Admission requirements for transfer and non‐transfer students: should one size fit all?

Abstract

PurposeTo examine the efficacy of admission requirements as predictors of academic success in core business coursework, and as a rationing mechanism for limited course capacity, for both transfer and non‐transfer students following integration of the core business curriculum.Design/methodology/approachRegression analysis is used to test the efficacy of admission standards in explaining transfer and non‐transfer student performance in the core business curriculum, before and after substantial curricular revision. Fisher's r‐to‐z transformation is used to test differences between student groups and core curriculum formats. Stepwise regression was used to identify an accurate predictor of transfer student performance for the integrated business core.FindingsEfficacy of the admission standard decreased for transfer students following introduction of the new curriculum. While adequate for all students taking the traditional business core, it is a much less effective predictor of success for transfer students under the new curriculum. A modified admission standard for transfer students restored efficacy to previous levels.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper considers only one school's experience with revision of its core curriculum.Practical implicationsRe‐examination of admission standards following curricular revision is necessary to ensure effective screening of transfer students. The root problem, however, may not be addressed in its entirety by a unique transfer student admission standard. Non‐transfer students benefit from acculturation as freshman and sophomores, as well as prerequisite courses specifically modified to prepare them for the integrated curriculum.Originality/valueThis paper documents a potential problem for business schools that have, or are considering, significant curricular revisions.

A Qualitative Exploration on the Challenges of Transfer Students in an Asian Educational Context

“…Nonetheless, this study has shown that these TS still managed to handle the multiple sources of workload and even demonstrated the abilities to develop active and independent learning while aiming for timely degree attainment. Regardless of their academic achievement, they seemed to have magnified their negative pre-transfer experiences and ignored that they were successful CC graduates who were retained in the highly competitive environment, still persisting with their baccalaureate studies [ 61 ]. TS’ self-stigmatization, as indicated by our findings, show that intervention is needed to rectify their self-perceptions.…”

Assessing the Validity of College Success Indicators for the At-Risk Student: Toward Developing a Best-Practice Model

“…This research can be divided into two types of predictors: ability or cognitive measures and noncognitive measures. Historically, cognitive variables relevant to academic success (e.g., grade point average [GPA], the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), and the American College Test [ACT]) were presumed as accurate appraisals (Cohn, Cohn, Balch, & Bradley, 2004;Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw, Mattern, & Barbuti, 2008;Pharr & Lawrence, 2007). Further, Popham (2006) noted the significance the test scores have on the typical high school students as it is common practice to remember the scores long after the tests are taken as if students are branded by the test results.…”

How transfer admission professional staff make sense of their role: an interpretative phenomenological analysis

“…In any institution, the goal of an admission office is to admit students who they believe will be successful at the institution they represent. Pharr and Lawrence (2007) questioned if transfer students and high school students should be held to the same admission standards. Similarly, Kopko and Crosta (2016) questioned if transfer students should be required to complete an associate degree before applying for admission to transfer to a four-year institution.…”