The Disillusionment of Dual Enrollment Programs

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…”