Higher Education: Students Need More Information to Help Reduce Challenges in Transferring College Credits
Published: 2017-08-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: College students sometimes opt to transfer schools in response to changing interests or for financial reasons. The extent to which students can transfer previously earned course credits can affect the time and cost for completing a degree. Given the federal government's sizeable investment in student aid—$125 billion in fiscal year 2016—and potential difficulties students may face in transferring credits, GAO was asked to examine the college transfer process.
GAO examined (1) transfer rates and challenges students face in transferring credits, (2) the possible financial implications of transfer, and (3) the extent to which students are provided with transfer information to help them plan their college path. GAO analyzed Education's data, including its most recent available transfer data from the 2004-2009 student cohort, interviewed a non-generalizable sample of stakeholders from 25 schools and higher education organizations, and reviewed a nationally-representative sample of 214 school websites.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Based on GAO's analysis of the Department of Education's (Education) most recently available data, an estimated 35 percent of college students transferred to a new school at least once from 2004 to 2009, and GAO found that students may face challenges getting information or advice about transferring course credits. An estimated 62 percent of these transfers were between public schools. According to stakeholders GAO spoke with, students can face challenges transferring credits between schools that do not have statewide polices or articulation agreements, which are transfer agreements or partnerships between schools designating how credits earned at one school will transfer to another. Stakeholders also said that advising and information may not be adequate to help students navigate the transfer process.
The possible financial implications of transferring depend in part on the extent of credits lost in the transfer. Using Education's transfer data, GAO estimated that students who transferred from 2004 to 2009 lost, on average, an estimated 43 percent of their credits, and credit loss varied depending on the transfer path. For example, students who transferred between public schools—the majority of transfer students—lost an estimated 37 percent of their credits. In comparison, students who took some of the less frequent transfer paths lost a relatively higher percentage of their credits. For example, students who transferred from private for-profit schools to public schools accounted for 4 percent of all transfer students but lost an estimated 94 percent of their credits. Transferring can have different effects on college affordability. Students seeking to obtain a bachelor's degree at a more expensive school may save on tuition costs by transferring from a less expensive school. On the other hand, transfer students may incur additional costs to repeat credits that do not transfer or count toward their degree. Transfer students can receive federal financial aid. GAO's analysis showed that almost half of the students who transferred from 2004 to 2009 received Pell Grants and close to two-thirds received Federal Direct Loans. Students who lose credits may use more financial aid to pay for repeated courses at additional cost to the federal government, or they may exhaust their financial aid eligibility, which can result in additional out-of-pocket costs.
While GAO estimated that the websites for almost all schools nationwide provided credit transfer policies, as required by Education, about 29 percent did not include a list of other schools with which the school had articulation agreements. Among those schools, GAO found that some did not have any articulation agreements, while others did but did not list partner schools on their websites. Schools must provide such listings, but they are not required to do so specifically on their website. As a result, students may not have ready access to this information to fully understand their transfer options. Moreover, Education provides limited transfer information to students and their families, contrary to federal internal control standards that call for agencies to provide adequate information to external parties. General information on key transfer considerations that are applicable across schools and more complete information on schools' articulation agreements can help students avoid making uninformed transfer decisions that could add to the time and expense of earning a degree.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that Education (1) require schools to disclose on their websites (a) the list of other schools with which they have articulation agreements and (b) when no such agreements are in place; and (2) provide general transfer information to students and families. Education disagreed with the first and agreed with the second recommendation. GAO maintains that students can more easily understand transfer options if information is accessible on a school's website, as discussed in the report.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Students may opt to transfer schools in response to changing interests or  for financial reasons, though the path to obtain a college degree can be  complicated if a student decides to transfer. As part of the transfer  process, destination schools determine whether to accept the course  credits earned at a student’s previous school, and any loss of credits  affects a student’s progress and costs in earning a degree. In addition,  school closures in recent years have affected thousands of students,  leaving many of them with credits but no degree. The extent to which  students can transfer their credits from one school to another can thus  affect their ability to complete a degree at an affordable cost. To help  students pay for college, the federal government provided approximately  $125 billion in financial aid to college students in fiscal year 2016.
In light of the federal government’s investment in student financial aid and  the potential difficulty some students may face in transferring credits, you  asked us to examine the college transfer process. This report answers  the following questions:  1.  How many college students transfer and what challenges, if any, do  they face in transferring credits?  2.  What are possible financial implications associated with transferring  credits?  3.  To what extent are students provided with information about transfer  policies to help them plan their college path?
To address these questions, we used a variety of methods. To estimate  how many college students transfer, we analyzed transfer rate data from  the Department of Education’s (Education) most recently completed 2004  to 2009 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) and  mid-point data from the 2012 to 2017 BPS study, which has not yet been  completed. To examine any challenges students face in transferring  credits, we obtained perspectives from a range of knowledgeable  stakeholders from 25 higher education organizations and schools.  Specifically, we interviewed representatives from 17 higher education  organizations and officials from eight schools. We selected higher  education organizations based on their expertise in researching or  developing guidance on transfers and their representation of relevant  groups, including students. To ensure we obtained perspectives from  different types of schools, we selected a mix of public, private nonprofit,  and private for-profit schools, and 2- and 4-year schools. We then  interviewed admissions/advising staff, registrar officials, and transfer  offices, as appropriate, from the eight selected schools. In addition to  these interviews with stakeholders from higher education organizations  and schools, we collected some first-hand accounts from several  individual transfer students who were identified for us by stakeholders  from higher education organizations. The views we obtained were not  generalizable.
To analyze any potential financial implications associated with  transferring credits, we estimated credit loss rates and financial aid  receipt for transfer students using the most recent available transcript  data from the 2004 to 2009 BPS study. We supplemented this data with  mid-point data from the ongoing 2012 to 2017 BPS study, as appropriate.  We used the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)  to calculate average tuition by school type to inform illustrative examples  of potential cost implications of credit loss. We assessed the reliability of  BPS and IPEDS data by reviewing survey documentation and  interviewing officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that  the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To determine the extent to which schools provided students with transfer  information to help them plan their college path, we reviewed the  websites for a nationally-representative stratified random sample of 214  schools participating in federal student aid programs. We also reviewed  relevant federal law and Education’s guidance and regulations on credit  transfer disclosure requirements and consumer information for college  students, and we compared Education’s practices to federal internal  control standards. Lastly, we reviewed relevant studies and interviewed  Education officials. See appendix I for more information on our objectives,  scope, and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2016 to August 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Students’ pursuit of a college degree may include transferring from one  school to another. Students typically transfer from a 2-year school to a 4- year school, a direction known as a vertical transfer. Students can also  transfer from a 4-year school to a 2-year school, known as a reverse  transfer, or laterally transfer between similar schools (e.g., 2-year to 2- year or 4-year to 4-year). Students can transfer for different reasons,  depending on their goals and the type of transfer involved. For example, if  a student is seeking to obtain a degree from a relatively expensive  school, transferring credits from a less expensive school could help them  save on tuition costs. Students may transfer vertically to facilitate  completion of a bachelor’s degree. Alternatively, students may initiate a  reverse transfer in order to complete an associate’s degree. Further,  students who transfer laterally may do so to find a better institutional fit or  a degree program that more closely aligns with their goals.
Colleges also vary with respect to governance structure, length of degree  programs, and other characteristics. Public schools are generally  operated by publicly elected or appointed officials. Private schools are  operated by individuals or agencies other than governmental entities.  Further, private schools can be nonprofit or for-profit entities. Private  nonprofit schools are traditionally operated by independent or religious  organizations and earnings do not benefit any shareholder or individual,  whereas private for-profit schools are owned and operated by private  organizations and earnings can benefit shareholders or individuals.  Schools are also classified by whether they offer degree programs that  are 4 years or 2 years in duration. In this report, we refer to six school  types: 2-year public, 2-year private nonprofit, 2-year private for-profit, 4- year public, 4-year private nonprofit, and 4-year private for-profit.
A student who wants to transfer credits generally must provide the  destination school with a transcript of previously earned credit.  Destination schools generally have discretion in determining whether to  accept these credits and use various criteria to evaluate them. Criteria  can include, for example, a minimum grade requirement, the quality of the  student’s coursework, the level and content of the coursework compared  to similar courses at the destination school, and the applicability of a  course to the degree or programs at the destination school.
Many schools enter into voluntary transfer agreements or partnerships  with each other—broadly referred to as articulation agreements—which  specify how transferred course credits meet program or degree  requirements among those schools. Additionally, states can establish  statewide articulation agreements as well as credit transfer policies that  are generally applicable to schools within the state. Our prior work found  that states had enacted a variety of legislation and implemented  statewide initiatives, primarily covering public schools, that established  transfer agreements and common curricula to facilitate credit transfer.  For example, in 2005, we reported that some states identified a block of  general education courses for which credits were fully transferable across  public schools within that state. We previously reported that, at that time,  39 states had legislation pertaining to transfer of credit between colleges.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act requires schools participating in  any program authorized under Title IV, which contains various student  financial assistance programs, to publicly disclose their credit transfer  policies. Specifically, the Act requires schools to publicly disclose, in a  readable and comprehensible manner, a statement of their credit transfer  policies that includes, at a minimum: (1) any established criteria the  school uses regarding the transfer of credit earned at another school and  (2) a list of schools with which the school has established an articulation  agreement.
The cost of attending college generally includes tuition, room and board,  books and school supplies, fees, travel costs, and other miscellaneous  expenses. As costs increase, college may become less affordable for  many students and their families. To help students cover these costs,  according to Education, in fiscal year 2016, $125 billion was available to  students primarily through the Federal Pell Grant (Pell Grants) program  and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan program (Federal Direct Loans).  Pell Grants, which do not have to be repaid, are awarded to  undergraduate students based on financial need. Federal Direct Loans,  either subsidized or unsubsidized by the government and which generally  have to be repaid, are available up to the cost of attendance as  determined by a student’s school and in accordance with federal limits.  Pell Grants and Federal Direct Loans also have eligibility limits based on  lifetime use or program length (see table 1).
section_title: About a Third of College Students Transferred Schools from 2004 to 2009; Students May Face Challenges in Transferring Credits
subsections: section_title: An Estimated 35 Percent of College Students Transferred, with Most Transferring Between Public Schools from 2004 to 2009
paragraphs: An estimated 35 percent of first-time students transferred schools over a  6-year period, according to Education’s most recent BPS data on  students who started in academic year 2003-04 (2004 cohort). Transfer  patterns are similar for the cohort of students in the ongoing BPS study  who started in academic year 2011-12 (2012 cohort). In addition, the  transfer rate among students who originally attended a private for-profit  school was lower than among students who attended public or private  nonprofit schools (see table 2).
Of the students who transferred, an estimated 62 percent of them  transferred between public schools. The most common transfer path was  from a 2-year public to 4-year public school (see fig. 1). Transfer patterns  for the 2012 cohort also show that students transferred between public  schools at a higher rate than among other types of schools, based on  mid-point data.
Additionally, of the students who transferred, a majority (about 75  percent) originally attended a public school. Fewer transfer students  originally attended a private nonprofit or private for-profit school, an  estimated 19 and 7 percent, respectively.
section_title: Stakeholders Said Students Can Face Challenges Transferring Credits between Schools without Agreements or Schools of Different Types
paragraphs: One Student’s Perspective  One student wished that his school took  greater care to ensure students know exactly  which classes they should take to avoid losing  credits and incurring additional costs as a  result of transferring schools. He is worried  that he might have to pay twice for classes he  has already taken.
Successful transfer of course credits can be hampered when the two  schools involved have not established an agreement that specifies how  credit transfers will occur. As we previously reported, many schools enter  into transfer agreements or partnerships, often referred to as articulation  agreements, which specify which course credits meet program or degree  requirements at one or more schools (see app. II for an example of a  transfer guide based on an articulation agreement). Based on our  review of school websites, articulation agreements were more commonly  listed among public schools, but private nonprofit and for-profit schools  also establish articulation agreements. This level of clarity helps  students better plan their college path by helping them understand how  specific earned credits will transfer. Stakeholders we interviewed from 16  of 25 higher education organizations and schools said it is more difficult to  transfer credits when there is no articulation agreement between schools  or state policy outlining how credits will transfer.
It is often easier for students to transfer credits when transferring to a  school in the same state, especially in states that have policies outlining  how credits should transfer, according to stakeholders we interviewed  from 7 of 25 higher education organizations and schools. For example,  according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Florida has a  statewide articulation agreement which generally guarantees that  students who earn an associate’s degree from a Florida community  college can transfer at least 60 credits to one of the 4-year public schools  in the state. However, nearly one in five students who started at a 2-year  public school and one in four who started at a 4-year public school  transfer to a school in a different state, according to a recent National  Student Clearinghouse report. One program designed to facilitate  successful transfers for students across state lines is the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education’s Interstate Passport  program. According to its description, the program accomplishes this by  focusing on common learning outcomes across schools in different states  rather than determining how individual courses compare to each other.  Specifically, faculty and others in the field, such as registrars and  advisors, in schools across multiple states agreed upon student learning  outcomes and proficiency criteria in different skill areas for general  education courses intended to be completed during the first half of a  bachelor’s degree program. Students who achieve these learning  outcomes are then able to transfer their lower division general education  credits to any of the other schools participating in the program. Currently  there are 21 schools that are members of the Interstate Passport  Network.
The type of school is also a factor in successfully transferring credits  between schools, according to stakeholders we interviewed from 18 of 25  higher education organizations and schools. For example, according to  stakeholders, transferring credits from private for-profit schools can be  more difficult than transferring credits from other types of schools. Private  for-profit schools are typically nationally accredited whereas public and  private nonprofit schools are historically regionally accredited, and we  previously reported that regionally accredited schools usually prefer to  accept credits only from other regionally accredited schools.  Stakeholders from several higher education organizations and schools  said national accreditation is seen as less stringent than regional  accreditation, though Education recognizes and applies the same  standards to both types of accreditors. Additionally, according to one  stakeholder, nationally accredited schools tend to offer more technical or  vocational degrees where the coursework may be difficult to transfer to  other schools. According to our analysis of BPS data, a relatively small  percentage of students who originally attended private for-profit schools  transfer to another school (16 percent).
Students transferring from a 2-year school, such as a community college,  can face similar challenges transferring credits. For example, credits  earned at 2-year schools may in some cases be seen by 4-year schools  as less academically rigorous or more technical in nature than credits  earned at the 4-year school, according to stakeholders we interviewed  from 12 of 25 higher education organizations and schools. Students can  also face challenges transferring credits between public and private  schools. According to our prior work, statewide transfer policies generally  applied only to public schools. Therefore, when transferring within the  public school system, students potentially lose fewer credits compared to  transferring between public and private schools.
section_title: Stakeholders Said Students Have Limited Access to Adequate Advising and Transfer Information, and Transferred Credits May Not Apply Toward Their Degrees
paragraphs: One Student’s Perspective  One student said that he met with an advisor  prior to transferring so that he could plan his  coursework appropriately; however, he did not  learn about some of the degree requirements  until after he transferred. This resulted in  taking an additional semester of classes to  fulfill lower-level requirements. example, these stakeholders said that advisors should provide students  with information to help them transition to the destination school and  adjust to a new campus, in addition to helping them understand how their  credits will transfer.
Some schools may be under-resourced when it comes to providing  quality advising to students, according to stakeholders we interviewed  from 13 of 25 higher education organizations and schools. According to  our analysis of BPS data, students most commonly transferred from  public 2-year—such as community colleges—to public 4-year schools.  Some of the stakeholders we spoke with specifically mentioned resource  challenges faced by community colleges. One stakeholder at a  community college said that it can be challenging for schools to identify  which students intend to transfer in order to connect them with available  advisors to help plan their path. According to stakeholders from one  school, 4-year schools can also face resource challenges. Specifically,  they identified multiple efforts to help transfer students, but said that their  registrar and admissions staff do not have the capacity to meet with every  student individually, and that students could go without advising as a  result.
Stakeholders from some of the higher education organizations and  schools we interviewed said that the timing of advising and transfer  information is also important. Specifically, they said that much of the  transfer process is influenced by student decisions made early during  their college career. For example, without early information about the  transfer process, students may change majors or sign up for technical  courses at their origin school without being aware of the implications such  choices have on the transferability of their credits. Stakeholders also said  that it is important for students to meet with advisors from both schools.  Ultimately, the destination school generally has the final say on how  credits are evaluated and accepted, so it is important for students to  confirm with the destination school that the information they receive from  their origin school is accurate, according to one stakeholder. The timing of  when the destination school completes an official credit evaluation can  also pose challenges for students, according to stakeholders from some  higher education organizations and schools. Students may not know prior  to enrollment at the destination school whether their credits will transfer  because some schools do not complete an official credit evaluation until  after the enrollment deadline.
Even if a student’s credits transfer, they may not apply toward fulfilling  degree requirements for their intended major, according to stakeholders  we interviewed from 12 of 25 higher education organizations and schools.  Some stakeholders saw this as a more important issue than the ability to  transfer credits. Destination schools may determine that the courses the  student wants to transfer are not equivalent to the requirements of the  major at their school or may prefer their own curriculum, according to  some stakeholders. For example, according to one stakeholder, a biology  course may count as a general science elective but not count toward the  science requirement for a degree in biology. In these cases, a student will  likely have to take additional courses at the destination school, which  could potentially delay graduation. One study that conducted student  focus groups at two Indiana higher education systems similarly found that  some students experienced challenges with credits applying toward  degree requirements.
section_title: Credits Lost in a School Transfer Could Result in Additional Tuition Costs and Limited Financial Aid Eligibility for Students
subsections: section_title: Almost Half of Credits Earned Were Lost During Transfer from 2004 to 2009, and the Extent of Loss Varied by Type of School
paragraphs: Students lost an estimated 43 percent of college credits when they  transferred, or an estimated 13 credits, on average, according to our  analysis of BPS data on students who started in academic year 2003-04  and were tracked over a 6-year period. Typically, semester courses are  awarded three credits each, so the average credits lost during transfer  (13) is equivalent to about four courses, which is almost one semester of  full-time enrollment for students taking 15 credits per semester. Credit  loss among the 2004 cohort varied greatly by the types of schools  involved in a transfer (see fig. 2). For example, students who transferred  between public schools—which accounted for almost two-thirds of  transfer students—lost 37 percent of their credits, on average. In  comparison, students who transferred from private for-profit schools to  public schools—which accounted for 4 percent of students who  transferred—lost an estimated 94 percent of their credits, on average.  (See table 3 in app. III for more information). Our analyses provide  descriptive information on credit loss and do not control for certain factors   that may be related to the ability to transfer credits, including whether  students informed the school of possible credits eligible for transfer based  on previous attendance at another school.
Credit loss also varied by transfer direction. For example, based on our  analysis of the 2004 cohort, students who transferred vertically from 2- year to 4-year schools lost an estimated average of 26 percent of their  credits, while those who transferred laterally between 2-year schools lost  an estimated average of 74 percent of their credits. Vertical transfers from  2-year to 4-year schools accounted for 40 percent of transfer students,  whereas lateral transfers between 2-year schools accounted for 17  percent of transfer students (see table 4 in app. III for more information).  While academic performance can be an important determinant in the  transferability of credits, we did not assess how such factors affected the  extent of credit loss.
Our analysis also showed a wide range of credit loss when taking into  account both the type of school and direction of transfer, or transfer path  (see fig. 3). For example, students transferring from 2-year public to 4- year public schools, which was the most common transfer path and  accounted for 26 percent of transfer students, lost an estimated average  of 22 percent of their credits. This was a lower rate of credit loss than the  overall average for all transfer students. In addition, students transferring  between 2-year public schools—another common transfer path that  accounted for 13 percent of transfer students—lost an estimated average  of 69 percent of their credits. Students who took some of the less frequent  transfer paths lost a relatively higher percentage of their credits. For  example, students who transferred from 2-year private for-profit to 2-year  public schools lost an estimated average of 97 percent of their credits.  Similarly, students who transferred from 2-year public to 2-year private  for-profit schools lost an estimated average of 95 percent of their credits.  Each of these transfer paths accounted for about 1 percent of transfer  students. (See table 5 in app. III for more information).
section_title: Potential Tuition Cost for Transfer Students Depends, in Part, on Number of Credits Lost and Tuition Rates
paragraphs: Stakeholders from about half of the higher education organizations and  schools we interviewed said some students may seek to save on tuition  costs by starting at a less expensive school and then transferring to a  more expensive school to complete a degree. However, stakeholders  from about the same number of higher education organizations and  schools told us that some students face additional tuition costs due to  repeated coursework or additional time to degree as a result of lost  credits. See figure 4 for examples of the transfer process and its potential  outcomes.
If a student is seeking to obtain a bachelor’s degree from a relatively  expensive school, transferring could help the student save on tuition  costs. Specifically, if a student is able to successfully transfer all credits  from the less expensive school, and those credits count toward his or her  degree program, then the student saves on tuition costs by having earned  a portion of the credits at the lower-cost origin school. If a student loses  some credits during the transfer, then the student’s overall tuition costs  depend on the combined effect of the credit loss and the difference in  tuition rates between the two schools. However, with any level of credit  loss, the student will likely need to stay in school longer to complete  degree requirements and pay tuition for repeated coursework. If a student  loses all of his or her transfer credits, then the cost of completing a  degree is generally higher because the student not only incurs tuition  costs from the origin school but must also retake credits required for a  degree at the more expensive destination school. This also extends the  time to complete a degree.
The direction of transfer also affects college affordability. Stakeholders we  interviewed from 12 of 25 higher education organizations and schools  said that students transferring vertically may achieve savings because 2- year schools are relatively low cost. Based on our analysis of 2013-2014  IPEDS tuition data, average net tuition per year—which is the cost of  attendance minus financial aid and non-tuition costs, such as room and  board—varied by school type and ranges from about $1,900 for a 2-year  public school to about $13,800 for a 4-year private nonprofit school (see  table 6 in app. III for more tuition data). However, net tuition may  underestimate costs for transfer students because, according to  Education, schools often do not offer the same amount of institutional aid  to transfer students compared to first-time, non-transfer students.  Transfer may be more difficult when transferring laterally. In comparison  to vertical transfers, students who transferred laterally experienced higher  rates of credit loss, according to our analysis of BPS data for the 2004  cohort. Stakeholders we spoke with from one school said that students  who are transferring between 4-year schools may not have been planning  to transfer, and it is more difficult to advise students about which credits  will transfer laterally. One stakeholder from another school said that if  students transferring laterally switch their degree program, few of their  courses will transfer. Students who lose more credits during transfer  would typically incur additional tuition costs by paying for repeated or  additional coursework. To illustrate some potential financial implications  for students, we created examples of several different transfer scenarios  (see fig. 5 and fig. 10 in app. III).
Credit loss data do not reflect the reasons why credits were not accepted,  though there are a variety of reasons why credits may not transfer  successfully. In some cases, the credits students attempt to transfer may  not be applicable or comparable to the coursework at the destination  school. For example, vocational or remedial coursework from a 2-year  school may not be transferable to a 4-year degree program. Further,  factors that are not entirely within a school’s control, such as students’  decisions and academic performance, also affect credit transfer and the  time it takes to complete a degree. For example, students may not ask to  have their credits evaluated or they may decide to change majors. Our  analysis does not reflect certain student decisions or characteristics,  which can also factor into the extent of credit loss. Further, aside from  tuition, other factors can affect a student’s costs, such as changes in cost  of living or forgone earnings while attending school, according to  stakeholders from several higher education organizations and schools.
section_title: Many Transfer Students Received Federal Financial Aid from 2004 to 2009, and Credit Loss Can Limit Students’ Eligibility and Result in Additional Costs to the Federal Government
paragraphs: Almost half of transfer students received Pell Grants and almost two- thirds received Federal Direct Loans, according to our analysis of BPS  data collected between 2004 and 2009. According to mid-point data  from the more recent BPS cohort, many transfer students who started  school in academic year 2011-12 also received Pell Grants (55 percent)  and Federal Direct Loans (62 percent) in their first 3 years. Access to  such aid is affected by the length of time needed to complete a degree.  The Pell Grant program imposes a lifetime limit of 12 semesters (6 years)  of eligibility. Direct Subsidized Loans, which are loans in which the  government pays part of the interest, are limited to a maximum timeframe  of 150 percent of the published length of a program at a school (e.g., 150  percent of a 120-credit, 4-year degree program would be 6 years).  According to our analysis of both BPS cohorts during their first 3 years in  school, an estimated 48 percent of students in the 2004 cohort received  Direct Subsidized Loans and an estimated 57 percent of students in the  2012 cohort received Direct Subsidized Loans.
According to stakeholders we interviewed from higher education  organizations and schools, transfer students may exhaust available aid  before they complete their degree. Transfer students who lose credits  must pay for and spend additional time to retake credits needed to  graduate, which may make them exceed time frames for financial aid  eligibility. BPS data do not indicate whether students exhausted their  financial aid eligibility before obtaining a degree. However, many transfer  students who started college in academic year 2003-04, an estimated 40  percent, did not obtain any type of degree within a 6-year time period.  Further, while available data do not provide enough information to  adequately identify a student’s intention to obtain a specific type of  degree (e.g., 2-year associate’s degree versus 4-year bachelor’s degree),  about a third of students who chose to transfer from a 2-year to a 4-year  school did not ultimately obtain a bachelor’s or other type of degree within  the 6-year time period (see table 7 in app. III for more information). In  cases where students lose access to aid, they may be financially  unprepared or unable to earn their degree. Additionally, stakeholders  from some higher education organizations and schools told us that  schools may not offer as much scholarship funding for transfer students  as they do for new, first-time students.
Credits lost in a transfer also can result in additional costs for the federal  government in providing student aid. The government’s costs may  increase if transfer students who receive financial aid take longer to  complete a degree as a result of retaking lost credits. Education’s data   do not identify whether particular funding sources, such as Pell Grants   or other financial aid, are used to pay for credits taken or to pay for other  costs. Therefore, we used an example to show how lost credits can result  in potential additional costs in student aid to the federal government   (see fig. 6). Actual costs to the federal government would vary.
Some students may transfer as a result of the closure of their current  school, and they face additional challenges and financial aid  considerations. In recent years, multiple school closures have affected  large numbers of students and resulted in costs to the federal  government. School closures pose financial risks to students who wish to  continue their education because of the potential difficulty in transferring  credits from a closed school.
When a school closes, students must decide whether to complete their  degree at another school—which can include transferring credits—or stop  pursuit of that degree and, according to Education policy, apply for a  discharge of their federal student loans. Education policy states that  students are eligible to discharge (i.e., not pay) 100 percent of their  federal student loans if they (a) did not complete their program because  of a closure, and (b) did not continue in a comparable program at another  school. Education officials said some students who have requested  discharges of their student loans after their private for-profit school closed  said they were unable to transfer their credits. For students who transfer  to a comparable program at another school, their existing Direct  Subsidized Loans continue to count in calculating eligibility (150 percent  of published program length). Students with Pell Grants who are unable  to complete their program at the closed school can restore the portion of  their lifetime eligibility for grants used at the closed school, according to a  December 2016 Education announcement. Closures can pose a financial  risk for the government and taxpayers to the extent that federal student  loans are forgiven and students reset their Pell Grant eligibility.
section_title: Almost All Schools Provided Credit Transfer Policies on Websites, but Comprehensiveness of Information Varied
subsections: section_title: Almost All School Websites Disclosed Credit Transfer Policies, but Not All Were Clear About Agreements with Other Schools on Transfers
paragraphs: Under federal law, schools participating in any Title IV program are  required to publicly disclose the transfer of credit policies established by  the school, including a list of schools with which they have articulation  agreements. According to Education officials, schools must disclose  credit transfer policies on their website, but the list of schools can be  disclosed through a website or other appropriate publications or  mailings. Based on our review of websites for a nationally  representative stratified random sample of 214 schools, an estimated 99  percent contained the school’s credit transfer policies.
Of those websites with credit transfer information, an estimated 68  percent listed the names of partner schools with which they have  articulation agreements. An estimated 29 percent of websites did not  provide such a list, while an estimated 4 percent explicitly stated that the  school did not have any articulation agreements. In addition, the  prevalence of websites listing partner schools varied by school type.  While most (89 percent) public school websites with credit transfer  information listed partner schools with which they have articulation  agreements, fewer private nonprofit and for-profit school websites had  such a list (see fig. 7). In some cases, school websites included  information on statewide articulation policies, such as the Illinois  Articulation Initiative, where, according to its website, over 100  participating schools in the state have agreed to accept a package of general education courses in lieu of their own general education  classes. Students have access to varying levels of detail about credits  covered by articulation agreements. Of the websites that listed partner  schools, an estimated 63 percent provided the agreement’s provisions,  and an estimated 21 percent provided a link to partner school websites.
For the schools that did not provide a list of partner schools on their  website or explicitly note that they had no such agreements, it was  difficult to determine, without further follow-up, whether the lack of  information indicated that the school did not have such agreements or  that the school was not providing the list of partner schools. Based on  targeted follow-up with officials at 10 schools, we found that some did not  have articulation agreements while others had articulation agreements  but their partner schools were not listed on the website. Specifically,  officials at 5 of the schools said that their school did not have, or they  were unaware of, established articulation agreements. Officials at 3  schools said that they had articulation agreements and they were listed in  publications available onsite at the school or by contacting school staff.  (We did not verify the physical presence of publication copies at school  locations or the information included). Officials at 2 schools said that they  were currently reviewing articulation agreements and planning to update  the school website.
Although schools participating in any Title IV program are required to  publicly disclose a list of the schools with which they have articulation  agreements, they do not have to disclose this information specifically on  their websites but may choose to do so in another appropriate publication  or mailing. In addition, Education officials stated that it is unclear whether  the department has the authority to require schools to post the list of  articulation-agreement schools online because federal law does not  specify the means of disclosure. The purpose of this disclosure  requirement is for schools to share transfer information with students, and  selecting an appropriate means of disseminating this information  enhances the effectiveness of such communication. Furthermore,  Education officials told us that schools are increasingly using websites to  share consumer information and that the department already requires that  credit transfer policies and other disclosures, such as net price  calculators, be posted on school websites. Awareness of articulation  agreements can benefit students because such agreements clarify how  credits transfer between schools. Posting this information online would  make it more easily accessible to prospective students and their families  than restricting it to publications located on campus, particularly since  almost all school websites already include information on credit transfer  policies.
In circumstances where the school does not have articulation agreements  with other schools, Education’s guidance does not specify how or whether  to document this. According to Education officials, federal law and related  regulations do not require schools to disclose the fact that they do not  have articulation agreements, and the officials stated that it is unclear  whether the department has the authority to require such a disclosure.  Online information on the presence of articulation agreements would  make it easier to determine whether schools are disclosing a list of  partner schools as required. Clarification on what a school should depict  on its website when it does not have articulation agreements could also  help provide more information to students and enhance their  understanding of potential transfer options. Moreover, one of Education’s  goals is to increase college completion and affordability, and adequate  communication with transferring students supports this goal. More  complete information on school websites about articulation agreements  on transfers could help students fully weigh alternatives when making a  transfer decision.
section_title: Extent of Additional Information Provided on Transfers Varied by School
paragraphs: Aside from the required school transfer policies noted earlier, school  websites varied in the extent of any additional information they provided  on transfers. An estimated 60 percent of school websites had some  general information about how students could initiate the process of  having their course credits evaluated for transfer (see fig. 8). In addition,  about half of school websites included resources to help students  understand the transfer process. These resources were more common on  websites for public schools than for other school types. Some websites,  for example, had course equivalency databases where students could  input their prior coursework to see how it would translate into earned  credits at the destination school. In addition, some school websites  provided information on transfer-related resources, such as transfer fairs  and other in-person activities at which students could meet with school  representatives to learn more about the transfer process.
An estimated 47 percent of school websites published transfer deadlines  and 43 percent published transfer-specific financial aid information.  Knowing deadlines in advance can help students ensure that they do not  miss key steps of the transfer process, such as submitting admissions or  credit evaluation applications. Financial aid information, including whether  a school awards transfer scholarships, can help students identify transfer  options that are financially feasible. Fewer schools provided listings of  transfer-related frequently asked questions or transfer-specific contacts.  Such information can help students more easily navigate to applicable  transfer information if they have questions and identify relevant school  staff for assistance.
The format of transfer information also varied on school websites. Three- quarters of school websites used multiple formats to convey transfer  information, including various combinations of webpages or websites  (including external sites) and downloadable documents, such as copies of  course catalogs. In comparison, an estimated 25 percent provided credit  transfer information in a single format, either through a single webpage or  document. Nevertheless, it may still be difficult to access transfer  information, even if it is provided in a single format, if the transfer material  is not easy to locate on the school’s website. For example, we found one  school’s credit transfer policies in a course catalog that we downloaded  from the website. However, the school website’s search function did not  show the location of this material and it was not obvious that a student  would need to download the course catalog to access transfer  information. In other instances, schools listed credit transfer policies on  their consumer information disclosure webpages, but if a student is  unaware that consumer disclosures include credit transfer policies, they  may not know to look on that particular page for transfer information.
section_title: Education’s Information about Transfers Is Limited
paragraphs: In addition to school websites, Education’s websites also provide college  students and their families with information on transfers, but it is limited.  We found that the transfer information was neither focused nor targeted  toward transfer students. In particular, Education’s StudentAid.gov  website highlights descriptions of school types and things to consider  when choosing a school, and while these pages briefly refer to transfer  information, it is presented in the context of other topics rather than  having a substantive focus on transfer. For example, as part of a broad  description of community colleges, it is noted that many community  colleges have articulation agreements and students from this type of  school often transfer. Education officials said that they do not see a need  to develop consumer information on transfers because students typically  would not seek transfer information from Education, and they see little  demand based on the volume of transfer-related searches of the  department’s website. However, even for students who seek transfer  information, it would be difficult for them to access relevant information  given Education’s limited offerings on the topic. Providing additional  transfer-focused information could encourage more students to access  the department’s website for this purpose. Education also includes some  transfer information for students affected by school closures in a  frequently-asked-questions page on Education’s website. While this  information is helpful, it does not address the broader population of  transfer students, which accounted for over a third of first-time students,  according to our analysis of transfer data. Finally, according to student  complaint data, Education officials sometimes provided general  information on the transferability of credits in response to complaints  about transfer issues. Although such information could broadly apply to all  transfer students, it is provided infrequently and is limited to students who  happen to submit a complaint.
Other reasons Education officials cited for not developing consumer  information on transfers are that resources for transfer students are  mostly provided by schools, transfer is school specific, and the federal  government does not oversee schools’ curriculums. However, we found  that close to half of school websites are not providing transfer resources  that can help students understand the process beyond the minimal  required information. This could compound the challenges we noted  earlier of students potentially not obtaining adequate advising and  information. In addition, while transferring is ultimately based on a  student’s unique circumstances coupled with a school’s transfer policy,  there are nevertheless general considerations that apply across schools.  Education already provides consumer guidance, such as on college  applications, which applies across schools. Similarly, Education could  provide guidance on college transfers, such as common credit evaluation  criteria, tips for locating transfer resources, and the potential effect of  transferring on financial aid eligibility. Furthermore, while Education  does not oversee schools’ curriculums, it oversees federal financial aid  programs that provide over $125 billion to students. The department also  has a goal of promoting college affordability. Given the substantial  number of students who transfer and the effect of credit loss on potential  costs to the student and the federal government, general consumer  information on factors to consider when transferring could be valuable.  According to federal internal control standards, agencies should  externally communicate the necessary quality information to help achieve  their goals. Transfers can affect the time and cost of completing a  degree. Knowledge of key considerations could help students and their  families make better-informed transfer decisions.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: About one-third of students transferred schools on their path toward a  college degree based on our analysis of Education’s data. While for  some, transfer can provide an avenue for saving on tuition costs, many of  the credits that students earn may not ultimately help them earn a degree  after they transfer. As tuition rises and college becomes less affordable  for many, the financial implications of losing credits during transfer are  particularly salient for students, their families, and the federal  government.
Articulation agreements between schools can facilitate credit transfers  because they detail how and which credits will transfer from one school to  another. When schools make information about these agreements  accessible on their websites, students can more easily understand their  transfer options. In addition, since many school websites do not provide  helpful transfer resources for students, consumer guidance from  Education that includes key factors to consider when transferring could  help students more easily navigate the process. With such guidance,  students can more accurately weigh their options and make an informed  decision about transferring schools that takes into account how much  time and money they must invest in pursuit of a college degree.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help improve students’ access to information so that they can make  well-informed transfer decisions, we recommend the Secretary of  Education take the following two actions:
Require schools to (1) disclose the list of schools with which they  have articulation agreements online if the school has a website, and  (2) clearly inform students, on the school’s website if it has one, when  no articulation agreements on credit transfer are in place. If the  department determines that it does not have the authority to require  this, it should nonetheless encourage schools to take these actions  (through guidance or other means).
Provide students and their families with general transfer information,  for example by developing a consumer guide and posting it on  Education’s website or augmenting transfer information already  provided on the website, to help increase awareness of key  considerations when transferring schools.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Education for its review and  comment. Education’s comments are reproduced in appendix IV. In its  written comments, Education disagreed with our recommendation to  require schools to disclose on their websites the list of partner schools  with which they have articulation agreements and inform students when  there are no agreements in place. Education reiterated that it already  requires schools to disclose a list of other schools with which they have  established articulation agreements. Given that the purpose of required  consumer disclosures on articulation agreements is to inform students,  we believe that posting this information online would make it more  accessible to prospective students compared to publications located  physically on a school’s campus. The increased accessibility would be  especially beneficial for prospective students who live far away from the  school. Education also said that students should contact specific schools  to obtain accurate and updated information. While it is important for  students to contact schools, we found that not all schools listed transfer- specific contacts on their websites. Therefore, it is particularly important  that the required consumer information on articulation agreements be  easily accessible to students. Moreover, according to Education, online  disclosure is already required with respect to a school’s credit transfer  policies if the school has a website, and schools are increasingly using  their websites to provide other consumer information to students.
Education also cautioned that placing special emphasis on articulation  agreements could mislead students because the agreements—or lack  thereof—do not fully reflect the transferability of credits. Specifically,  Education said that if the few schools with articulation agreements are  listed on the school’s website or if a school notes that it has no  articulation agreements, students may erroneously believe that their  credits will transfer only to those few schools or that none of their credits  will transfer. However, regardless of the number of articulation  agreements a school may have, schools are already legally required to  disclose the list of partner schools. We found that a majority of schools  already disclose a list of partner schools on their websites, and it is  unclear why posting this required information online would be more  confusing than disclosing this information through publications or other  means. Further, according to Education, schools are also legally required  to disclose their credit transfer policies online, in effect, outlining the  circumstances under which students can generally transfer credits.  Therefore, using a school’s website to disclose the list of other schools  with which there are articulation agreements, or the fact that there are no  agreements, would enhance students’ understanding of their transfer  options and help reduce confusion rather than mislead students.
Education agreed that it would assist students to have more general  transfer information when students are considering transferring to other  schools, and said that it plans to include this information on its  studentaid.gov website. Education also provided technical comments,  which we incorporated in our report as appropriate. In its technical  comments, Education proposed that we address the relevance of  academic performance to the transferability of credits. We agree that this  is an important factor that can affect credit loss and provided additional  clarification and references to Education’s research on this topic.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of Education,  and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff  have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788- 0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Overview
paragraphs: This report examines: (1) How many college students transfer and what  challenges, if any, do they face in transferring credits? (2) What are  possible financial implications associated with transferring credits? and  (3) To what extent are students provided with information about transfer  policies to help them plan their college path? To address these questions,  we interviewed stakeholders from 25 higher education organizations and  schools, analyzed transfer and tuition data from Education’s Beginning  Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) and Integrated  Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and reviewed websites  for a nationally-representative stratified random sample of schools. We  assessed the reliability of BPS and IPEDS data by reviewing existing  information about the data and the system that produced them and  interviewing officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that  the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing transfer  students and credit loss rates. We also reviewed Education’s guidance  and regulations on credit transfer disclosure requirements and consumer  information for college students, and we compared Education’s practices  to federal internal control standards. Finally, we reviewed relevant  literature, federal laws, and interviewed Education officials. This appendix  provides a detailed description of the methodology used to (1) gather  testimonial evidence through interviews, (2) analyze Education’s transfer  and tuition data, and (3) conduct website reviews.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2016 to August 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Interviews
paragraphs: To understand what challenges, if any, students face in transferring  credits, we interviewed stakeholders from a non-generalizable sample of  25 higher education organizations and schools. More specifically, we  interviewed representatives from 17 higher education organizations and  officials from eight schools that have expertise in transfers and represent  a range of viewpoints. We selected higher education organizations that  met one or more of the following criteria: (1) published relevant research  or other work, (2) developed guidelines for credit transfer processes, (3)  developed tools or state policies to help facilitate credit transfers, or (4)  represented relevant groups involved in the transfer process such as  associations for students, admissions or advising staff, school systems,  accrediting agencies, and/or state or regional higher education bodies.  Further, we interviewed stakeholders from eight selected schools to  obtain additional perspectives from those directly involved in the credit  transfer process. At each school, we interviewed stakeholders involved in  the credit evaluation process, such as admissions/advising staff, registrar  officials, and relevant transfer offices, as appropriate. To ensure we  obtained perspectives from different school types, we selected a mix of  public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit schools, and 2- and 4-year  schools. While we selected a diverse range of schools, we did not equally  select schools among each school type since some school types have a  low prevalence or are not typically part of a transfer path. For example,  we did not interview stakeholders from a 2-year private nonprofit school  because this school type represents a small segment of schools and,  correspondingly, a small number of students who transfer to or from that  type of school. In our selection, we included at least one pair of schools  with articulation agreements. We chose schools in different geographic  locations and that represent different transfer environments. For example,  we identified schools in states with a variety of statewide transfer policies  and student transfer rates. We used state transfer rate data from the  National Student Clearinghouse Research Center to inform our selection  of schools to conduct interviews. We interviewed National Student  Clearinghouse Research Center officials and reviewed the methodology  to determine if there are any limitations associated with using the total  state transfer rate, and determined these data to be reliable for our  purposes.
For these interviews with stakeholders from 25 higher education  organizations and schools (stakeholders), we used semi-structured  interview protocols. To summarize results, we identified commonly  mentioned themes regarding challenges in the transfer process. We used  the following terms to summarize themes mentioned by stakeholders:  “some” or “a few” higher education organizations and schools represent 3  to 5; “several” represents 6 to 10; and “many” represents 11 to 15. For  themes mentioned by stakeholders from more than 15 higher education  organizations and schools, we generally specified the number of groups  in the text. We corroborated testimonial evidence on transfer challenges  with findings from our analysis of Education’s transfer data and  documentary evidence from transfer literature or publications.
In addition to the interviews with 25 higher education organizations and  schools, we collected first-hand accounts from several individual transfer  students identified by stakeholders from higher education organizations.  The students provided non-generalizable illustrative examples of  experiences with the transfer process.
section_title: Data Sources and Analysis
paragraphs: BPS: To estimate the extent to which students’ credits transfer the first  time they change schools and to identify other characteristics of transfer  students, we analyzed transfer data from Education’s Beginning  Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS). To estimate the  extent of credit loss among students, we analyzed transcript data from the  2004 cohort, the most recently completed. Each cycle of BPS follows a  cohort of students enrolling in postsecondary education for the first time.  BPS tracks these students over a 6-year period and collects both survey  and transcript data. The most recently completed BPS cohort first  enrolled in postsecondary education in the 2003-04 academic year. The  final follow-up with this cohort group was the 2008-09 academic year. For  the purposes of our data analysis, we define transfer students as those  who moved from one school to another for a period longer than 4 months,  and the analyses reflect a student’s first transfer only. We define credit  loss as credits earned at the origin school that were not accepted by the  destination school. The sector variable was used to categorize schools  according to whether they were public, private nonprofit, or private for- profit schools at the 2-year or 4-year level. The sector variable reflects the  level of the highest degree offered at the school. The highest degree  offered may be different from the predominant degree obtained at the  school. To incorporate more recent data into the analysis and to further  understand the potential implications for federal financial aid, we also  used BPS mid-point data from the cohort of students who began school in  academic year 2011-12—the 2012 cohort—to describe the number of  transfers and the financial aid characteristics of more recent transfer  students. This will only represent data collected midway through the study  period, and transfer characteristics will change over the remainder of the  study period as students continue to progress through their  undergraduate studies and the 6-year time period. While we used  transcript data to estimate transfer data for the full 6-year study period of  the 2004 cohort, transcript data are not yet available for the 2012 cohort.  As a result, to calculate mid-point transfer and financial aid receipt rates  in the first 3 years of the study, we used BPS data based on transfers  reported in student interviews. Estimates based on transcript data may  differ from estimates based on student interview data because interviews  represent one point in time, whereas transcript data cover an entire study  period.
To better understand any potential implications for federal financial aid,  we determined the extent to which transfer students received federal  financial aid, including Pell Grants and Federal Direct Loans. Federal  financial aid is awarded based on a student’s total costs, which can  include non-tuition expenses. Available data do not identify whether the  cost of credits are covered by Pell Grant, Federal Direct Loans, or other  financial aid funds specifically.
Because the BPS data are based on probability samples, estimates are  calculated using the appropriate sample weights provided and reflecting  the sample design. Each of these samples follows a probability procedure  based on random selection, and they represent only one of a large  number of samples that could have been drawn. Since each sample  could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the  precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence  interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population value  for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. Unless otherwise  noted, all percentage estimates from the BPS data analysis have 95  percent confidence intervals within +/-10 percentage points of the percent  estimate, and other numerical estimates have confidence intervals within  +/-10 percent of the estimate itself. We compared 95 percent confidence  intervals to identify statistically significant differences between specific  estimates and the comparison groups.
While the BPS data illustrate the extent to which credits transfer, the data  do not track the reason why credits did not transfer or the academic  quality of those credits. The data also do not distinguish whether credits  accepted counted toward degree requirements for a student’s major. This  means that credit acceptance cannot be equated with progress toward a  degree, which would also have financial implications for students.  Additionally, student decisions may also affect credit transfer and the time  it takes to complete a degree. For example, students may not ask to have  their credits evaluated or they may decide to change majors, which would  make it difficult to attribute the costs of lost credits to the transfer process.
Given these limitations, the potential financial effects associated with lost  credits are not solely attributable to schools’ credit transfer policies.  Similarly, differences in financial outcomes for transfer versus non- transfer students may be due to multiple reasons and not just the credit  transfer process.
IPEDS: To provide information on tuition by school type (i.e., public,  private for-profit, and private nonprofit) and level of degree program (i.e.,  2-year, 4-year), we calculated average net tuition by analyzing the tuition  and non-tuition portions of the 2013-2014 academic year cost of  attendance obtained from the institutional characteristics component of  the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). We  chose the 2013-2014 period because it contained the most recent net  price data available at the time of our analysis. IPEDS gathers data from  every college, university, and technical and vocational institution that  participates in federal student aid programs, so the data cover the  population of interest for this study. Net tuition is the cost of attendance  minus financial aid and non-tuition portions of attendance. To estimate  net tuition, we started with the net price variable, which is equal to the  cost of attendance (i.e., tuition, fees, room and board, books and other  expenses) minus financial aid. We then used other IPEDS variables to  calculate the non-tuition portion of the cost of attendance and subtracted  that value from the net price to estimate net tuition. We used net tuition  data instead of published tuition because it is a more realistic portrayal of  what students might actually pay. IPEDS net price data is collected at the  school-level based on average charges for first-time, full-time  undergraduate students, and does not account for variation in the tuition  charged to individual students at the same school. In addition, many  schools charge tuition by program or have different fees based on the  specific major, which is not accounted for in the per-credit net tuition  average estimates. Further, net tuition may underestimate costs for  transfer students because, according to Education, schools often do not  offer the same amount of institutional aid to transfer students compared to  first-time, non-transfer students.
Transfer Scenarios: To describe possible financial implications for  students and the federal government associated with transferring credits,  we present a variety of example transfer path scenarios. To create  scenarios illustrating financial implications for students, we selected the  transfer paths that were among the most common paths based on our  transfer frequency analysis of each school control type (public, private  nonprofit, and private for-profit). These transfer scenarios vary in the  number of credits lost during transfer, type of transfer, type of school, and  average net tuition. To create a scenario to illustrate the financial  implications of transfer for the government, we assume the student  received the average per credit Pell Grant receipt based on BPS data.  For both types of transfer scenarios (showing possible financial  implications for students and the government), we base credit loss  assumptions on 2004-2009 BPS transcript data. The assumption for the  number of credits lost is informed by the average percentage of credits  lost for the relevant transfer path. We base tuition assumptions on 2013- 2014 IPEDS data on tuition by school type, and tuition values are from  the 2013-2014 academic year. Because these scenarios are used for  illustrative purposes and we are not estimating tuition costs of a particular  cohort of students, we chose assumptions that were reflective of the  higher education environment using the best available data. Accordingly,  we used the most recently available data from BPS and IPEDS, though  the time periods do not match because the datasets have different  collection periods.
We calculated the financial implications for students in the transfer  scenarios by comparing the potential tuition for completing a degree at  the origin and destination schools for a transfer student to the potential  tuition for completing the same (120) credits for a degree at the  destination school. We made various assumptions for these calculations.  The scenarios assume that all students would pay tuition on a per-credit  basis to retake credits lost during transfer, and that students attending  public schools would pay in-state tuition. The financial implications of  transfer would be impacted by whether a student attending a public  school pays in-state or out-of-state tuition. We also assume that credits  that are transferred will count toward graduation requirements. However,  it is important to note that schools can accept transfer credits as elective  credit but not allow the credit to be used toward a specific degree  program. The calculations for the financial implications for students do not  account for how students may use financial aid to offset out-of-pocket  tuition costs, so the identified costs may not all be borne by the students.
The calculations also do not account for the opportunity cost of staying in  school longer, in the form of lost wages, or other factors that may affect a  student’s decision to transfer, such as differences in room and board,  expected lifetime earnings, quality of life, etc. Lastly, we apply average  credit loss rates for the purposes of these scenarios. It is important to  note that schools may have legitimate reasons to not accept some  transfer credits, such as insufficient quality of prior instruction or lack of  applicability to the chosen program of study, among other reasons.
section_title: Website Review
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which schools provide students with  information on transfers to help them plan their college path, we reviewed  websites from a nationally-representative sample of 214 schools  participating in federal student aid programs. The sample was stratified  and randomly drawn from Education’s 2014-2015 IPEDS, which contains  data for all schools that participate in federal student aid programs  authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as  amended. Our sampling frame consisted of all public, private nonprofit,  and private for-profit 2-year and 4-year degree granting schools that  participated in Title IV federal student aid programs, had undergraduate  programs, were not U.S. military academies, and had at least 100  students, yielding a universe of 4,309 schools. We dropped schools from  our sample that were no longer operational at the time of our review.  During our review period, several schools selected for our sample closed.  To ensure that we had an adequate sample size for each school type, we  drew an additional sample of schools from IPEDS that excluded the  schools from our original sample and the closed schools. We created six  strata to stratify the sampling frame by school type (public, private  nonprofit, and private for-profit) and level of degree program (2-year and  4-year). This sample of schools allowed us to make national estimates  about the availability of transfer information, as well as estimates by  school type. The percentage estimates for website review results for the  overall population reported from this review have 95 percent confidence  intervals of +/- 7 percentage points unless otherwise noted.
In order to review comparable information across the sampled schools,  we developed a standardized web-based data collection instrument that  we used to examine on each website the availability of credit transfer  policies, articulation agreement lists, and other transfer information, such  as contacts and tools to help transfer students, frequently asked  questions, and deadlines for submitting information. We used a  combination of information from our interviews, transfer literature, and  relevant federal laws, regulations, and website usability guidelines to  develop the questions included in the data collection instrument. We  reviewed websites from September 2016 through February 2017. One  analyst recorded information in the data collection instrument. The  information was then checked and verified by another analyst. We  collected complete information for all 214 schools in our sample. We then  analyzed the information across schools. We did not, as a part of our  review of school websites, assess the schools for compliance with legal  disclosure requirements. Instead, this review was intended to understand  what information is made accessible to students.
Based on the results of our website review, we conducted targeted follow- up with school officials to obtain additional information related to course  credit transfer disclosures. We followed up with two groups of schools.  For the first group, we prioritized schools whose websites we initially  determined did not include credit transfer policies or criteria for evaluating  transfer credits. We contacted all schools in this group and asked school  officials about how they provided students with information on credit  transfer policies. For the second group, we contacted a select group of  schools that did not list partner schools online. We selected schools in the  second group based on whether they were already selected for follow-up  in our first group as well as on their representation of different school  types.
section_title: Appendix II: Example of Implementing an Articulation Agreement through a Transfer Guide
paragraphs: The following figure depicts information that a school provided on its  website and illustrates how the school implemented its articulation  agreement. In this example, a destination school created transfer guides  specific to origin schools with which it established an articulation  agreement. These guides show how courses from the origin school would  transfer into one of the destination school’s degree programs. The format  of information provided about articulation agreements and the specifics of  their provisions vary from school to school.
section_title: Appendix III: Additional Information on Credit Loss and Tuition Averages, and Additional Examples of Transfer Scenarios
paragraphs: This appendix provides estimates of the percentage of credits lost by  school type, transfer direction, and transfer path; average net tuition by  school type; the percentage of transfer students who did not obtain a  degree; and two additional transfer scenario examples that illustrate  transfer paths that include private for-profit schools.
subsections: section_title: Additional Transfer Scenarios
paragraphs: The transfer scenarios in the following figure illustrate possible financial  implications of additional transfer paths for students. More specifically,  these transfer scenarios illustrate potential financial implications for two  transfer paths that are among the most common and involve private for- profit schools, based on our BPS analysis. Nonetheless, each of these  transfer paths accounted for 2 percent or less of transfer students. In the  transfer from 2-year public to 4-year private for-profit school example, the  student accrues savings compared to attending the destination 4-year  private for-profit school for the entire degree program because the  student is able to transfer almost half the 60 credits earned at the less  expensive 2-year public school. Net tuition at the 4-year private for-profit  school is approximately seven times more expensive than at the 2-year  public school. In the transfer from 2-year private for-profit to 2-year public  school example, the student incurs additional costs compared to  attending the destination 2-year public school for the entire degree  program because the student has to repeat almost all of the 30 credits  earned at the 2-year private for-profit school. This transfer path has a high  credit loss rate. In addition, the credits the student lost from the 2-year  private for-profit school were relatively expensive compared to the cost of  credits at the destination 2-year public school.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Meeta Engle (Assistant Director);  Amrita Sen (Analyst-in-Charge); Elizabeth Hartjes, Connor Kincaid, Jean  McSween, John Mingus, and Dae Park made key contributions to this  report. Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, James  Bennett, Deborah Bland, Alicia Cackley, Evelyn Calderon, Yue Pui Chin,  Michelle Duren, Gustavo Fernandez, Alexander Galuten, Timothy  Guinane, Sharon Hermes, Laura Hoffrey, Bill Keller, Sheila McCoy,  Jennifer McDonald, Jeffrey Miller, Amy Moran Lowe, Alexandra Rouse,  Katherine Siggerud, Alexandra Squitieri, and Christopher Zbrozek.