

1. There were two distinct classifications of four-year

transfer students: the one-college transfer student who

attends only one four-year college before transferring; and the


viii






multi-college transfer student who attends two or more

colleges before transferring, at least one must be a four-

year college.

2. The students who transferred to the University of

Florida from other Florida state universities encountered no

major problems.

3. Students in both groups were more likely to be male;

Caucasian; single; relatively young; Florida residents; living

off-campus; non-veterans; enrolled in the University College

or College of Arts and Sciences; fairly high achievers based

on previous grade point average; diversified in selection of

major at the University; sophomores or juniors; enrolled full-

time; from families with incomes over $15,000; and were not

likely to apply for financial aid.

4. One-college transfer students were more likely to

come from a college smaller than the University of Florida.

Half came from state-controlled colleges and the remaining

students were divided equally between private and religiously-

affiliated colleges. They came from coed colleges and uni-

versities located mainly east of the Mississippi River and

south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

5. The major reasons for leaving the college of

previous attendance were that the academic programs in which

they were enrolled were inadequate or the programs they de-

sired were non-existent.








6. The major reasons for transferring to the University

were that the University possessed a strong program in the

intended major and the general impression of the campus was

favorable.

7. The greatest number of problems identified were

procedural, followed by academic and extracurricular.

8. The major academic problem identified was "Academic

advising was inadequate." The major procedural problems con-

cerned the inadequacy of orientation, registration, and the

"academic bureaucracy."

9. In the area of extracurricular problems, the multi-

college transfer students encountered more difficulty than

one-college transfer students.

10. The size of the University complicated adjustment,

particularly for the students who transferred from smaller

colleges and universities.

11. In light of the three theories of adjustment as

summarized by Arkoff, and in view of the findings of this

study, adjustment to a new situation rests with both the

individual and the environment.

Based upon the findings of this study, the researcher

believes the following implications are warranted for the

University of Florida.

1. There is no need, at this time, for a formal

articulation agreement between the universities in the State

University System in Florida.






2. Based on their characteristics, the transfer students

have little need to use the following services at the Uni-

versity: veteran affairs, student financial aid, student

services for international students, or minority affairs.

3. Services, however, which may need to investigate

further their procedures to insure meeting the needs of these

transfer students are: orientation, academic counseling,

registration, on and off-campus housing, and the handling of

mailed communications by the Registrar, the Admission Office,

the Housing Office, and the Office of Student Development.

4. A definite need exists for more adequate academic

counseling.

5. The University needs to provide services flexible

enough, both in kind and degree, to meet the special adjust-

ment needs of each transferring student, wherever feasible.










CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Although many educators believe the term transfer student

refers only to students from two-year colleges, each year an

increasing number of students transfer from one four-year

college to another. Van Alstyne (1974) reported that "In

recent years, one out of every four entering full-time fresh-

men has eventually transferred . ." (p. 128). Willingham

(1974) estimated that transfers number 600,000 annually (p. 39).

Kintzer (1974a) estimated the figure only slightly lower--

"According to statistical information recently released by the

Chronicle of Higher Education, about 500,000 students are

switching college annually" (p. 78). According to Trivett

(1974), in the State of Alabama, some 11,105 students trans-

ferred among institutions of higher education in the fall and

summer of 1972 (p. 2).

During the academic year 1967-68, there were 357,000

undergraduates enrolled for credit in institutions of higher

education in the State of Illinois. Of these, approximately

32,000 were identified as transfer students. The Data Book

on Illinois Higher Education of 1974 indicated that in follow-

up studies since 1971 "The number of transfer students reported

showed an increase indicating that the total number of transfer

students has increased since 1971" (p. 133). Wise and








Gunnere (1962), in their study of college transfer students

said,"The amount of transfer may simply reflect the general

mobility of American society" (p. 233). It is obvious that

many students are transferring and the directions taken are

many also.

Willingham (1974) identified seven different types of

transfer students. They were:

1. The Articulated Vertical Transfer--students
who transfer from a two-year college to a four-
year college or university. This represents
the largest group of transfers.

2. Traditional Horizontal Transfer--students who
transfer from one four-year college to another
four-year college. At one time, this form of
transfer accounted for essentially all move-
ment of undergraduate students among institutions,
It still represents one-fourth of the total.

3. Non-traditional Transfer--students who transfer
from innovative programs to other colleges and
people who have been out of college for a long
time.

4. Reverse Transfer--students who transfer from
a four-year college back to a two-year college.

5. Open-Door Transfer--students who transfer from
a two-year college to another two-year college.

6. Double Reverse Transfer--students who transfer
from a four-year college to a two-year college
and then once again to a four-year college.

7. Vocational Transfer--students who transfer from
some type of vocational school or program to a
four-year college. (pp. 39-46)

With the diversity of types of students transferring,

a variety of problems encountered by each of these types of

transfer students is to be expected. Some of the problems

will be the same; however, some of the problems will be








different because of the nature of these respective groups.

As Burke mentioned in his study of transfer students at the

University of Connecticut:

Also, and equally important, do all groups making
the transition to our main campus have a similar
experience? It should be pointed out that the three
groups defined--COMCOLS, TRANSFERS, and BRANCHFERS--
are dissimilar in some ways which may alter their
ability to handle transfer. (1973, p. 73)

Barger (1968), in a study of transfer students at the

University of Florida, stated the following concerning the

transfer experience:

Experiences of discontinuity which often
accompany transition from one setting to another,
from one role to another, or from one institution
to another, can produce either growth-producing
challenge or threatening frustration and failure,
depending how adequately one is able to cope with
the demands of the new situation. (p. 1)

In addition to the problems associated with transfer, the

transfer student will also have many of the same problems as

native students. Anstett (1973), in a study of transfer

students and their perceptions of the campus environment stated:

Many who transfer from one institution to
another institution encounter numerous problems
ranging from locating living accommodations to
bargaining for maximum transfer credit. Solving
these problems while attempting to compete for
grades with native students completely familiar
with the academic community imposes great emo-
tional stress on the newly admitted transfer
students. Of greater significance, however, is
the realization that the transfer student must
solve these problems within an environment which
is perceived by him as being relatively unfriendly
and inconsiderate. (p. 202)








It is therefore evident that transfer students face

three kinds of problems; one being those problems which all

students, both native and transfer, encounter in pursuing

an education. In addition, transfer students encounter

problems peculiar to transfer students and problems peculiar

to each type of transfer student. Institutions of higher edu-

cation have attempted to meet the needs of some of these groups

by conducting research to determine some of their problems.

In recent years (1960s), the research has concentrated on the

two-year college transfer student and the reverse transfer

student (Meskill and Sheffield, 1971). At one time, most of

the research concerning transfer students dealt with the tradi-

tional horizontal student as he or she was the only kind of

transfer student in higher education. Within the last decade,

little has been done concerning this particular group of

transfer students. Yet, they represent a very large percentage

of the total number of transfer students in America's colleges

and universities. For example, according to the University

of Florida Registrar, 1,014 students transferred to the Uni-

versity of Florida from other four-year colleges and universities

in the Fall of 1974. This represented approximately one-third

of the total number of transfer students to the University.

Yet little research has been focused upon this group of trans-

fer students. The University of Florida, as many other insti-

tutions of higher learning in the United States, has studied

the problems encountered by the two-year college transfer








student but not the four-year college transfer student

(Sandeen and Goodale, 1974).

This study is focused upon the students who transferred

to the University of Florida from other four-year colleges

and universities: why they transferred, the problems that

they encountered, and the implications of these problems for

the University of Florida.


The Problem

Statement of Problem

The focus of this study was on the characteristics and

problems of students from four-year institutions who transfer

to the University of Florida and on the characteristics of

the institutions from which they transfer. Specifically, for

a random sample of transfers from four-year institutions who

entered the University of Florida, in the fall quarter of 1974,

answers to the following questions were sought:

1. What are the student characteristics (sex, race,

marital status, age, residency, living arrangement,

veteran status, academic major at the University of

Florida, college enrolled in Fall 1974, approximate

grade point average at previous institution, financial

aid for first quarter at the University of Florida,

educational goals, student classification, student

status, and estimated parents' annual income) of

those who transferred to the University of Florida

in the fall of 1974 from other four-year colleges

and universities?









2. What are the characteristics (size, type of control,

state, and type of student body) of the institutions

from which these students transferred?

3. What were the apparent reasons (as perceived by the

transfer student) for transferring?

4. Why did they select the University of Florida to

complete their baccalaureate degree?

5. What problems (academic, procedural, and extra-

curricular) did these students encounter in trans-

ferring to the University of Florida before and

after matriculation?

6. Do the findings of this study support or refute

theories dealing with adjustment in new situations

as summarized by Arkoff?

Justification For The Study

According to Willingham (1974) the number of students

transferring nation-wide from one four-year college to another

represented approximately one fourth of 600,000 or.150,000

students. At the University of Florida, approximately 1,014

four-year college transfer students entered the Fall of 1974.

This number represented approximately one-third of the total

number of undergraduate transfer students. Yet, little is

known about them. Kintzer (1974a) reached the same conclusions

nationwide--"Little is known about a rapidly growing group, the

intercollegiate-interuniversity transfers. ." (p. 81-82).

Following is a list of reasons why this study of students who

transferred to the University of Florida was undertaken:








1. To identify the problems encountered by the four-year

college transfer student at the University of Florida.

This will, in turn, provide administrators and faculty

with information which may be used in formulating

policy and in attempting to meet the needs of this

group of students.

As Barger (1968) concluded:

The more clearly university faculty and ad-
ministration understand the experiences and con-
cerns of transferring students, the more adequately
they can assist in making the transition construc-
tive and meaningful. (p. 2)

2. To identify the literature, even though sparse, dealing

with the four-year college transfer students. Very

little has been done recently in the area of study

dealing solely with the four-year college transfer

student. The review of literature contained in this

proposal shows that most of the studies dealing with

four-year college transfer students is dated. In

addition, most of the studies of transfer students

that have been done deal with either two-year college

transfer students exclusively or two-year college

transfer students being compared with native students

and/or other kinds of transfer students.

3. To identify the reasons why students transfer to the

University of Florida from other four-year colleges

and universities. By identifying these reasons, the

University of Florida can attempt to meet the









intellectual and extracurricular expectations of

these transfer students.


Delimitations and Limitations

The following'delimitations and limitations were

applied to this study:

1. The study was limited to a random sample of estimated

n of approximately 213 students from the total target

population (1,014) of students who transferred to the

University of Florida for the fall quarter, 1974.

2. The results of this study, limited to the University

of Florida,(will be)generalizeable to similar land-

grant public universities of comparable size.

3. The questionnaire was administered during winter

quarter 1975. This researcher recognized two weak-

nesses in relation to the time of administration of

the questionnaire. First, that students sampled may

have forgotten some of the problems encountered in

transferring to the University of Florida, and secondly,

that the transfer students have not been here long

enough to identify some of the problems.

4. Certain preconceived expectations on the part of the

researcher as to the type of problems encountered by

transfer students might bias to some degree the re-

sults of this study.








Definition of Terms

Articulation agreement--is an agreement between a two-

year college and the institution of higher education to which

its students might transfer to complete their degree. The

agreement may be established by statewide formal agreements,

by a state agency or an institutional system, on a voluntary

basis among groups of institutions. The purpose of the agree-

ment is to facilitate the movement of the student from one

level of education to another level.

Characteristics of institutions of higher education--

will include size (number of students enrolled), type of

control (state, federal, private, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian,

Methodist, Baptist, Disciples of Christ, and other), state

located in, and type of student body (coed, male, female).

Characteristics of transfer students--will include sex,

race, marital status, age, residency, living arrangement,

veteran status, academic major at the University of Florida,

college enrolled in Fall 1974, approximate grade point average

at previous institution, financial aid for first quarter at

the University of Florida, educational goals, student classi-

fication, student status, and parent's estimated annual income.

Four-year college or university transfer student--is a

student whose attendance previous to the University of Florida

was at another four-year college or university, either public

or private, either in or out of the State of Florida.

Multi-college transfer student--is a student who attended

two or more colleges before attending the University of








Florida. At least one of the previous colleges was a four-

year college or university.

Native student--is a student whose formal education

beyond high school has been exclusively at the University of

Florida.

One-college transfer student--is a student who attended

only one four-year college or university before attending the

University of Florida.

Problems encountered by transfer students--include those

areas and programs which increase the difficulty of a student

in pursuing his educational goals. In this study, problems

will be divided into three types: Academic (those which

affect performance in the classroom and assignments outside

the classroom), Procedural (those which include the admission

process, registration, evaluation of credit, and the sending

and processing of forms by various offices within the University),

and Extracurricular (those which are associated with education

outside the conventional classroom setting).

Quarter system--is in use at the University of Florida.

In a twelve-month year, there are four quarters running from

September through August, averaging 10 weeks of class in-

struction each. Quarters begin in September (fall), January

(winter), March (spring), and June (summer).

Student classification--refers to one of five types of

classification given to undergraduate students at the Uni-

versity of Florida. A freshman is a student with less than








45 quarter hours of credit. A sophomore is a student who has

earned more than 45 quarter hours but less than 90 hours. A

junior is a student who has earned 90 quarter hours or more,

but less than 135 hours. A senior is a student who has earned

135 hours or more. A five-year student is a candidate for a

degree in a program which normally takes 15 quarters and has

earned 180 hours or more.

Student status--is determined by the number of hours

for which a student enrolls at the University of Florida. A

full-time student carries 12 hours or more. A part-time

student carries 11 hours or less.

Two-year college transfer student--is a student who

transferred to the University of Florida from a public or

private junior or community college, either in or out of the

State of Florida.

University of Florida--is a combined state university

and land-grant college and offers instruction from the fresh-

man through the advanced graduate level in 17 colleges and

schools.

Sources Of The Data and Procedures Used

This section describes the sources of data and the pro-

cedures utilized in this study. First, there is a descrip-

tion of the sample and its selection. Second, the data

gathering instrument that was used in this study is described.

Third, the procedures that were used in collecting the data are

detailed. Fourth, the techniques used to treat the data in

relation to the questions which give direction to this study

are enumerated.








Sample

The target population included all students who trans-

ferred to the University of Florida from a four-year college

or university in the fall of 1974. This list was obtained

from the University of Florida Registrar. By use of random

numbers, a sample was selected. The size of the sample was

based upon a formula developed by Hauskin (1973, p. 3).

The formula is as follows:


[X2 N 6 (1-6)]


[d2 (N-l) + X2 6 (1-b)]


where n = required sample size

X2= table value of chi square for one degree of

freedom and the desired confidence interval

(the researcher chose 90 percent as the

confidence level).

N = population size (1,014)

6 = the population proportion it is desired to

estimate (.5)

d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion

(.05)

Instrumentation

The instrument used to collect the data was a question-

naire developed by the researcher. It was based upon student

characteristics and problems associated with transfer as

identified by the researcher in the review of literature. A







copy of this questionnaire will be found in Appendix A of this

study. Items in the questionnaire provided data in the

following areas:

1. Student Data--sex, race, marital status, age,

payment of fees, living arrangement, veteran status,

academic major at the University of Florida, college

enrolled in fall 1974, approximate grade point

average at previous institution, financial aid for

first quarter at the University of Florida, college

or colleges previously attended, educational goals,

student classification fall 1974, student status

fall 1974, and parent's estimated annual income.

2. Reasons for Transfer--both reasons for leaving the

previous institution of attendance and reasons for

attending the University of Florida were included.

3. Problems--from three areas were included: academic,

procedural, and extracurricular.

In the process of developing the instrument, a pilot

study of the questionnaire was administered to 25 students

selected from the target population to answer, analyze,

criticize the construction and design of the questionnaire.

Data Collection Procedures

Data were collected during the winter quarter, 1975.

The previously described questionnaire was the primary data-

gathering technique. In addition, the Yearbook of Higher

'Education (1973) provided statistical information about the








colleges previously attended by students in the sample. The

institutional characteristics identified by use of the Year-

book of Higher Education included: control, make-up of student

body, state located, and enrollment.

The exact steps taken in gathering the data were as

follows:

1. A review of the literature was made to determine what

related studies have been conducted which dealt with

students who transfer from one four-year college to

another four-year college.

2. A request was made by the researcher to the Dean of

Admissions and Records, University of Florida, to supply

the researcher with a list of names of all students who

transferred to the University of Florida from four-

year colleges and universities in the fall quarter of

1974.

3. By use of random numbers and the formula developed by

Hauskin, the researcher arrived at a sample size of 213.

4. A questionnaire was developed by the researcher based

upon certain characteristics of transfer students and

the problems those students encounter in transferring

as identified by this researcher in the review of

literature.

5. A pilot study of this questionnaire was administered

to a randomly selected sample of 25 students taken

from the target population.








6. The questionnaire was revised based upon comments

received from the students involved in the pilot study

and from the researcher's committee.

7. The questionnaire, a letter of introduction and ex-

planation, and a postage-free envelope were mailed to

the students selected in the random sample. A copy

of the letter of introduction and explanation can be

found in Appendix B.

8. Postcard reminders were sent as necessary within 15

days of initial mailing. A copy of the postcard can

be found in Appendix C Another postcard reminder

was sent to those students who still had not returned

their questionnaire thirty days after mailing. A copy

of the postcard reminder can be found in Appendix D.

9. The researcher telephoned or made door-to-door visits

to collect the remaining questionnaires.

0. Those questionnaires received by the researcher which

were incomplete or incorrectly filled out were set

aside. The researcher then made contact with those

students who had filled out these questionnaires in

order to insure the collect completion of each ques-

tionnaire.

1. After 60 days from initial mailing of the questionnaires,

the researcher obtained the permanent addresses of

those remaining students who had no local telephone

number, had left no forwarding address, and had not re-

turned their questionnaires. The researcher then sent







a second copy of the questionnaire to their per-

manent home address.

12. Upon return of the completed questionnaires, the re-

searcher contacted by phone and/or personal visit

those students who had requested on their question-

naires that contact be made.

13. Upon return of the questionnaires, the data obtained

from the questionnaires and from the Yearbook of

Higher Education were tabulated, analyzed, and reported

in descriptive form. A card sorter was used in tabu-

lating much of the data.

Data Treatment

In relation to the questions set forth in the statement

of the problem, the following steps were taken in treating

the data:

1. Frequency distributions were developed, where necessary,

in order to identify the characteristics of the

students who transfer to the University of Florida

from other four-year colleges and universities.

(Questions 1 through 15 on the questionnaire supplied

the appropriate data.)

2. Frequency distributions were developed in order to

identify the characteristics of the institutions from

which students transfer. (The answers to item 11 on

the questionnaire identified the colleges previously

attended and the Yearbook of Higher Education was used

to identify the characteristics of the college.)







3. Frequency distributions were developed in order to

identify reasons why students left institutions pre-

viously attended and why they transferred to the

University of Florida. (Items 16 and 17 on the

questionnaire supplied these.)

4. Frequency distributions were developed in order to

identify problems transfer students encountered as

transfer students at the University of Florida.

(Items 18-21 supplied these.)

5. In addition, various related descriptive statistics

were employed. Some of the frequency distributions

are both in terms of number and percent.

6. The researcher attempted, where possible, to identify

relationships among the characteristics of the students,

the institutions from which they came, and the major

problems they encountered in transferring to the

University of Florida.

7. Based upon the findings of step 6, the researcher

attempted to identify the implications such findings

have for the academic, procedural, and extracurricular

activities involving transfer students at the University

of Florida.

8. Based also upon the findings of step 6, and in light of

theories dealing with adjustment in new situations as

identified in the review of literature, this researcher

assessed whether or not the findings of this study

supported or refuted the selected theories of adjustment.











CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE


At one time, the majority of college transfer students

in the United States transferred from one four-year college

to another four-year college (Willingham, 1974). This is

no longer the case. The largest number of transfers presently

move vertically from two-year colleges to four-year colleges

and universities. A review of literature by Meskill and

Sheffield of "Research on Transfer Students" turned up articles

exclusively dealing with two-year college transfers (1971).

Yet according to Willingham, one-fourth of the transfers in

the United States transfer between one four-year institution

and another four-year institution. The literature and re-

search do not reflect this figure. Because of the paucity of

research dealing exclusively with the four-year college transfer

student, this researcher included studies of two-year college

transfer students which are applicable to this review.

The review of literature is divided into four major

parts. The first part deals with theories that apply to ad-

justment of an individual in a new situation. Theories re-

lating to what happens when an individual encounters a new

situation are useful in understanding the transfer student and

his problems. The second part of this review concentrates on









the characteristics of four-year college transfer students

and the institutions from which they transfer. The third

part identifies some of the reasons given for transferring

from one institution to another institution. The fourth

part of the review covers problems encountered by students

who transfer. In addition, each part will contain theory

where applicable.

Adjustment Theories

A period of transition can be one which is rewarding

or it can be disastrous and the beginning of many failures.

Barger (1968) takes a positive view of the transition ex-

perience of the transfer student stating that "Periods of

transition provide special opportunities for the enhancement

of growth and for the prevention of failure experiences" (p. 1).

Theory dealing specifically with transfer students and

the transition experience does not exist. Therefore, this

researcher has looked at research dealing with adjustment of

an individual in a new situation. Even though the four-year

college transfer student has previously attended college, he

will still have to make adjustments and will encounter diffi-

culties in the new institution.

Arkoff (1968) identified three major theories dealing

with adjustment of an individual to a new situation. Three

definitions are useful in understanding these theories.

1. Adjustment--a person's interaction with his
environment.








r=rcnarnment--everything external to the person
with which he is in some relaticn.

t.e razctin--mutua! hearingg cr influence. (p. 1)

The first theory notified byr Arkcif places the nmacr

burden :f ads stments on the individual and is the precdminant

view held bv psyVchcl: gits tcday (p. ). larger (1963) alsc

:eliev~ s the emaasis .n a~ jstmen: rests with the student in

brini 1 cut a s successful transition tc the new college or



ver the years it has become increasingly
a=-araen tha l :te ncre adecua-ely students are
-te:,ed c C ldertake tie emancs cf university
r- an, t- e ncrrea listic are their exNectations
: these demands and themselves. the m.re c.-
s a n s e e t-e Tcre cc--
_strucve aind rcwez :-rcducin .es. the trans-
ritunal experience :eccme. (p. 1-)

The second -:ecor identified Cv Arkoff emphasizes he

envirocnme n. Each college has a different environment, anc

cw mhe student perceives this environment will determine

viwheer the transition experience is rewaradin cr defeating.

\Accring tc diark 133, the nature cf the challenge en-

countered 1- c-olleg stdenG s "varies according tc institutional

haraceriscs of different ccllege envircrments" ( 32).

The third ;heory, endorsed by Arkcff, considers adjust-

-ent "wc- i' b. th the student and the envirc ment



ow easily a studet- adj:sts to Ccilege
o -rt on re needs :f the student and
h~e t-- e_ t 4 -lc . e 'c _e ze f-iLi~t -es
sa mands :f the oLlee and the extent to which .te
student oan neet these demands. np. 3)









Characteristics of Four-Year College Transfer Students and
Institutions

One of the early pioneers in the study of transfer

students was Eaton at the University of Indiana. He did

studies of both students who transferred from Indiana

University (1941) and those who transferred to Indiana

University (1943). His first study of students transferring

from Indiana University reached the following conclusions:

1. Many students change schools rather than
curricula within a school when they have
failed a certain course.

2. A number of students change schools in
order to get a type of training that is
not offered by the school in which they
are enrolled.

3. There is need for greater student guidance
in colleges and universities. (p. 7)

His second study (1943) concentrated on those students

who transferred to Indiana University during the years

1939-1940, 1940-1941, 1941-1942 and was limited to under-

graduate students enrolling in the schools of Arts and

Sciences, Business, Education and Music. Eaton identified

the institutions from which these students transferred by

the name of institution, the state in which it was located,

the type of control, the type of student, and the number of

transfer students received from that school during each of

the three years included in the study. An examination of

the data showed that most of the students came from within

the state of Indiana and from two major universities--

Purdue and Butler University.









Of larger scope and magnitude was a study conducted

by Iffert (1958) for the United States Office of Education.

This study dealt with those students transferring to in-

stitutions in the time period from Spring of 1951 to the

Fall of 1953. The results showed that most students trans-

ferred after their second year (28.2%, followed by 21.3%

their first year, 19.1% their third year, and 0.1% after

their fourth year) (p. 81).

Another trend identified by Iffert was that, for the

most part, students who originally attended a large school

transferred to a small school and those who attended a small

school transferred to a large one.

A study conducted by Wise (1958) of transfer students

indicated proportionally, "There are data which suggest

that more men than women transfer to another college after

discontinuing registration at their college of first enroll-

ment" (p. 16).

Holmes (1971) conducted a ten-year study of 1,557

four-year institution transfer students to the College of

Liberal Arts at Syracuse University: 1945-1955. The four-

year transfer student group was comprised of two-thirds men

and one-third women. "Fifty-six percent of the groups call

New York their home state" (p. 323). Another 17% came from

neighboring states. His study, for purposes of comparison,








arranged the four-year colleges and universities from which

students transferred by size of enrollment as follows: 1)

under 2,500; 2) 2,500 to 5,000; 3) 5,000 to 7,000; 4) 7,500

to 10,000; and 5) over 10,000. It was interesting that

groups 1 and 5, the smallest and the largest institutions

contributed two-thirds of the total number of four-year

transfer students.

A more recent study by Rose and Elton (1970) compared

the "personality factor scores of students at the time of

transfer from two-year colleges with those of students at

time of transfer between four-year institutions" (p. 266).

The study was conducted at the University of Kentucky and

used the Omnibus Personality Inventory, Form C. The sample

included 97 female four-year college transfers, 173 male

junior college transfers, 255 female four-year college trans-

fers, and 203 male four-year college transfers. The results

showed that the transfer students personality characteristics

were very similar regardless of the first institution of en-

rollment.

The Illinois Council on Articulation conducted a massive

study of transfer students in the State of Illinois in 1971

("Transfer Students in Illinois," 1971). One purpose of

the study was to determine, for each participating insti-

tution, the magnitude of its transfer population, both re-

ceived and sent. The study included all transfer students

coming to Illinois from out of state institutions for

a period of one year and all transfer students in higher








education institutions in Illinois. Each institution, as a

part of the study, was to complete a questionnaire dealing

predominantly with student characteristics on every transfer

student, including the institution from which he or she trans-

ferred. The data showed that, "approximately one of every ten

undergraduate students of higher education in the State of

Illinois enrolling that year for the first time at that insti-

tution for credit was a transfer student" (p. 296). In addition,

"Almost twice as many transfer students are transferring from

senior institutions (60 percent) as from junior colleges

(34 percent)" (p. 297). Also, "Private institutions in Illinois

are sending more transfer students than they are receiving"

(p. 297).

The data clearly indicated that transfer
students from public four-year colleges are
much more likely to be students who were dropped
before leaving the institution than are students
transferring from private four-year colleges,
private or public two-year colleges, or pro-
fessional-technical schools. (p. 301)

A more recent study dealing with four-year college

transfer students was conducted at Memphis State University

in Tennessee by Preus (1973). With the assistance of the

University record office, a list of all (926) students who

transferred to Memphis State University in the Fall Term,

1972, was prepared. A random sample comprising 126 students,

13.6% of the population, was selected as subjects for indi-

vidual interview. Of these 126 transfer students studied, 60

transferred from four-year public colleges and 28 from four-








year private colleges. The study found that most of the

students were single (87 single, 39 married). Most of the

transferring was done at the beginning of their sophomore

(41 students) or junior (42 students) years. Roughly half of

the transfer students were female and half were male.

Burke's study at the University of Connecticut (1973)

dealt in part with transfers from four-year colleges. The

study showed that these transfers, compared to the other

transfers studied (two-year college and branch transfers),

had the greatest percentage of married students and was the

only group more than one-half female.
The most recent study identified by this researcher

was a study carried out by Rahaim (1974). In part, the

purpose of her dissertation was to develop a profile of the

transfer student based on demographic data collected from

transfer students who enrolled in 13 public and 25 private

four-year educational institutions in Massachusetts in the

Fall of 1972. According to Rahaim, the typical transfer

student was under 24 years of age, single, slightly more

likely to be a male, a Massachusetts resident, and at least

in the public sector, a non-veteran who attended college

immediately after high school. In addition she found that

these students, for the most part, were academically qualified

and did not ask for financial aid.

From the studies that have been completed concerning

four-year college transfer students and their general character-

istics, the following can be summarized:







1. Most of the transfer students remain within the state.

2. Most transfer students transfer at the beginning of

their sophomore or junior years.

3. The number of these four-year transfer students is

large (one fourth of the total number who transfer

yearly).

4. Students tend to move from large to small schools or

from small to large schools.

No definite conclusions could be drawn about sex or marital

status of the transfer student.

This researcher's study attempts to update and at the

same time expand the scope of characteristics identified in

this review. The researcher does not limit his study to

certain schools or majors as did Eaton (1943). Also included

are the following characteristics which were not previously

identified in any of the studies--race, living arrangement,

veteran status, financial aid, and parents' estimated annual

income.

Reasons For Transferring

This section is divided into two parts: reasons given

by students for leaving an institution and reasons given for

transferring to another institution. The review of literature

showed that most of the studies dealing with transfer students

identified reasons why students leave an institution rather

than why students decide to transfer to another institution.

Also, many of the studies concentrated on those students who

drop out rather than those who continue at another institution.








Why students leave. As mentioned earlier by this re-

searcher, Eaton (1941) investigated reasons why students

leave college.

The purpose of this study was to ascertain
whether the reasons students transfer to some
other school lies within the student and is
purely personal or whether the transfer is due
to an inefficiency or lack in the University
itself. (p. 5)

One conclusion of the study was that most students change

school rather than change curricula within a school when they

have failed a certain course. In Eaton's review of related

studies, the most common reasons discovered for leaving a

college or university were poor scholarship, finance, health,

home conditions, lack of intelligence, poor high school found-

ation, lack of application to subject matter, lack of oppor-

tunity to pursue the work desired, lack of sincere advice given

by University counselors, roving dispositions, inability to

adjust to academic and social environment of the college, lack

of interest, a desire to improve their condition and education

some place else.

A recent study conducted by Meek at the University of

Florida (1974) found that of those students who were inter-

viewed and withdrew Winter Quarter 1974, the majority of the

reasons given were financial, personal, and academic. Another

recent study by the Joint Committee on College Transfer Students

(1973) dealt with transfer students entering the University of

North Carolina system in the fall of 1972 (Guidelines for

Transfers, 1972).








There are many reasons, but the prevalent
one is the student's desire to advance his edu-
cation. Another is the student's effort to
accommodate himself better to academic standards,
programs, cost, or geographic location. (p. 1)

Why students transfer to other institutions. Reasons

why students transfer to an institution are very similar to

some of the reasons why students leave an institution. The

Florida Board of Regents (1970, 1971) has conducted two sur-

veys to find out why students transfer to public universities

in Florida. The following reasons were identified: inexpensive,

close to home, friends were to attend there, general academic

reputation, strong program in intended major, financial aid

opportunities, general impression of campus and students,

opportunity for independent study, and "felt had better

opportunity to succeed here."

In attempting to explain why a student chooses a certain

institution, Clark (1968) theorizes that a student chooses a

college because of the public image the college portrays.

The public image of a college, in part, is based upon what

the college has been (its history) and its current status

today.

As can be seen from the studies focused on why students

leave one institution and why they chose another, there are

areas that overlap. What the first institution cannot do to

meet the transfer student's needs, the second institution

hopefully can.









Problems Encountered By Transfer Students

Problems encountered by two-year college transfer

students as well as four-year college transfer students will

be reviewed as there should be some problem areas common to

both.

In part, many of the problems encountered by transfer

students may be due to the expectations these students have

before they arrive on campus. Buckley (1968), in his study

of a comparison of freshman and transfer expectations of

college theorized the following:

According to these results, we cannot
assume that transfer students, even with
previous college experience, bring with them
different expectations than freshmen. Both
tend to exaggerate their expectations of the
environment and anticipate a high intellectual
and non-intellectual climate. (p. 188)

Perception also affects the view a transfer student

might have of a problem. Anstett (1973) conducted a study

of student perceptions of the institutional environment.

Anstett theorized that the institutional environment "is

what it is perceived to be by the people who live in it.

What people perceive to be true is true for them" (p. 198).

It is obvious that some of the problems identified both in

this review and by the findings of this study are due in part

to students' expectations and in part by the perceptions they

hold of their environment.

Much of the literature about transfer students dealt

with articulation. The purpose of an articulation agreement








is to facilitate the student's transition from freshman level

in the community junior college to the university or college

in the shortest time possible and minimum amount of incon-

venience. According to Kintzer (1974b), 28 states have no

discernible plan. Of the 22 who do, some plans are only in

the beginning stages of development (p. 2). It appears to

the researcher that a need for an articulation agreement

implies that there are problems to be overcome in moving from

one level in a system to another or from one institution to

another. Florida has an articulation Agreement between public

community colleges and the universities in the State University

System. But little attention has been given to any kind of

agreement between four-year institutions.

Burt (1972) identified particular areas of difficulty

encountered by transfer students. According to Burt, college

catalog information is usually vague concerning the junior

college transfer student. Thirteen percent of the transfer

students lose the equivalent of at least one semester of

credit in the process of transferring.

Willingham (1972) estimated that approximately one-half

of the students who transfer lose some credit in the transfer

process. In addition, he identified other problems encountered

by transfer students: inadequate orientation, diverse ad-

mission procedures, shortage of financial aid, space not avail-

able for transfer students, and the lack of maintenance of

curriculum articulation.








According to Goodale and Sandeen (1971), the junior

college transfer student tended to be overlooked in the areas

of orientation, counseling, participation in extracurricular

activities, and academic advisement at the four-year insti-

tution.

The areas identified by Goodale and Sandeen were based

in part upon the major work dealing with transfer students

done by Knoell and Medsker in 1965--From Junior to Senior

College: A National Study of the Transfer Student. In their

final chapter, Knoell and Medsker stated:

In many four-year institutions transfer
students are being overlooked in planning
orientation programs, in offering counseling
services to new students, in inviting their
participation in social and extracurricular
activities, and, above all, in giving appro-
priate academic advice at the time of their
first registration. There was little or no
evidence of discriminatory policies or practices
affecting the junior college transfer students,
but compared with the attention given the entering
freshmen, there was a general lack of concern
for their needs and interests. The new freshman
continues to be the preferred client of the
four-year institutions, and of their student
services program, while the transfer student
is usually left to make his own adjustment to
the new situation. (p. 97)

A study by the Washington State Council on Higher

Education (1973) indicated the following: the transfer

student has less of a chance at financial aid, was not re-

cruited as much as freshmen, lost credit when transferring,

was not properly oriented, was usually limited in number based

upon a quota developed for entering freshmen, and had difficulty

in finding living accommodations on campus if they preferred

to live on campus.(Transfer of Credit, 1973).







Goodale and Sandeen (1971), in their study of the trans-

fer student for the National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators, identified many areas of concern for the

transfer student. Two major areas of concern were articulation

problems (little research done in this area, few states have

articulation agreements, transfer student need for more per-

sonal communication with prospective colleges) and social ad-

justment problems (little research activity in this area;

transfer students feel student activities, whether they be

cultural, social, political, or recreational, are aimed at

the entering freshman; transfer students feel less confident

socially than native students; and have the feeling that native

students tend to view transfers as "second-class citizens.")

(p. 254)

An example of a problem faced by transfer students was

investigated by Warlick (1971) in the state of Virginia.

Warlick did a study of admission policies and practices for

transfer students in Virginia. The conclusion reached by

Warlick was that the institutions of higher education in

Virginia were using in practice a great number of regulations

and requirements which were not found in any of their published

materials. In addition, the institutions of higher education

were not putting into practice what was contained in the publi-

cations about transfer student admission. As a result, the

potential transfer applicants were being considered for ad-

mission on the basis of criteria which were unknown to the


candidates.








A later study carried out by Sandeen (1974) identified

the following general areas in which transfer students face

problems: attitudes toward transfer students, new student

programs, registration, academic advising, student financial

aid, housing, student activities, career planning and place-

ment, publications, adjustment to institutional change,

articulation agreements, special academic opportunities, par-

ticipation in institutional governance, recognition and awards.

Sistrunk (1974) completed a study of problems encountered

by students transferring to two and four-year senior institu-

tions in Florida. His study of transfer students included

both junior college transfers and four-year college transfers.

He analyzed six universities in the State University System

of Florida, including the University of Florida. Sistrunk

identified 24 problems. The problems were:

1. Insufficient familiarity of academic counselors with
the content of community college associate in arts
degree programs;

2. Insufficient familiarity of community college
counselors with the content of baccalaureate
major programs at the state university;

3. Acquisition of adequate academic counseling for
the entering transfer student;

4. The requirement of additional prerequisites for
admission to some baccalaureate degree programs,
thus delaying admission to the upper division
institution, extending the enrollment required
for graduation, or forcing the student to change
the vocational objective;

5. Insufficient articulation of course content between
the community college and the university;








6. Frequent unavailability of appropriate academic
counselors during the initial registration period;

7. Impersonality of academic counseling sessions;

8. Inability to complete prerequisite courses at the
community college;

9. Limitations upon enrollment of certain academic colleges;

10. Breadth of available majors is not effectively
communicated to prospective transfer students;

11. Adjustment of moving from a small campus to a
larger institution;

12. Information on housing is not mailed to prospective
transfer students upon tentative admission;

13. Substantial delays in mailed communications with
transfer students;

14. Delay in the evaluation and acceptance of community
college academic credits, particularly those courses
taken as prerequisites for selected majors;

15. No informational publications directed specifically
at prospective transfer students;

16. Reluctance of students to participate in student
activities because of academic responsibilities;

17. The academic expectations of the faculty at the uni-
versity, when contrasted with the community college;

18. Student activities are primarily geared toward the
native student;

19. Insufficient orientation to campus services;

20. Insufficient orientation to available campus activities;

21. Removal of transfer students from dormitory spaces
so that freshmen may have these spaces;

22. Loss of course content by use of credit by examination;

23. Development of institutional loyalty among transfer
students;

24. Participation in student activities by transfer
students does not receive sufficient encouragement.
(p. 117-119)








In addition, Sistrunk identified problems encountered

by students at the University of Florida. Academic counseling

was considered inadequate, particularly during initial regis-

tration. Students considered the orientation insufficient in

terms of describing the student services on campus. Sistrunk

further noted that, while freshmen are automatically sent a

packet of information concerning housing on-campus, a transfer

student must request such information.

Dearing (1974) identifies three major types of theories

of student advisement and counseling. These theories, in

part, may be related to problems encountered by transfer

students.

One is that every faculty member is by
virtue of training and knowledge capable of, and
by virtue of academic appointment responsible for,
counseling, advising, and evaluating performance
of students. A second is that faculty members
differ widely in interest in and capacity for such
functions, and that a professional cadre of full-
time academic counselors should assume the respons-
ibilities fully, relieving teaching faculty of
significant involvement in the process of advis-
ing, counseling, and even testing. A third view
is that college students should be mature adults
fully capable of reading and interpreting catalog
statements, competent to design their own programs
within limits specified by the published institu-
tional regulations, and appropriately responsible
for their own success or failure. (p. 70-71)

It is obvious that transfer students and their problems

will be affected by the particular view taken by the college

and its personnel toward student advisement and counseling.

Kintzer (1974a) identified certain problems which have

been overlooked by most in the research of transfer students.








More specifically, he identified problems unique to the four-

year transfer student. They were:

1. If the various campuses in the same multi-
university have different graduation re-
quirements, must he complete a separate
set of requirements to graduate from the
second campus?

2. Is he caught in the trap of residency
requirements?

3. Is it possible to take work simultaneously
at more than one campus in the system?

4. Will all courses taken in his major count
at the other campuses?

5. Will his financial aid grant transfer to
the new campus along with his credits?
(p. 82-83)

An earlier publication by Kintzer (1973) identified

other problems encountered by the student seeking to transfer.

Most of the problems identified applied to two-year college

transfer students. The sudden changes in the upper division

curricula, the insistence of exact equivalence of courses,

the refusal to accept occupational courses, the placement of

limitations on the amount of credit in certain majors, the

refusing to accept certain courses, and the limiting of enroll-

ment of transfer students in certain programs are some of the

problems identified by Kintzer. He also identified problems

which are not due to the institution, but associated with the

student: the changing of majors when transferring; the fail-

ing to complete prerequisites; and the compiling of a poor

academic record.








Gatzke (1973) conducted a study of all junior year

transfer students from institutions in the state of Missouri

who entered the University of Missouri--Columbia during the

1972-1973 fall and winter semesters. Two conclusions which

relate to this study were that transfer students from two-

year public institutions experienced a greater amount of

transfer loss than did transfer students from four-year

private institutions. Also, depending upon what college the

transfer enrolled in at the University of Missouri--Columbia,

the amount of credit loss in transfer varied.

An additional problem identified by Willingham and

Findiykan (1969) concerned financial aid. According to the

two researchers:

In any event, the bare facts concerning
aid to transfers constitute ample evidence that
there is a real problem. Almost half the in-
stitutions (146 four-year colleges and uni-
versities made up their sample) reported that
aid requests from transfer applicants exceeded
the institution's resources. On the other
hand fewer than one college in five had any
aid set aside specifically for transfers.
(p. 9)

The two researchers identified other potential barriers

to transfer students also. Even though transfer students

from two and four-year colleges have approximately the same

college grades, the junior college transfer student was less

likely to be rejected than the four-year college students (24

percent versus 35 percent). They further stated that:

Comparative rejection rates indicate that there
is a substantial bias in favor of state resi-
dents, though previous college grades do not
differentiate residents and non-residents. (p. 8)








Admission standards, timing practices, and lack of

space were other areas identified as contributing to potential

barriers encountered by transfer students.

A comprehensive list of barriers encountered by trans-

fer students is provided by Furniss and Martin (1974). They

include:

Lack of agreement on minimum grade point average;

Lack of standardization of grading systems;

Difficulty with pass/fail grading system;

Lack of synchronized academic calendars;

Lack of agreement on external degree standards;

Lack of agreement on validity of credit for life
experiences;

Lack of agreement on validity of correspondence courses;

Lack of agreement on validity of adult education courses;

Lack of problem-specific counseling;

Lack of standardized admission standards;

Lack of agreement on core curricula;

Lack of understanding of course content and objectives;

Lack of coordination between admissions office and
departmental requirements;

Associate in Arts not recognized;

Lack of agreement on acceptability of CLEP and
USAFI tests;

Lack of agreement on external degree standards;

Lack of agreement on credit by examination;

Lack of recognition of educational experiences
in the military;








Lack of recognition of educational experiences in
penal institutions;

Remedial and technical courses not transferable;

Discrepancies in residency requirements;

Lack of compliance with state legal requirements;

Discrepancies in financial aid: transfer and
native students;

Refusal to accept "old" credits;

Undefined provisions for waiver of requirements;

Lack of agreement on credits from accredited and
non-accredited colleges;

Lack of provisions for transfer of credits from
proprietary institutions (p. 25).

In summary, it can be seen that the problems of trans-

fers are many. The very process of transfer itself causes

problems. The transfer student must cope with both problems

resulting from transfer and problems which all students,

native and transfer, encounter from day to day on any campus.

According to a study done by Ritt at the University of

Florida in 1970, if the problem identified by transfer students

are not solved or adequately dealt with, the results can be

most unfortunate both for the institution and for the student.

He concluded:

1. The greater the dissatisfaction that a student
reports, the greater the anticipated prob-
ability of his dropping out of the university.

2. The greater the dissatisfaction with the
academic aspects of the university, the
greater the anticipated probability of
dropping out for academic reasons. Simi-
larly, students reporting greater dis-
satisfaction with the non-academic aspects
of the university, report a higher dropout
potential for non-academic reasons. (p. 56)








This study deals exclusively with problems encountered

by four-year college transfer students. As a review of the

literature showed, previous studies concentrated on two-year

college transfer students or combined different types of

transfer students. This study updates the few studies that

have been done dealing only with four-year college transfer

students. (Eaton 1941, Iffert 1950, Conrad 1951 and Holmes

19 1)

Summary

The four-year college transfer student is not new to

higher education. Recent research, however, has concentrated

primarily on two-year college transfer students and their

transfer problems.

Because of the paucity of recent research dealing with

the four-year college transfer student, this study should be

of assistance in identifying some of the characteristics of

both the students who transfer from one four-year college to

another, and the characteristics of the institutions from

which they transfer.

As discussed in the preceding review of literature,

reasons for leaving and for transferring to an institution

are in response to shortcomings of the previously attended

institution. This study attempts to identify the reasons

students leave one institution and transfer to the University

of Florida.

Some of the problems identified in the research are

common to all college students, but are more accentuated for









the transfer student because of his unfamiliarity with his

new environment. Other problems are peculiar to transfer

students only and, of these, some are pertinent to certain

types of transfer students. This study attempts to clarify

those problems encountered by students who transfer from one

four-year college to another.

Format of Study

Chapter I contains three major parts: the introduction,

the problem, and the sources of data and procedures used.

Chapter II reviews pertinent literature. This chapter identi-

fies the characteristics of transfer students, primarily four-

year but also two-year, and the institutions from which they

transfer, reasons for transferring, and problems encountered

by transfer students as described in previous studies.

Chapter III is an analysis of the data, identifying the

characteristics of students who transferred to the University

of Florida, the characteristics of the institutions from which

they transferred, the reasons for transferring, the problems

encountered in transferring, and the identification of rela-

tionships between characteristics and problems. Chapter IV

discusses the findings in Chapter III in light of previous

research identified in the review of literature. Chapter V

presents a summary and the conclusions reached in this study.

The last section of this chapter discusses the implications

this study has for the University of Florida. Attention is

also given to selected theories dealing with adjustment in




42



new situations and the relationships between the findings

of this study and such theories. The final part of this

chapter discusses implications for further research.












CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA


The purpose of the present chapter is to present an

analysis of the results obtained from the questionnaires

mailed to a sample of four-year college transfer students who

enrolled at the University of Florida, fall quarter 1974.

The questionnaire was designed to elicit information regard-

ing the following: student characteristics, institutional

characteristics, reasons for transferring, and problems en-

countered in transferring. The chapter is divided as follows:

Questionnaire Return
Characteristics of Four-year College Transfer Students
Characteristics of Institutions Previously Attended
Reasons for Transferring
Problems Encountered in Transferring
Responses to Open-ended Question
Relationship of Characteristics with Major Problems

Questionnaire Return

The researcher sent 213 questionnaires to a randomly

selected sample of students who transferred from other four-

year colleges and who enrolled at the University of Florida

during the fall quarter, 1974. A total of 204 of these

questionnaires was returned representing 96 percent of the

sample. Because of the nature of the follow-up (discussed in

Chapter I) conducted by this researcher, all 204 returned

questionnaires were useable. Of the nine students who did not








complete questionnaires, five registered for winter quarter,

1975, but dropped out during the quarter without going through

the formal withdrawal procedure of the University of Florida;

three did not register winter quarter, 1975; and one withdrew

fall quarter, 1974. None of the nine left forwarding addresses

and questionnaires sent to their permanent home addresses were

not returned.

The researcher divided the completed questionnaires into

two distinct groups--those that had been filled out by students

who had attended only one four-year college or university be-

fore transferring to the University of Florida and those that

had attended two or more colleges, at least one of which was a

four-year college, before transferring to the University of

Florida. The researcher will refer to the first group as one-

college transfer students, of which there were 150. The

second group will be referred to as multi-college transfer

students of which there were 54. These represent respectively

74 percent and 26 percent of the questionnaires returned. The

multi-college transfer students can be further subdivided as

follows:

Attended two four-year colleges or universities 20

Attended two colleges, one of which was a
four-year college or university 22

Attended three four-year colleges or universities 1

Attended three colleges, at least one being a
four-year college or university 9

Attended a four-year college or university
located in a foreign country 2

TOTAL 54








Characteristics of Four-Year College Transfer Students

This section deals with the responses to questions 1

through 16 (excluding question 12) of the questionnaire.

Questions concerning student characteristics were based upon

previous studies of transfer students as identified in the

review of literature as well as those characteristics which

the researcher thought might relate to problems identified by

transfer students.

Sex. Table 1 provides a breakdown of transfer students

by sex. In both the one-college transfer student and the

multi-college transfer student groups, the number of males

exceeded the number of females by approximately nine percent.

Each group contained approximately the same percentage of males

and thus, females.


Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Sex

Type
Sex One-College Multi-College

Male 82 (55%) 29 (54%)

Female 68 (45%) 25 (46%)

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%)


Race. Table 2 describes the racial composition of both

groups of transfer students. In both groups, the overwhelming

majority of students belong to the category identified as

"other," (i.e., Caucasian). Less than five percent of both

groups involve students commonly referred to as minority students.








Table 2. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Race


Race

American Indian

Black

Oriental

Spanish Surname American

Other

TOTAL


One-College

0

1 (1%)

1 (1%)

4 (3%)

143 (95%)

149 (100%)


Type


Multi-College

1 (2%)

0

2 (4%)

0

51 (94%)

54 (100%)


Marital Status. Table 3 presents a breakdown of both

groups of transfer students by marital status. In this

aspect, the two groups were different. The number and per-

centage of married multi-college transfer students were

greater than the number andpercentage of married one-college

transfer students. But in both cases, the majority of transfer

students were single.


Table 3. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Marital Status


Marital Status

Single

Married

Divorced

Widowed

Legally Separated

TOTAL


Type


One-College

142 (95%)

5 (3%)

1 (1%)

1 (1%)

0

149 (100%)


Multi-College

41 (76%)

13 (24%)

0

0

0

54 (100%)








Age. Table 4 presents information on both groups of

transfer students by age. The majority of students in both

groups were in the "20-23" age-group bracket. However, the next

largest age group for multi-college transfer students was the

"24-29" age-group bracket. Combining the age brackets of

"under 20" and "20-23" for the one-college transfer students,

it reveals that 98 percent of these transfer students are 23

years old or less. Of the multi-college transfer students,

only 79 percent are 23 or less.

Table 4. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Age

Type
Age One-College Multi-College

Under 20 56 (37%) 4 (7%)

20-23 92 (61%) 39 (72%)

24-29 1 (1%) 9 (17%)

30 or over 1 (1%) 2 (3%)

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%)



Payment of Fees. Table 5 describes the two groups of

transfer students by the type of fee schedule they were re-

quired to pay while attending the University of Florida, fall

quarter, 1974. In both groups, the majority of students were

considered Florida residents and paid in-state tuition charges.

However, a greater percentage of multi-college transfer students

(87 percent) than one-college transfer students (77 percent)

were considered Florida residents.








Table 5. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Payment of Fees
Type
Payment of Fees One-College Multi-College

Florida Resident 115 (77%) 47 (87%)

Non-Florida Resident 35 (23%) 7 (13%)

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%)



Living Arrangement. Table 6 presents both groups of

transfer students by type of living arrangement. In both

groups, the majority of students were living off-campus,

apart from their parents. However, a greater percentage of

multi-college transfer students (80 percent) than one-college

transfer students (65 percent) were living off-campus apart

from their parents. The percentage of one-college transfer

students living in residence halls (29 percent) was greater

than the percentage of multi-college transfer students living

in residence halls (16 percent). Few of either group (less

than five percent) lived in sorority-fraternity houses or

off-campus with their parents.








Table 6. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Living Arrangement

Type


Living Arrangement One-College

Off-campus (apart from parents) 97 (65%)

Off-campus (with parents) 5 (3%)

Residence Hall 43 (29%)

Sorority-Fraternity House 5 (3%)

TOTAL 150 (100%)


Multi-College

43 (80%)

1 (2%)

9 (16%)

1 (2%)

54 (100%)


Veteran Status. Table 7 provides a breakdown of both

groups of transfer students by their veteran status--service

in the United States Armed Forces. Percentages of veterans

were approximately the same in each group. Over 93 percent of

each transfer group were not considered veterans.


Table 7. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Veteran Status

Type
Veteran Status One-College Multi-College

Yes 10 (7%) 3 (6%)

No 139 (93%) 51 (94%)

TOTAL 149 (100%) 54 (100%)



Present Academic Major at the University of Florida. Table

8 presents a breakdown of those majors identified by at least

five transfer students from both groups. The three majors

most commonly identified were Architecture (13), Undecided (13),

and Pre-Vet (11). In all, the transfer students identified 78

different majors.









Table 8. Distribution of Most Commonly Identified Majors


Major Number


Anthropology 5

Architecture 13

Business 5

Chemistry 5

English 5

Journalism 9

Nursing 7

Pharmacy 6

Political Science 8

Pre-Vet 11

Psychology 9

Undecided 13


Note: In order for an academic major to appear in this table,
at least five students had to identify that particular
major.


College or School Enrolled in, Fall Quarter, 1974. Table

9 presents the number and percentage of transfer students en-

rolled in any one of thirteen colleges or schools which are open

to undergraduates at the University of Florida. Over half

(59 percent) of one-college transfer students were enrolled in

the University College. All freshmen and sophomores at the

University of Florida are automatically classified as a student

in the University College. Some juniors can also be enrolled









in the University College. The next largest enrollment was

in the College of Arts and Science (13 percent). The multi-

college transfer student's enrollment in University College

was smaller--only 24 percent. The largest enrollment of

multi-college transfer students was in the College of Arts

and Science. The percentage (26 percent) was double that of

one-college transfer students. Combining the two groups, the

largest enrollment of transfer students was in University

College (51 percent). The next largest combined enrollment

was in the College of Arts and Science (17 percent), followed

by the College of Engineering and the College of Journalism,

each having 6 percent of the students.








Table 9. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By College Enrolled in, Fall Quarter, 1974

Type


College

University College

Agriculture

Architecture and Fine Arts

Arts and Science

Business Administration

Education

Engineering

Forest Resources and
Conservation

Health Related Professions

Journalism and Communications

Nursing

Pharmacy

Physical Education,
Health and Recreation

Undecided

TOTAL


One-College

90 (59%)

4 (3%)

2 (2%)

20 (13%)

6 (3%)

2 (2%)

7 (5%)


(3%)

(5%)

(1%)

(3%)


0

1 (1%)

150 (100%)


Multi-College

14 (24%)

3 (7%)

3 (7%)

14 (26%)

1 (1%)

5 (9%)

5 (9%)


(2%)

(7%)

(2%)

(4%)


0

3 (6%)

54 (100%)


Approximate Grade Point Average at Previous Institution.

Table 10 presents the number and percentage of transfer students

based upon their estimated grade point average at the previous

institution or institutions of attendance. The majority of

students, in both groups, estimated their grade point average

to be a B. A slightly larger percentage of multi-college








transfer students (20 percent) than one-college transfer

students (17 percent) estimated their grade point average to

be an A. A larger percentage of one-college transfer students

(26 percent) than multi-college transfer students (17 percent)

estimated their grade point average to be a C. Only one

student in the entire sample considered his average less than

a C.


Table 10. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Approximate Grade Point Average at Previous
Institution

Type
Grade Point Average One-College Multi-College

A 25 (17%) 11 (20%)

B 85 (57%) 33 (61%)

C 40 (26%) 9 (17%)

D 0 1 (2%)

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%)



Financial Aid for First Quarter at the University of

Florida. Table 11 presents the number and percentage of

transfer students based on the type of financial aid they

received fall quarter, 1974. In both groups, the majority of

transfer students did not receive financial aid because they

did not apply for it. Altogether 85 percent of one-college

transfer students did not receive aid, though 6 percent applied

for it. Of the multi-college transfer students, 77 percent did

not receive aid of any kind though 10 percent applied for it.










Of the seven percent who checked "combination," all 10

students checked the same combination--"did not apply" and

"part-time work off-campus."


Table 11. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Financial Aid Situation
Type


Financial Aid

Did not apply

Applied but no reply

Applied but did not receive

Received scholarship

Received loan

Basic Educational Opportunity
Grant

Part-time employment with
University

Part-time work off-campus

G. I. Bill

A combination of two or
more of the above

TOTAL


One-College

116 (79%)

4 (3%)

5 (3%)

3 (2%)

4 (3%)


2 (1%)


(2%)

(3%)


6 (4%)

147 (100%)


Multi-College

36 (67%)

2 (4%)

2 (4%)

2 (4%)

5 (9%)


0


(1%)

(4%)


4 (7%)

54 (100%)


Educational Goals. Table 12 presents both the number and

percentage of transfer students identified by their particular

educational goals. In both groups, the largest number of

students intended to stop at the Bachelor's degree. A

greater percentage of multi-college transfer students planned

to go beyond the Bachelor's (59 percent) than did one-college


- -- -- -








transfer students (53 percent). Of the one-college transfer

students, more planned to go to a professional school (26

percent) than did multi-college transfer students (22 percent),

but less planned to obtain a Master's (21 percent to 29

percent of the multi-college transfer student).


Table 12. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Educational Goals

Type
Educational Goals One-College Multi-College

BA or BS 70 (47%) 22 (41%)

Master's 32 (21%) 16 (29%)

Doctorate 5 (4%) 3 (6%)

Professional (law,
Medicine, etc.) 40 (26%) 12 (22%)

Other 3 (2%) 1 (2%)

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%)



Student Classification, Fall Quarter, 1974. Table 13

identifies the number and percentage of transfer students by

their student classification, fall quarter, 1974. Of the

one-college transfer students, the largest number were classi-

fied as sophomores (47 percent) while of the multi-college

transfer students, the largest number were classified as

juniors (59 percent). In both groups, the smallest number of

transfers were classified as 5-year students (less than one

percent), followed by seniors (seven percent) and freshmen

(nine percent). Combining both transfer groups, almost an








equal number of sophomores and juniors transferred to the

University of Florida (41 percent sophomores and 42 percent

juniors). The multi-college transfer students seem to

transfer to the University of Florida at a later stage in

their education than do one-college transfer students. For

example, 98 percent of the multi-college transfer group were

sophomores or higher, compared with 87 percent of the one-

college transfer group. Seventy-four percent of the multi-

college transfer group were juniors or above compared to 40

percent of the one-college transfer group.

Table 13. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Student Classification, Fall Quarter, 1974

Student Classification Type
Fall Quarter, 1974 One-College Multi-College

Freshman 18 (13%) 1 (2%)

Sophomore 71 (47%) 13 (24%)

Junior 53 (35%) 32 (59%)

Senior 8 (5%) 7 (13%)

5-Year Student 0 1 (2%)

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%)



Student Status, Fall Quarter, 1974. Table 14 identifies

the number and the percentage of transfer students by their

student status at the University of Florida. In both groups,

the clear majority were full-time students. However, a

greater percentage of multi-college transfer students (11

percent) were likely to carry 11 hours or less than one-

college transfer students (4 percent).








Table 14. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Student Status, Fall Quarter, 1974

Student Status Type
Fall Quarter, 1974 One-College Multi-College

Full-time
(12 hours or more) 145 (96%) 48 (89%)

Part-time
(11 hours or less) 5 (4%) 6 (11%)

TOTAL 150 (100%) 54 (100%)


Parents' Estimated Annual Income. Table 15 provides a

breakdown of transfer students by parents' estimated annual

income. The largest category for both groups of transfer

students was the $20,000 or more bracket. However, the

percentage of one-college transfer students from this bracket

(49 percent) was greater than that of multi-college transfer

students in the same income bracket (38 percent). In addition,

in the lower two brackets ($9,999 or less) there was a greater

percentage of multi-college transfer students (23 percent)

than one-college transfer students (12 percent).


Table 15. Frequency Distribution of Transfer Students
By Parents' Estimated Annual Income

Parents' Estimated Type
Annual Income One-College Multi-College

Less than 6,000 11 (8%) 3 .(6%)

6,000-9,999 5 (4%) 9 (17%)

10,000-14,999 27 (19%) 9 (17%)

15,000-19,999 28 (20%) 12 (22%)

20,000 or more 69 (49%) 17 (38%)

TOTAL 140 (100%) 50 (100%)








Characteristics of Institutions Previously Attended

This section describes the responses generated from

question 12 of the questionnaire. The choice of institutional

characteristics as found in this section was based upon the

findings of previous studies of transfer students and the in-

stitutions from which they transferred, and those character-

istics which this researcher thought might have a relationship

with problems identified by transfer students. The Yearbook

of Higher Education provided the statistical data on those

institutions identified in question 12.

The researcher was not able to treat the data for both

one-college and multi-college transfer students in the same

way. Because of the diversity and number of different colleges

attended by multi-college transfer students, the major part

of this section is concerned only with the one-college transfer

student and the institutions they attended.

The Institutions Previously Attended by Multi-College

Transfer Students. Table 16 presents a more detailed picture

of the types of institutions attended by multi-college transfer

students. This represents approximately one-fourth of all the

transfer students sampled. Of the 54 students in this group,

32 attended at least one college in Florida of the two or

more colleges they attended before transferring to the Uni-

versity of Florida. Therefore, approximately 60 percent of

the multi-college transfer students attended at least one

college, two-year or four-year, in Florida.








Table 16. Frequency Distribution of Multi-College Transfer
Students By Types of College Previously Attended


Type Number

Both Four-Year Colleges in Florida 7

A Junior College and a Four-Year
College in Florida 13

A Four-Year College in Florida and
Another College Out-of-State 12

Both Four-Year Colleges Out-of-State 12

Attended Three or More Colleges 10

TOTAL 54



Type of Control. Table 17 presents the number and

percentage of one-college transfer students by the type of

control exercised over the college previously attended. The

most common type of control was by a state (81, 54 percent).

The next most common type of control was private which

represented 21 percent of the sample. Those colleges which

were identified as having been associated with a specific

religious sect, represented 24 percent of the sample. The most

prevalent of the religiously associated colleges were the

Baptist (seven percent) followed closely by those students who

came from Roman Catholic colleges and Methodist colleges (six

percent each).








Table 17. Frequency Distribution of One-College Transfer
Students by Type of Control of College
Transferred From


Type of Control

State

Federal

Private

Roman Catholic

Presbyterian

Methodist

Baptist

Disciples of Christ

Other

TOTAL


One-College Transfer Student
Number Percent

81 54%

1 1%

32 21%

9 6%


11

1

0

150


7%

1%

0

100%


Type of Student Body. Of the 150 colleges previously

attended by one-college transfer students, 147 were coed,

2 were all-male, and 1 was all-female. The respective

percentages were 97 percent, 2 percent, and 1 percent.

Enrollments of Previously Attended Institutions. Table

18 presents information concerning the student enrollments

of the colleges previously attended by one-college transfer

students. The largest group, approximately one-third (33

percent), of these students attended institutions whose en-

rollment was between 10,000 and 19,999. All but 13 students

attended colleges smaller than the University of Florida,

which falls in the 20,000-29,999 category. These students


-~----








represent 89 percent of the one-college transfer students.

Only eight percent attended colleges with an enrollment less

than 1,000 and only six percent attended colleges with an

enrollment over 30,000.


Table 18. Frequency Distribution of One-College Transfer
Students by Size of College Previously Attended

One-College Transfer Student
Size Number Percent

Less than 200 1 1%

200-499 1 1%

500-999 9 6%

1000-2499 24 16%

2500-4999 16 11%

5000-9999 36 24%

10,000-19,999 50 33%

20,000-29,999 3 2%

30,000 or more 10 6%

TOTAL 150 100%


Location by State of Institutions Previously Attended.

Table 19 provides information concerning the location of

colleges previously attended by one-college transfer students.

The greatest number came from the state of Florida (40 percent)

followed by New York (8 percent), North Carolina (5 percent),

Georgia (4 percent) and Alabama, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,

and Vermont with 3 percent each. Of the 50 states in the United

States, 21 are not represented by the students in this sample.








Counting Puerto Rico, 122 of the transfer students came from

states which were located directly on the eastern seaboard of

the United States. This represents 81 percent of the sample.

Of these 122, 61 percent or 75 came from states south of the

Mason Dixon Line.


Table 19. Frequency Distribution by States of Institutions
Previously Attended


State Number

Alabama 5
California 2
Colorado 1
Connecticut 2
Florida 60
Georgia 7
Hawaii 1
Illinois 1
Indiana 2
Iowa 2
Kansas 2
Kentucky 1
Louisiana 2
Maryland 4
Massachusetts 5
Michigan 2
Mississippi 1
New Jersey 3
New York 12
North Carolina 8
Oklahoma 1
Pennsylvania 5
South Carolina 2
Tennessee 4
Texas 2
Vermont 5
Virginia 3
West Virginia 1
District of Columbia 2
Puerto Rico 2
Country outside of U.S.A. 3


TOTAL 150


150


TOTAL








Reasons for Transferring

This researcher examined both the reasons students leave

an institution and the reasons why they transferred to the

University of Florida. The reasons chosen in the question-

naire were based upon reasons identified in the related

literature reviewed by this researcher.

Reasons for Leaving Former College or University. Table

20 provides a list of reasons of one-college transfer students

for leaving former college or university, and Table 21 provides

a similar list for multi-college transfer students. The total

in each column was obtained by adding up the number of

responses to the particular choice. The rank order was based

on the number of total responses to each reason.

For both groups of transfer students, the category "other"

received the most responses. Table 22 presents a summary of

those responses by both groups of transfer students. The most

prevalent response in the "other" category was that the

particular program desired by the student was either inadequate

or non-existent at the former college. This was-very similar

to the response which ranked third for both groups--"Disappointed

in program for which I was enrolled." Regarding Tables 21 and

22, the item receiving the second most responses was "Lack

of interest" by both groups of transfer students. The reason

ranked fourth was different for each group. The one-college

transfer students "Found the academic program more difficult

than anticipated" and the multi-college transfer students

felt that "Grades were low." Overall it appears that students













0 C' oo o 11 \0
M- i-i I-i ~


1-I -
oo


$C-

o
0




E-


. o

.t 0
r-


o oC ) ) C


L--1 L -) c


0 )


\o 10 L/)


cJ

)4-


0 .
I4-4 r4-
00














0 0
0








044
OC









0
oua
















--4
00















CO


0) r-


C) U )
l .-, 00



UO C0
OU UU
C)l C )
0 0 0





S 3

t .01O 'O
0 0
0. 0 c


( OC O


S0 4- > >
S rh H g 0
S*rl *rl *r c
(c C+ rl ) rCO (0



C 0 C C


C)




00
3





c u
4-







0 0

O o-



C) ) Z


0 0 0
E cz-

*r<
h .











0 to
0 U1
0 *H





O (0








5-


n M -4 O N N C c C F-4 -


0

(=:




(U 4-
3 *H



H C
0 3 C) 0
U 30 H



0 0 C 0 1 0




cO 0 *H U

6 u
0 U 0 C)
- CC *H
0 *H
0 4 a r 4 O
S U U







0 C 0 C) C
H c HC
0 4C


*4 *. O 4 C -
-4 CD C 4 i C


H 0 C) C C) 5
C)4L3 C


r- L()
















4--)
c n>



c, -
0



E-

dOO
0
^00
.1* 0 0
$--



?-e
I'


So 0 i CN 0O


0 4
0
M











(A
0 1
04-
* '4

0)



0

'g-
O<















0
7) i


















T-4









-o
0,







E-
r^ I-
C) *H

za4-



OS.t/
1=
e0i-


in cI 00
t-4




- C 0 i-


r-4 0 0 0


o Nr


) U 0)


CO rl 0) il
U 0 0

UO O
00 UcU
00 0
0) 0)
O O
4-) 4-) 4-J 4-


0) o 0 0

O 3 1 C*


4-' E
co 0 C 0
4- 0 4-J 0

>.-H >,.H
0) 0 4-J > 4-J >


4 O


0










4U U
0)
(1)






-4 0
a,


0) -4J


o
0 t-
4.l (U )






e0 t.
*H : O







> 00




0 3-4






.--
0 M










I,^


0 a-
C) qz


0 0 0 0 0 t-I 0
~ D ~ ~ 0C


4-'




-1




0


U

*-l


















0












0
*l-
-1











t/l


4-'
c 0

C7 0)
3 o

0) 1-

4-)




:o 0

9 a-
A-' 4-


0 0



?- c ) 0
4-' r r '-4
tl) H 0
o4 4
0o 0
0) 4-' 4- :


-4 4-' 0)
4-'l -Q -4

U z ct =


0
o





0)
F-4
i-4











u(
0
4-J








c c



o .








t o



S 0o
0 c4-






-el o

4-'




&. -3

-4 0
vi


4-
0)


M Lun u" CTI OC qzt i-n 0








Table 22. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Reasons
for Leaving Previous Institution


Reasons Number of Responses

Program inadequate or non-existent
at previous college 49

Unhappy with some aspects of experience
at previous college (size, people,
students, college, etc.) 17

Change needed or wanted 14

Friend, parents, or spouse here 13

Prefer location of the University of Florida
(weather, Florida, sunshine, etc.) 11

Dual enrollment in another college while
high school student 5

Planned on transferring eventually to the
University of Florida from college
of previous attendance 4

High cost of attending previous college 2

TOTAL 115


Note: The researcher has summarized these reasons based upon
the responses that appeared in the completed question-
naires.








desired to leave either because programs were inadequate and/or

non-existent or there was a lack of interest on the part of

the transfer student.

Reasons for Transferring to the University of Florida.

Tables 23 and 24 provide a list of reasons why one-college

and multi-college transfer students decided to attend the

University of Florida. In both groups, the major reason for

transferring to the University was "Strong program in intended

major." The second most frequent response for one-college

transfer students was "General impression of campus and

students favorable" while for the multi-college transfer

student, "General academic reputation of the University" was

ranked second. Ranked very high for both groups was "Close

to home;" the multi-college transfer students ranked it third

while the one-college transfer students ranked it fourth.

The first four reasons were the same for each group, but in a

slightly different order.

Table 25 summarizes the responses to the "Other' category.

In both groups the "Other" category was ranked rather low.

The major reason identified in the "Other" category was "The

availability of a program, school or college at the University

of Florida."













i-n ,-1q




o n Ln 1. %-D %
tn qT3 ] LO) ~--


Lf1 0 C
(~o os


' n n I
\0 Nc

oC) -0 I
4- i-l -I


U)










r-1
cn cz









OH







OU
0
O



OC)

S(4





?-i O
0
cz













O:
0

















4-
oo-
-4

ao
(U4-
uT
















Q (
(U


L)
CD


C
E O

) 0 q
SO



: O .) C
C 0 *H
) 4 flD
*rU1 ;


4-J

U,










0
C






0 C 0
O >










M l CL o
u 3 -o
S *Hr1 U C

3 J 3 C))-





r--.- 0 C) '4r.

C) cO c-0 CD)t

CO b) CO C
o 0 E2)

& CO 3






c (


O o oo


7)




-o
C)

E U

O U)
OM 3O

o
o
0-C 0




4- 4

-0 .-,
C0 O


C +-


4J 0 0
-


0 O
O c


O ,
>) CD

3 o
kI'0^
O ci
0 a
CL i-
d,

rn Lf) L)







C r- C
1--












O
U





O>
Cl










0
U











U II -
U C



0 0
u >2






O .





) M



0 4-)
UO
0 v











CO


0


E--4
0,


4-C)

*1- 0 0
-3


r1 0 -C
CN I














Ln tn c OO0 r0-


M ~ CO 0 00 N


n r-1 00 0 0 tn


Ci m C)O -


\ :0)


r-l 0
cCNO C


C)










O O
SCA


( 4-4








OC
i)


















t -4 -
Y4 0
C












0 -H
















^ -o
Sct






0)
U U
0 *H


o





0 m

S*H UQ


4- 0 C
C & 0



. c, C
0 CA L"
o O



H -4 4



S1 q 4-)
oa i !=




o e u
0 c
SC
4- 1 (U


M 0 L -1






L : o 0 l <


r=


Sto







0 0



In 0
4-0






0
rO









44 (n
ao
4




4-a 0





0
a
CO







c4

O
a3>
(= T


C)






a,-
0
U








* 0



0
O *,-

0
U)



o




o a
0 0

4. 1





( U -
0 -OH
0 0 0-


O>
4-J
*il





CA



















4 O
0




> 1 u
C


















S O H



u U
0.) 0 *



a. a


rt

0
E-


O 00
,-)


O


C)
(1)
C4;


qzr CT) Lf) 0C> r- \
i-1









Table 25. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Reasons for
Transferring to the University of Florida


Reasons

The availability of a program, school
or college at the University of
Florida

Weather and/or location of the University
of Florida

Friends, parents, or spouse at the
University or near by

Lower cost

Wanted a change

TOTAL


Number of Responses


18


11


7

3

1

40


Note: The researcher has summarized these reasons based upon
the responses that appeared in the completed question-
naires.


Problems

This section is divided into four major parts--academic

problems, procedural problems, extracurricular problems, and

the open-ended question. Questions 19 through 22 are related

to this section.

Academic problems. Table 26 presents the number and rank

order of one-college transfer students by academic problems

and table 27 provides the same information concerning multi-

college transfer students. The total number of responses by

one-college transfer students to academic problems was 215 and

by multi-college transfer students 80. The mean number of

responses was 1.43 by each one-college transfer student and

1.48 by each multi-college transfer student.







Table 26. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of
Responses to Academic Problems Encountered
by One-College Transfer Students

Number of Rank
Problem Responses Order

Lost credits because courses were
not accepted 21 3

Taking examinations 8 8

Meeting student academic competition 10 7

Lost credits because credit units
were reduced 8 8

Academic advising was inadequate 69 1

Lost credits because I changed majors 12 6

Academic advising was unavailable
at registration 17 5

Poor faculty-student relationship in
some courses affected my work
adversely 19 4

Unable to participate in independent
study, overseas study, or honors
program because I was a transfer
student 3 11

Lack of uniform evaluation (grading) 4 10

Difficulty in meeting academic demands 6 9

Other 38 2








Table 27. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of
Responses to Academic Problems Encountered
by Multi-College Transfer Students

Number of Rank
Problem Responses Order

Lost credits because courses were
not accepted 12 3

Taking examinations 1 10

Meeting student academic competition 4 8

Lost credits because credit units
were reduced 2 9

Academic advising was inadequate 15 2

Lost credits because I changed majors 6 6

Academic advising was unavailable
at registration 8 4

Poor faculty-student relationship in
some courses affected by work
adversely 7 5

Unable to participate in independent
study, overseas study, or honors
program because I was a transfer
student 0 11

Lack of uniform evaluation (grading) 5 7

Difficulty in meeting academic demands 4 8


16 1


Other









The most frequent two responses for one-college transfer

students were "Academic advising was inadequate" and "Other."

The multi-college transfer group reversed these, placing

"Other" first and "Academic advising was inadequate" second.

Of the 150 one-college transfer students, almost half (69)

considered academic advising inadequate. This was almost

twice the number of responses to any other problem. Table 28

presents a summary of "Other" responses by both groups of

transfer students. "Size of classes too large" was cited most

often. Both groups ranked third the loss of "credits because

courses were not accepted." The fourth and fifth responses of

the two groups were reversed. The one-college transfer

students ranked "Poor faculty-student relationship" fourth and

"Academic advising was unavailable at registration" as fifth.

The multi-college transfer students reversed these two responses.

Both groups of transfer students ranked the loss of "credits

because I changed majors" as sixth.

Procedural problems. Tables 29 and 30 provide the number

and rank order of responses to procedural problems identified

by one-college and multi-college transfer students respectively.

The total number of responses by one-college transfer students

to procedural problems was 284 and by the multi-college trans-

fer student 105. The mean number of responses was 1.89 by

each one-college transfer student and 1.94 by each multi-

college transfer student. The major problem identified by

both groups was that they were "Unable to register for course

needed when I first enrolled at the University because of late








registration appointment." "Unable to register in certain

programs because of enrollment limits" ranked high with both

groups; one-college transfer students ranked it third and the

multi-college transfer students ranked it second. The two

groups were markedly different in their remaining responses.

"Orientation was inadequate" and "Academic bureaucracy too

cumbersome"ranked in the top five for both groups.


Table 28. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Academic
Problems Encountered by Transfer Students


Problem

Size of classes too large

Course requirements not realistic,
particularly University College

Registration very poor

Difficulty in transferring courses

The University of Florida is not
academically oriented

Academic bureaucracy a hindrance in
obtaining an education

Difficulty in courses wanted

Miscellaneous

TOTAL


Number of Responses

18


9

9

8


3


2

2

3

54


Note: The researcher has summarized these problems based
upon the responses that appeared in the completed
questionnaires.









Table 29. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of
Responses to Procedural Problems Encountered
by One-College Transfer Students

Number of Rank
Problem Responses Order

Delay in mailed communications when
first applying to the University 35 2

Informational publications were not
adequate for me 15 10

Information requested on applications
was not appropriate for transfer
student 5 12

On-campus housing information and
application were not available
or not sent 16 9

Off-campus housing information was not
available or not sent 19 7

Time lapse between submission of appli-
cation for admission and notifica-
tion of acceptance was too long 17 8

Delay in evaluation of academic credit 22 6

Orientation was inadequate 33 4

Unable to register for course needed
when I first enrolled at the
University because of late
registration appointment 44 1

Unable to register in certain programs
because of enrollment limits 34 3

Academic bureaucracy too cumbersome 25 5


19 7


Other









Table 30. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of
Responses to Procedural Problems Encountered
by Multi-College Transfer Students

Number of Rank
Problem Responses Order

Delay in mailed communications when
first applying to the University 7 6

Informational publications were not
adequate for me 5 8

Information requested on applications was
not appropriate for transfer
student 2 10

On-campus housing information was not
available or not sent 4 9

Off-campus housing information was
not available or not sent 12 4

Time lapse between submission of
application and notification
was too long 6 7

Delay in evaluation of academic credit 6 7

Orientation was inadequate 10 5

Unable to register for course needed
when I first enrolled at the
University because of late regis-
tration appointment 17 1

Unable to register in certain programs
because of enrollment limits 16 2

Academic bureaucracy too cumbersome 15 3


5 8


Other








"Time lapse between submission of application for

admission and notification of acceptance was too long" was

identified as a problem by 23 or 9 percent of the transfer

students sampled. The shortest time period identified was

one month and the longest time period was one year. The

mean was 4.7 months and the mode was 5 months.

The "Other" response was ranked rather low by both

groups. Table 31 provides a summary of those responses.

Registration was the most common complaint among the other

responses. The same can be said of procedural problems over-

all--problems associated with registration ranked very high

with both groups of transfer students.


Table 31. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Procedural
Problems Encountered by Transfer Students


Problem Number of Responses

Various aspects of registration
unfamiliar or confusing 7

Information and availability of
housing on and off campus poor 3

Difficult to get proper classes 2

Administration and faculty unconcerned
about problems of students 2

Mishandled transfer credit 1

Academic advisement poor 1

TOTAL 16


Note: The researcher has summarized these problems based
upon the responses that appeared in the completed
questionnaires.








Extracurricular problems. Tables 32 and 33 provide the

responses of one-college and multi-college transfer students

respectively to extracurricular problems encountered as a

transfer student. The total number of responses by one-

college transfer students to extracurricular problems was

140 and by multi-college transfer students 60. The mean

number of responses was .93 by each one-college transfer

student and 1.11 by each multi-college transfer student.

Ranked first for one-college transfer students was "Meeting

students." Ranked first for the multi-college transfer student

was "Feeling at home at University and/or Gainesville" and

"Feeling at home in school or college at the University."

"Obtaining counseling services" and "Meeting students" ranked

second for the multi-college transfer student. "Meeting

people" and "Feeling at home" seemed to be the two major extra-

curricular problems encountered by both one-college and multi-

college transfer students.

Table 34 summarizes the responses of transfer students to

the "Other" category. "Adjusting to the University of Florida"

ranked first. "Adjusting to Gainesville, particularly finding

a place to live" made up the remaining number of responses.




79



Table 32. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of
Responses to Extracurricular Problems En-
countered by One-College Transfer Students

Number of Rank
Problem Responses Order

Obtaining counseling services 17 4

Obtaining financial aid 8 8

Participation in student activities 11 7

Participation on committees or task
forces dealing with institutional
governance at the University 6 9

"Feeling at home" in school or
college at University 23 3

"Feeling at home" at University
and/or Gainesville 24 2

Making friends 14 5

Meeting students 25 1


12 6


Other




80



Table 33. Frequency Distribution and Rank Order of
Responses to Extracurricular Problems En-
countered by Multi-College Transfer Students

Number of Rank
Problem Responses Order

Obtaining counseling services 9 2

Obtaining financial aid 4 5

Participation in student activities 0 7

Participation on committees or task
forces dealing with institutional
governance at the University 1 6

"Feeling at home" in school or
college at University 12 1

"Feeling at home" at University
and/or Gainesville 12 1

Making friends 7 3

Meeting students 9 2


6 4


Other









Table 34. Frequency Distribution of "Other" Extracurricular
Problems Encountered by Transfer Students


Problem Number of Responses

Adjusting to the University of
Florida, particularly its size 8

Adjusting to Gainesville, particularly
finding a place to live 5

TOTAL 13


Note: The researcher has summarized these problems based
upon the responses that appeared in the completed
questionnaires.

Responses to open-ended question. Of the 204 question-

naires returned, 73 contained responses to question number

22--the open-ended question. Because of the diversity and

the length of most of the answers, the researcher summarized

the findings. Most of the answers can be placed into 10

categories identified by the researcher. Generally the

responses either enlarged upon the problems identified in

items 19, 20, and 21, or were problems that can affect all

students and not just transfer students. The parking problem

on campus or the shortage of books in the bookstore for a

particular course are two examples of the latter. Table 35

lists those responses. Of the 73 responses, 63 deal with

problems that take place outside of the classroom. A majority

of them deal with problems encountered in the process of

transferring or during the first week of attendance at the

University of Florida--namely, registration.















E '- I







0
S0





u 4. 4 oj o
C)) 3 H
4-4
4 U U 4
o m

0 o c0




o- o oH ,-. .r' o
V) u O) M U
4- E) u o g. "l o
0 0 I c 0 0 + C ) 0.
U - 4- H H 0 4 '
O U

4J "I 3z 0 0 4 0

0 4J C. 0 (H 1 .> r- E U .4
0 u 0 Ur







-I H 4- J V -
C V )U ( C)cd 4













0 -4 >, u, 0 0 c,
" -o oq 0 z 0 >







0 U Oz E 0 0. u-
0 V z "O 'H .
o- I) z 0I (1 I3 oS >
4-J C:
)c m 0) 7 4- H -)d 4r-C
C1) zC z co -o 0 4- 0

C) cn- "3 C,
(A u C ro 4 ( ) 4- ( C -)
CC) ZI 0 H 4- v 4 0
04 -: r) Cz V) Q) J1) az

c 0 U m 4 - C:I=4) -5 (1 z
( u C.) 4- (5 4- 1 0 T r "
0o- 1 4J7c, 14 a) V) 0
4-J M 0 u C- > 0
4- 0 CI.



Ur ^ 2 *- ^ b4- --
U 0 0 r -0c 0 4 -


-4 0c rj C) *H '-

u 4-4 0 cz 0 (C 0 v
C ) C) 44 U 0 r -








Relationship of characteristics to major problems. A

major problem was considered to be one identified by at least

one-sixth of either one-college (at least 25) or multi-college

transfer students (at least 9). A card sorter was used to

identify those characteristics of both students and institu-

tions which were associated with a particular major problem.

For a particular characteristic to be considered associated

with a major problem, at least one-half (and more than five)

of the students making up that particular characteristic had

to identify the major problem. For example, if more than one-

half of all the one-college transfer students who were juniors

identified the loss of credit as a problem, then this was con-

sidered a relationship.

Table 36 presents those problems identified as major by

both one-college and multi-college transfer students. Of 13

major problems, 7 were associated with both groups. The

greatest number of problems involved procedural difficulties

(6); the least number involved academic difficulties (3).

One-college transfer students identified only eight major

problems while multi-college transfer students identified 12.

Multi-college transfer students seemed to encounter more

difficulty in the area of extracurricular problems. They

identified four major extracurricular problems while one-college

transfer students only identified one.




84


Table 36. List of Major Problems Identified by One-
College and Multi-College Transfer Students
by Type of Problem

Type of Student
Problem One-College Multi-College

Academic
Lost credits because courses
were not accepted X

Academic advising was inadequate X X

Other X X

Procedural
Delay in mailed communications when
first applying to the University X

Off-campus housing information was
not available or not sent X

Orientation was inadequate X X

Unable to register for course needed
when I first enrolled at University
because of late registration
appointment X X

Unable to register in certain pro-
grams because of enrollment limits X X

Academic bureaucracy too cumbersome X X

Extracurricular
Obtaining counseling services X

"Feeling at home" in school or
college at University X

"Feeling at home" at University
and/or Gainesville X

Meeting students X 'X


Note: A major problem is one in which at least one-sixth of
the one-college or multi-college transfer students
identified as a problem.








Table 37 provides a list of those student and institutional

characteristics of which more than 50 percent of that particular

characteristic was associated with a particular major problem.

"Academic advising was inadequate" was associated with the most

student and institutional characteristics (16). Note that

only 7 of the 13 major problems were associated with some type

of characteristic. The remaining six problems were not

associated with any specific student or institutional character-

istic. In addition, almost all of the characteristics associated

with "academic advising was inadequate" were associated with

particular types of one-college transfer students. Of the 30

characteristics associated with a particular problem, 24 were

student and 6 were institutional. Out of the 24 student

characteristics associated with major problems, the one which

appeared most frequently was that of a transfer student in the

College of Arts and Science (8). No institutional character-

istics appeared more than once.


Table 37. List of Student and Institutional Characteristics
Associated With Identified Major Problems of Transfer


Problem Characteristic

Academic advising One-College, Other (Race)
was inadequate
One-College, Married

One-College, Architecture

One-College, Business Administration

One-College, Private College

One-College, Roman Catholic








Table 37. (continued)


Problem

Academic advising
was inadequate


















"Other" (Academic)



Orientation was inadequate

Unable to register because
of late registration
appointment









Unable to register in
certain programs because
of enrollment limits

Off-campus housing in-
formation was not
available or sent

"Feeling at Home" at
University and/or
Gainesville


~


Characteristic

One-College, 500-999 Enrollment

One-College, 1000-2499 Enrollment

One-College, 5000-9999 Enrollment

One-College, 30,000 or more Enrollment

One-College, B Average

One-College, Masters Degree

One-College, Professional

One-College, Sophomores

One-College, Juniors

Multi-College, Sophomores

One-College, Arts and Science

Multi-College, Professional

One-College, Arts and Science

One-College, Agriculture

One-College, Arts and Science

One-College, Journalism

Multi-College, Arts and Science

Multi-College, Professional

Multi-College, $15,000-19,999 income

One-College, Arts and Science

Multi-College, Arts and Science

Multi-College, Arts and Science



Multi-College, non-Florida Resident

Multi-College, Arts and Science








Table 37. (continued)


Note: A characteristic was identified as significant if
more than 50% of the students associated with that
characteristic identified a major problem.



The Data in Review

The present chapter reported a considerable amount of

data about students who transferred to the University of

Florida from four-year colleges and universities in the Fall

quarter of 1974. As has been indicated, these data were

gathered from questionnaires sent to 213 transfer students,

from whom 204 useable responses were received. In order to

help the reader obtain a complete picture of the characteristics

of these transfer students, the characteristics of the institu-

tions they previously attended, the reasons these students

transferred, the problems these transfer students encountered

at the University of Florida, and the relationships between

characteristics and problems, the major points identified in

this chapter are summarized below.

1. Two groups of transfer students were identified. One
group (the one-college transfer) consisted of 150
transfer students who had attended only one four-year
college before transferring to the University of
Florida. The second group (the multi-college transfer)
was composed of 54 transfer students who had attended
at least two other colleges, at least one of which was
a four-year college, before attending the University of
Florida.

2. The number of male transfer students exceed the number
of female transfer students in both groups by approxi-
mately nine percent.

3. The predominant race of both groups of students was
.Caucasian.








4. The majority of students were single, although a
slightly smaller percentage of multi-college transfer
students were single than were one-college transfer
students.

5. The majority of students in both groups were in the
"20-23" age group.

6. The majority of students in both groups paid Florida
resident tuition fees.

7. The majority of students in both groups lived off-
campus, apart from their parents.

8. Less than seven percent of each transfer group were
veterans of the U. S. Armed Forces.

9. The academic major of the students varied among 78
different majors identified by these students.

10. The largest number of transfer students were enrolled
in the University College (51 percent) followed by the
College of Arts and Sciences (17 percent).

11. A majority of the transfer students in both groups estimated
grade point averages of B or higher at the institution
or institutions of previous attendance.

12. The majority of students in each group did not apply
for nor receive financial aid.

13. The largest number of students in both groups intended
to complete their education with a Bachelor's degree.
A greater percentage of multi-college transfer students
planned to go beyond the Bachelor's (59 percent) than
did one-college transfer students (53 percent).

14. Of the one-college transfer students, the largest number
were classified as sophomores (47 percent) while, of the
multi-college transfer students, the largest number were
classified as juniors (59 percent) at the University of
Florida.

15. A clear majority of each group were classified as full-
time students fall quarter, 1974.

16. In respect to parents' estimated annual income, the
largest category was the $20,000 or more bracket.

17. Of the multi-college transfer students (54), 32 attended
at least one college in Florida (two-year or four-year)
before transferring to the University of Florida.








18. Approximately half of the one-college transfer students
attended a state college before transferring. The re-
maining transfer students were divided evenly between
private and religiously affiliated colleges.

19. Of the 150 colleges previously attended by one-college
transfer students, 147 were coed, 2 were all-male, and
1 was all-female.

20. All but 13 of the one-college transfer students attended
institutions smaller in size (enrollment) than the
University of Florida with the largest number (33 percent)
attending institutions whose enrollment was between 10,000
and 19,999.

21. The majority of one-college transfer students came from
institutions located in states east of the Mississippi
River and south of the Mason-Dixon Line with Florida
being cited the most frequently (40 percent).

22. Overall, students left the previous institution of
attendance because desired programs were inadequate and/or
non-existent or there was a lack of interest on the part
of the transfer student.

23. The major reason for transferring to the University of
Florida was because the University of Florida has a
"strong program in intended major."

24. The major academic problem identified by transfer students
centered around academic advising and its inadequacy,
followed closely by "Loss of credits because courses were
not accepted." The problem identified most frequently in
the "other" category was "Size of classes too large."

25. The major procedural problem identified by both groups
of transfer students was "Unable to register for course
needed when I first enrolled at the University of Florida
because of late registration appointment."

26. Though the number of responses to extracurricular problems
was small, the "Meeting of people" and "Feeling at home"
seemed to be the two most common extracurricular problems
identified by transfer students.

27. The majority of the 73 who responded to the open-ended
question, identified problems involved in the process of
transferring or encountered during the first week of
attendance at the University of Florida, usually involving
registration.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs