<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all! You will be fine, assuming you have had good training. The internet is not very representative, because (as comes up countless times) some of the most hostile people are the ones who usually post.</p>
<p>sakky, come up with some evidence showing that transfer admits know less than freshman admits at graduation, or quit whining. The University is not going waste time and resources satisfying your personal beliefs about what’s fair unless you can prove that it will lead to better educational outcomes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the heck are you saying, sakky? This would be promoting re-education, not education, which is what a university should provide.</p>
<p>Dumb reasoning is dumb.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The evidence would be clear: simply have them take the final exams of the weeder courses that they propose to skip. Then we’ll see once and for all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Judging from the reaction on this thread, it’s hardly just my personal beliefs. There seems to be a strong perception amongst many people that transfer students are unfairly skipping weeders. </p>
<p>Or, if you don’t like those proposals, see below.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is that such a shocking idea? The logistically amenable option was to simply have the transfer students take the final exams of the weeders they want to skip. I hardly see this as a particularly outrageous idea. Throughout our whole lives, we’ve had to take exams on topics that we already (ostensibly) know in order to prove that we do in fact know them. </p>
<p>But I agree - dumb reasoning is dumb, which is why defending loopholes is dumb. So, if you don’t like the proposal for transfer students retake weeders, or at least weeder exams, then let’s take the other route. Allow the freshman admits to skip weeders by taking the corresponding courses at community college, just like the transfers do. What’s fair is fair. If the transfer are allowed to skip weeders in that manner, then so should the freshman admits. </p>
<p>Or, if you don’t like that idea either, fine, then put your proposal on the table. But I don’t see why anybody would seriously defend the inequity of the status quo, for that, IMO, is either truly dumb, or simply cynical - that you concede it’s a loophole and you deliberately don’t want it fixed, perhaps because it’s benefitting you.</p>
<p>How about this: at the beginning of their junior year, all students, freshmen or transfer must take a final exam from all their previous classes. If they cannot score a passing grade, they must retake those classes. Sure it wastes time, money and resources without improving education and would probably lead to increased drop-outs, but fair’s fair.</p>
<p>I would support that over the status quo, although I maintain that my proposals are better. Nevertheless, I’m heartened that you agree that the status quo is inherently unfair.</p>
<p>sakky, after reading 5 of your posts I’ve come to a conclusion.</p>
<p>you are the whiniest most butt hurt person I have ever seen. did you fail a weeder class and not get in to your desired major, is that why you are upset?</p>
<p>transfers take the same weeders, they just don’t have to deal with an over competitive curve. you can do the same thing, just take your weeders at the community college before you come to UC Berkeley. your inherent lack of foresight does not represent a deficiency in the system, or a loophole- rather it represents you’re obvious lack of any discernible intelligence. so you come on to these forums, type up excessively long winded posts, and think that because your posts are so long people will think you are smart; well that is just not the case. your posts lack meaningful content and are just filled with whining and rants. </p>
<p>as for your final idea. are you dumb?? the only thing that makes these classes difficult is the curve, transfers have proven time and again that coming from a community college will not affect their grades in upper division classes.</p>
<p>so my point here is this; you have a problem with weeder classes, that is obvious. stop taking it out on the transfers, they are not a part of the problem- it is the broken system of weeder classes that needs an adjustment. </p>
<p>bunch of spoiled whiny little kids in this forum, I am deeply saddened to call any of you classmates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’m a freshman. And you can look at my post history for proof of such. Taking weeder exams is fine, but making someone retake classes that they have already taken(and became quite knowledgeable of the material) is not.</p>
<p>I don’t think any of this grade bullshiz will matter in 2000 years.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it make more sense, and be much simpler, if we have all the transfers and frosh take the same upper-division classes together and see how they compare with one another…?</p>
<p>…oh wait.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I did just fine, thank you very much. Sadly, I saw others who didn’t do well in their weeders, and it is for them that I speak. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you agree with me that transfers are given an easier pathway to skip weeders.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And my question then is: why can you only do so before you come to Berkeley? Why can’t you do so while at Berkeley? After all, transfer students are given 2 years to knock out weeder courses at a community college, so why can’t freshman admits do the same? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you don’t like my posts because you think they’re “whiny” or too long, then simply don’t read them. Nobody has a gun to your head. The fact that you continue to do so when nobody is forcing you only points to your lack of discernible intelligence. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you really this dumb??? I thought you would know that grading becomes substantially easier once you are past the weeders. I suspect that most freshman admits’ GPA’s would be higher if they didn’t have to count their weeder grades. </p>
<p>That’s the point. Performance in post-weeder coursework is not clearly correlated with how well you would have done with the weeders. That’s why weeders supposedly exist in the first place. Otherwise, why even have the freshman-admits take the weeders at all? Simply let them progress to the later courses just as the transfers do. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So then why don’t you support one of my proposals: allow freshman-admits to skip weeders by taking (supposedly) equivalent community college courses, just like the transfers students do. That would also fix the problem with weeders, would it not? But apparently, despite all of your complaining of my posts, you didn’t actually know about this proposal of mine - either that, or you didn’t want to know about it. </p>
<p>As I have said numerous times before, I have nothing against transfer students per se. I simply don’t think a weeder-free loophole should exist. If transfer students are allowed to skip weeders, then freshman-admits should too. Otherwise, everybody should have to take the weeders. What’s fair is fair. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Silly kids who don’t seem interested in a fair process or may not even want fairness, because the lack of fairness benefits them. I am truly saddened to call any such people classmates. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I’ve said, for logistical reasons, I’ve always been open to the notion of having transfer students simply take placement exams in lieu of the courses themselves. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And at the same time, why not eliminate weeders for everybody? </p>
<p>Again, the salient question which nobody seems to have a good answer for is: **why should only the freshman-admits be forced to take weeders? **</p>
<p>It’s pretty funny how everyone going against sakky starts off with an ad hominem. More proof that lots of people, freshman or transfer, are unqualified to come here :P</p>
<p>Here’s an even simpler solution. Make the upper-division classes even harder than the weeders, that way, everyone is happy.</p>
<p>@indiscreetmath- Including your own, there’s been like 2 posts in the past few pages that began with ad hominem arguments.</p>
<p>@sakky, that last post was sarcasm. My point is that your suggestions won’t yield better outcomes in education. You and some other students may think it’s unfair, but others including the people in charge of admissions would disagree. Fairness is subjective, so if you want to persuade them, you will need something more substantive. You’ll need something based on results.</p>
<p>Hmm, no, i said that poor logical skills imply lack of intelligence imply shouldn’t be here, that’s not an ad hominem, true or false.
Also, did I make any argument about the transfer situation? Nice try though.
Didn’t say anything about the past few pages, was referring to previous posts from awhile ago.</p>
<p>You said that “everyone going against sakky starts off with an ad hominem.” In other words, everyone who disagrees with sakky does not belong at Berkeley. That’s unambiguously an ad hominem. It is also wrong. You also said EVERYONE arguing against sakky make ad hominems, and yet no one in the past few pages made ad hominem arguments. Does EVERYONE not include the people in the past few pages?</p>
<p>this is what I am getting at, do you seriously think I am going to spend 20 minutes reading that and coming up with a counter argument. you are one obsessive ■■■■, sakky.</p>
<p>yeah, you’re right about the everyone part. Though you’re making the same mistake by changing from 1 other person to “no one”.
But I don’t think parsing my sentence to disagreeing with sakky implies not belonging at Berkeley is correct. I guess it looks like an ad hominem but the logical flow is not there. The ultimate conclusion doesn’t have anything to do with sakky being right or wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that you want to close your mind to what he says just because of the sheer bulk of his argument is more telling about you than him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the problem is that the system as designed deliberately obfuscates the results such that any information that would resolve the issue cleanly one way or another is not published. Of course, I strongly suspect that the reason that the information is not published is that it would probably be embarrassing for the school.</p>
<p>But, fair enough, I’d like to think I’m a fair guy, so I’ll engage your proposal on your terms. Here’s one possible way to resolve the issue: do a matching analysis: compare transfer-student GPA’s to freshman-admit GPA’s who are in the same classes. In other words, don’t count the GPA’s of the weeder courses that the freshman-admits must take. Then you would have a fair comparison. If the transfer students are significantly lower than the freshman-admits using a matched analysis, then we have an indication that transfer students are not as particularly well prepared for the major and perhaps should repeat some weeder courses. </p>
<p>But again, I suspect that the administration is not exactly keen on publishing such an analysis - otherwise, they would have done so by now. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You say that you won’t keep reading my posts to come up with a counterargument…but you’ll keep replying anyway. And you say that I’m an obsessive ■■■■?</p>
<p>I said it before, I’ll say it again: if you don’t like what I have to say, fine. Don’t read it. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. Nobody is forcing you to participate. Let the people who want to participate do so without interference.</p>
<p>This thread makes me happy to be at UCLA.</p>
<p>Good choice Casey. Good choice.</p>