<p>I am not sure what the point is here, but there are many dimensions to be added. Think about it – you are saying transfers are more emotionally mature on average than frosh admits, so there are different admissions standards. Granted they might have a different set of experiences by virtue of being of a different batch. However, is emotional maturity what you want to judge admits by? Maybe a little, but I don’t think it’s so bad to be an immature frosh who is really academically qualified, bursting to try stuff out at Berkeley for four years and develop into something great. </p>
<p>I see no reason why emotional maturity should call for a lesser degree of regulation of academic rigor. What, are we now saying “oh, they had much more experiences…hard classes don’t teach you about life, so replace them with life experience”? If anything, why should a university take on students who might have done less academically and are additionally resigned to getting outa there soon, so they can get their degrees and move on?</p>
<p>I’m not generalizing about frosh and transfers here. I am making a general distinction regarding the kinds of things one can use to admit a student. If someone’s life experiences specifically are tailored to suggest that they’ll suck the marrow out of their university experience, then fine. For example, if someone were to have been psychologically damaged by parents or relatives, and wanted to pursue something in psychological studies at Berkeley but didn’t have a 4.0 GPA, but showed other promise, I would take that into consideration.</p>
<p>But a greater emotional maturity + having gone through a “Dear me, what am I doing phase” in and of themselves don’t promise for a student who takes advantage of the school better. I guarantee you the transfers I know personally would say the same.</p>
<p>The section of my post that you’d quoted contains no factual claim at all. You’re not half as bright, witty or articulate as most people here, so although it pains me to respond, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that I was using a hypothetical construct as a persuasive device. Oddly enough, we learned about these at Community College in English 1A.</p>
<p>Firstly, I want to point out that I was just repeating the same idea seniors, professors, and admissions officers have expressed to me personally.</p>
<p>Just last week I spoke to one of my psych professors who said that the general consensus within the department is that they prefer transfer students over freshman admits because they are generally more prepared to deal with Berkeley. I mean if you look at the facts, 1 in every 4 students drop out before their sophomore year ([The</a> dropout dilemma: One in four college freshmen drop out. What is going on here? What does it take to stay in? | Careers and Colleges | Find Articles at BNET](<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTR/is_4_22/ai_84599442/]The”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTR/is_4_22/ai_84599442/)). Don’t you think that its a good indicator of how unprepared SOME college freshman are? It’s like a baby who tries to walk without crawling. Going from high school to college is similar, its possible to do it, but its a little harder. Community colleges allow students to “crawl” before they can walk, and, as a result, might be more prepared than freshman admits. I think this is why, maybe, grades and GPA do not have such high importance for transfers as it does for freshman.The amount of college preparedness is, no doubt, more prominent among transfers than freshman. But As I said before 12 AP classes, awards, and club presidencies may show your academic prowess, but not your “college street smarts” (This is the best way I can describe it). Again this idea is just one that has been expressed to me time and time again by seniors, professors, and admission officers. </p>
<p>One last thing, the reason for all these transfer admits is probably because it makes more financial sense. When you have 1/4 freshman dropping out, that might add up. I can’t speak for all transfers, but I know the fact that I only have 2 years (1.5 if I can get one class I’m waitlisted for), is enough motivation for me. I think the university puts more faith in transfers than freshman. I’m sorry I don’t have stats or facts to back this claim up, but you can’t deny there might be some truth to it.</p>
<p>It happens to be true, and I’ll be highly amused by the series of responses I’m sure are on deck, but… even if that weren’t the case, precisely what bearing would it have on the actual substance of the argument?</p>
<p>I’ve long been fascinated by the rabid desire to impugn those with whom we disagree by any means possible. Human nature is so delightfully dark.</p>
<p>KnitKnots, what you say does make sense. But while you don’t have data to back up the assertion that transfers are more prepared for Berkeley than freshman admits, there is some data collected by Professor Hilfinger. Admittedly, this data is only over a 1 or 2 year span, but it’s still data to be considered. </p>
<p>Transfers in the CS department have to take pretty much the same lower division CS courses as freshman admits because there are almost no equivalents of CS61A and CS61C. Some transfers get out of CS61B, which is according to Sakky the weeder course. As a result, you’d expect the average GPA of transfers to be at least equal to those of freshman admits in lower div CS courses because of being able to skip the weeder and because (as you claim) transfers are more prepared after “learning how to crawl before walking.”</p>
<p>Yet the data shows the opposite. Freshman admits are performing better than transfer students in these courses. They may not be by much, but they still are. This is, of course, only in the CS department and can’t be generalized. </p>
<p>So while your idea can make sense, it isn’t true (in the CS lower div classes)</p>
<p>I dont get why anyone would care if a transfer does more poorly than any other student. So what! Its not your grade! In fact I dont get the point in being competitive with other students at all beyond trying to compete and better yourself. Seriously its the same degree with the same “prestige” for everyone. Besides, no matter what anyone says, Berkeley WILL NEVER lose its prestige and world wide recognition even if it did drastically lower its standards of admission simply because of its lucrative history and the great impact it has had on universities and the world of research. So what is the point of this whole argument? Really? Yes, I get it, you think its unfair, but so? Why does that matter? I think its unfair that I can’t afford cable and so I’m stuck waisting my time arguing on a stupid forum threads to kill time but hey, we all have our gripes. deal. really, why does this matter??</p>
<p>that was the point…none of this matters. We are all the same on paper, and that is just fine with me since I am not a competitive ******* and because my being “sub par” still gets me into a top ranking institution, lets me learn under some of the greats, gets me a high paying job, helps me better care for my family, and opens up doors to many other great opportunities. That sounds pretty fair to me.</p>
<p>College street smarts are an asset, but not substitute for academic prowess. I think it makes sense to admit people to college whom you can train, based on how well you can train them, and then offer them ways to get through college. College street smarts are something you learn over time. So is academic prowess. </p>
<p>If we are to be fair, transfers will be held to the same academic standards as frosh are for admissions.</p>
<p>If you wish to claim we should additionally not admit people to Berkeley without college street smarts, then we’d have to make Berkeley an all-transfer school. That’s a separate discussion, which we can start somewhere else if you’d like. </p>
<p>But having college street smarts in no way “replaces” academic prowess and evidence of it, because at some point, being academically excellent is being academically excellent, however emotionally mature one is.</p>
<p>Personally, I think a good college should help a student develop college street smarts over time. Isn’t that part of the point to getting there? Whereas the fundamental skills and evidence of being academically driven and talented are something one should screen for at the beginning. In fact, this is even more urgent for transfers since they are likely to start serious coursework soon after entering.</p>
<p>Further, I am willing to submit Berkeley may not actually do a good job of easing frosh into its rigor, but then, to echo sakky, the non-cynical and constructive solution would be to fix that issue. </p>
<p>Another data point is transfers certainly have college street smarts, greater than that of frosh admits who are fresh into college, but they certainly don’t have greater college street smarts than frosh admits who braved Berkeley for 2 years and underwent the brutal shock of weeders and getting used to college life and figuring out they aren’t as smart as they thought they were.</p>
<p>You are speaking of a different kind of unfairness, I think. I think you are speaking of inequality - i.e. your situation is different from that of the richest man in the world, for instance. If you find whoever and whatever is at fault for this, sure, I think we should try to fix that.</p>
<p>But here we can point our fingers at exactly where the unfairness lies, and the institution responsible for it, and safely we can assume the only option (assuming we care about Berkeley, which I think we do while engaging in this discussion) is to conclude the academic institution should modify something.</p>
<p>please define “college street smarts” in a coherent way and provide evidence of its existence.
I am skeptical that this vague and meaningless subject is even an issue worth discussing and slightly concerned (or amused) that a poster like mathboy would take it seriously.</p>
<p>Berkeley is currently a 4-year school with a chance for transfers to get a degree through a certain program of study. </p>
<p>Let’s be honest – as long as we have a 4 year school, does it make sense to give up on the frosh admits being statistically more prone to drop out? If we’re admitting so many frosh, it’s our responsibility to help them stay here. I know several other schools out there which probably have much smaller dropout rates consistently, so clearly it’s possible.</p>