Community college transfer pathways may play a critical role in realizing broadened participation in engineering; Community colleges serve as an important access-oriented pathway through the postsecondary system in the United States, and also depend on 4-year institutions to streamline vertical transfer. The extent to which 4-year institutions are receptive to community college transfer as a viable pathway to engineering degrees may play a significant role in its efficacy. This dissertation explores a few aspects of transfer receptivity at 4-year institutions to understand how they relate to the efficacy of vertical transfer pathways in engineering disciplines. The first manuscript is a case study of an articulation agreement partnership between one 4-year institution and two public community college partners. The second manuscript examines how transfer policies and institutional characteristics of 4-year institutions in the U.S. relate to the enrollment, graduation and reporting of transfer students in engineering. I use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies across both manuscripts. The results of these studies revealed that: 1) specific challenges for transfer in engineering suggest that adequate examinations of transfer receptivity need be discipline-specific, 2) institutions encounter dissonance when simultaneously managing aims to increase access and prestige, 3) there is a need for shifts in policy and ranking systems that incentivize increases and improvements in vertical transfer, 4) there is a need for more transparency of transfer-related policies and transfer student data, and 5) our understanding of transfer matriculation remains well ahead of graduation outcomes. / Doctor of Philosophy / Community college transfer pathways may be critical to increasing the number of women and underrepresented minority engineers. Community colleges serve as an affordable way for students and families to begin their postsecondary education in the United States, but depend on universities to support community college transfer to complete bachelor's degrees. How well universities partner with community colleges in transfer may determine how well it works for students and families. This dissertation explores a few ways that universities encourage or discourage community college transfer as a way to earn a bachelor's degree in engineering. The first study looks closely at a transfer partnership between one university and two community colleges. The second study looks at how transfer policies and characteristics of universities relate to the enrollment, graduation and reporting of engineering transfer students. The results of these studies revealed several important themes. First, there are specific challenges to transfer in engineering. Next, institutions have a hard time increasing access to their institutions for community college students while also increasing their academic ranking and prestige. With this in mind, there is a need to shift policies and ranking systems that encourage institutions to focus more on increasing community college transfer. Next, universities need to be more transparent about their policies and data that influence transfer students. Finally, we know a lot more about how often transfer students successfully transfer to universities than we do about how many students end up graduating from the university and how long it takes them to do so.

In recent decades, recruitment and retention efforts to meet workforce demands and broaden participation in colleges of engineering across the country have focused primarily on catering to the needs of first-year, traditional age college students who matriculate from high school into 4-year institutions. While these efforts have moved the needle on enrollment and retention for undergraduate students in engineering, growth and improvement measures have started to taper in recent years. To meet current and future workforce demands for more STEM professionals in the United States, we must be creative about how to move beyond this ceiling effect; and, great potential exists among the growing population of students who begin their pursuit of a higher education at institutions other than 4-year public/private colleges. The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of engineering transfer students and their experiences at both sending and receiving institutions. Part of a larger mixed methods research investigation, this study draws on survey data from a sample of 1,070 engineering transfer students who transferred to one of four 4-year Texas institutions as new engineering students between 2007 and 2014. Research sites include four of the top ten producers of U.S. Hispanic/Latino engineers; and the framework for transfer student capital was used to organize this study's data collection and analytical plan. Structured as a manuscript style dissertation, this investigation offers a synthesis of recent literature on engineering transfer students and yields important findings on engineering transfer student movement through the higher education system at two distinct phases: 1) at the beginning of their higher education pathways in an investigation of students' reasons for starting at another institution and factors that influence their decisions to transfer; and 2) at the phase immediately following transfer in an investigation of the transition experience for students who transfer to a 4-year institution. For each phase, I identify emergent constructs and explore differences across subgroups of engineering transfer students (i.e., type of institution - selective versus open enrollment; type of transfer pathway - lateral versus vertical; student status as Hispanic/Latino; student status as first generation). This research joins and expands the small body of literature on engineering transfer students and brings data to higher education administrators so they can make more informed adjustments to existing institutional policies and practices that impact students as they transfer to engineering programs at 4-year institutions. Last, findings from this study also advance the current state of community college research on transfer students more generally. / PHD / In recent decades, recruitment and retention efforts to meet workforce demands and broaden participation in colleges of engineering across the country have focused primarily on catering to the needs of first‐year, traditional age college students who matriculate from high school into 4‐year institutions. While these efforts have moved the needle on enrollment and retention for undergraduate students in engineering, growth and improvement measures have started to taper in recent years. To meet current and future workforce demands for more STEM professionals in the United States, we must be creative about how to move beyond this ceiling effect; and, great potential exists among the growing population of students who begin their pursuit of a higher education at institutions other than 4‐year public/private colleges. The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of engineering transfer students and their experiences at both sending and receiving institutions. Part of a larger mixed methods research investigation, this study draws on survey data from a sample of 1,070 engineering transfer students who transferred to one of four 4‐year Texas institutions as new engineering students between 2007 and 2014. Research sites include four of the top ten producers of U.S. Hispanic/Latino engineers; and the framework for transfer student capital was used to organize this study's data collection and analytical plan. This investigation offers a synthesis of recent literature on engineering transfer students and yields important findings on engineering transfer student movement through the higher education system at two distinct phases: 1) at the beginning of their higher education pathways in an investigation of students' reasons for starting at another institution and factors that influence their decisions to transfer; and 2) at the phase immediately following transfer in an investigation of the transition experience for students who transfer to a 4‐year institution. For each phase, I identify emergent themes and explore differences across subgroups of engineering transfer students (i.e., type of institution ‐ selective versus open enrollment; type of transfer pathway ‐ lateral versus vertical; student status as Hispanic/Latino; student status as first generation). This research helps administrators, faculty members, and staff at sending and receiving institutions key in on the more problematic aspects of transfer that require additional attention. Moreover, research findings can be used by administrators, faculty members, and staff at receiving institutions to design or customize programs and services to address pressing needs and further enhance engineering transfer students’ perceptions of fit with their new institutions. Lastly, schools of engineering interested in boosting student enrollment can use findings from this study to better position themselves to appeal to and perhaps capture a larger market of engineering transfer students in the future.