Does anyone else feel like majority of transfer students here are grossly subpar??

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
761

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, funnily I’m not quite taking it seriously, because the point of my posts is that I can avoid giving a definition of college street smarts, and still have my point remain valid (that such a thing is not relevant to our admissions discussion, and that no matter what the definition, transfers still need to be held to the same academic standards). But I am taking it seriously in the sense I want to formulate my argument as: “regardless of your definition, presuming ‘college street smarts are acquired after going to college’ holds, academic standards must be maintained equally” rather than “I know what you mean by college street smarts, and that’s just stupid” or “there is no good definition of college street smarts” since such discussions just get into defensive rants. You and I both know many transfers do and always will believe that they gain something from their experience that frosh admits do not. I don’t want to argue that point when I don’t have to.</p>

<p>My guess is KnitKnots means spending some time after high school figuring out how to live in some version of college life. That of course has numerous holes, because adapting to a college is not the same thing as adapting to Berkeley in particular. </p>

<p>I think adapting to college does take some time, and a lot of one’s stupid ideas are corrected over time. But again, the point of my posts is to say that none of this in any way is relevant to what I am saying.</p>

762

<p>I actually think its all about how you look at it. I really think that academics, like you said, are something that can be taught to most people (meaning anyone that doesn’t have a sort of learning disorder, etc). Everyone has strengths in certain fields, and hopefully that is the major one chooses. So, in this case, I think that while Freshman are learning academics and “college street smarts” from the get-go, transfers often get to master the “street smarts” and half of the academics prior to entering a 4-year putting them on an even playing field with freshman admits once they enter the institution. Just because a transfer may not have submitted to the plethora of standardized testing that many frosh had to admit too that doesn’t mean that they are any less qualified as students. This is proven by the majority of transfers finishing their degree’s at the 4-year institutions they transfer into, and more so by the majority that do well once transferred in. Instead of being upset that transfers aren’t being forced to partake in such testing, why not be upset that freshman admits had too? It’s been proven over and over that standardized testing doesn’t show much to represent a student and it defiantly is a biased and single-minded testing procedure that does not translate well into the real world. Besides, whether you want to admit it or not, High Schools, even the most rigorous ones (with the exception of some private schools I assume) are not hard at all. I went to a top ranking California public high school and I thought many of my classes were easier than a few of my CC courses that I took (which is at an apparently low ranking CC). Why do you think it is so impressive to colleges that a HS student can get great grades, do so many EC’s, and take so many AP classes?Why do you think HS students are held to a higher standard? Perhaps its because High School is not hard. High School is relatively easy in regards to academic rigor and so it makes sense that for the students to stand out they must appear to be working extra hard by staring in the school play and volunteering at the local food bank while acing all their courses. High School hand feeds you the answers and provides you with a set schedule making the process very easy to get through. That is how those standards compare to CC transfers. CC transfers still have to do well at their CC and have to live an “adult life” at the same time, something that HS students don’t have to do. So, yes, the standards weigh the same…and that is something that unfortunately many freshman admits may never understand because they have always had a helping hand to set their standards while community college forces one to do that themselves. Anyone can learn but few can use the knowledge they gain. CC teaches you how to apply your knowledge and forces students to focus in on a goal. So while it may not be the same exact standard they still weigh the same. An apple and an orange taste completely different but they are still both fruit, they both grow on trees, and they both deserve to sit in the same decorative bowl.</p>

763

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, I will refrain from defining “college street smarts” and use my prior characterization as something you learn after you enter college. </p>

<p>Pure street smarts are for the street, and not for college ;)</p>

<p>Ok now serious points: first, I don’t believe it fair to compare transfers to frosh in the sense you are doing. Frosh develop all the “college street smarts” you want after they go through 2 years of Berkeley, because Berkeley offers both academic and social opportunity at the very least comparable to community college. Braving a big school and making one’s way is part of it, and braving a hard school is another. </p>

<p>See? Ultimately to preserve the integrity of the school, what we need is transfers who have achieved terrific things academically, comparable to the frosh, excelled in lower division coursework at a level comparable to the frosh at Berkeley, or at least getting there. </p>

<p>Your point would have potential to be valid [even though I suspect it still would not] if you were comparing people with “half street smarts and half academics” who planned to enter as frosh … alongside people with “full academics”. </p>

<p>Also, does anyone see how vaguely defined these “half” and “full” are? Or am I being an anal mathematician…</p>

764

<p>

</p>

<p>Depends how good the standardized testing is. I agree that a lot of our standardized testing is laughable. </p>

<p>But as a few transfers I have encountered believe, their coursework and experiences were even easier and more laughable. Some, admittedly, had great, exceptional teachers in community college. I think good standardized testing would serve to indicate who can really think and who can’t. Either this, or one should keep detailed notes on the rigor of each individual high school and community college…which is ideal, but may be ridiculously difficult to do realistically.</p>

765

<p>“Your point would have potential to be valid [even though I suspect it still would not] if you were comparing people with “half street smarts and half academics” who planned to enter as frosh … alongside people with “full academics”.”</p>

<p>hmmmm…so just because at 17 I didnt plan to go to college that means of am a) incapable of ever doing so and b) unqualified for doing so later? Interesting. I want you to think long and hard about what motivated you to go to college as a kid and kept you motivated up until you applied. I’m sure that you and many in your situation had some great advantages that most of us didn’t, or that you just happened to be lucky enough to have been more mature than most at that age. If a transfer can do well once they transfer that means they were always capable of doing well they just maybe weren’t capable at 17. Why would that matter to you when this shift occurred? Take me for instance, I was a snot nosed little brat at 17 that couldn’t bother to show up for school so I just assumed I wouldn’t go to college. Then once I realized that working at urban outfitters for the rest of my life sucked balls and wasn’t what I wanted to do I started taking classes at SMC and grew the **** up. The doesn’t mean I couldn’t do it before, it just means I wasn’t motivated. For me it was a maturity level, for others its due to life circumstances such as financial difficulties, family issues, etc. ANYONE that gets a degree at a 4-year deserves to be there and can obviously do the work to get there. Just because some aren’t at the top of their class once there that doesn’t make them incapable, or inadequate, that just makes them non-competitive, or distracted, or well-deserving of the grades they do get. Most students whether frosh admits or not are in the middle range of GPA’s. Not everyone wants to be #1, and frankly I think that’s pathetic if you think everyone should be that (and obviously impossible). We all just want to do our best, and feel we get in return what we put in whether we ****ed up at 17 or not.</p>

766

<p>Once again…who cares?! This is an individualistic country. People are allowed the liberty to be lazy, stupid, slackers or ambitious go getters. Let other people learn and grow at their own pace instead of falling into BS elitist snobbery. The problem with the US has always been mollycoddled busy bodies and people trying to restrict another persons liberty. Trying to put up your own measuring stick of what makes a man/woman or student based upon some petty tyrant premise of standards is absurd and regressive thinking. </p>

<p>Some students will purposely seek out easy teachers whether in the CCC, CSU, or UC system, some won’t and want to challenge themselves. Who cares. Try thinking for yourself and let others cheat themselves. When it is all said and finally done, it will matter little to anybody besides gaining a few brownie points from your family and the occasional social gathering. I swear some of you people want to live in some stale homogeneous world where everyone is the same everything is certain and safe. </p>

<p>I can’t believe I am witnessing such sniveling about unfairness from Berkeley students. Its not only pathetic but utterly pointless when you people are suppose to be the next generation of leaders. Do the best you can and FTW and what other people are doing. Seriously, if some of you people are suffering from such swollen pride thinking you are better than another person because have different goals, interests, or methods of learning go back on your parents meds or seek professional help. </p>

<p>You know nothing but think know it all frosh can look down on transfers all you want but realize the majority of CHS are a bigger joke compared to the majority of HS elsewhere. </p>

<p>Good job paiin, SMC is a decent school, and many of the classes I had there used the same books as they do at UCLA. In fact some of the instructors I had at SMC were better than ones at UCLA. </p>

<p>I’ve already posted facts, research, articles, and reports that dispute much of what many of you are saying only to receive insults in return instead of actual rational dialogue.</p>

767

<p>paniikd:</p>

<p>I agree with many of your points, and your reasoning is sound – insofar as I’ve got an ability to make that determination, anyhow. :)</p>

<p>But as you may already know, several active members of this thread discuss transfers as though they were animals – bipedal creatures who resemble freshman admits in appearance but are otherwise fundamentally different somehow and generally unworthy of their status as students. It’s difficult to approach that sort of thing rationally, because theirs is an irrational position. Kudos to the members who refrain from impugning transfer students in general and stick to more reasoned, healthy debate concerning course requirements.</p>

<p>The elitism here smacks of fascism, frankly. If I didn’t know better, I’d say this entire thread is some curious social experiment. Pity that isn’t the case.</p>

768

<p>GT, elitism is typically considered the opposite of fascism in a traditional sense. Fascism as a movement was nearly always a populous one. I’m not sure but are you relating to social conformity like the fascist like psyche experiments that were done here in California and a few other places?</p>

769

<p>I think both sides should just agree to this: there are a lot of sub-par transfer students and freshmen admits at Berkeley.</p>

770

<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>So if it benefits you it’s fair? haha.</p>

771

<p>of course, that is why the argument is absurd. There are mediocre and intelligent students spread out across the entire education system no matter where they attend. There are just too many people who are vastly different from each other to make any sort of speculative generalization or a one size fits all admission policy. That is why UCB and other universities level the playing field by having a holistic admissions process.</p>

772

<p>Paniikd: no, if you figured things out after age 17, I think you would be a good potential transfer, assuming you became academically of sufficient caliber. And indeed I have known transfers who are amazingly bright.</p>

<p>I meant that if you want to talk of college street smarts, whatever that is, frosh admits who braved two years at Berkeley likely have enough, even if frosh themselves do not, so we cannot use so called street smarts as a reason to justify admitting transfers with the potential to enter with upper division standing, without applying the same academic standards to them as we did to frosh admits.</p>

773

<p>Also I never said everyone need be number one GPA-wise. I am saying a comparable range of excellence should be there. If it is, great.</p>

774

<p>Dude not everyone that wants to attend Cal wants to be a math or science or engineer major. The whole claim that boo hoo, transfers don’t have to take the same hard math or physics class as you because you chose a more demanding major is pathetic. I don’t know why you still don’t seem to get that in your reasoning that is border-lining on being rigidly dogmatic and oppressive.</p>

775

<p>

</p>

<p>There is exactly one person in the world that has this story, that is you. N = 1 does not prove anything. You made it congrats I’m happy for you but you didn’t provide any evidence that shows that these hardships could not have happened to a traditional student.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We’re talking about Berkeley here. Getting a degree from Berkeley is competitive for freshmen because they have to jump through so many hoops to get it, transfers don’t have to prove themselves to the same extent. So why exactly should 2 groups get the same degree when one group worked significantly harder?</p>

<p>

Transfers do not have a syndicate on life circumstance, maturity, financial, and family problems. Life is tough, traditional admits have to go through the same problems, “I had a hard life” doesn’t substitute academic ability.</p>

<p>

The discussion isn’t about getting the degree, the discussion is about having the opportunity to get a degree from Berkeley.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This doesn’t have anything to do with admitting students based on two different systems.</p>

<p>

fair enough, then do you want to prove that you’re better than your 17 year old self by taking standardized exams and being held to the same admissions standard as traditional admits? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>these are the courses you have taken:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/998992-chance-ccc-transfer-ucsb.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/998992-chance-ccc-transfer-ucsb.html&lt;/a&gt;

</p>

<p>your opinion on academics is meaningless</p>

776

<p>123456789bc: You are just an *******. Plain and simple, you also take everything WAY too literally. I was using my circumstance as an example of a transfer, and I know for a fact that I had it easy. My whole argument is still the same and applies to ALL transfers. We are all looking for second chances and worked hard to get there, and thus deserve the chance to get into the same universities. The reason we aren’t subject to standardized testing is because we proved our ability to do well at a University level by overcoming our circumstances and planning out a successful cc transfer program, which despite what you may believe is a lot harder than it seems. High School students have no other way to prove their ability other than standardized testing and EC’s which are only required because they know that high school curriculum in America is the equivalent to a 7th grade education in most industrialized nations in the world. Academics are the same everywhere…UC Berkeley has prestige because of its history in Civil Rights, it was the first UC, and because it just happened to have good professors when it began, prompting more famous and well-known professors in their fields to continue to work at the University. Just because someone is famous by the way that doesnt necessarily make them better professors, that makes them good writers/and or lucky enough to get published. The curriculum is the same as any other University and in fact you probably take more classes from actual professors and less TA’s at most other Universities that aren’t research Universities. Besides, like someone else pointed out, a lot of students at Berkeley are NOT math/science majors and so your arguments for weeders are ridiculous and just as individualistic as any argument. Most transfers are like me, they couldnt hack it in high school for whatever reason: they were lazy and didnt think it was important, they had family issues, they went to a discouraging high school, etc, either way if someone is looking to be a transfer they obviously made the same realization as me at one point or another (under their own circumstances) that they wanted and deserved better and worked hard to get there by attending a CC. I understand that you may never understand this because you never had to hack it in the “real world” which is working pay check to pay check and having no prospect of a future, so its hard to imagine that some of us look at going to college as a challenge and an opportunity that only exists when you work for it, and not just an obvious “next step” opportunity that you were obviously trained for throughout your whole childhood, but that is where transfers stand. We worked just as hard, we just took a different route. I’m sorry but no matter how many times you say it, staying up for 24 hours for two weeks studying for the SAT’s in High School does NOT compare to 5 years of working 50 hours a week at a retail job, or raising a family off of food stamps, or whatever struggles a transfer went through, whether self-caused or not (which by the way I know those example might be to specific for you but trust me, they apply to ALL transfers). Maybe you should stop the pity party and realize that all people have struggles and that whether its academic or not we all have the intelligence to exceed in an institution at Berkeley, it all just comes down to having the opportunity to get in, and for some of us that is through CC because HS didnts provide it for whatever reason. Also, if you want me to be more specific, this is proven by all the transfers who have graduated from BERKELEY and received their degrees and by all those that did well while at BERKELEY. Obviously transfers are equivalent and not Sub Par or else they wouldnt be able to hack it at Berkeley once there. Like I said, take your gripe out on why you HAD to take these ridiculous tests and less on as to why transfers dont. We dont have to because we took the HARDER route and deserve the break (which isnt very much of one if you ask me). For those transfers that when into CC knowing they were working the system and thus purposefully did so just to avoid “weeder” classes (which Im certain is TINY percentage) I say kudos to them! They were smarter than all of us and really did take the “easy” way out which is exactly what we all wish we could do, and all thought of earlier!</p>

777

<p>Uh, paniikd, I would read your post but it’s in one huge paragraph and thus takes too much effort.</p>

<p>Anyway, from the last bit that I did read:</p>

<p>“We dont have to because we took the HARDER route and deserve the break (which isnt very much of one if you ask me). For those transfers that when into CC knowing they were working the system and thus purposefully did so just to avoid “weeder” classes (which Im certain is TINY percentage) I say kudos to them! They were smarter than all of us and really did take the “easy” way out which is exactly what we all wish we could do, and all thought of earlier!”</p>

<p>You’re contradicting yourself here. So is CC, in your opinion, the harder or easier route?</p>

<p>And stop accusing people of generalizing. Yes, some people make a mistake by saying ALL transfers are subpar. But you’re also saying that ALL transfers are not subpar, simply because you yourself aren’t.</p>

<p>Whether or not transfer students have had extenuating circumstances like being stupid when 17, or having to support the family, etc, is irrelevant. I’m not being cold-hearted. I get that: some people have problems they have to struggle through. But the point of this thread is to discuss how they are, academically, when they do come in to Berkeley.</p>

<p>And sadly, some transfer students, from an objective academic standpoint, do seem less prepared for harder upper division courses compared to freshman admits who had to overcome weeder courses in lower division. I’m not saying there aren’t any subpar freshmen admits. I’m just saying that it’s entirely reasonable to think that a larger percentage of transfer admits just aren’t up there academically. And it’s unfair that both groups get the same Berkeley degree when their college academic careers have been entirely different.</p>

778

<p>I agree and disagree with the last sentence but find the issue moot. Again who cares? Why not let the shallow ones have their pretty little sheepskin with the cute lil UCB letters and just worry about being the best you can be? Seriously. I know its frustrating some people are going to use the sheepskin as social capital but let the universe take care of itself. There is no way you are going to stop your peers from doing that so why bother worrying about it or whining its unfair if it comes to naught? Its just flogging a dead horse and those that slack in school won’t make it except in like HR or management or marketing something absurd.</p>

<p>@1234567c Absolutely! My opinion on life and the universe is quite meaningless too except what ones mind imbues meaning too. Really I wouldn’t have to take Gen Astronomy at all to understand that we are specks of dust hanging out on a fiery dirtball floating around space but I want too take it anyways. All I have to do is take those classes to qualify for putting on a planetarium show once I’m done with the IMAX. </p>

<pre><code> First I’m going to have fun taking Physics I with the lab over the next six weeks starting after new years. I’d love to take more Physics but really don’t need too. Nor would I have to take Gen Chem but going to take it anyways after physics in the spring and II in the summer. I didn’t really enjoy chem in high school because had a life but now love it, the same goes for history and english! I just don’t like math man and have to trick my mind to like it. Plus I already aced alg I and II, geometry, stats, trig, precalc and calc in a fecking hard ass hs back in Cambridge which I couldn’t transfer. I was not happy at first having to take a bunch of classes over again so carved my own path on the programs I wanted to do while completing requirements.
</code></pre>

<p>I don’t plan on going above Gen Chem II or Calc II and can still earn a Bach of Science at a UC. Hell I could go to CalPoly and get a BS there without even having to do any calc only precalc, Chem I and II and Physics I so can concentrate on more science, art and engineering type stuff. That way all you bent out of shape brainiacs can do all the work for me I’m not interested in and will allow you to take credit for it. I like to learn and create plus that way many of you guys don’t feel left out and pay back your loans, even though computers could replace probably half of you. It’s fecking pointless of me to prove something that has already been proven and do a bunch of extra problems when I have my own problems. There is no logical argument for me to have to take a bunch of math that I’m seriously never going to use besides the equations I already know. </p>

<p>The only reason I would have to take so called weeder physics and math classes as it is at Berkeley was because of a bunch of whining **<strong><em>y students. Cal admitted me years ago then I considered a few years later for something like poli sci or philosophy or some *</em></strong> since was at the time unsure and they told me I now needed two Calcs and some of these other so called weeder classes. I just laughed and was like whatever because really could give two craps about UC Berkeley or the city for that matter since grew sick of the place. I audited some classes and sat in on others and at the time it was many of us east coasters that were complaining about letting in subpar Californians and minorities if not on merit when that was a hot issue haha.</p>

<p>Many from other states even mentioned in the classes I sat in on that they thought too many Californians whose parents pressured them into attending college are not ready for Berkeley. That many of them at the time are wasting way too much time watching TV, playing video games, and searching the net frivolously. I also tend to laugh at people who try to play the meaningless social capital prestige at public institution or LACs for that matter. My interests is in what interests others and what they ultimately do with themselves and not what school they go to. I know more about college academia in general on a greater level than that and assist students part time on the matter, many write me here even. </p>

<p>I didn’t care about UCLA either before or after I sat in on classes there since they stopped allowing students to audit with the echo boom. UCLA was really good but thought Cal was better even though I like the weather better in LA. I really didn’t care or think in terms of prestige about UCSB either but just ended up liking it. After my vocational training I really just wanted to study the sun, moon, stars, and the birds that I see when I look up and all the plants and flowers and trees I see on the ground. I wanted to know everything I could about the history of California and all about the earthquakes and the ocean. Cripes, I know more about this place across the board more than the majority of natives I meet now. I loved studying environmental science stuff even though don’t agree with many of the undereducated Californians when it came to the issues that caused so much hoopla. </p>

<p>Many of the younger slackers in school that you frosh talk about do see CCC’s as an extension of high school instead of a quality 2 year institution when it is essential both here in California. The immature games and crappy attitude of many CCC Californians I’ve met towards education in general was pretty annoying and confusing to me at first I must admit but hey at least they are doing something. I’m really happy to see many serious students as long as they don’t take themselves too seriously as a student. I do understand that the world has changed quite rapidly which has seemed to cause certain social conformity pressure issues, anxieties, and conditioned reflexes and accept that. </p>

<p>What the teachers say to them about cheating themselves and when you think you are getting away with something you are deceiving no one but yourself. When one is a teen and start to grasp a concept they tend to know that just because they are aware of something and starting to scratch teh surface will think they know everything about it. You Berkeley brainiacs should already know from your classes that the world is a very complex place and that the human condition can’t just be reduced to oversimplified overgeneralized notions like some nice little light tight pretty package. Their just is not enough time to know everything and in a dynamic system like California the amount of knowledge one needs to know to be a part of what goes on is very high. </p>

<p>Not only that it has cost me very little and got to ride in school vans to see Mt. Shasta, Morro Bay, Bodega Bay, Tahoe, Yosemite, Mohave Desert, Joshua Tree and literally dozens other really cool places which were all super fun and educational for free. </p>

<p>The rest of what I have previously mentioned and encouraged on my posts to do is push how much one can absorb in the given amount of time and work off of that. I don’t regret taking any of those classes, especially for the price I paid. I make decent money as a skilled technician with my multiple vocational certificates and degree from classes beyond those as also omitted. </p>

<p>Truth is when I came to California I wasn’t interested in transferring anywhere and always did fine until this state started having problems. I didn’t know anything in the beginning so threw myself into it just to learn, understand, and experience how the California educational system works on a local to legislative level. I’m quite informed on issues concerning how the system works here to a greater degree than those entering so try and assist others who was were I originally was. </p>

<p>The only thing I was mad at myself was that I had the chance on transferring when the colleges here were much much cheaper. I banged myself in the head a few times, obsessed a bit over it to the point of depressing myself then laughed that I cared in the first place. I don’t care about being a manager or anything but do liking working in academia and the entertainment business which are hierarchical in nature so do hit a glass ceiling even though the wage is still good comparatively. Most of what I learned has been self taught to assist professionals so sometimes I’m considered more useful than the feckless ones so end up doing what they did just a bit cheaper haha.</p>

779

<p>It’s awesome that you love learning on your own, kmazza, but what does that long post have to do with anything pertaining to the topic?</p>

780

<p>Well it was partially in my defense to the insults and ignorance from so called intelligent Berkeley students or did you just get a C in reading comprehension? </p>

<p>Ok how about this for a solution. Turn UCB into a private institution, charge 40 grand a year to anyone who wants to attend whether in state/out of state or internationally and allow equal opportunity to anyone potential student across the world to compete to get in. None of this adjusting racial profiling percentages in relation to the population, or giving preference to natives whether frosh or transfers, and just eliminate it. </p>

<p>That would be the only way to actually be fair to those that pay good money to attend UCB for educational reasons. What I have witnessed is that many of BOTH frosh and transfers from California were slowing down the classes in comparison to those not from California due to preference. To me that is pretty selfish and unfair to those paying premium price but is the way the system is set up. If the snobs and shallow ones just want to take up space because feel they deserve to go to UCB then weed out the ungrateful spoiled self entitled brats by allowing free competition for a seat. </p>

<p>Sounds fair to me. Everyone pays 40 grand and has an equal shot. No pussyfooting either. You either know what you want to do at UCB and know something about the professors, subject material, and program beyond US world news rankings or refused entry period…NEXT!</p>

<p>None of this sneaky switching major nonsense either just so some not so clever Californian thinks he/she can pull a fast one…BOOTED! It causes problems as it is and is annoying to students and the administration which is why they are stricter on that stuff now.</p>