In Praise of Summer Bridge Programs

Once upon a time, “college” referred to a discrete, limited, and usually brief phase of life. The typical college student typically arrived on campus fresh out of high school and knocked off for successive years (topped up by the occasional summer class or international experience) before graduating at the ripe old age of 22. How different the college timeline seems today. Now, many students take early college courses before they complete high school. Others postpone enrollment, taking gap years or working for a while to raise money for tuition. On the other end, students often extend the customary four-year experience for any number of practical or educational reasons. Meanwhile, more and more “non-traditional” students do not even start their studies until much later in life. As the nature of higher education has changed, along with the social expectations tied to it, so has the assumption that college is a four-year experience between one’s late teens and early twenties.

Summer bridge programs feed into broader and highly contentious debates about the place of diversity on college campuses. So-called summer bridge programs are part of this story of higher education’s evolution. The basic premise of these programs is that some students need a “bridge” between high school and college. Consequently, they should start college slightly earlier than their peers—specifically, the summer before their freshman year. Such students, it is hoped, will benefit from the focused attention of educational professionals and the controlled environment of a summer campus in ways that will improve their chances for success in later years (and particularly in the decisive first year). In most cases, these programs are designed to serve underprivileged student populations that are presumed to be at a greater risk of failing than others.

Yet unlike some measures aimed at helping disadvantaged students, they can fulfill a useful role. Summer bridge programs thus feed into broader and—especially in recent years—highly contentious debates about the place of diversity on college campuses. Yet unlike some measures aimed at helping disadvantaged students, which are flashy but short on substance, bridge programs can fulfill a useful role: They reward academic work, serve a range of different needs and populations, and are premised on the useful insight that academic culture is, for many Americans, quite alien to the worlds they are used to.

Summer bridge programs were pioneered in the 1960s and ’70s as part of a deliberate effort to make universities more accessible to low-income students, with the full recognition that this would also change the composition of the student body. One of the first campuses to introduce a summer bridge program was the University of California at Berkeley. The landmark 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education in California required UC Berkeley to select its students from the top 12.5 percent of the state’s high-school graduates. However, the university was also granted special permission to reserve four percent of admissions for capable students from low-income and minority backgrounds who were considered “academically promising.” In 1964, UC Berkeley created the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP), which was intended to “assist and motivate California high school students who are members of culturally disadvantaged groups and who have demonstrated intellectual promise.”

Consistent with the EOP’s charge, Berkeley launched its summer bridge program in 1973. As the program’s website explains, it was designed as “an academic orientation program for an inaugural cohort of 51 new freshmen.” The students were required to complete two eight-week summer courses that “familiarize[d] them with the rigor of University coursework,” in addition to introducing them to an array of campus support services. The program quickly expanded, in terms of the number of students it served as well as the range of resources offered. By 2023, it enrolled 400 students from all five of the university’s academic colleges, representing over 60 majors.

Another early example of these initiatives was the University of Arizona’s New Start Summer Program, launched in 1969. Like Berkeley’s program, New Start prioritizes the recruitment of first-generation and low-income students. Yet New Start is not limited to such students. It can be attended by any member of the freshman class. The program also provides scholarships, which cover tuition, fees, and several summer weeks in the dorms, to every incoming freshman who has qualified for a federal Pell Grant. In 2023, 60 percent of the incoming class were eligible for the scholarship. New Start thus targets students most likely to benefit from the program, while remaining available to any first-year student who decides it could be helpful. An interesting feature of New Start is its peer-mentoring program: Each attendee is assigned a more advanced student, usually of a similar background, to help him or her in the process of adjusting to college life.

Summer bridge programs, which can be found with a wide range of variations on many American campuses, are also found in the University of North Carolina System. UNC-Chapel Hill has a summer bridge program that focuses on preparing students for college by having them take courses on campus over a six-week period in June and July. The program also provides students with peer mentors and emphasizes community-building. Though the program generally serves about 60 students, any incoming student who is a North Carolina resident can attend free of charge (this includes students who have already acquired community-college credit).

No doubt some summer bridge programs were press-ganged into the service of DEI in recent years. Founded in 1986, UNC Charlotte’s University Transition Opportunities Program (UTOP) is a six-week summer program in which students earn seven credits toward graduation. Based on the philosophy (as its website puts it) that “knowing who to ask and what to ask is essential to university survival,” UTOP provides a daily meeting at which students are introduced to a range of university services, such as the Center for Wellness Promotion, university advising, and the career center. While the program has historically sought to help underrepresented groups make the transition from high school to college, UTOP is currently “open to all incoming first-time students.”

The current iteration of some of the North Carolina programs may even reflect recent measures terminating DEI in the UNC System. No doubt some summer bridge programs were press-ganged into the service of the academic obsession with DEI in recent years. The current iteration of some of the North Carolina programs may even reflect recent measures terminating DEI in the UNC System. Yet summer bridge programs are not just DEI in disguise. They are in most cases older than DEI—which is primarily associated with the fever pitch of wokeism in the early 2020s—and they fulfill a real need. The problem with DEI was less its content than its lack of content—its tendency to indulge academia’s unfortunate obsession with language and manifestos. More than anything, DEI gets you diversity statements, mandatory training sessions, and homilies by highly paid diversity gurus. Bridge programs are made of sterner stuff. While not perfect, they have decades-long track records that may be usefully recalibrated to meet present challenges.

Summer programs are valuable in the first place because they encourage work and reward students with college credit. They are not just institutional virtue signaling. In the UNC-Chapel Hill program, all students take English Composition and a seminar on “college thriving” and must choose one other course between College Algebra, Foundations of Chemistry, and General Psychology. They are also required to attend supervised study hours Monday through Thursday of each week. Western Carolina’s program is similar, offering a wide range of courses, such as in art, geology, and communications. In the absolute worst-case scenario, bridge programs are summer school for incoming freshmen.

Furthermore, while summer bridge programs were initially designed to serve underprivileged populations, they are not narrowly or exclusively focused on race. This is not just because of recent efforts to ban DEI but because summer bridge programs harken back to an earlier moment in American political and educational culture. UC Berkeley’s program, after all, was focused primarily on the way young people in low-income families were often uninclined to apply to college. While recognizing that racial minorities were often overrepresented in low-income communities, the Berkeley program emphasized the disconnect between economic hardship and higher education.

This is far from an absurd concern. Wealthy Americans, particularly in the northeast, have long had their version of summer bridge programs: They are called “college preparatory” schools. What is the Choate School if not a four-year summer bridge program? And while summer bridge programs were first developed to serve low-income students, their purpose need not and often is not limited to that demographic. As one study notes, the “populations served by [these] programs vary greatly.” Some programs (for instance, at Auburn and Radford) prioritize STEM. Other programs (such as one at Miami University) are specifically aimed at “talented” high-school students, seeking to enhance their success in college and beyond. The UNC Board of Governors has, in recent years, emphasized recruitment of the state’s rural populations. Intriguingly, UNC Wilmington’s summer bridge program declares that one of its aims is to serve first-year students from “rural counties.” Some schools (such as Cornell and the University of Colorado at Boulder) have summer bridge programs for veterans, another population the UNC System has sought to recruit. In short, the summer bridge model can be calibrated to serve a range of populations and goals, all premised on the idea that mindful direction outside of the regular academic year can enhance student success.

An appealing feature of summer bridge programs is their emphasis on the idea that, for many students, attending college entails a “culture shock.” Finally, an appealing feature of summer bridge programs is their emphasis on the idea that, for many students, attending college entails a “culture shock” that must be overcome if one is to succeed academically. This insight is practical and profound. It is practical because it informs these programs’ recognition that college success depends not only on study skills and proficient academics but also on mastering what Arizona’s New Start Summer Program calls the “hidden curriculum”: the implicit understanding of how universities work, such as how to use office hours or knowing how to seek help from faculty. Otherwise capable students might struggle in college, not because they lack the skills but because they are effectively trying to figure out a foreign culture.

These programs could be a way of addressing and perhaps mitigating the widening gap surrounding higher education. And this is why the attention to the cultural adaptation to academic settings is also profound. Our society is increasingly divided between those who have college diplomas and those who do not—a split that is cultural and increasingly political. That summer bridge programs recognize this split is productive. Though it is not their purpose, these programs could be a way of addressing and perhaps mitigating the widening gap surrounding higher education. Doing so could not only help certain students better understand university culture but also make many university stakeholders more aware of the world beyond their campus.

Despite their many positive qualities, summer bridge programs have their shortcomings. Valuable though they may be, summer programs alone are not always sufficient to overcome the issues that bridge programs seek to address. One study notes that the benefits of such programs “often diminish over time,” particularly as first-generation students encounter such challenges as “financial constraints, lack of mentorship, unfamiliarity with college resources, and feelings of isolation.” Bridge programs must thus be paired with support structures available to students throughout the college experience. Furthermore, some evidence suggests that bridge programs do not benefit all students equally. A study at a historically Black institution found that, while bridge-program participants started with lower test scores and GPAs, female participants made considerable gains “in all categories, with significantly higher GPAs and retention.” For male participants, however, the effects of the program seemed negligible. Given mounting evidence that young men are falling behind academically, one wonders if they might benefit from bridge programs tailored to their needs.

Given the rapidly changing landscape of education, the distinct needs and expectations of rising generations, and the increasing variety of university-attending populations, there are fewer and fewer students who don’t need a “bridge” to college. Done well, these programs remain a useful tool in ensuring quality college experiences.

Michael C. Behrent is a professor of history at Appalachian State University.