Community College than UCs?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Hey,</p>

<p>Someone recently told me about an article he read about a certain "strategy" for college. The article recommended that students take the community college route then transfer to a UC. This route, the article explained, greatly increases your chance to a graduate school-because one will most likely have a higher gpa- costs much less, and is less stressful. </p>

<p>Is this true? What are your thoughts on this?
Would you recommend this route than, lets say, going to a liberal arts college like amherst (which obviously costs signficantly more with a greater chance of messing up your gpa) and attempting to go to a graduate school? </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

2

<p>If you can get into a school like Amherst, you'd be crazy not to go there over a community college. (Assuming that's what you want.)</p>

<p>The California community colleges traditionally have been a very good back door to the top-rated UCs (eg, Foothill to Cal), however this has changed recently due to budget cutbacks.</p>

<p>If you go to the best place you can (get into and afford) and do the best you can, then graduate school options will be appropriate.</p>

<p>If you try to game the system, you are doomed to misery....! (Maybe.)</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
one will most likely have a higher gpa

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On the contrary, your CC GPA will not be counted once you get into UC. What you get to show on the UC transcript is only the GPA you have for your junior and senior years.</p>

<p>Also, there is not much of a campus life per se at the CC. You are missing the best part of your undergraduate experience.</p>

4

<p>I also heard that CCs are frowned upon by graduate schools, especially the top ones.</p>

5

<p>I think CC is a great way to get into UC's. I have several friends who did not get into UC's and they are now applying for UC's as transfer students with excellent chances.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
On the contrary, your CC GPA will not be counted once you get into UC. What you get to show on the UC transcript is only the GPA you have for your junior and senior years

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is true that your UC GPA will only be counted from your UC grades. However, your OVERALL GPA will be a combination of all your grades, and it is that overall GPA that the grad-schools will see.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I also heard that CCs are frowned upon by graduate schools, especially the top ones

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That really depends on a lot of factors, especially which graduate schools you are talking about, and in which round of admission. Law and med-school admissions, for example, are highly mechanical in the sense that if you have high grades (along with high test scores), no matter where or how you got those high grades, you stand a good chance of at least gettting past the first round, and you may be looking good even in the later rounds. Put another way, for the purposes of law school or med-school admissions, a person with a 3.9 GPA that consists of both CC and 4-year university grades is probably better off than a guy with a 3.5 GPA in all 4-year university grades (assuming all other things, like test scores, are equal). Sad but true. </p>

<p>On the other hand, if you're talking about things like PhD admissions, then I would agree that the cc grades would look suspect.</p>

7

<p>sakky:</p>

<p>Having set in on professional school admission committees, I disagree that cc grades count as much as Uni grades. Perhaps on the numerical first cut, yes, but then the real review happens, and the adcoms will focus more on the Uni classes -- they just prefer 4 years of a Uni bcos they have hundreds of apps that have those stats -- think grade inflation schools like Harvard and Stanford where a B is about as low as someone can get. </p>

<p>IMO, your example is misleading since a combined 3.9 mean at least a 3.8 at the Uni level, which, of course, is great, and grades will be considered equally. A more likely scenario is a 4.0 cc, and a 3.5 Uni, which is a 3.75 average. In this case, those cc grades WILL be discounted.</p>

8

<p>The quality of education you'll get from your first two years of CC will also probably be a far cry from what you'd get at a good four-year college like Amherst. You'd be missing out on a lot.. I think the CC-->UC route is only for people who can't get into a good college in the first place.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
Having set in on professional school admission committees, I disagree that cc grades count as much as Uni grades. Perhaps on the numerical first cut, yes, but then the real review happens, and the adcoms will focus more on the Uni classes -- they just prefer 4 years of a Uni bcos they have hundreds of apps that have those stats -- think grade inflation schools like Harvard and Stanford where a B is about as low as someone can get.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But you just proved my point right there. I agree with you that the CC grades will probably be discounted when a human being carefully examines your application. However, at least your application got to that stage. Plenty of other applicants don't even get that far because they get scrapped in the numerical first cut. By keeping your app "alive" as long as possible, you are giving yourself more opportunities to make something good happen. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. Take three candidates, A, B, and C. A has a 4.0 from a 4-year school. B has a combined 3.75 (a 4.0 from a CC, a 3.5 from junior and senior year of a 4-year school). C has a 3.5 from a 4-year school. Clearly candidate A is the most likely to get in. I don't dispute that. However, candidate B has the edge over candidate C. Whether you think it's fair or not fair, that's how it is. Bottom line, for the purposes of professional school admissions, it's better to go to a CC and get top grades than to go to a 4-year school and get mediocre grades.</p>

10

<p>sakky:</p>

<p>since the mean applicant to med school has a 3.47 gpa, why do you believe that candidate B has an edge over C? Moreover, the mean med matriculant has a 3.6, so I would not consider a 3.5 "mediocre".</p>

11

<p>some kid at my school got his high school diploma in end of 10th grade (he passed a test and had enough credits, including summer school). now he is at a community college for his first year. (he should technically be a junior right now). next year he will finish his 2nd year at cc and then apply to colleges like a regular high school senior would. and he will probably get into better schools than his friends cuz admissions take a community college student over a high school student if they have about the same stats.</p>

12

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>Your student B is smarter than student C to start with 'cause he has to overcome greater odds to get the same 3.5 (e.g., new environment, less prepared for the much tougher competitions, and probably has to make up for some pre-requisite courses for professional degrees, etc).</p>

<p>It is normally harder to get 3.5 in your junior/senior year than your first two years. Student C should have a higher GPA in the first two years, assuming he doesn't slack of because of the richer campus life.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
since the mean applicant to med school has a 3.47 gpa, why do you believe that candidate B has an edge over C?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. If you had to bet who had a greater chance of getting in, I think it's fairly clear that we'd all pick B. </p>

<p>Note, they may both get in. But that's not the point. The point is who has the BETTER chance. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Moreover, the mean med matriculant has a 3.6, so I would not consider a 3.5 "mediocre".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Never said that a 3.5 was mediocre. It was just an example. So let me give you one that fits. A guy takes a class at a 4-year university and gets a D. If he had taken that same class at a CC, he might have gotten a B or better. For the purposes of med-school admissions, which one makes him look better? I think there is little dispute about this one. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Your student B is smarter than student C to start with 'cause he has to overcome greater odds to get the same 3.5 (e.g., new environment, less prepared for the much tougher competitions, and probably has to make up for some pre-requisite courses for professional degrees, etc).</p>

<p>
[quote]
It is normally harder to get 3.5 in your junior/senior year than your first two years. Student C should have a higher GPA in the first two years, assuming he doesn't slack of because of the richer campus life.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I emphatically disagree, and this actually gets to another subject about which I have written extensively. The fact is, at the UC's at least, and in many other schools as well, it is actually your FIRST 2 years that are actually the hardest. Why? Simple. Weeders. Most weeders tend to be concentrated in your first 2 years. The idea is that many majors deliberately try to weed you out in the early intro classes to make sure that only worthy kids make it to the upper division. Once you've made it to the upper division, while I won't say things are easy, at least they're not trying to overtly weed you out. The idea is basically that if you've made it into the upper division, you've proved yourself and so they're not going to try to flunk you out anymore. </p>

<p>As a case in point, take a gander at the grading of the (generally lower-division or early upper-division) weeder engineering sequence of courses and grading of advanced upper-division engineering courses. practically never see anybody actually getting an F in a high upper division course. But you do see it in the weeders. And many UC students remark that their grades actually got significantly better in their last 2 years after they've survived the weeders. </p>

<p>And that's not just engineering. Plenty of other majors behave in the same way. Let me point you to this quote from a UCLA grad:</p>

<p>"Why Do You Keep Talking About "Harder As You Move Up?"</p>

<p>Amazingly, many majors get EASIER as you move up. This is because once you get through the weeder, they give you a break and the workload is only as hard as an "average" class. "</p>

<p>Back to Weeders...
I once took a weeder course in North campus (largely considered the "easier" side of campus). It is the weeder for the communications major (Comm 10). However, because this is an introductory weeder (anybody can take it), it is considered by many as North campus' hardest class. I didn't know this and I took it as an incoming frosh. I was quite scared. The material is ****ing common sense; you get a ton of it. I had 13 pages of single space, font 10 notes covering only HALF of the course (this is back when I was a good student and took notes). I was supposed to memorize the entire list including all the categories and how the list was arranged by them. And I did. Fearing it yet? My friend told me about his chem midterm... the average grade was a 16%.. No, they didn't fail the whole class; I'm sure they curved it so only half the kids failed. My freshman year, I met this friend of mine who was crying because she got an 76% on her math midterm. I told her that she should be glad she passed, she told me, "the average grade was 93%, the curve fails me." Weeders can have curves, as these three examples show... but only to make sure some people pass... and some fail. Famous weeders are courses like: Communications 10, Life Scienes 1 (and 2 & 3), Chemistry 14a (and all the subsequent ones get only harder), English 10a (OMG that class was hard), CS33, etc. Oh, and if you're wondering, my friend ended up getting a C- in her math class after studying her butt off. Lucky her!!!"</p>

<p><a href="http://www.moochworld.com/scribbles/ucla/16.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.moochworld.com/scribbles/ucla/16.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now of course one might say that not all majors have weeders. That's true. However, keep in mind that we're talking about premed here. The entire premed sequence is in effect, one long weeder sequence. Especially OChem. Put another way, it is far far better to do OChem at a CC and get an A than to do it at a 4-year university and get a C. </p>

<p>However, the bottom line is this. Med-school admissions is a game. I wish it wasn't true. But it is true. Simply put, for the purposes of med-school admissions, high grades at a low-level school are better than bad grades at a good school. Fair or not fair, that's the truth. Not to digress, but this is why premeds from, say, Caltech and MIT get the short end of the stick, something that even the gungho Caltech'ers like Ben Golub acknowledge. If med-school adcoms really wanted to be fair, then they would acknowledge that a school like Caltech grades extremely harshly and compensate accordingly. They don't do that, which is why the Caltech'ers concede that their school is not the best place to go for premed. The same sort of logic applies when you're talking about CC grades. Like it or not, that's how it is.</p>

14

<p>

Never again... :(</p>

15

<p>sakky:</p>

<p>I agree with nearly everything in your post 13, but it varies siginificantly from post 9. Post 9 was comparing two good stat kids whereas you throw out a D in post 13; obvioulsy, D's won't cut it anywhere. </p>

<p>My main point is that a ~3.5 average gets one into the app pool, regardless of where the classes come from. After that, adcoms are on to MCAT, EC's and, my favorite, intangibles.</p>

<p>your quote (dunno know how to do cool grey boxes :)<br>
"I think it's fairly clear that we would all pick B." </p>

<p>Sorry, I think we will have to agree to disagree bcos I would not necessarily pick B first. f</p>

<p>why? most top kids in Calif assumes/believes/knows, that a cc course is EASIER that an AP course at a top public high school. If perception is 90% of reality, do you think adcoms don't know that?</p>

16

<p>Fine, bluebayou, maybe I didn't use the best example. But you know what I'm getting at. We both know that med-school admissions are highly grade oriented, such that it is better to get high grades at a no-name school than to get bad grades at an extremely difficult school.</p>

<p>So how about this. I'll change the example. One guy went to a no-name school, or a combination of no-name schools (i.e. 2 years at a CC, 2 years at, some no-name university) and has straight A's. Another guy has a 2.5 in engineering from Caltech. I think we both know that the former guy is far better off. Let's face it. The latter guy is probably going to have his app thrown out in the first round before it ever gets read by a human being.</p>

<p>What makes the situation sad is that the latter guy may actually be BETTER than the former guy. He got mediocre grades only because he went to an extremely difficult school and chose an extremely difficult major. I would say that even if you get bad grades, just the mere fact that you survived and graduated from Caltech means that you're one of the top technical students in the world. Let's face it. Plenty of people who do extremely well at no-name colleges would not be able to graduate from Caltech at all. </p>

<p>
[quote]
why? most top kids in Calif assumes/believes/knows, that a cc course is EASIER that an AP course at a top public high school. If perception is 90% of reality, do you think adcoms don't know that?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sure they know it. But knowing about it and doing something about it are 2 completely different things. For example, I'm sure that med-school adcoms are well aware that it is much harder to get top grades in engineering courses at Caltech and MIT than, say, in Film Studies courses at some no-name school. But if they continue to prefer those guys who have top grades from easy classes over those MIT/Caltech engineers with low grades, then what good does it do for the adcoms to 'know'? A similar argument applies to the CC grades. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that the adcoms want high grades first and foremost, and care relatively little about how you get them, as long as you get them. In other words, it's better to get an easy, do-nothing A than to get a hard-fought C. Sad but true. </p>

<p>Personally, this situation is very unfortunate and unfair, and I think med-schools shouldn't use grades at all. I think if they want to use numbers, they should only use MCAT scores, and if the MCAT is an incomplete proxy of your skills, then the MCAT should be made better, i.e. something similar to the multi-day Bar exam or the CPA exam (but for medicine, obviously). That way, it's fair. Everybody takes the exact same test so everybody can be judged on the same scale. The problem with grades is, like I said, different schools, different majors, and different classes have widely varying grading standards. It's far easier to get top grades at certain places than at others. The guy with a 2.5 in engineering from Caltech may actually be better than the guy with a 4.0 from a no-name school who completed a cheesepuff major. </p>

<p>However, none of that is here nor there. As long as med-school adcoms insist on running things the way they do, then the proper response is to do whatever you have to do to avoid bad grades, and if that means deliberately poaching easy classes at easy schools, then so be it. It's a sad testament to how the process works, but what are you going to do?</p>

17

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>The quick answer to your post #13 is with logic. I will come back with a longer discussion if I get some time later on.</p>

<p>I argued that student C who has a 3.5 in junior/senior years should have a higher GPA in freshman/sophmore. And you disagreed, claiming that weeder courses would make it harder to get high GPA in the first two years.</p>

<p>If you were right, the majority of students who have successfully completed four years of college on the Dean's List (3.5 GPA or above) would have higher junior/senior GPAs than freshman/sophomore GPAs.</p>

<p>I think you will find that the reality is just the opposite ... especially for engineering. Engineering students with 3.5 core-courses GPA is at the top 15-20% of their class and they are competing with students who have survived the weeder courses. These students are unlikely to have problem with the weeder courses.</p>

18

<p>First off, I never said that the majority of students will have higher junior/senior GPA's than fresh/soph GPA's. Some will, some won't. My point is that you cannot presume one way or another. The presence of lower-division weeders tremendously complicates the grading situation such that I don't think you can tell which is truly easier overall, fresh/soph classes, or jun/sen classes. </p>

<p>Secondly, don't fixate on the numbers so much. These are just numbers that I made up. My point is not to argue about specific numbers but to illustrate the fact that those CC transfers are able to skip over many of the weeders to get right to the upper division. Once you get to that upper division, then as long as you do the work, you're going to pass. Maybe not with top grades, but at least you'll pass. Even if you're the very worst student in your class, you'll still get a (barely) passing grade. Contrast that with the weeders in which they will not hesitate to give you an F. </p>

<p>The real point is that the professional schools are highly GPA oriented, and don't care very much about how you get a high GPA, as long as you get it. So if that means cherry-picking easy classes at an easy school, then that's what it takes. I know people who were already completely fluent in a foreign language, but decided to take all the intro courses in that language anyway just to rack up a string of easy A's. It worked. He got into a premier law school. And then you see people who took extremely difficult coursework at extremely difficult schools not get in anywhere. Bottom line - an easy creampuff A is better than a hardfought C. Sad but true. All the other discussion is just window dressing.</p>