Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics and Predictors of Transfer and Withdrawal Among Students Who Begin College at Bachelor’s Granting Institutions

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study models reverse transfer, lateral transfer, and college withdrawal behavior for a national sample of students who began college at bachelor’s granting institutions. Descriptive data illustrate statistical differences in the characteristics, habitus, early college experiences and supports, and institutional characteristics of students who do not transfer when compared to students who reverse transfer, laterally transfer, or drop out before the third year of college. Additionally, multi-level regression findings advance theoretical understanding of the ways in which predictors of reverse transfer, lateral transfer, and withdrawal from bachelor’s granting institutions are both similar and different. Implications for research, theory, and practice are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We intentionally use the language “bachelor’s granting” in place of “4 year” throughout this paper in recognition that the majority of students do not graduate in 4-years due to factors outside students’ control, including a need to work and/or attend part-time, enrolling in developmental courses, and transfer credit loss.

  2. All data and sample sizes are rounded to the nearest 10 per IES guidelines.

References

  • Alfonso, M., Bailey, T. R., & Scott, M. (2005). The educational outcomes of occupational sub-baccalaureate students: Evidence from the 1990s. Economics of Education Review, 24, 197–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R., Li, J., & Lovenheim, M. F. (2014). Heterogeneous paths through college: Detailed patterns and relationships with graduation and earnings. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19935

  • Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aulck, L., & West, J. (2017). Attrition and performance of community college transfers. PLoS ONE, 12(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Avie, M., Kennedy, M., Unson, C., Li, J., Riccardi, R. L., & Mugno, R. (2012). First-year experience: A comparison study. Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 2(2), 143–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R. (2012). Institutional characteristics and college student dropout risks: A multilevel event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 53, 487–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1960). The “cooling-out” function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 65(6), 569–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, G. (2013). The influence of co-enrollment on the success of traditional age community college students. Teachers College Record, 115(10), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, G. (2017). Student Flow and Success at 2- and 4-Year Broadly Accessible Institutions. In X. Wang (Ed.) Studying transfer in higher education: New approaches to enduring and emerging topics (pp. 103–113). Issue 170 of New Directions for Institutional Research. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

  • Crisp, G., & Delgado, C. (2014). The impact of developmental education on community college persistence and vertical transfer. Community College Review, 42(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113516488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, G., & Núñez, A. (2014). Modeling transfer among minority and non-minority community college students who intend to transfer and earn a 4-year degree. The Review of Higher Education, 37(3), 291–320. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2014.0017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, G., Potter, C. Robertson, R., & Carales, V. (2020). Documenting early racial transfer gaps: Empirical and practical implications for transfer partnerships. In D. Bragg, T. Ling, E. Meza, & L. Wetzstein (Eds.), New directions for community colleges: Transfer partnerships for improved equity and outcomes (pp 55–65). Issue 192 of New Directions for Community College. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

  • Crosta, P. M. (2014). Intensity and attachment: How the chaotic enrollment patterns of community college students relate to educational outcomes. Community College Review, 42(2), 118–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113518233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing college: Assessing graduation rates at four-year institutions. Retrieved from https://heri.ucla.edu/DARCU/CompletingCollege2011.pdf

  • Deil-Amen, R., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2003). The social prerequisites of success: Can college structure reduce the need for social know-how? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586(1), 120–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, K. J., & Kienzl, G. S. (2006). It’s not enough to get through the open door: Inequalities by social background in transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges. Teachers College Record, 108(3), 452–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagan, M. K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2009). Effects of exposure to part-time faculty on community college transfer. Research in Higher Education, 50, 168–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504448.pdf

  • Erickson, S. L., & Stone, M. F. (2012). First year experience course: Insights from the first two years. American Journal of Business Education, 5(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v5i2.6816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fink, J. E., & Hummel, M. L. (2015). With educational benefits for all: Campus inclusion through learning communities designed for underserved student populations. New Directions for Student Services, 149, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldrick-Rab, S. (2006). Following their every move: An investigation of social-class differences in college pathways. Sociology of Education, 79, 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldrick-Rab, S., & Pfeffer, F. T. (2009). Beyond access: Explaining socioeconomic differences in college transfer. Sociology of Education, 82(2), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck R. H., Thomas S., & Tabata L. (2013). Multilevel Modeling of Categorical Outcomes Using IBM SPSS.[VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781136672347/

  • Hill, J., Smith, N., Wilson, D. & Wine, J. (2016). 2012/14 Beginning postsecondary students longitudinal study (BPS: 12/14): Data file documentation (NCES 2016–062). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016062.pdf

  • Hillman, N., Lum, T., & Hossler, D. (2008). Understanding Indiana’s reverse transfer students: A case study in institutional research. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701707797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 2, 207–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossler, D., Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Ziskin, M., Chen, J., Zerquera, D., & Torres, V. (2012). Transfer & mobility: A national view of pre-degree student movement in postsecondary institutions. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, S. (2011). Reconsidering the relationship between student engagement and persistence in college. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., Cui, J., Smith, M., Bullock Mann, F., Barmer, A., & Dilig, R. (2020). The condition of education 2020 (NCES 2020-144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020144

  • Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishitani, T. T., & Flood, L. D. (2018). Student transfer-out behavior at four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 59, 825–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9489-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, I. Y., & Muse, W. B. (2012). Student swirl at a single institution: The role of timing and student characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 53, 152–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalogrides, D., & Grodsky, E. (2011). Something to fall back on: Community colleges as a safety net. Social Forces, 89(3), 853–877. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2011.0019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karon, J., Ward, J. D., Hill, C. B., & Kurzweil, M. (2020). Solving stranded credits: Assessing the scope and effects of transcript withholding on students, states, and institutions. Retrieved from https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/solving-stranded-credits/

  • Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, D. (2010). They need help: Transfer students from four-year to four-year institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 33(2), 207–238. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood Reynolds, C. (2012). Where to attend? Estimating the effects of beginning college at a two-year institution. Economics of Education Review, 31, 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez Turley, R. N. (2009). College proximity: Mapping access to opportunity. Sociology of Education, 82(2), 126–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly, C. A., & Wells, R. S. (2015). Reporting the use of multiple imputation for missing data in higher education research. Research in Higher Education, 56, 397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M. K., & Hearn, J. C. (2013). The resurgent interest in performance-based funding for higher education. Academe, 99(6). Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/resurgent-interest-performance-based-funding-higher-education#.WnEAPLBG1pg

  • Milem, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 387–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millard, M. (2014). Students on the move: How states are responding to increasing mobility among postsecondary students. Retrieved from: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/12/29/11229.pdf

  • Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., Kewal Ramani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016 (NCES 2016-007). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016007.pdf

  • Nora, A., Barlow, L. & Crisp, G. (2006). An assessment of Hispanic students in four-year institutions of higher education. In J. Castellanos, A. M. Gloria, and M. Kamimura (Eds.) The Latina/o Pathway to the Ph.D. (pp. 55–78). Stylus Publishing, LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Núñez, A., & Crisp, G. (2012). Ethnic diversity and Latino/a college access: A comparison of Mexican American and Puerto Rican beginning college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(2), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perna, L. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 99–157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4512-3#about

  • Porchea, S. F., Allen, J., Robbins, S., & Phelps, R. P. (2010). Predictors of long-term enrollment and degree outcomes for community college students: Integrating academic, psychosocial, socio-demographic, and situational factors. Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 750–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, A. W., & Horn, L. (2013). Web tables: An overview of classes taken and credits earned by beginning postsecondary students (NCES 2013-131REV). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013151rev.pdf

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Yang, M., & Yosef, M. (2000). Maximum likelihood for generalized linear models with nested random effects via high-order, multivariate Laplace approximation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 9(1), 141–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Towards a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Wakhungu, P. K., Yuan, X., & Harrell, A. (2015, July). Transfer and mobility: A national view of student movement in postsecondary institutions, Fall 2008 cohort. Retrieved from https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport9/

  • Snyder, R. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2019). Digest of education statistics 2017 (NCES 2018-070). Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics website: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018070.pdf

  • Stewart, S., Lim, D. H., & Kim, J. (2015). Factors influencing college persistence for first-time students. Journal of Developmental Education, 38(3), 12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • St. John, E. P., Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Asker, E. H. (2000). Economic influences on persistence reconsidered: How can finance research inform the reconceptualization of persistence models. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle. Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sujitparapitaya, S. (2006). Considering student mobility in retention outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, 131, 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. L., & Jain, D. (2017). The multiple dimensions of transfer: Examining the transfer function in American higher education. Community College Review, 45(4), 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. (2018). Indicators of higher education equity in the United States: 2018 Historical Trends Report. The Pell Institute and Penn Ahead. http://pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-Indicators_of_Higher_Education_Equity_in_the_US_2018_Historical_Trend_Report.pdf

  • Titus, M. A. (2004). An examination of the influence of institutional context on student persistence at 4-year colleges and universities: A multilevel approach. Research in Higher Education, 45(7), 673–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). The Condition of Education 2020 (NCES 2020-144). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2017). Higher education: Students need more information to help reduce challenges in transferring college credits. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-17-574

  • Wang, X., Chuang, Y., & McCready, B. (2017). February). The effect of earning an associate degree on community college transfer students’ performance and success at four-year institutions. Teachers College Record, 119, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, R. M. (2012). Applied Statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd edn.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. L., & Palmer, R. T. (2013). The likelihood of transfer for Black males in community colleges: Examining the effects of engagement using multilevel, multinomial modeling. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(3), 272–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y. J. (2015). Attention to retention: Exploring and addressing the needs of college students in STEM majors. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Oregon State University, 200 SW 15th Street, Corvallis, OR, 97331-3502, USA

    Gloria Crisp

  2. Academic Affairs, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA, USA

    Charlie Potter

  3. School of Teacher Education and Leadership, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Amanda Taggart

Authors
  1. Gloria Crisp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlie Potter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanda Taggart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gloria Crisp.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Description of variables and measures

Construct/variable

Description and coding

Socio-demographic characteristics

 Race/ethnicity

RACE = student's race/ethnicity with Latinx origin as a separate category (0 = White*, 1 = African American, 2 = Latinx, 3 = Asian American, 4 = American Indian, Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, 5 = biracial)

 Socioeconomic status (SES)

INCGRP = income group in 2012 (0 = high*, 1 = high middle, 2 = low middle, 3 = low)

 Gender

GENDER = student's gender; Binary variable coded 0 as male*, 1 as female

 Age

AGE = student's age as of 12/31/2011 (range 18–23, M = 18.6)

 First generation status

FRSTCOL = indicates whether the respondent was first in immediate family to attend college (binary variable coded 0 for continuing-generation college students* and 1 when neither parent attended college)

 Parent education level

PAREDUC = highest level of education achieved by either parent of the student as of 2011–2012 (0 = graduate school*, 1 = completed bachelor’s degree, 2 = some college or technical training, 3 = completed high school, 4 = less than high school)

Pre-college experiences

 High school GPA

HSGPA = indicates the student's high school grade point average (GPA) as of the standardized test date; categorical variable representing a range of high

school GPA (3.5 to 4.0* = 0, 3.0 to 3.4 = 1, 2.5 to 2.9 = 2, 2.0 to 2.4 = 3, less than 2.0 = 4)

 Rigorous math courses

HCMATHHI = highest level of math completed or planned to take; 3-category variable indicating the highest mathematics course taken during high school (0 = pre-calculus or calculus*, 1 = trigonometry, 2 = Algebra II, 3 = less than Algebra II)

Financial and support factors

 Work commitments

HRSWK12 = average hours the respondent worked per week in all paid jobs; 2-category variable representing the average number of hours worked during the first year of college (0 = did not work*, 1 = 20 h or less working, 2 = worked more than 20 hr per week)

 Dependency status

DEPEND = dependency status in 2011–2012; Binary variable coded 0 when student was classified as a dependent* and 1 when student was classified as

independent in 2011–2012

 Net price

EFFORT20 = Net price after grants and loans as percent of income 2011–2012 (range 0 to 100%, M = 30.4, SD = 30.9)

 Distance from home

Distance of first institution from student’s home (in miles) in 2011–2012 (M = 214, SD = 455)

 Financial support

FAMHELP = student's family or friends helped pay for education and living expenses in 2011–2012 (0 = yes*, 1 = no)

 Social support

FHSUPP = friends from home 2011–2012 were supportive of postsecondary education (Likert scale item treated as a continuous variable 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree) (range 1 to 5, M = 4.4)

Motivation

 

 Degree expectations

HIGHLVEX = highest level of education that the student ever expects to complete in 2011–2012; categorical variable representing student’s highest degree expectation in 2011–2012 (0 = expected to earn a doctoral or professional degree*, 1 = expected to earn a post BA or master’s degree, 2 = bachelor’s degree)

 Self-efficacy

CURCONF = respondent's confidence in academic success in 2012 (Likert scale item treated as a continuous variable 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree) (range 1 to 5, M = 4.3)

Early college experiences and institutional supports

 Support services

USEACAD = whether the respondent used academic advising in 2011–2012 (0 = yes*, 1 = no)

USEACSP = whether the respondent used academic services in 2011–2012 (0 = yes*, 1 = no)

USECPP = whether the respondent used career services in 2011–2012 (0 = yes*, 1 = no)

 Engagement

SOCSATIS = satisfaction with social experience at first institution in 2012 (Likert scale item treated as a continuous variable 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree) (range 1 to 5, M = 3.9)

Sense of belonging

BELONG = degree to which student felt part of the institution in 2012 2012 (Likert scale item treated as a continuous variable 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree) (range 1 to 5, M = 4.1)

 Enrollment intensity

ENINPT3Y = pattern of enrollment intensity for all months enrolled between July 2011 and June 2014 (0 = always full-time*, 1 = mixed enrollment, 2 = always part-time)

 In-state attendance

SAMESTAT = attend institution in state of legal residence in 2011–2012 (0 = in-state student*, 1 = international or out of state student)

 Developmental courses

REMETOOK = remedial courses took in 2011–2012; (0 = did not enroll in remedial/developmental coursework in 2011–2012* or 1 = enrolled in one or more developmental courses)

 First-year GPA

GPA = student's cumulative grade point average in 2011–2012 (range 0 to 4.00, M = 2.90)

 Co-enrollment

ENCOEN3Y = whether the respondent ever simultaneously enrolled at more than one institution for at least one month through June 2014 (0 = yes*, 1 = no)

Institutional context and characteristics

 Control

FCONTROL = indicates the control of first institution respondent attended in 2011–2012 (1 = public*, 2 = private not-for-profit, 3 = private for-profit)

 Student cost

BUDGETAJ = price of attendance or total student budget (attendance adjusted) at the first institution in 2011–2012 (range = 2729 to 105,550, M = 31,067)

 Urbanicity

LOCALE = degree of urbanization in which the first institution is located (1 = city*, 2 = suburb, 3 = town, 4 = rural)

 % Students of color

Composite variable created from an average of PCTENRBK (percent of student body who identify as Black) and PCTENRHS (percent who identify as Latinx) in 2011–2012

 Enrollment size

Enrollment size of first institution in fall 2011–2012 (M = 16,090, SD = 35,396)

 Institutional selectivity

SELECTV2 = indicates the level of selectivity of the first institution attended in 2011–2012 (1 = very selective*, 2 = moderately selective, 3 = minimally selective, 4 = open admission

Outcome variables

 Reverse transferred

Dichotomous outcome with the following categories: (0) did not transfer and still enrolled until the third year of college*, (1) reverse transferred to a community college or technical college (used IPEDS variables TFTYPE3Y and PROUTF3Y)

 Lateral transferred

Dichotomous outcome with the following categories: (0) did not transfer and still enrolled until the third year of college*, (1) laterally transferred to another bachelor’s granting institution (used IPEDS variables TFTYPE3Y and PROUTF3Y)

 Withdrawl from college

Dichotomous outcome with the following categories: (0) did not transfer and still enrolled until the third year of college*, (1) withdrew from college (used IPEDS variables TFTYPE3Y and PROUTF3Y)

  1. *Reference category
  2. **Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011–2012 beginning postsecondary students longitudinal study, First Follow-up (BPS:12/14)
  3. ***References: Astin (1999), Aulck and West (2017), Goldrick-Rab (2006), Goldrick-Rab and Pfeffer (2009), Hillman et al. (2008), Hurtado and Carter (1997), Ishitani (2006), Nora et al. (2006; Núñez & Crisp, 2012), Perna (2006), Sujitparapitaya (2006), Tinto (1993)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crisp, G., Potter, C. & Taggart, A. Characteristics and Predictors of Transfer and Withdrawal Among Students Who Begin College at Bachelor’s Granting Institutions. Res High Educ 63, 481–513 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09657-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09657-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation