<p>sakky, I am arguing that it is NOT a loophole.</p>
<p>There is obviously some utility value in being a freshman admit or every rational person would transfer in.</p>
<p>You saying it’s a loophole does not make it so.</p>
<p>“Final exam or equivalent”</p>
<p>We DO take the equivalent course…at a CC. What is your argument?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well it may not be considered upto Cal’s standards in all cases. I think they should review what you have done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you’re talking only of the system. I.e. you’re saying that by the system, there are advantages to being a frosh that a transfer doesn’t have. Sure. But we’re talking about rigor, not weighing who should be pitied more. At least that is what I am talking of.</p>
<p>I don’t know how much it is a problem that transfers get the easy way out. I have seen transfers having to retake courses because they were deemed not rigorous enough. I think that’s going too far and they should be able to test out of it.</p>
<p>What do you mean review what what we have done? It’s called IGETC certification, and the courses ARE reviewed for transferability, and some, like you pointed out, are deemed not to be up to Cal’s standards. So I once again ask, what is the argument?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the courses are truly the equivalent, then transfer students should have no problem whatsoever with taking the corresponding Berkeley final exam, right? So what’s the argument not to do so? </p>
<p>Heck, you should want that, because I am perfectly happy to give you a Berkeley-credited A if you earn an A on that final, hence boosting your Berkeley GPA.</p>
<p>Either that, or you can argue the other stance, which is that freshman admits should be able to concurrently enroll in a community college and to use courses to skip over Berkeley weeders, just as the transfer students do now. Again, since you claimed that the courses are supposedly equivalent, then there is no reason not to allow this, right? Then you should join me in endorsing my proposal to strike Berkeley’s prohibition against concurrent cc enrollment. </p>
<p>The fact that there continues to be resistance to this idea indicates that the courses are not equivalent course…and we have therefore identified a loophole. Seems to me that you actually want different rules for different students, and I therefore must ask: why? What exactly is the argument for different weeder rules for different admissions pathways? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And equivalently, your claiming that it is not a loophole does not mean that it isn’t.</p>
<p>Nobody should take my word or MortimerC’s. Instead, like I said, we should leave it up to the masses: allow all Berkeley students, whether frosh or transfer admits, the exact same methods to skip weeders. If transfer students can skip weeders through certain CC courses, then freshman admits should be allowed to skip those same weeders by taking those same CC courses. What’s fair is fair. That way, you can truly guarantee that no loophole exists, as then everybody, regardless of admissions scheme, has the same options to circumvent weeders as everybody else.</p>
<p>It’s obvious there is a loophole. And it’s obvious that transfer students will be hostile to criticism of their admissions, it’s and expected reaction.</p>
<p>We’ve all taken community college classes and we all know that they are a joke. Students who are incapable of obtaining a 3.0 in high school receive high marks in these classes every year and are guaranteed admission to schools like UCSD, UCD, ect without ever having to take a standardized exam.</p>
<p>mathboy and sakky,</p>
<p>Talking over the internet is easy, how to we fix this problem in real life? how should we get involved?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To be clear, I haven’t said anything about the appropriateness of the admissions policy of transfer students, as I think that’s a separate topic. </p>
<p>I am simply wondering why transfer students are allowed to skip over weeder courses that freshman admits cannot. If transfer courses are truly equivalent to the Berkeley weeders, then fair enough, freshman admits should be allowed to skip weeders by taking the corresponding community college courses, in the same way that the transfer students do not. Otherwise, transfer students should not be allowed to skip the weeders. I utterly fail to see a logical framework that supports allowing only transfer students to skip weeders, but not freshman admits. Why should having to take weeders depend on how you were admitted? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is something that needs to be posed to the administration, and happily, the administration does sometimes make changes in response to student concerns. You might work through ASUC, or even create a student group - call it “Students for Administrative Reform” - and ask to have an audience with the Dean. </p>
<p>I personally think the easiest win would be to lift the ban on simultaneous enrollment. Why shouldn’t I, as a Berkeley student, also be allowed to enroll in a community college during the regular semester without needing official permission? Why does Berkeley try to restrict what students do in their spare time? Why are students perfectly free to waste all their free time playing World of Warcraft, but not allowed to take community college classes? Shouldn’t it be a good thing that students want to learn more?</p>
<p>Yes, Cal students should be able to concurrently enroll. Many other colleges allow this, and I see no harm in doing so. Seems more like a money/power play on behalf of berkeley.</p>
<p>I would take caution in underestimating the rigor of some “weeder” equivalent community college classes. I’m not confident that berkeley freshmen would do substantially better in these classes than the top CC students.
But this is veering off of the topic of the thread, which is the singling out of transfers because of this. The problem is not on our side, it is on the side of UC admin in regards to freshmen admits.</p>
<p>
But that is the topic at hand. The title of this thread is* “Does anyone else feel like the majority of transfer students here are grossly sub par?”* Clearly there are many students who have this sentiment. The lax admission policies and laughable community college classes result in admission of students who are not at the same caliber as those who’ve been scrutinized by standardized tests and rigorous classes. </p>
<p>Sure, there is a problem with the fact that freshmen admits can’t take easy cc classes and are forced to take grade deflating weeder classes. But it would be irresponsible to not point out that transfer students are bypassing the exact system that gained Cal undergraduates the reputation for being part of the the hardest working, most intelligent, and most dedicated students when compared to their peers.</p>
<p>Countless times, I’ve heard about transfer students from my peers at UCSD. They worked tooth and nail to get to one of the top schools in the nation but all transfer students have to do is complete IGETC (GE’s) and a portion of their major prerequisites and they are **guaranteed **admission to UCSD.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ucsd.edu/prospective-students/transfers/prep-programs/tag.html[/url]”>http://www.ucsd.edu/prospective-students/transfers/prep-programs/tag.html</a></p>
<p>a 3.0! that is a disgrace…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the problem is on the side of UC admissions in regards to **transfer **admits. Freshmen admits come from the top of their classes, they receive scholarships, they score in the top percentiles in various examinations such as the SAT, ACT, AP exams, ect. Community college students are not subjected to a single standardized exam. Their entrance is based on the ill conceived notion that community college classes = real university classes. The problem is that too many unqualified transfer students are admitted to UC’s because the admission policies are easier.</p>
<p>Transfer students should be allowed into Cal. They are an important part of our campus and many of my peers and friends transferred from cc or other UCs. But if a student is admitted to UC Berkeley, transfer or freshmen, they should gain admission by the same method and on a level playing field.</p>
<p>EDIT: I probably wont be able to respond to any comments directed at me until next weekend.</p>
<p>Transfer student entrance is based on the fact that they went to a college and succeeded, this aptitude is exactly what your precious “exams” are meant to account for.
unqualified for who? You, you set arbitrary criteria for what you think college admissions should look for, but that’s only based on your myopic viewpoint.</p>
<p>I could argue the exact opposite of this. Transfer admits are better suited for the rigors of academic work at Cal because they have proven, on some level, to be able to handle the demands of college life. And that is not just grades, that’s time management, extra curriculars/work/internships, the ability to create ones own schedule etc. A test doesn’t account for this which is why you see so many freshmen unable to handle the daily grind (even though they did great on those tests you’re so high on)</p>
<p>your 8.6 Highschool GPA means nothing to me without context.</p>
<p>The best thing I think anyone can hope for is to allow concurrent enrollment to all students. If anything, the number of transfer students stands to increase in the near future.
So I guess basically…deal with it.
This is not a defeatist attitude, I just reject the precepts of the arguments posed in this thread, and the University agrees with me. I’m out.</p>
<p>Mortimer, LOL at how your HS GPA examples keep getting higher and higher =)</p>
<p>Thread is a joke, most of the posters in it are a joke. Not as smart as you think you are… kinda funny to see people that are somewhat intelligent argue about things that would become trivial if they just had a little more life experience. Have a nice day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sympathize with your point, but the notion that transfer students are not equivalently qualified as the freshman admits is not yet a proven point (although I strongly suspect that it is true). We need harder evidence. As you may know, the transfer students, with the (inexplicable) backing of the administration, is simply going to point to the Berkeley GPA’s of the transfer students and note how they are higher than that of freshman admits, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the freshman admits were forced to endure GPA-damaging weeders. As I’ve proposed before, a better way to perform the analysis is to compare freshman vs. transfer post-weeder GPA’s, when all students are forced to take the same courses, regardless but that is something that the administration (unsurprisingly) refuses to report. It’s not clear that the result would mean much anyway, as the weeders convince many freshman-admits to leave - sometimes involuntarily - certain majors and are hence not counted in later GPA calculations. </p>
<p>However, if we could allow freshman admits to bypass weeders through cc coursework, then we really could construct a more accurate GPA comparison of freshman vs. transfers and we would have better evidence as to whether transfer students are equivalent to freshman admits or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Last I checked, a lot of frosh admits (given they were probably shooting high, many for Ivy Leagues), likely had extra-curricular involvement, and significant stuff at that. In fact, the transfer friends I made tended to do less of that, given many of them were pretty set on heading for the UC system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it is about having a sanity check, because reviewing and certifying rigor may not have been taken seriously enough. I think actually, if someone goes the CC route and comes in with a certain major declared, the easiest way is to have to test into the major by proving that one has competency in the basic courses one had to take, up to the university’s standards.</p>
<p>I’ve found that sometimes the departments are very strict (even varying across dept), but they can also be lax. </p>
<p>Either way, I think you’d find my option better than what happens today – which is that some transfers get off easy, and others have to literally retake weeder courses; I think we can do away with both of these with better admissions criteria involving demonstrating proficiency in the major one intends to enter with (after all, these are people entering junior year, it is reasonable to expect them to put down a major). Or at the very least, once declaring a major in the college, having to prove competency. </p>
<p>By the way, this is how graduate school works. Berkeley’s math program, for instance, has been reputed to admit students of varying background and calibers, especially in the earlier years. And their philosophy was - if you want to do it, then pass our prelim exam. Admittedly the prelim is harsh, and I don’t think it’s a great measure of success as a mathematician. But it’s also an advantage in the sense that people of varying backgrounds who show they can perform at a high level get the chance to prove themselves (rather than simply not having been seriously considered for admission). If grad students, who go through a selective admissions process, have to prove themselves when they get in, and frosh admits (apparently) do in undergraduate education through weeders, then perhaps it makes sense that anyone should have to do some basic, rigorous testing-in, so that there is a standard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the context is provided by making sure educational standards are set comparably. What you’re endorsing is that frosh AND transfers should have to prove themselves equally. That, I can agree with. </p>
<p>The sticky point is that transfers went to a different school. We can’t assume their school is up to the same caliber without verification. I think there can be options - either a professor is able to verify the standards of what was done before admission, prior to declaring a major officially, or there can be a way to show proficiency in a test comparable to Berkeley’s final exams in the basic coursework. Again, this is what happens in grad school - you get tested on basic stuff that your undergrad material was meant to have covered, as a sanity check.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re not talking of vague words like unqualified, at least I am not. I am saying, this is a certain university called Berkeley, and we should make sure its students are put through comparable standards. You enter from elsewhere? Great. Make sure you prove that what you did before is actually good enough. Who defines good? Not me, let’s say the professors here in the major you want to do decide that.</p>
<p>Ideally, they do so BEFORE you are admitted as a transfer.</p>
<p>Don’t forget that some people (like me) that had to do a year of community college spent time at 4 year universities (say 1.5 years, to be honest.) I even did upper-division work a little bit, but because of personal issues, had to drop down.<br>
Second, I don’t believe AT ALL that the SAT/ACT measures any ounce of intelligence!! I did not do well (below 1200) but I am doing fine in college! So what do you have to say about that lol?<br>
Stop scorning people just b/c they didn’t have to do the same thing that you did. We’re all graduating with the SAME degree at the end of the day. And, ironically, most of my friends here that are transfers work harder than the burnt out people that’ve been here since freshman year. Keep an open mind, STOP judging pls :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You just highlighted the heart of the problem: people are indeed being granted the same degree, regardless of their admissions pathway. There would indeed be less controversy if transfer students were granted a different degree than the frosh, but they’re not. Hence, it should behoove everybody - including the transfer students - that the integrity of that singular degree be maintained. If a loophole exists where certain students are allowed to skip weeders on their way towards the degree while others are forced to endure those weeders, then that loophole should be closed forthwith. Nobody should be in favor of loopholes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are they burnt out because of the weeders they were forced to take that the transfer students don’t have to take? Is that why the transfers are not burnt out and can work hard? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are trying to keep an open mind, which is why I am proposing systemic reform rather than simply casting blame. </p>
<p>But the fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, suspicion will be heightened whenever some people are accorded special treatment that others do not receive. Special treatment breeds resentment. The only way to prevent that is to abolish the special treatment. Take away the excuses of your detractors.</p>
<p>Berkeley has been my dream school for my whole life, but reading this thread has made me very disheartened. Do Berkeley freshman admits really feel this hostile toward transfer students? I love the school, but I don’t want to go somewhere where I won’t feel accepted.
I also don’t think I will be “sup-par” when I transfer, since I have to take classes like organic chemistry and differential equations, which are difficult no matter where you take them.</p>
<p>The difficulty of those classes you mentioned differs greatly between different schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that hostility towards transfer students is particularly pronounced. The real problem is the weeders, whose grading is an embittering experience to practically everybody who is forced to endure them. Eliminate the weeders, or at least allow a pathway for freshman-admits to avoid them, and most of the other disputes would resolve themselves. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the point remains that as long as the transfer students are allowed to skip weeders that the freshman-admits are forced to take, then the freshman-admits have a legitimate beef.</p>