<p>I was wondering if schools look at all transfer applicants together as one "class" during each admissions cycle, or if they look at the sophomore applicants separately from the juniors? It would make more sense that they consider them separately, as each class will have a different number of spaces, but something tells me they just throw everyone in together.</p>
<p>Colleges need to keep their classes within a certain size for planning reasons (dorms, classes, etc.), so they need to distinguish between soph and jr transfers, at least to some degree.</p>
<p>Okay, thanks.</p>
<p>Is one more competitive than the other or is this purely circumstantial?</p>
<p>It depends entirely on the university, but generally for any school that is not a “top 20,” if you didn’t do well in high school and are doing well in college, than you will be more competitive as a junior transfer. On the other hand, if you did extremely well as a high school student, than your H.S. grades and SATs will be a bigger factor in your admit decision. </p>
<p>In my opinion, transferring as a sophomore is more difficult than as a junior.</p>
<p>It is harder to transfer as a sophomore than as a junior and it is independent from doing good or bad in high schools. Admission offices tend to give the chance to people who just have one last chance to get in. So they select the juniors first and then if there’s space, they start picking the sophomores. So, even if you are a sophomore with stellar grades, it is very likely you can be rejected for a junior that would be slightly “less prepared” than you.</p>
<p>Those theories seem unfair for the sophomore transfers, who usually only have one full semester/term to obtain recommendations before applying. Juniors have a lot more time to get used to college instructors and milking from better academic skills. :/</p>
<p>juniors actually have a harder time transferring into to some places, like wharton for example.</p>
<p>Like I said, “top 20” schools such as Ivy leagues are different. This is because their applicants all would probably have been very competitive as freshmen applicants as well. </p>
<p>For other tier one universities it isn’t unfair to give juniors applicants an edge. They have proven they can perform over a longer period of time. If a junior applicants grades are significantly better now than they were in high school then they clearly are better students with new goals now. </p>
<p>The truth is, anyone can get a 4.0 after one semester at a CC and claim to have changed, because they took all freshmen level classes. But can they do it over the long run? This is why sophomore applicants high school grades are weighed into the equation. If a sophomore applicant is denied they have an opportunity to continue to do well and then reapply the next year, and if they cannot continue to do well than it’s better that they didn’t get in the first place.</p>
<p>sophiar. yes it is possible some college see it differently, but those are a VERY rare portion compared to the normal way of looking for transfers. bquin21 said it all. he really added to what I said and it is not theory, it is a fact!</p>
<p>I’m applying as a junior transfer with a solid record in HS and in College. That’s not gonna hurt is it?</p>