Institutional analysis reveals transfer students comprise 1.1% to 57.5% of incoming engineering cohorts across 135 universities, indicating that top-ranked programs offer the lowest transfer access.
Background Bolstering transfer pathways within engineering has the potential to expand and diversify the engineering workforce. This manuscript investigates the extent of stable accessibility of transfer enrollments in undergraduate engineering, a preliminary step for institutions seeking to be receptive of transfer students. Purpose We examine the landscape of access for transfer students in engineering at 4‐year institutions by analyzing enrollment rates of engineering transfer students relative to the broader engineering student enrollment (i.e., developing a transfer composition dataset). Design/Method We characterize transfer enrollments with a new variable that examines transfer student enrollments as a proportion of institutions' broader enrollments. We compare rates across 135 institutions in the United States and then link transfer composition with a series of state‐, institution‐, college‐, and student‐level variables to interrogate variation between institutions in providing stable access to engineering transfer students. Results Transfer students accounted for as little as 1.1% to as much as 57.5% of institutions' new students entering engineering and varied based on a variety of factors including selectivity, Carnegie classification, undergraduate enrollment, land‐grant status, and institutional control. Conclusion Institutions high in transfer composition in engineering are, in general, not the highest‐ranked engineering programs. We make recommendations to policy and institutional leaders while making more transparent what engineering transfer access looks like. With this manuscript, we provide this new national‐scale dataset of engineering transfer student composition across institutions as well as providing a systems‐level analysis of variables that relate to engineering transfer student composition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grote et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: