Close
Field Notes today i learned (til)

Navigating Transition in Higher Education – An Analysis of Transfer Students at Tech

November 24, 2024

While often an overlooked and unrepresented population consisting of 1,252,418 students, or roughly 15% of the undergraduate student population at public 4-year institutions, transfer students now more than ever are now making up a larger percentage of student bodies across the country’s 4-year colleges and universities. Created to better help education leaders address policy centered around the enrollment impacts that transfer students can have on an educational institution, research published by the National Student Clearinghouse addresses enrollment demographic characteristics and transfer behaviors of over 11 million undergraduate transfer students from fall 2023 over a fixed panel of institutions that have committed to providing data integral to understanding the transfer rates. On top of that, the report published in February of 2024 also provides insight into why students choose to transfer.

Up about 3% from years prior, overall undergraduate enrollment of transfer students saw a 5.4% increase, roughly a jump of 65,000 students, in 2023, with around 70% of these students transferring through Transfer Pathway Programs. Transfer Pathway Programs, such as the Georgia Tech Fine Arts & Sciences Transfer Pathway Program, are great ways for students who were not offered admittance to a college or university to still have a chance to later attend.

Georgia Tech specifically admitted 1,440 transfer students out of the 6,052 total transfer applicants for the 2024 academic year. This transfer class profile pulled from a diverse background of students from 240 total colleges across 43 different states; with around 1125 of these students transferring into Georgia Tech through a transfer pathway program. The Institute in total enrolls over 20,000 undergraduate students in total, however, the school transfer admittance rate is still competitive to that of its standard admittance rate, of which 33% of in-state applicants are admitted and 10% of the institute’s out-of-state applicants are admitted in 2024. Therefore, an admittance of 33% for in-state transfer students and admitting 20% of its out-of-state transfer applicants in 2024 roughly mirrors first-year admittance for the school in general, and even slightly favors out-of-state students.

Transferring in general also provides many benefits past having an educational background that is diverse from your peers. Using even more stats from Georgia Tech’s 2024 transfer class, the average transfer student transferred with over 40 credit hours of coursework already completed, which is roughly equal to 3 semester’s worth of course-work. Not only does this put transfer students significantly ahead of the curve regarding the overall completion of their degree, but it also possibly saves students thousands of dollars in tuition if the student transferred from a school that costs less, and with more than 40% of students in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree beginning their undergraduate education at a 2-year school or community college, the likely-hood of this being the case is very high (Zuckerman & Lo,  2021). A 2024 report from the Education Data Initiative indicates that the average cost of tuition is up 4.11% year-over-year; with the average tuition of an in-state student at a public 4-year institution being roughly $10,000, the average tuition of an out-of-state student at a public 4-year institution being more than $25,000, and the average cost of tuition for a student at a 2-year institution being less than $5,000 a semester. Therefore, an undergraduate student at a 2-year institution pays roughly 50-80% less than their counterpart at a public 4-year institution. All of this is to say that there is a high likelihood that those 3 semester’s worth of credit hours for an in-state student potentially costs $15,000 less for an in-state transfer student, and $60,000 for an out-of-state transfer student, both of which are no small sum.

So with roughly 15% of the undergraduate student population at public 4-year institutions such as Georgia Tech now consisting of transfer students, now more than ever transfer students, an overlooked and unrepresented population of students, are on the rise. 

 

References

Georgia Institute of Technology . (n.d.). 2024 transfer class profile – undergraduate admission. 2024 TRANSFER CLASS PROFILE. https://admission.gatech.edu/images/pdf/2024TransferProfile.pdf

Georgia Institute of Technology. (n.d.). Student demographics. Student Demographics |Institutional Research & Planning. https://irp.gatech.edu/disclosures/student-demographics

Hanson, M., & Checked, F. (2024, May 28). Average cost of college [2024]: Yearly tuition + expenses. Average Cost of College & Tuition. https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

National Student Clearinghouse. (n.d.). Transfer and progress. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. https://nscresearchcenter.org/transfer-and-progress/

Zuckerman, A. L., & Lo, S. M. (2021, August 23). Transfer student experiences and identity navigation in STEM: Overlapping figured worlds of success. Transfer Student Experiences and Identity Navigation in STEM: Overlapping Figured Worlds of Success. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.20-06-0121 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Science During the Age of Enlightenment
today i learned (til)
1984 in 2020
today i learned (til)
Tactile Trivia: A Innovative Activity to Engage People with the Sciences
Tattoo set up table.
Articles, today i learned (til)
How Ink Becomes Art

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.