While I was in my grad program, I
remember writing a paper about the downsides of dual enrollment programs like
Running Start (RS), which allow high school students to take college courses
and get both college and high school credit for them simultaneously. At the
time, I worked in the academic advising department at a local community
college, so I had a lot of interaction with RS students who were taking courses
there. Well, my perspective on this matter has really only been reinforced by
my encounters with RS students on the other side as an admissions counselor at
a university. I see the obvious benefits to these programs. They help
high-achieving students pursue a more rigorous curriculum and prepare for
college-level coursework. They (presumably) save students money in the long-run
by allowing them to take up to two years of college credit at a low cost, while
also saving them time on finishing their college degrees. They also get
students into a collegiate environment and ostensibly help them mature socially
and mentally at a younger age. These are all great things, in theory. But in
practice, they are not always achieved, and there are also negative outcomes
that accompany dual enrollment programs which are usually unforeseen by
students, parents, and school counselors/teachers/administrators.
These
are the top issues I have seen with dual enrollment programs: 1) students’
grades often plummet when they start dual enrollment classes, jeopardizing
their academic records and admissibility for universities 2) the rigor of
college courses vary from school to school such that sometimes even dual
enrollment students are ill-prepared for college-level coursework at
universities 3) students are unable to get transfer credit for all or many of
their dual enrollment courses for particular universities and programs 4)
teenagers are thrust into an environment with students who are more socially mature
and independent than they are and miss out on opportunities to engage with
their peers, and 5) employers don’t want to hire 20-year-olds for professional
jobs, even if they have a college degree. These are only a few of the problems
with dual enrollment programs, but they are some of the most prevalent.
As an
admissions counselor, I’m frequently asked by prospective students and parents
if they or their kid should take advanced and/or college-level courses in high
school in order to be competitive for admission. My answer is always that we
like to see students challenging themselves and demonstrating that they are
academically prepared for the level of rigor they will encounter at our
university, but it’s important that they find balance. I can’t count the number
of times I have seen a high school transcript showing a steep downward grade
trend immediately after the student started taking a full load of Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), or RS
classes. Newsflash: Pulling C’s, D’s, and F’s in advanced or college-level
courses is not impressive. This isn’t a “here’s a blue ribbon, you’re a winner
for trying” kind of deal. You’re better off pulling A’s and B’s in regular high
school courses, in my opinion, which at least shows that you met expectations,
probably worked pretty hard, had a realistic view of your strengths and
limitations, and grasped the content you were supposed to master. Of course,
there is also a problem with grade inflation at many non-rigorous high schools,
which is a separate issue altogether. However, I am always tied between pity
and scorn for fairly average students (and/or the parents and counselors
advising them) who think they can waltz into college-level courses and succeed
with the same ease with which they’ve succeeded in regular high school courses.
Oftentimes, when that doesn’t happen for them, their academic records are
permanently tarnished, their competitiveness for university admission is
diminished, and they feel cheated because all the while they thought they were
enhancing their college readiness and plumping their resumes.
What’s
almost more unfortunate than the above scenario is when dual enrollment
students who are fairly average performers actually excel in “college-level”
courses. Why is this unfortunate? Because often these courses have been watered
down to the point of being equivalent to regular high school courses. Not all
colleges are created equal, and as such, not all offer the same level of rigor.
Many students who did well in their dual enrollment courses actually struggle
significantly when they enter universities—sometimes to the point of needing serious
academic intervention or having to transfer or stop out. This short
article in the Chronicle of Higher Education articulates pretty well and
succinctly what I mean.
Perhaps
one of the most compelling arguments in favor of dual enrollment programs is
the fact that they can save students and their families thousands of dollars on
their college educations. In a time when you can’t turn on your TV or read a
newspaper without hearing about the exorbitant cost of higher education, no one
can blame folks for wanting to pursue a less expensive option, especially if
they are financially pressed. What sucks is that many colleges and universities
accepting dual enrollment students are actually not willing to grant the amount
of transfer credit that students have completed, if any at all. This is
especially true for private universities with unique general ed/core curricula
and specialized programs that require students to complete certain coursework
at that particular university. For example, Seattle University tries to grant
as much transfer credit as possible to all students coming in with college
credit—whether they are high school students or not. However, for our Nursing
program, students applying for freshman admission are expected to complete all
four years as a cohort at SU; therefore, none of their prior college coursework
will transfer. Most students and parents are outraged when they hear this and,
again, feel cheated because what has been sold to them by dual enrollment
programs turns out not to be an entitlement. One might argue, well then, the
universities need to be more flexible and grant more transfer credit for these
students. That may be true in some cases, but in others, it’s just not feasible
or even in the students’ best interest.
Recently, in order to better serve
Running Start students, SU created the option for them to apply for transfer
admission to Nursing if they had their Associate’s degree by the time they
finished high school and had completed all Nursing pre-requisites. Some
students pursued this option and may end up doing just fine. Others found that
they were not competitive for admission when put up against older students who
already had practical experience in healthcare settings. Or, even if admitted
into the transfer cohort, they might find that they are taking all their major
courses with non-traditional students who are older, wiser, and just plain
different from them. I’m not arguing that students can’t benefit from being
surrounded by other students who are different from them. On the contrary, I
think this is essential. What I am saying, though, is that these young students
are often robbed of the two years of their college experience that can have the
strongest impact on their social development, engagement with their peers and
campus life, and opportunity to feel academically and intellectually competent.
Both high school and college are times in a person’s life that they can never
relive and therefore should enjoy to the fullest. When high schoolers opt to
immerse themselves in a college environment instead of their high school
environment, it can be very enriching (especially if their high school environment
is unsupportive, unchallenging, or otherwise unpleasant) or it can be a loss of
a nurturing place where teenagers are allowed to be teenagers. When teenagers start college at or near junior
standing, it can be a great way to save time and money on a college degree
(assuming that’s how it works out), or it can be a fast lane to real adulthood
that these young people are honestly not ready for.
On that note, it’s worth mentioning
that while students pursuing dual enrollment courses may think that
universities and future employers will view them as high-achieving,
self-motivated, and mature beyond their years, that’s simply not always the
case. Age discrimination does exist, and many young students will face
challenges as a result. For example, I have heard of these students missing out
on clinical, internship, or student employment opportunities to older, more
experienced students because more likely than not the employers question their
maturity and capability to manage the responsibilities with the same level of
proficiency as those even a couple years their senior. I have also heard
faculty say that their younger students who finished their degrees early have
had more trouble entering the workforce in their chosen fields, probably for
the same reason. I’m not condoning age discrimination, nor am I agreeing with
the assumption that a younger individual is less capable of doing a job they
are qualified to do simply because of their youth. However, in some ways it
feels like we are trying to expedite a process of development, discernment, and
duty that shouldn’t be expedited. To a degree, you can’t really blame those who
are offering opportunities to older, more experienced individuals. How would
you feel if you were in the hospital being treated for a serious illness and
you found out a teenager was taking your vitals? How would you feel if you had
put in years of hard work at various jobs and at least 16 years of education to
prepare for a career, and you lost a job opportunity to someone who isn't even legal drinking age? There are some young students who are truly exceptional and
deserving of opportunities to advance their minds and accelerate their
education and career. But it’s safe to say that not even a majority of students
in dual enrollment programs are this kind of exceptional.
Despite my opinions, I know that
dual enrollment programs aren’t going to fade away any time soon. They offer
(or at least promise) enough benefits to students and their families to be a growing
pathway in the world of higher education. And, I would argue that they actually
are a good fit for some students; namely those who are highly motivated,
hard-working, intellectually gifted, socially mature, underserved by their high
schools, and intending to transfer to universities whose requirements align
closely with the offerings at their partner colleges. I also think that, as
long as dual enrollment programs persist, universities accepting these students
should make reasonable efforts to accommodate them and treat them like regular
transfer students. Another
article in the Chronicle of Higher Education offers a solid explanation of
why dual enrollment programs are good and how college personnel should
effectively handle them. I just think that anyone considering participating in
a dual enrollment program or encouraging a student to do so should first
seriously consider the possible drawbacks. These programs do not serve all or
even most students well, and sometimes taking advanced courses within the high school
is a better alternative for a rigorous curriculum. Dual enrollment program
advisors and administrators also have a duty to inform students and parents
about these drawbacks, instead of promising them the world and leaving it up to
admissions staff and university faculty to be the constant bearers of bad news.
This leads not only to possible disillusionment for well-meaning students but
also a stinky sense of entitlement that is earning them a bad reputation. I can
just hear my colleagues now: “Oh great, we’ve got another Running Start student…”
