<p>
[quote]
I didn't know that professors were the one's that admitted people to graduate school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes they are.</p>
<p>Frankly, that's also why graduate admissions tend to be more 'honest' than undergrad admissions. </p>
<p>As stated by software entrepreneur and essayist Paul Graham:</p>
<p>* A lot of my friends are CS professors now, so I have the inside story about admissions. It's quite different from college. At most colleges, admissions officers decide who gets in. For PhD programs, the professors do. And they try to do it well, because the people they admit are going to be working for them. *</p>
<p>*Admissions to PhD programs in the hard sciences are fairly honest, for example. The professors will get whoever they admit as their own grad students, so they try hard to choose well, and they have a fair amount of data to go on. Whereas undergraduate admissions seem to be much more hackable. *</p>
<p>OP - It is highly unlikely that a grad school (at least a reputable one) would accept you into its program with only two years of undergrad - only 1 1/2 which will be on the transcripts by the time you apply - and no upper division coursework or research. Additionally, professors will look askance at your request for letters of recommendation with only two years of undergrad, and they will not be able to write the kind of letters that will get you admission to grad school.</p>
<p>From your comments about "points" (relating to your understanding of Cali undergrad admissions), it is very clear you don't understand the grad school process. You need a solid foundation in your field before you even think about grad school. That means at least three years in undergrad. If you lack the interest in your field to even take your upper-division courses, why do you want grad school?</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply sakky. I understand that process now.</p>
<p>And to DeepSeekPhd. Everyone keeps assuming that I don't take interest in my field that I won't take my upper divisions, and it's kind of annoying me. I am taking my upper divisions, the same amount that anyone else would. What i'm skipping are my lower divisions. </p>
<p>Who ever made this rule that you need at least 3 years of undergrad? And no I don't lack interest in my field. The reason is that I have too much interest in my field that I want to go hurry up and learn everything so that when I can go to graduate school and start working with those professors in the specialty that I want to do.</p>
<p>This is only the general community making those assumptions of lack of depth for a shorter undergrad. If I were the admissions committee for graduate programs, I would be very critical of a student who seemed to "rush" his coursework. Obviously, if you maintain straight a's, great ec's, honest kid, whatever. But I'd think people would be more critical of students who "appears" to have taken the shorter easier route. BA's, I'd say on average is shorter (in the UCs especially).</p>
<p>That's the point entirely. Graduate programs usually don't want really young people BECAUSE they have your attitude. I know this is going to reek of ageism on my part, but there is a HUGE difference between the average 20-year-old and average 25-year-old in terms of maturity. Part of grad school is maturity and focus.</p>
<p>When you say, "Everyone keeps assuming" - that's the point. What do you think the grad admissions committee will assume? We're trying to tell you how it will look and how it will likely pan out. You asked for advice, after all. Getting upset because the advice isn't what you wanted to hear is a bit silly and immature.</p>
<p>I hear you when you say, "I want to go hurry up and learn everything." Unfortunately, grad school is mostly about doing research - you won't be able to devote time to classes like you can in college. That's why you should take as many courses as possible, in as many fields as possible, while you're still an undergrad. You should feel lucky that you have an extra year or so to devote to taking more courses in your field (and others), so that you will be maximally prepared to do research in grad school.</p>
<p>I am betting that right now you don't even know what specialty you would study in grad school. How can you assess how prepared you are, if you don't know what you want to do? And if you do know your future specialty, I would recommend that you go to a prof in that field and ask him what coursework you could take in his field to be well-prepared to do research in it.</p>
<p>While you're in his office, ask him whether he would take on a grad student with just two years of university-level coursework. When you listen to his answer, don't think to yourself how unfair it is to assume that you're less prepared or mature because of your age. Instead, tell yourself, "This opinion may be ignorant or biased, but other professors will probably have the same opinion. Like it or not, if I'm going to work with these people, I'll have to play by their rules."</p>
<p>I just started reading this post, so if I repeat something that has already been said I apologize:</p>
<p>First of all, in regards to the main question- get the BS. If you are going into any field that involves research, graduate schools will want you to have a strong background in the sciences. I originally chose to get my BS because I thought I was going to go to graduate school in Psychology. I eventually changed my mind and decided to go into Social Work, but the BS still looked good on my application</p>
<p>Secondly, I highly recommend that you take at least 3 years to graduate. As DespSeekPhd mentioned, you are going to need letters of rec to get into graduate school. Graduate schools like to see letters from distinguished faculty, and they mostly teach upper level courses. If you try to graduate in 2 years, all of your upper level classes will take place your last year- and none of those professors will have time to write you letters of recommendation (nor will they know enough about you to do so). I am not saying, however, that you can't graduate early. I am graduating this June after 3 years of undergrad. It worked for me, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on my "senior year" (although I am staying at Ohio State for grad school). I will say that I had to plan my graduation far in advance and think seriously about which professors I would ask for LORs, etc.</p>
<p>Finally, about the maturity thing, it's what you make of it. Yes, there is a difference between 20 and 25. I happen to be 20-years-old and graduating from college, but I'm ready to move on. I have volunteer experience abroad and work experience that is related to my career choice, and it is time for me to get a job (or work on getting one!). Plus, I feel like I accomplished everything I wanted to in 3 years rather than the traditional 4.</p>
<p>** My whole point is slow down and enjoy college. If you want to graduate early, fine, but don't "rush" it. And get the BS- no pun intended.</p>
<p>If you slow down and take more time as an undergrad, and fewer classes per term, you will have more opportunity to get valuable work and research experience before you apply to grad school, to gain focus on what exactly you want to do, and to build good relationships with professors (or deepen your relationships with professors who already love you) who can write you letters of recommendation. All of this will help you get into better programs than you would have otherwise.</p>
<p>You will also have more time to research graduate programs. If you do this really well, it will increase your chances at admission (because you'll be applying to places where your interests fit well), and your chances of actually finishing your graduate degree (because you'll be attending a place that is a good fit for you). And having gone more slowly will fend off burnout.</p>
<p>And, you know, you'll have more time to enjoy your undergrad experience - your friends, your activities, your dorm/frat/commune/whatever, your campus culture, etc. It's an influential stage of your life, not just a hoop to jump through.</p>