This study was
conducted by the Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges at the direction of the Intersegmental
Committee of Academic Senates (ICAS). The project
was funded through an Intersegmental Joint Faculty
Project (IJFP) grant provided by the California
Community Colleges.
IGETC
Evaluation Project Advisory Committee California
Community Colleges
Janis Perry, Santiago Canyon College (Project
Director)
Miki Mikolajczak, Saddleback College
Linda Rosa Corazon, Skyline College
Peter Morrison, Irvine Valley College (Researcher)
Jerry Rudmann, Irvine Valley College (Researcher)
California
State University
Ken Nishita, CSU Monterey Bay
Paul Spear, CSU Chico
Nancy Sprotte, CSU Chancellor's Office
University
of California
Allan Stewart Oaten, UC Santa Barbara
Muriel Zimmerman, UC Santa Barbara
Louise Randolph, UC Office of the President
Researchers
JERRY RUDMANN, Professor of Psychology at Irvine
Valley College, has for four years held the position
of Matriculation Director at Irvine Valley College
and has conducted numerous research projects with
an emphasis on student success. Dr. Rudmann holds
a Master's Degree in experimental psychology from
CSU Los Angeles and a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology
from the University of Southern California.
PETER MORRISON,
Professor of English and Humanities at Irvine
Valley College, has served as Director of Planning
and Analysis for the South Orange Community College
District and director of the district's Technology
Initiative. In addition, Professor Morrison has
served several terms as the president of the Irvine
Valley College academic senate. Dr. Morrison holds
a Master's Degree in English from the University
of Sussex and a Ph.D. in criticism from the University
of California at Irvine.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This study was undertaken by the Intersegmental
Committee of Academic Senates (ICAS) to assess
the degree of use, effectiveness, and awareness
of IGETC eight years after its adoption, and to
identify the extent to which community college
transfer students and counseling faculty are satisfied
with the option.
The study was conducted
by means of a web-based survey. One questionnaire
was designed for and distributed to community
college students who transferred to UC or CSU
in the fall of 1997; and another was sent to all
counseling faculty in the California Community
College system. Both questionnaires aimed to evaluate
satisfaction with the IGETC option from a variety
of perspectives.
Responses to the
study reveal that the IGETC pattern of lower-division
general education requirements is both well-known
and preferred among community college transfer
students who used it, and would be so to even
more students with a concerted and recurrent effort
to inform them of this option. Additionally, the
study reveals that students who used IGETC, to
transfer either to UC or CSU, express higher satisfaction
than those students who used other general education
transfer patterns.
BACKGROUND
OF THE STUDY
In 1991, the University of California (UC), the
California State University (CSU), and the California
Community Colleges adopted a common set of course
requirements, which if a student completes at
any community college, will satisfy lower-division
general education requirements for the student
to transfer to any UC or CSU campus with the goal
of completing a Bachelor's Degree. This statewide,
lower-division general education pattern is called
the "Intersegmental General Education Transfer
Curriculum." It is commonly referred to by its
acronym: IGETC.
The IGETC pattern
did not, and was not intended to, replace other
general education patterns in use for students
transferring to UC and CSU from the California
community colleges–most notably the CSU General
Education Certification List, shared by all CSU
campuses and the campus-specific general education
requirements of each UC campus. The initial intent
that the IGETC option would completely fulfill
lower-division general education requirements
for all community college transfer students to
any UC or CSU campus was not realized, since the
two university systems were unable to agree to
a single common transfer pattern. Rather the IGETC
option offers students transferring from community
colleges an additional and potentially more flexible
lower-division general education option.
Many community
college students who plan to transfer to four-year
institutions begin postsecondary study uncertain
of their eventual majors, to which system or campus
they will transfer, and of which four-year colleges
and universities offer programs in their field.
In addition, specific UC and CSU campuses cannot
guarantee every community college transfer student
admission to every upper-division program or even
admission to the campus of their first choice.
The IGETC option provided community college students
and guidance professionals a means of ensuring
that voluntary or involuntary changes to a student's
academic plans would minimize a loss of credit
for lower-division general education classes previously
completed. The IGETC option, adopted in 1991,
failed to achieve the "single general education
pattern for transfer students" for which it was
originally envisioned. But those from all three
postsecondary systems involved in its planning,
development, and approval believed that IGETC
would be an intelligent choice for general education
options among California community college transfer
students, once the option was understood by students
and counseling faculty.
The purpose of
this study, undertaken by the Academic Senate
for California Community Colleges on behalf of
the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates
(ICAS), is to assess the degree of use, effectiveness,
and awareness of IGETC eight years after its adoption
and to identify the extent to which community
college transfer students (from the fall of 1997)
and counseling faculty are satisfied with the
option.
SCOPE,
FOCUS, AND METHOD
The study was conducted by means of two questionnaires
(see Appendix A), one distributed to upper division
students at UC or CSU who had transferred from
a community college, and a second distributed
to counseling faculty in the California Community
College System. Each survey was aimed at its respective
audience in an effort to evaluate satisfaction
with the IGETC option from a variety of perspectives.
The surveys were drafted, evaluated, and approved
by an intersegmental advisory committee responsible
for identifying the data to be collected. Once
approved, each survey was posted on a website.
Participants were then notified by letter or electronic
mail of the website, provided with passwords,
and invited to complete and submit the online
survey. CSU students were also provided with printed
copies of the survey so they could respond by
mail if they did not have easy access to the website
(approximately 600 surveys were submitted in this
form). Qualified student participants were defined
as active UC and CSU students who had transferred
in the fall of 1997 to their university campuses
from a California community college. Qualified
California community college counseling faculty
included all counseling faculty at all of the
community colleges who were invited to participate
by the directors of the transfer centers at each
community college.
RESPONDENTS
The total available student population was approximately
30,700. Of this number, 22,700 were CSU and 8,000
UC students. Two thousand eighty two students
completed and submitted the survey. This student
population included representatives from each
of the 107 community colleges and each of the
UC and CSU campuses. The largest number of the
former community college students were transfers
from De Anza College (92), and the largest number
of the former community college students were
currently attending UCLA (153) and San Jose State
University (233). The mean participation rate
per college was 20 for the California community
colleges, 73 for CSU campuses, and 77 for UC campuses.
Rates of participation relative to cohorts were
recorded for only one UC and two CSU campuses
(one CSU campus was unable to provide student
address labels and so was not included). Of the
community colleges, one-third (35) were represented
by 25 or more students from each of the colleges
while another third were represented by fewer
than 10 students from each. Surveys were submitted
by 332 professional community college counseling
faculty, a population estimated to represent one-third
of the statewide total. Of this number, 76 percent
(258) reported five or more years of experience
advising community college students. A similar
percentage reported that the majority of students
they counseled were transfer students.
VALIDITY
OF POPULATION SAMPLE
Because one important goal of the study was to
encourage participation by all qualified respondents,
and because the proportion of transfer students
relative to the total student population (in college
credit classes) differs significantly across the
107 community colleges in the state, no specific
effort was made in this study to ensure that actual
participants would reflect a statistically valid
(random) sampling of the larger group. However
each qualified respondent was afforded an equal
and unbiased opportunity to participate. That
the distribution of respondents does reflect the
general distribution of transfer students is indicated
by the close alignment between the proportion
of UC and CSU respondents to the survey and the
proportion of transfer students enrolled in each
of the campuses of the four-year systems. In addition,
community colleges with historically and relatively
high transfer rates reliably produced numbers
of respondents greater than would have been expected
by a simple extrapolation from mean statewide
data, as was the reverse for community colleges
with historically and relatively low transfer
rates. Thus the population data reasonably suggest
that the experiences and views of the respondents
(a substantial number of community college transfer
students and counseling faculty from community
colleges across the state) may be taken as typical.
However, a definitive study would require identification
and isolation of a sample population not attempted
in this effort at evaluation.
SUMMARY
OF KEY FINDINGS
Percentage of Community College Transfer Students
Who:
Transferred to UC or CSU having used the IGETC
Option: 58%
Transferred to UC using the IGETC Option: 83%
Transferred to CSU using the IGETC Option: 48%
Responses to the
surveys reveal that the IGETC pattern of lower-division
general education requirements is both well known
and popular among community college transfer students,
and would be even more so with a concerted and
recurrent effort to inform students of this option.
Transfer students tend to perceive the IGETC pattern
as a flexible alternative that maximizes their
options, and not as a pattern uniquely suitable
only for UC students. In addition, students indicate
a high degree of satisfaction with the option–more
so than with any other available option. (See
table below).
However, the lack
of integration of UC and CSU lower-division general
education standards means that, without informed
guidance, students electing the IGETC option may
find that the choice imposes additional obligations
if they decide to transfer to CSU. Depending on
specific circumstances, these obligations may
extend to three additional courses. Community
college counseling faculty are more aware of this
fact than are the students, and counseling faculty
seem increasingly inclined to steer students away
from the IGTEC option as it becomes more probable
that students will transfer to CSU. Although strongly
supportive of the IGETC option, community college
counseling faculty are inclined to believe that
the option could and should be improved and that
students would benefit from a closer alignment
between the IGETC option and the CSU General Education
Certification List. The IGETC option has thus
proven a valuable, successful, and attractive
addition to the transfer options available to
community college students and would be more so
were its initial promise more completely fulfilled.
The IGETC option is well known
and popular among community college transfer students;
nevertheless, many students do not use the option
because they are insufficiently aware of it.
Community college counseling
faculty tend to perceive the IGETC pattern as
a generic UC Equivalent of the CSU Certification
List and not as a lower division general education
option equally viable for UC and CSU students,
and tend to steer students transferring to CSU
away from the IGETC option.
SELECTED
FINDINGS Students
Ninety-seven percent of the student respondents
reported that they met with a community college
counselor at least once during their attendance
at a community college, and 90 percent said that
they followed a specific general education transfer
pattern at the community college. However, 29
percent of the students reported that they had
not followed an educational plan developed with
the assistance of a counselor or faculty advisor
while attending community college. If it is assumed
that students who did develop and follow an educational
plan with the assistance of a counselor also selected
a general education pattern in the process, then
nearly 20 percent of the student respondents selected
a general education pattern while they were community
college students without the benefit of an educational
plan developed in consultation with a counselor.
Lack of information about IGETC resulted in students
not selecting the IGETC pattern. Twenty-eight
percent (581) of the student respondents indicated
that while attending community college they were
unaware that the IGTEC option was available among
general education patterns for transfer students.
This is a surprising number since only 10 percent
of the students (216) reported that they had not
followed a general education pattern. Of the 1,856
students who reported that they followed a defined
general education pattern for transfer students,
two-thirds reported that they followed the IGTEC
option. Of the 860 respondents who either did
not follow any plan or otherwise elected not to
follow the IGETC option, 67 percent reported that
they were unaware of the IGETC option, though
97 percent of all the student respondents, as
noted above, indicated they had met with a counselor
during their community college years.
PERCENTAGE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE
TRANSFER STUDENTS WHO:
Transferred to UC and CSU;
AND Followed a specific general education plan;
BUT Did not develop an educational plan with the
assistance of a community college counselor. 20%
However, among
the 71 percent of students who followed an educational
plan developed with the assistance of a counselor,
75 percent were aware of the IGETC option. Of
the students who did not follow an educational
plan, only two-thirds were aware of the IGETC
option. Although the absence of a student educational
plan did not prevent students from following a
defined transfer pattern, the absence of such
a plan does appear to have reduced student awareness
of the IGETC option as an alternative.
PERCENTAGE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE
TRANSFER STUDENTS WHO:
Followed a defined general education pattern and
elected the IGETC option: 67%
Either did not follow a defined general education
plan
OR Elected a plan other than IGETC
AND Reported that they were unaware of the IGETC
option while attending a community college: 67%
Among students
who chose to follow the IGETC option, satisfaction
was high. Nearly 90 percent of the students who
followed the IGETC option said they believed that
they had chosen the best option for lower-division
general education requirements, a statement with
which 70 percent of those who followed another
pattern concurred. The data strongly suggest that
transfer students at the community college would
make even greater use of the IGETC option if the
colleges ensured that transfer students were made
aware of the option.
72% of the students were aware
of the IGETC Option while they were enrolled at
a community college.
81% of the students who were aware of the IGETC
Option elected to use it.
68% of those students who selected a general education
plan other than IGETC reported they were unaware
of the IGETC Option.
Students who used
the IGETC option reported various reasons for
doing so. Although it is a common belief in some
community college circles that the IGETC option
is most suitable for UC bound students, nearly
half of the CSU student respondents reported that
they had followed the IGETC option. Similarly,
39 percent of all the student respondents who
used the IGETC option, a percentage slightly greater
than for students who knew they were going to
transfer to UC, said they had done so because
they knew they were going to transfer to CSU.
In addition, 90 percent of the students who elected
to use the IGETC option reported that they had
done so to maximize their options or to assure
completion of their lower-division requirements
prior to transfer. The belief that students see
the IGETC option as a "UC pattern" is supported
by data only insofar as CSU transfer students
who followed the IGETC option at a community college
are assumed to have done so because their hopes
of attending UC were not realized. The data suggest
that students aware of the IGETC option do perceive
it as the flexible alternative as designed.
Twenty percent
of the student respondents who chose to follow
the IGETC option said they made the choice because
they were unsure of their transfer plans.
With respect to
how those students became aware of the IGETC option,
58 percent of the respondents who were aware of
IGETC option pointed to contact with a counselor,
either in individual or group contexts. Information
derived from college publications (26 percent),
friends (21 percent), and four-year colleges and
universities (12 percent) constituted the large
majority of the balance. Students reported that
high school counseling faculty or teachers provided
little or no information.
Of the student
respondents who used the IGETC option, 60 percent
reported that they encountered no barriers in
the process, a percentage consistently higher
than that reported by students who used any of
the other patterns or who could not recall the
pattern they used. Of those who did face obstacles
in attempting to complete IGTEC requirements,
16 percent of the students observed that their
community colleges scheduled the classes they
needed only infrequently or at times that conflicted
with their other obligations, while an additional
10 percent said that they were denied enrollment
in required classes because the classes were filled.
Perhaps of more concern, 25 percent of the transfer
students who followed and completed the IGETC
pattern found they had additional lower-division
requirements to meet when they arrived at a UC
or CSU campus. Since this result also reflects
a variety of potential requirements in addition
to those general education requirements defined
in patterns such as the IGETC option (lower-division
major preparation requirements, additional Title
5 and/or individual campus graduation requirements,
and so forth), it is not possible to determine
from the data how completely the IGETC option
satisfied lower-division general education requirements
for those students who used it. However, it may
be inferred that some portion of the lower-division
course requirements not met prior to transfer
were in lower-division general education courses.
Thus, for those
students who were unable to meet lower division
requirements after choosing IGETC, the promise
of the IGETC option as it was initially conceived
was not fulfilled. In fact, if the broadest and
most fundamental purposes of the IGETC option
are to provide a single, common, and obstacle-free
path for community college students to meet all
lower-division general education requirements
for any UC or CSU campus, and if the obstacles
identified above are taken into account, only
35 percent of all student respondents reported
that they had followed the IGETC option and done
so free of obstacles. This result indicates that
much remains to be done to reach the ends of this
option: transfer free of any barriers.
However, to put
this finding in perspective, by the same measures
only 13 percent of the student population reported
that they had followed the CSU General Education
List without encountering barriers. This fact
strongly suggests that the IGETC option is both
well known to and preferred by community college
transfer students. Postsecondary educational institutions
appear to have more to accomplish in realizing
the promise of the alternative, as well as in
educating students as to what the lower-division
general education plans both are and are not designed
to accomplish. Of note here is that 20 percent
of the students reported that the general education
plan they selected did not meet all their lower-division
transfer requirements, regardless of which plan
it was. However, in contrast to students following
the IGETC pattern, community college students
following a general education plan other than
IGETC were much more likely to cite barriers at
the community college (e.g., scheduling problems,
or limited space).
Furthermore, interpretation
of the data reveals the popularity of IGETC. As
previously observed, 10 percent of the students
who did not follow the IGETC pattern to complete
their lower-division general education requirements
reported that they had followed no plan at all.
An additional 6 percent of the students stated
that they had not followed the IGETC option, but
could not recall exactly which other pattern they
had used. If it is assumed of this latter group
that their choice of patterns was proportionate
to the choices made by those students who did
recall the option they elected, then the data
reveal that 89 percent of the community college
transfer students met their lower-division general
education requirements by means of one of the
two "generic" options. Of this group, twice as
many students elected the IGETC option as those
who elected the CSU General Education Certification
List, regardless of the four-year system to which
they eventually transferred. Of the group that
did elect to follow the CSU General Education
Certification List, only 186 students (18 percent)
indicated that they had elected the CSU general
education pattern over the IGETC option because
that plan "offered a better fit to my educational
plans." Moreover, a surprising total of 503 students
(48 percent) that did not follow the IGETC pattern
noted that they had done so because they "were
not sufficiently aware of the option."
Were community college transfer
students to be fully informed of the available
alternatives, greater than 75% would elect the
IGETC option regardless of their choice of a CSU
or UC campus as a transfer institution.
Although this group
presumably includes a substantial portion of the
216 students who stated that they followed no
plan at all, it must also include students who
followed the CSU Certification General Education
List without knowledge of the IGETC option. The
data suggest that, were community college transfer
students fully informed of all the available alternatives,
more than 75 percent would elect the IGETC option
regardless of their choice
Eighty-nine percent
of the students who did use the IGETC option believed,
in hindsight, that they had chosen the best available
pattern, an expression of satisfaction not attained
by any of the other options.
Bearing in mind
that 73 percent of the student respondents were
CSU students, but that less than 13 percent of
this group of a CSU or UC campus as a transfer
institution. elected to use the CSU General Education
Certification List specifically because it fit
their educational plans better than the alternatives,
the data in this survey underscore the wide acceptance
of and preference for the IGETC pattern among
community college transfer students. This is particularly
the case once students have been adequately informed
of their available options. As previously noted,
89 percent of the students who did use the IGETC
option believed, in hindsight, that they had chosen
the best available pattern, an expression of satisfaction
not attained by any of the other options.
Community College Counseling
Faculty
Among the 341 community college counseling faculty
who responded to the survey, 60 percent stated
that they generally do recommend the IGETC pattern
as the best available option for transfer students
who could meet their educational objectives by
a variety of general education patterns. However,
85 percent indicated that they recommend the pattern
to students hoping to transfer either to UC or
CSU, a percentage greater than that reported for
students intending to transfer only to a UC campus
(73 percent). Only 3 percent of the counseling
faculty stated that they made the same recommendation
to students who intended to transfer only to a
CSU campus, though nearly half of the community
college students who transferred to CSU used the
IGETC option and expressed a high degree of satisfaction
with their choice.
This sharp discrepancy,
to the point of an apparent contradiction, illustrates
clearly that the IGETC option is widely perceived
by community college counseling faculty to be
inherently less appropriate and/or desirable for
CSU transfer students than the CSU General Education
Certification List, except for students who have
indicated that they may also wish to consider
options other than
CSU. For students who indicate UC as their transfer
institution, the counseling faculty recommend
the IGETC option at least 75 percent of the time.
In this respect, contrast with the student data
could not be more pronounced.
Counseling faculty
appear to draw correlation between majors, student
grade point average, and the suitability of the
IGETC option for students planning to transfer.
Thirty percent of the counseling faculty reported
that they gave "careful consideration" to a student's
grade point average before recommending the IGETC
option to that student. An additional 51 percent
acknowledged that they gave the matter some, although
not "significant," consideration.
Only 19 percent
of the counseling faculty gave little or no consideration
to a student’s grade point average in recommending
the IGETC option to transfer students. This finding
almost certainly illustrates a common view among
community college counseling faculty that students
unable or unlikely to transfer to UC as a result
of lower grade point averages are better served
by the CSU General Education Certification List
than the IGETC pattern, though both options are
available to CSU transfer students. Thus, from
the point of view of many community college counseling
faculty, the IGETC option tends to be seen rather
as a generic UC option or the best option for
students not certain of their transfer plans than
as the "systemwide" option it was proposed to
be.
An initial analysis
may suggest a process of circular reasoning whereby
the fact that students who lack the necessary
grade point average cannot be admitted to UC is
taken by community college counseling faculty
to be reason to guide students with lower grade
point averages away from the IGETC option. However,
this reasoning fails to consider the extent to
which counseling faculty routinely consider the
consequences a CSU transfer student may face if
the IGETC option is chosen over the CSU General
Education Certification List–a result of the residual
discrepancies between the two core options, as
previously noted. A student following the IGETC
option may meet social science requirements without
taking either American history or political science
(required for CSU graduates), and a speech class
is not required for UC students but a competency
in a foreign language is. Thus, a CSU transfer
student following the IGETC option will find fewer
options and will face at least one and perhaps
three additional courses, depending in part on
how carefully an educational plan was developed
with a counseling faculty member. Knowing that
a student is certain that he or she intends to
transfer to CSU, community college counseling
faculty are inclined to advise against the IGETC
option; similarly, knowing that students with
a lower grade point average are unlikely to be
admitted to UC, counseling faculty will advise
students to transfer to CSU and, accordingly,
recommend the CSU General Education Certification
List. Thus, what appears in the data to be a response
from community college counseling faculty at odds
with student perspectives is most likely a consequence
of the important discrepancies between the two
available core general education patterns.
Students’ choices
of major influenced counseling faculty in much
the same way as their grade point average. Two-thirds
of the counseling faculty noted they gave "careful
consideration" to student choice of major in recommending
the IGETC option for meeting lower-division general
education requirements, and an additional 14 percent
declared that they gave it some consideration.
Only 3 percent of counseling faculty noted that
they gave the subject no consideration at all.
This result is consistent with the views of counseling
faculty, as discussed above, regarding student
grade point average if it is assumed that counseling
faculty routinely associate student choice of
major with a choice between UC and CSU. Knowing
that the UC System is appropriate for certain
majors and the CSU System for others, counseling
faculty advise students with "CSU majors" to adopt
the CSU General Education Certification List other
than the IGETC option if the students have decided
against UC or have a grade point average that
would preclude UC admission. Again, the responses
from the counseling faculty indicate close familiarity
with the distinctions between the available transfer
preparation options and a tendency to guide students
based on an evaluation of the students' plans
and achievements.
Marked differences
were noted in the way that counseling faculty
and students indicated their familiarity with
IGETC. Although nearly three-quarters of the student
respondents indicated that they were familiar
with the IGETC option while attending community
college, fewer than 28 percent of community college
counseling faculty agreed that students were familiar
with this option, if "being familiar" was taken
as synonymous with "being sufficiently familiar
to consider this pattern among available choices."
Although community college counseling faculty
consider themselves well informed about the IGETC
option–only 5 of 341 respondents stated that they
were "uninformed" or "only vaguely informed"–they
generally consider their transfer students to
be poorly informed. Thirty-five percent of the
counseling faculty believed that only one-third
of their transfer students were sufficiently aware
of the option, while another 37 percent believed
that "about half" of their transfer students were
sufficiently aware. This difference in perception
may reflect an understanding on the part of the
counseling faculty that "sufficient awareness"
of the IGETC option would include student awareness
of its potential limitations and/or adverse consequences.
Counseling faculty noted that they were kept informed
of IGETC in a wide variety of ways, with over
half the respondents citing dedicated publications
("IGETC Notes"), UC training sessions, instruction
by colleagues, and "Ensure Transfer Success" workshops.
Another substantial portion cited college publications,
CSU training sessions, and training sessions offered
by the California community college system.
Regarding their
views of the IGETC option, only 12 percent of
the counseling faculty professed satisfaction
with the pattern as it currently stands. Among
the improvements for the IGETC option proposed
in the survey, counseling faculty expressed little
or no support for lowering competency standards
in mathematics, reducing the overall number of
units, or eliminating minimum course grade requirements.
However, 43 percent of the counseling faculty
did agree that community colleges should be allowed
flexibility in certifying student completion of
the IGETC option, while 44 percent of the counseling
faculty believed that students should be able
to avoid certain requirements in the IGETC option
by substituting courses approved for the CSU General
Education List.
Similarly, 45 percent
of the counseling faculty believed that the IGETC
option was too narrow in terms of required categories
and allowable courses, and 53 percent believed
that CSU students should be allowed to double
count courses where appropriate. Only in the latter
case did a majority of the counseling faculty
support a specific proposal for modification;
nonetheless, the data indicate an established,
consistent minority opinion among community college
counseling faculty that the current IGETC course
requirements are overly restrictive with respect
to course options and required categories of study.
This finding must be tempered with the realization
that the list of available IGETC courses varies
among community colleges since each college is
responsible for submitting proposed course lists
for review and approval by UC and CSU. Community
college campuses vary greatly in the breadth of
courses they offer and, in any event, respondents
were not of a single mind regarding the range
of course diversification within required categories.
Of note is that the counseling faculty showed
no support for a reduction in IGETC standards,
and that although 88 percent of the counseling
faculty agreed that some modification to the IGETC
pattern would improve the option, no specific
modification proposed in the survey garnered support
greater than 53 percent. These findings indicate
that the sentiment in support of modification
is only general or the result of local conditions
at the community colleges, largely eroding in
the face of any concrete recommendations for improvement.
Finally, only 18
percent of the counseling faculty concurred with
the assertion that the IGETC option should become
the single statewide method for transfer students
to meet lower-division CSU and UC general education
requirements; while 53 percent agreed that the
UC campuses should eliminate their campus-specific
general education requirements, leaving the IGETC
pattern the only option for UC students. Although
majority support for the latter proposal is modest,
the strong sentiment expressed in opposition to
the adoption of the IGETC option as the sole option
for transfer students again indicates the propensity
among community college counseling faculty to
view the CSU General Education List as more appropriate
for CSU transfer students than the IGETC option,
given its current definitions. Alternatively,
counseling faculty view the IGETC option as a
welcome alternative for UC students who would
otherwise be obliged to meet UC campus-specific
requirements without being assured of admission
to that individual campus, whose lower-division
general education requirements they spent two
years attempting to meet. Thus the data consistently
suggest that most community college counseling
faculty do not view the IGETC option in its current
form as the systemwide transfer pattern it was
proposed to be, but rather as the generic UC equivalent
of the pre-existing CSU General Education Certification
List. However, community college counseling faculty
also appear to concur that student completion
of IGETC requirements for UC should also suffice
to meet CSU general education requirements. This
blending of UC and CSU general education requirements
is then used by many counseling faculty to justify
both the continued necessity for a separate CSU
General Education List and, curiously, support
for relaxation of IGETC requirements toward a
distribution of courses and categories approximating
the CSU requirements. These findings are likely
the result of a prevailing sentiment among community
college counseling faculty that the IGETC option,
while providing a useful and important alternative
for transfer students, falls short of being a
universal general education pattern.
