It’s a balance. The more credits a student transfers in, the less tuition revenue the institution receives; but the stingier with transfer credit an institution is, the less likely transfers are to target it. At least anecdotally, though, the first drawback is usually a bigger deal than the second, so naked self-interest takes effect.
And there are legitimate practical considerations in terms of course content and level. The university I work at has a program leading to credentialing as a diesel mechanic (via an AAS degree)—but if a student takes 15 credits in diesel engines, should those be able to transfer and count at an institution that doesn’t cover that field at all? Also at my institution, the history of the English language is taught as an advanced course at the senior level (which is the norm, but not universal)—so should we accept and count a course in the history of the English language that a student took from an institution where that’s an introductory lower-division course?
The fact that curricula aren’t identical everywhere—a strength of the system!—makes it tricky.
(Also, there does need to be some level of gatekeeping—that’s what separates legitimate institutions from the diploma mills.)
That likely explains where public 4-year schools are more likely to be generous with transfer credit, and more commonly publish articulation listings with at least their same state community colleges, since their want their (subsidized tuition) students to graduate as quickly as possible, while private 4-year schools are more likely to be stingy because they want students around for as many tuition-paying semesters as possible.
Something similar can also be observed with AP credit.
Sometimes, the college may accept the transfer course as credit units, but not specific subject credit equivalent to one of its own courses. In this example, your college may choose to accept that introductory level history of English as a generic lower level English or linguistics course, or unassigned general elective credit units, instead of marking it as equivalent to an advanced level history of English.
The problem is that we haven’t hit the enrollment cliff yet. I agree that when it starts around 2026, it’s going to be another major stressor.
I think one reason for the current failures is a national decline in college-going rates over the last 7-10 years (see IPEDS & state SLDS reports). There has also been a decline in regional/rural colleges and growth in “name brands” (see NSC Research Center). I can’t tell if students now prefer more “brand name” colleges or if the students who are choosing to not attend college are the same students who would have chosen a regional university or small college in the past.
Unfortunately, due diligence on the smaller private colleges is now a must. A 4 year commitment is a huge decision. As a Canadian, we are not really impacted by FAFSA directly, but, as my son researches shools for his final decision we are hearing of the impact from the schools he is talking to.
One theory I have is that some of these schools were struggling before COVID but were able to hold on with the help of the money the government gave them. That money has dried up, and now they can’t do it anymore.
I am seeing that very thing play out around me, where the top state public universities have decided to expand enrollment deliberately, and are hurting the small regional/rural colleges, even the public ones. I’d like for our state higher-ed office to think about at least a little coordination.
A lot of states use an enrollment model for higher-ed funding—you get more students, you get more money.
And in states where one or two institutions get extra funding per student (because of high faculty research productivity, which results in a need for more faculty per student, thus more funding to cover that need), the arguably perverse incentive is even greater for them.
I think they are coordinating (although obviously I don’t know where you live). The overall push by students for more pre-professional training and the interest in STEM means that a regional college with faculty teaching German, Spanish, French, Portuguese literature likely has many under-enrolled classes. So the solution is NOT to have every regional college investing in more CS and Robotics faculty- the solution is to invest at the flagship level. Better to have one stellar department than 5 marginal ones.
In my own state the conversion of “previously teacher training colleges and now part of the State college system” has been a mixed bag in terms of quality. Any kid interested in engineering, really any STEM discipline- is going to be MUCH better served at the flagship (which I wish was more affordable for more kids). Kid wants to be a CPA? Lots of choices. But that just reflects reality- it is very cheap to teach accounting, and very expensive to teach nanotechnology.
Of course, there have been threads here where students and parents complain about how difficult it is to get into the top state flagship, even though other state universities in the same state are much more accessible admission-wise (e.g. many posters in California seemingly want only UCB or UCLA, while considering UCR and UCM “beneath” them). Increasing enrollment at the top state flagship can be a response to such demand.
Here is what I don’t understand about some private schools that are struggling with enrollment. My son was recruited and eligible for merit because of his grades. The schools were still too expensive and there was a gap between what the school was giving versus what was needed for him to accept. What I don’t get is a school that draws there line in the sand WHEN they have capacity and are not fully enrolled. Schools make the mistake of thinking the “cost” per student is X and include in the equation all sorts of fixed overhead. If they didn’t, and just looked at variable, each student that says “no” is money that a school could have used to cover some of their fixed costs. This would apply more to non-state funded schools.
Just geeking out a bit as to how schools get into trouble financially. Every empty dorm room for a school is a problem. I honestly don’t think schools truly understand their variable cost structures.
There are uncertainties involved in enrolling that extra student (i.e. not every marginal admit costs the same).
Kid majors in English- instructional costs are low, marginal costs of adding a tenth student to a 9 person seminar is zero. Kid majors in CS or Mechanical Engineering- marginal costs of every additional kid could be high depending on the number of faculty, how the junior/senior year hands on lab and project courses are structured.
Kid needs zero support to be successful- marginal costs are low.
Kid needs support from disability services, weekly meetings with the dietician to manage a gluten free or complex allergy condition, severe chronic illness requiring frequent appointments at health services, weekly sessions with tutoring and writing center staff- marginal costs are high and can’t be passed on to the family.
A college can’t kick a kid out for being anorexic (at least in the US). Easier to “not admit” the kid who writes an essay about spending three months in a residential treatment program and “what I learned about myself”.
I’m not suggesting that any of this is relevant to your kid- just showing why keeping an empty dorm room instead of admitting MORE kids at a heavily discounted price can be a rational decision. If you bet correctly, you get a bunch of English majors who are healthy and happy eating mac and cheese for dinner three times a week. If you bet wrong…
I am refering to when April/May rolls around and a school realizes enrolment has dropped and they have empty rooms and classroom spaces. These would be where the student has already been accepted but, just can’t afford it. If you accepted them, you had them pegged already to use these extra services. The dietician is still getting paid, the writing staff will still be there and so will health services. These are fixed costs. What troubles me is schools that have capacity and space, and haven’t realized the “cost” side won’t change. But, you are better having $10K from Student A than 0 dollars.
But no kid is $0 cost, even if the dietician and the janitor are already there. Every student adds to the wear and tear, to the utilities costs, to the work of the bursar and the registrar, to the secretary in the history dept.
And it isn’t one kid with $10k that will save the school, it is 100 more kids the school needs, and those 100 kids will need more electricity, more janitors, more dorm space that must be opened up. If $10k per student isn’t the break even point, then the school is losing money for every student it adds at that price. If the per student cost to the school is $20k, then that’s what they need to collect from every student (and a lot more from some).
And how much each student is paying becomes common knowledge. If someone hears your son only pays $10k, then next year three of his friends (and their parents) will only want to pay $10k. As much as I told my daughter not to share her FA package, she did and her friends knew how much she was getting.
At least in private HS, financial aid and scholarships are an expense on the books…I assume it is the same for colleges. So if you were to give someone 100% scholarship the full cost of tuition would show up as an expense in their ledger… the financial aid/scholarship awards are real costs on their financial statements…
I am already laughing at how wrong I probably explained that, but I am pretty sure that there is a good reason they don’t do it that has to do with financial accounting standards…
And if the students happen to be athletes, how much they pay can also be audited. For example, in D3 you can’t give athletic scholarships and this includes no athletic scholarships disguised as “merit scholarships.”