<p>Wow. My friend and I are incoming transfers and this thread makes me sad. I hope not everyone has this attitude towards us. :(</p>
<p>most don’t. you will find Cal a very welcoming place</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you actually read the thread? Lots of us actually wrote constructive comments and don’t just hate on transfers. People like me who think the system isn’t great are some of those who know very bright and successful transfers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We had this discussion - let’s make sure to note this is only true in some majors [maybe MCB is one, not sure]. It is untrue in math, untrue in physics, untrue in much of EECS - I found people doing worse and worse once they got past the lower division in all these majors. The difference between Phys 7B and Phys 137A or 110A, the difference between EE 20 and 120 are all examples. Maybe CS 61B with Hilfinger is a weeder which really brings people down.</p>
<p>But yes, in general I still agree with your proposals sakky, just wanted to clarify where the problems really lie to people who may not know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being exposed to good information and reasoning is certainly one reason to sift through the rest of the BS in online message boards.</p>
<p>Here’s a stupid opinion I keep reading in this thread. “The transfer students weren’t even able to make it in as freshman!” </p>
<p>This is true. What’s your point? That their IQ is lower than yours? Because this is in no way any proof of that. </p>
<p>I was someone who did not get in out of high school…I had average SAT scores and low grades because I was lazy. After not getting into any of my dream colleges, I set out to change my study habits entirely and get where I wanted to be. I attended UC Riverside for my first two years, worked my tail off, became the top ranked student in my class and have now been accepted into Berkeley, LA, Davis with Regents, USC, UCSB, and waitlisted at Brown. I also retook my SAT’s (for private schools) and got a 2260. My story is pretty similar to most other transfers, except I went the “UC-UC” transfer route instead of the CC route.</p>
<p>Am I not worthy of Berkeley because it took me longer to get my act together? Because I wouldn’t have gotten in as a freshman? It’s true that most transfer students didn’t do well in high school…I just can’t figure out why this matters.</p>
<p>This thread is reflecting very poorly on Berkeley. For transfer students like myself trying to decide between schools, this thread causes concern about students’ attitudes at Berkeley.</p>
<p>Yes, there are some people who do badly in high school for reasons other than that they’re less able to do schoolwork. But the entire college admissions process is based on the simple (and obvious) fact that people who do badly in high school tend to be less prepared to do college level work.</p>
<p>Why is it so difficult for people to understand that “group X tends to be less Y than group Z” is not the same statement as “you, as a member of group X, must be less Y than every member of group Z”?</p>
<p>“But the entire college admissions process is based on the simple (and obvious) fact that people who do badly in high school tend to be less prepared to do college level work.”</p>
<p>Agreed. Most people who don’t get in from high school aren’t prepared. Most of these kids are not able to transfer to Berkeley either. Only the motivated or intelligent amongst them get to community college and turn their attitude around and get their work done. If I had gone to Berkeley straight from high school, I would have done poorly and maybe failed out. I wasn’t ready. After changing my attitude and study habits for my first two years, I’m now prepared to handle a Berkeley education. I don’t think my case is atypical at all. I would assume that most community college transfers were in a similar scenario. If your argument is that people who do poorly in high school are less intelligent or able than those who do well, I disagree. From my experience, the biggest difference between the kids with good and bad grades is interest in the school work and motivation, not intelligence. </p>
<p>It’s not like everyone who goes to community college just automatically is able to go to Berkeley. The acceptance rates are still low. Only the best out of the community college students make it in. </p>
<p>It is easier to get in from a community college than from high school. That doesn’t change what I’m saying, and the elitist attitudes in this thread are ridiculous.</p>
<p>It doesn’t change what I’m saying either. I don’t claim that you aren’t prepared for Berkeley, or that going to Berkeley is trivial for anyone in community college. Anyone who gets into Berkeley, transfer or not, is a better student than the vast majority of people.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean much here. The argument is that the average transfer admit is not as strong as the average freshman admit. It may be wrong, but the existence of very good transfer students does not prove that.</p>
<p>can’t believe this thread is still going, haha.</p>
<p>amarkov: Because it’s somewhat easier to get in from community college, then the conclusion can be drawn that on average transfers might be slightly less academically capable than high school students. Slightly. </p>
<p>People in this thread are acting like there is some huge gap to the point where freshman admits are awesome and transfer admits are ■■■■■■■. That’s what’s annoying me. It’s also annoying me that this thread was made in the first place. It’s pretty much like…who cares? If this is a topic that really gives Berkeley students angst, that reflects pretty negatively on the students at the school.</p>
<p>I have said like a parrot, arcadefire, the issues given in this thread are dancing around the point. The truth is Berkeley admits lots of subpar students, and has weeders in many tough majors with the philosophy that making it through these Berkeley majors means something. </p>
<p>The ideal way would be not to admit subpar students. The issue of what makes transfer admits less or more prepared is skirting the point, which is that Berkeley is simplistic in many ways [evidently] in how it performs admissions.</p>
<p>It DOES give me angst that under the current system, people who are qualified can relatively easily be given the cold shoulder over those who are underqualified and have inflated scores and grades, either from easy colleges or easy CCs - that’s just not just. But again, this isn’t hating on transfers, it’s hating on admissions often having the wrong priorities both in frosh and transfer admissions.</p>
<p>The whole issue sakky brings up on how to handle the weeders is sort of the next best solution to actually making the concept of weeders less necessary, which is by making sure admits meet a certain bar of qualification academically in the first place. MIT has some lower div courses similar to Berkeley, but chances are they confer more freedoms on their students under the assumption that they made a more thorough cleansing in the admissions process.</p>
<p>This does not imply becoming super-selective, nor does it necessitate it. It just means not being stupid and willingly admitting people who are blatantly underprepared.</p>
<p>mathboy: If an entrance exam were to be put in place, I think it would mainly be necessary in hard science/math/engineering majors. It seems extraneous in many other majors. However, from my experience with community colleges, such a test would be unfair and would make admission to the university exclusive to those who attended top community colleges. Rather, the reform would need to come with the community college systems themselves, which would be a pretty massive undertaking.</p>
<p>Many community colleges just are not that good. I met someone who transferred from my local community college into computer science at Berkeley. He was a (maybe even THE) top student. He did all the work, he got straight A’s, he tutored, he volunteered, etc. </p>
<p>He tells me that he wasn’t prepared at all for Berkeley. He told me that the community college courses just didn’t cover enough material/weren’t rigorous enough. He has a GPA of 2.1 in Berkeley. Under a “testing” system he wouldn’t have made it in. And if he couldn’t have made it in, nobody from that community college would have made it in. That’s not fair, since he did everything he could with the opportunities presented to him. </p>
<p>So it’s true that the current system makes it a bit easier to transfer in, but that’s due to non-uniform difficulty amongst community colleges. Since Berkeley is so committed to admitting community college students from California, I don’t believe an entrance exam is a fair or realistic solution. </p>
<p>(Note: I believe Cal Tech actually does what you proposed, but this makes sense since it is a private university with no obligation to the state of California. I just don’t think this solution is realistic for a public school that aims to enroll community college students).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s my whole point - why is it acceptable for our system NOT to take into account the degree of qualification? Why should a 4.0 GPA mean the same whether the student is massively underprepared and did a bunch of junk as a 4.0 GPA indicating mastery?</p>
<p>We go to high schools and CCs and work hard, so we deserve an education. That doesn’t mean subpar students deserve an education at UCB. Certainly not in favor of students who are more qualified. Which is what the current system encourages, by not taking into account the exact qualification, and instead admitting a 4.0 student with coursework from an easy school over, say, a 3.5 which actually means much more. I think there needs to be some standardized measure of real preparation. It’s not being exclusive - it’s saying we should normalize our currently utilized measures against a solid standard.</p>
<p>I agree that more standardization is necessary for community colleges, but I don’t think implementing content tests for classes for Berkeley admission is the way to do it. Like I said, that’s going to be screwing over students at bad community colleges. If the community college isn’t teaching the material rigorously enough, what’s the student supposed to do? Go to another community college? That’s not a realistic option for many. Community college students at the top of their class that take advantage of the opportunities they have deserve acceptance into Berkeley (that’s their admissions philosophy for freshman as well).</p>
<p>I believe community college courses should be more closely scrutinized and standardized, so that an ‘A’ at one does mean the same thing as an ‘A’ at another. Standard curves and more rigid syllabus’ across classes is probably the way to do it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look, arcade, Berkeley has to admit some number of students anyway. People who have had an easier CC experience have to suck it up and try harder to get in. Why should people who attend HARDER CCs and taking harder courses have to suffer for getting lower GPAs in more difficult work? You may feel you’re doing the right thing in expressing sympathy for those who are at a disadvantage by attending easier CCs, but you’re actually doing something else too - being callous towards those who had to endure more rigor at their CCs. Indeed, I know explicit cases like this where someone with incomparably better academics wasn’t favored in admissions, very likely due to GPA being lower than people who endured much less. </p>
<p>Those who go to easier CCs can suck it up and prepare. </p>
<p>If you speak otherwise, then you’re in effect saying people should not have to worry about preparing for college, only about getting high GPAs in their respective schools, which if you really think about it, fails in the duty of judging the qualifications of students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But something has to jolt these colleges into maintaining rigid syllabi. It makes perfect sense for these rigid syllabi to have to take into account the standards of a certain top public U in the state, for instance those imposed by either an entrance exam or something similar. Let’s be perfectly honest - it’s more likely that change will happen if some external standards are set higher than if nothing is done at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn’t explicitly prescribe what to do: the student must study independently on top of their [less rigorous] CC duties. This is reasonable, for one thing. </p>
<p>And to be honest, if the UC sets a standardized measure which is not bogus, then I guarantee you both high schools and CCs will take this into account and the average level of rigor will go up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not EVERYTHING. He did well in the school he went to. Students do SO much outside of basic schoolwork to get into college. I don’t see what’s the problem if a student has to study extra on top of what their CC asks them to do, namely work harder problems and read more rigorous versions of what is taught to them on the side. This is to get into not just any public university, but BERKELEY, not just a top public university but a crowning jewel in education in the world. I think a transfer admitted under my standards of rigor would still be getting a Berkeley education real easily for the caliber of the university.</p>
<p>My solution implements a reality check, which I think these students could use, rather than entering blatantly clueless, underprepared, and probably getting less out of their Berkeley education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CalTech has the luxury of being superselective and looking for ‘whatever it wants’ and ‘math and science passion’ - I think the key to a public U should be objectivity. You do what’s necessary coming from California, and we assure you a good chance at a top quality public education.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean we don’t require more effort from students who attend blatantly easier schools - I don’t see how that meets the goal of public education, because you’re NOT giving a fair opportunity to all Californians based on their qualification, rather you’re rewarding Californians who attend easier schools.</p>
<p>That’s funny…I always thought high school was a joke. Consider that most UC Berkeley freshmen graduated from the worst public high schools in the nation.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that most of Stanford’s transfers (around 90%) are from community colleges. </p>
<p>I guess getting accepted, whether as a freshman or a transfer, just means you have the potential to do well at Berkeley. It doesn’t matter where you came from but what you’re going to do now that you’re in.</p>
<p>I really hope most freshman I meet at Cal won’t be as ignorant as the OP.</p>