unseriously serious
Transfer
Purpose of this guide.
Who’s it for: prospective transfer students, higher ed administrators, policy designers
Overview: what maeks transfer credit so complicated?
Key Players in the Transfer Ecosystem
Students - often unaware of what can transfer or how
Colelges and univerisites - decide what credits they accept
Accreditors - define boundaries and guidelines (e.g. DEAC, regional accreditors)
Third-party credit providers - e.g. CLEP, StraigherLine, ACE approved courses
ACE/NCCRS evaluators - provide credit recommendations
Accreditation and Transfer Credit Rules
Regional vs National Accreditation
- Transfer friction between nationall (e.g. DEAC) and regionally accredited schools
- Regional accreditors are often more widely accepted
DEAC Policy on Undergraduate Transfers
- Max 75% of a degree can be transfer + experiential + test-out
- Max 25% experiential/test-out
- Requirement for content and level relevance
Other Relevant Rules
-Example: University of Miami doesn’t accept CLEP after enrollment; CUNY does
Challenges in the Tranfser Process
Learning Outcomes and Equivalency
- Institutions rarely define outcomes clearly
- No universal taxonomy of learning outcomes
- Difficulty aligning credit to course-level learning
Interoperability
- Time-based vs Competency-based education
- Credit discrepancies (e.g. 2-credit CLEP vs 4-credit college course)
- Access barriers (e.g. military-only, pricing differences)
Equity and Fairness
- Native speaker exclusions
- Policies that block transfer after enrollment
-Lack of clear, consistent, transparent credit evaluation policies
The Transfer Credit Evaluation Process
Course Matching
- Degree relevance
- Content equivalency
- Level of difficulty
Institutional Review
- Faculty or registrar offices often involved
Use of Articulation Agreements
- Formalised transfer pathways (e.g. 2-year to 4-year)
Use of ACE National Guide and NCCRS
- Evaluation of non-traditional learning for credit
Alternative Transfer Models and Innovations
Credit-First Institutions
- Example: Excelsior College
- Accepts up to 113 transfer credits
- Makes money off last few required credits
- Model: You bring the credits, we build the degree
Bundling and Reverse Mapping
- Stack existing credits/training towards a degree
-More scalable for adult learners than traditional transfer
Targeting Training Providers or CLEP-centric Degrees
- Partner with employers (e.g. KFC training via ACE)
- Market “credit for what you already know” degrees
- Regiser as CLEP center, issue test vouchers, integrate into tuition
Toward a Better Transfer System
Design Solutions
1. Data Model Overhaul
- Course = Requirement
- Requirements mapped at multiple levels (institution-wide, major, course-specific)
- Courses satisfying multiple requirements (general ed + major)
2. Visualisation Shift
- Present degree plans as fulfilled requirements, not just time-distributed courses
Policy Solutions
- Consistent, public-facing transfer rules
- Required disclosure of transfer policies and acceptance rates
- Mandate learning outcomes at course level
Technological and Structural Improvements
- Taxonomy for learning outcomes across institutions
- Tools for maintaining and approving articulation agreements
- Student-facing platforms to model and simulate transfer options
Strategic Takeaways for Institutions
- Consider marketing the acceptance of specific transfer formats (e.g. CLEP, ACE)
- Embrace credit aggregation models for SCNC (Some College, No Degree) populations
- Offer flexible packaging, scheduling, and pricing of degree paths
- Ensure courses meeting common requirements are consistently available or substitutable
Conclusion
- Summary of system complexity
- Opportunities for innovation
- Encouragement for students to be proactive and informed
- Call for institutions to embrace transparency, fairness, and flexibility
Appendicies
- Glossary of Terms
- Key Transfer Credit REsources
- ACE National Guide
- Modern States CLEP Pathways
- Transferology
- Sample Course Equivalency Chart
- Template for Building Articulation Agreements