Students tell lawmakers transfer 'maze' adds semesters, debt; counselors scarce

Two student witnesses told the Joint Legislative Audit Committee that the transfer process is often a confusing, costly maze that forces some students to change majors or leave college.

Alicia Nagpal, former community college student and vice president of legislative affairs for the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, described completing an ADT but discovering the campus and program she sought did not fully recognize it. "I believed there was a clear path to transfer if I worked hard, met with counselors, and completed the courses I was told to take. Instead, I found myself trying to navigate different transfer requirements depending on the university, the campus, and even the specific major I wanted to pursue," she said.

Kevin Hill, outgoing regional affairs director for Region 2, told the committee that counseling access is limited and that structural budget rules complicate hiring more counselors: counselors are excluded from a regulatory definition used in a rule that requires districts to allocate no less than 50 percent of the general fund to classroom instruction, which constrains how districts count counselor salaries toward that requirement. He said appointment wait times can stretch from 10 days to six weeks at some colleges, leaving students unable to make timely course decisions.

Why that matters: When students cannot get timely advising or cannot rely on a predictable articulation pathway, they may take the wrong courses, accumulate excess credits, add semesters and cost, or stop pursuing a bachelor’s degree. Mr. Parks, the state auditor, told the panel the audit found the "vast majority" of transfer‑intent students who did not transfer had fewer than 60 units or never applied.

Policy responses and funding: Lawmakers and segment leaders discussed policy changes and investments. Panelists supported expanding ADT pathways, investing in common course numbering (AB 22 36), and improving the ASSIST platform to centralize articulation information. Committee members also highlighted basic‑needs funding and counseling capacity: lawmakers said the budget includes funding to expand Cal Grant eligibility and cited a $40 million allocation for basic needs centers at community colleges.

Student advocates and academic leadership who testified during public comment urged robust data sharing, faithful implementation of existing reforms (examples cited by witnesses included AB 928, AB 1111, AB 2057 and SB 640), and targeted investments in counseling capacity.

Next steps: Students asked lawmakers to measure progress and to ensure that intersegmental technology and policy work (ASSIST, ADT pilots, common course numbering) lead to timely, measurable gains in transfer rates and fewer excess credits.