Performance of Transfers from MGCCC to
USM-Hattiesburg,
Fall 2003
For the first time in several years, MGCCC received a transfer follow-up report from the University of Southern Mississippi. This report compares the performance of MGCCC transfers, other community/junior college (CJC) transfers, and USM “native” students[1] on the basis of current (fall 2003) and cumulative grade point average (GPA). Students who transferred to USM from other institutions are not included in the report. The fall 2003 report represents the first time that USM has provided follow-up data disaggregated by MGCCC campus.
Enrollment by College at USM
The USM follow-up report provided upper and lower division enrollments for students enrolled in each of the five colleges at USM. Table 1 summarizes the enrollment data. Because the USM report includes data for “all community college transfers,” data shown in Table 1 were calculated to arithmetically exclude MGCCC students from the “all community college” student data, creating an “other CJC transfer” category. Detailed data are provided in Appendix A.
Table 1. Enrollments by College and Transfer Category at USM
|
|
MGCCC Transfers |
Other CJC Transfers |
USM Native Students |
Total |
||||
|
number |
pct |
number |
pct |
number |
pct |
number |
pct |
|
|
Arts &
Letters |
245 |
17% |
753 |
18% |
1,001 |
25% |
1,999 |
21% |
|
Business
& Economic Dev. |
310 |
21% |
750 |
18% |
689 |
17% |
1,749 |
18% |
|
Science
& Technology |
307 |
21% |
794 |
19% |
1,025 |
26% |
2,126 |
22% |
|
Health |
207 |
14% |
1,024 |
25% |
773 |
20% |
2,004 |
21% |
|
Education &
Psychology |
400 |
27% |
753 |
18% |
460 |
12% |
1,613 |
17% |
|
Total |
1,469 |
100% |
4,074 |
100% |
3,948 |
100% |
9,491 |
100% |
The largest number (400 students) of MGCCC transfers, both lower- and upper-division, was enrolled in the USM College of Education and Psychology. This represents 27% of all MGCCC transfers at USM. The next-largest number (310 students) was enrolled in the College of Business and Economic Development, closely followed by 307 students enrolled in the College of Science and Technology. Both colleges represent 21% of all MGCCC transfers at USM. The lowest number of MGCCC transfers (207 students) was enrolled in the College of Health, representing 14% of all MGCCC transfers at USM.
Interestingly, the distribution of transfers from other community and junior colleges (MGCCC excluded) among the five colleges at USM was quite different. Of transfers from other CJCs, the largest number (1,024 or 25% of the group) was enrolled in the College of Health. The second-largest number (794) was enrolled in the College of Science and Technology, representing 19% of the group. The colleges of Arts and Letters, Education and Psychology, and Business and Economic Development enrolled very similar numbers of transfers from other CJCs (753, 753, and 750 students respectively), with each of these colleges accounting for 18% of transfers from other CJCs.
The enrollment distribution of USM native students across the five colleges differed from both of the above patterns. The largest number of native students (1,025 students or 26% of the group) were enrolled in the College of Science and Technology, followed by 1,001 students (25% of the group) enrolled in the College of Arts and Letters. The College of Health enrolled 773 native students (20% of the group), while the College of Business and Economic Development enrolled 689 native students (17% of the group) and the College of Education and Psychology enrolled 460 native students (12% of the group).
A one-way Chi Square test was
performed to test the hypothesis that enrollment in the USM colleges was
independent of whether the student transferred from MGCCC or from another CJC
or if the student had begun as a freshman at USM. This test indicated that
enrollment by college was dependent on the student’s transfer status (Χ2 = 339.90, df = 8, p < 0.05). Thus, MGCCC transfers are more likely
to enroll in the College of Education and Psychology, while transfers from
other CJCs are more likely to enroll in the College of Health and USM native
students are more likely to enroll in the College of Arts and Letters.
Current Term and
Cumulative Grade Point Averages of Transfers at USM
Current term (fall 2003) grade point averages for MGCCC transfers, transfers from other CJCs, and USM native students are summarized in Table 2. Total GPA averages were calculated by weighting each individual college’s average GPA by enrollments in the college, computing the total, and dividing by the total enrollment. GPA averages for the “other CJC” category were calculated by arithmetically excluding MGCCC transfers from the category. GPAs shown in Table 2 for individual colleges for MGCCC transfers and USM native students were not calculated but are those provided by USM.
Table 2. Current Term GPAs by College and Transfer Category
|
|
MGCCC Transfers |
Other CJC Transfers |
USM Native Students |
|||
|
Lower |
Upper |
Lower |
Upper |
Lower |
Upper |
|
|
Arts &
Letters |
2.46 |
2.91 |
2.47 |
2.67 |
2.59 |
2.93 |
|
Business
& Economic Dev. |
2.60 |
2.82 |
2.28 |
2.58 |
2.43 |
2.70 |
|
Science
& Technology |
2.45 |
2.85 |
2.31 |
2.54 |
2.32 |
2.64 |
|
Health |
2.46 |
2.97 |
2.43 |
3.03 |
2.41 |
2.91 |
|
Education
& Psychology |
2.64 |
3.29 |
2.22 |
2.99 |
2.47 |
3.01 |
|
Total |
2.52 |
3.00 |
2.36 |
2.78 |
2.44 |
2.82 |
These data show that MGCCC transfers had higher mean current term GPAs than native students at both lower- and upper-division levels in all colleges at USM except Arts and Letters.
Table 3 shows average cumulative GPAs for the three groups. Mean GPAs for “other CJC transfers” as well as means for the group totals were calculated as described above. These data show that MGCCC transfers had higher cumulative GPAs than native students at both lower- and upper-division levels in all colleges at USM except Arts and Letters, and at the lower-division in the USM College of Health.
Table 3. Cumulative GPAs by College and Transfer Category
|
|
MGCCC Transfers |
Other CJC Transfers |
USM Native Students |
|||
|
Lower |
Upper |
Lower |
Upper |
Lower |
Upper |
|
|
Arts &
Letters |
2.60 |
2.97 |
2.48 |
2.69 |
2.67 |
3.00 |
|
Business
& Economic Dev. |
2.58 |
2.80 |
2.30 |
2.58 |
2.48 |
2.73 |
|
Science
& Technology |
2.51 |
2.94 |
2.32 |
2.59 |
2.40 |
2.77 |
|
Health |
2.50 |
2.95 |
2.41 |
2.97 |
2.50 |
2.78 |
|
Education
& Psychology |
2.67 |
3.27 |
2.29 |
2.90 |
2.48 |
2.95 |
|
Total |
2.57 |
3.01 |
2.37 |
2.77 |
2.51 |
2.85 |
While the nature of the data provided in the USM report precludes a statistical comparison of average GPAs between groups, it is safe to state that as a group MGCCC transfers to USM performed as well as or better than their “native” counterparts.
Current and
Cumulative Grade Point Average Distributions
Current and cumulative GPA distributions for transfers from each MGCCC campus and college totals, as well as for all CJC transfers, the calculated “other CJC transfer” group, and USM native students are shown in Appendix B. The percent distributions shown in Appendix B were recalculated: the percentages provided in the USM report used total enrollment rather than the actual number of GPAs tallied in the distribution table. The percentages in Appendix B were calculated based on the number of GPAs reported in each group.[2]
These distributions show that of transfers from MGCCC (total group), 15.7% had 4.0 GPAs for fall 2003 (current term), compared with 10.4% of the “other CJC” group and 8.2% of the native student group. Similarly, 7.9% of all MGCCC transfers had 4.0 cumulative GPAs, compared with 3.8% of the “other CJC” group and 3.4% of the native student group.
Figure 1 shows the current term GPA distributions for the three groups, MGCCC total transfers, other CJC transfers, and USM native students. Figure 2 shows the cumulative GPA distribution for the three groups.
These graphs clearly show that for both current term and cumulative GPAs, a higher proportion of MGCCC transfers had GPAs of 3.0 or higher, and a lower proportion of MGCCC transfers had GPAs below 3.0. To test the relationship between GPA and group, two-way Chi Square tests were used. Because over 20% of the GPA categories in the original USM report had expected frequencies of less than five students, the GPA distribution was collapsed from 0.25 intervals to 0.50 intervals. The collapsed GPA distributions are shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4. Current Term GPA Distributions
|
|
MGCCC Transfers |
Other CJC Transfers |
USM Native Students |
|||
|
num |
pct |
num |
pct |
num |
pct |
|
|
3.50-4.00 |
485 |
33.9% |
1,044 |
26.3% |
848 |
22.4% |
|
3.00-3.49 |
385 |
26.9% |
857 |
21.6% |
827 |
21.8% |
|
2.50-2.99 |
228 |
15.9% |
768 |
19.3% |
691 |
18.3% |
|
2.00-2.49 |
171 |
12.0% |
588 |
14.8% |
660 |
17.4% |
|
1.50-1.99 |
83 |
5.8% |
347 |
8.7% |
339 |
9.0% |
|
1.00-1.49 |
42 |
2.9% |
230 |
5.8% |
247 |
6.5% |
|
0.50-0.99 |
31 |
2.2% |
110 |
2.8% |
133 |
3.5% |
|
0.00-0.50 |
5 |
0.3% |
25 |
0.6% |
41 |
<|