Performance of Transfers from MGCCC to USM-Hattiesburg,

Fall 2004

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 2004) and cumulative grade point average (GPA) as reported in the USM “Mississippi Community College Transfer Report – Fall 2004.” Students who transferred to USM from other institutions are not included in the report. The fall 2004 report represents the second 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	326	18%	898	19%	1,372	34%	2,596	25%
Business	424	24%	863	18%	642	16%	1,929	18%
Science & Technology	354	20%	924	20%	918	23%	2,196	21%
Health	275	15%	1,177	25%	743	18%	2,195	21%
Education & Psychology	423	23%	819	17%	389	10%	1,631	15%
Total	1,802	100%	4,681	100%	4,064	100%	10,547	100%

The largest number (424 students) of MGCCC transfers, both lower- and upper-division, was enrolled in the USM College of Business. This represents 24% of all MGCCC transfers at USM. The next-largest number (423 students or 23% of MGCCC transfers) was enrolled in the College of Education and Psychology, followed by 354 students (20%) enrolled in the College of Science and Technology. The lowest number of MGCCC transfers (275 students) was enrolled in the College of Health, representing 15% 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 different. Of transfers from other CJCs, the largest number (1,177 or 25% of the group) was enrolled in the College of Health. The second-largest number (924) was enrolled in the College of Science and Technology, representing 20% of the group. The colleges of Arts and Letters, Business, and Education and Psychology enrolled 19%, 18%, and 17% of other CJC transfers, respectively.

The enrollment distribution of USM native students across the five colleges differed from both of the above patterns. The largest number of native students (1,372 students or 34% of the group) were enrolled in the College of Arts and Letters, followed by 918 students (23% of the group) enrolled in the College of Science and Technology. The College of Health enrolled 743 native students (18% of the group), while the College of Business and Economic Development enrolled 642 native students (16% of the group) and the College of Education and Psychology enrolled 389 native students (10% 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 = 536.06, df = 8, p < 0.05). Thus, the differences in the distribution of students from the three groups were significant. While transfers from MGCCC are more likely to enroll in Business or Education and Psychology, those from other community colleges are more likely to enroll in Health, and native students are more likely to enroll in Arts and Letters.

Current Term and Cumulative Grade Point Averages of Transfers at USM

Current term (fall 2004) 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	2.36	2.79	2.23	2.65	2.59	2.89
Business	2.14	2.66	2.34	2.43	2.22	2.55
Science & Technology	2.57	2.83	2.22	2.57	2.24	2.61
Health	2.54	2.96	2.43	2.84	2.35	2.70
Education & Psychology	2.59	3.15	2.20	2.87	2.53	2.81
Total	2.42	2.88	2.29	2.68	2.41	2.72

These data show that MGCCC transfers had higher mean current term GPAs than native students at lower-division level in the colleges of Science and Technology, Health, and Education and Psychology, and at the upper-division level in the colleges of Business, Science and Technology, Health, and Education and Psychology. Moreover, MGCCC transfers had a higher total group current term GPAs than native students at both lower- and upper-division levels.

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 the lower- and upper-division levels in the colleges of Business, Science and Technology, Health, and Education and Psychology.

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	2.37	2.80	2.28	2.62	2.65	2.98
Business	2.32	2.66	2.35	2.49	2.30	2.70
Science & Technology	2.56	2.85	2.22	2.57	2.33	2.79
Health	2.60	2.96	2.48	2.84	2.41	2.73
Education & Psychology	2.65	3.14	2.27	2.85	2.58	2.87
Total	2.48	2.89	2.33	2.68	2.48	2.83

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), 13.2% had 4.0 GPAs for fall 2004 (current term), compared with 9.3% of the “other CJC” group and 7.5% of the native student group. Similarly, 5.9% of all MGCCC transfers had 4.0 cumulative GPAs, compared with 3.2% of the “other CJC” group and 3.6% 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. For purposes of these tests, 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	547	31.3%	1,103	23.9%	836	21.5%
3.00-3.49	443	25.4%	980	21.3%	826	21.2%
2.50-2.99	305	17.5%	885	19.2%	698	17.9%
2.00-2.49	227	13.0%	745	16.2%	645	16.6%
1.50-1.99	103	5.9%	411	8.9%	387	9.9%
1.00-1.49	63	3.6%	282	6.1%	292	7.5%
0.50-0.99