<p>
</p>
<p>Last, I do agree that it would be a waste of time to get transfers to go back through weeders. My impression is Berkeley does allow for you to transfer credits from outside the college, so I wasn’t sure of the specific complaint sakky had.</p>
<p>The only problem I have is with those transfer students that apply under a major that is extremely easy to get into, like philosophy, with the intent that they would just switch when they get here. I think if anything, CAL needs to make it more difficult for transfers to switch majors. I know UCLA’s transfer policy for their impacted departments (bio, econ, etc.) is that if you’re not admitted into a major under a certain track or department, then you cannot switch into it afterwards (i.e you have to have been admitted into a life science major to switch to another life science major).</p>
<p>I’m a freshman admit and will be attending Berkeley this fall. I sincerely hope that this air of arrogance and superiority that the op exhibits is not indicative of general Freshman opinion, or I am going to detest the next four years.</p>
<p>I’m also a freshman admit, and I don’t think that it the OP is being arrogant nor does he have a superiority complex.</p>
<p>Anyone who has taken a class at a Community College knows how annoying it is when someone asks “how did you get that answer” and they literally said how they got it 10 seconds before and had arrows pointing from each step to the next.</p>
<p>My parent who went to Cal 30 years ago said that this was the case back then. I think that the transfers who go to Cal are definitely not nearly as bad as the above case, but I disliked how painstakingly slow they had to make the class to suit those people’s needs.</p>
<p>I definitely think that most transfer students are not like this at all, and especially the ones who go into majors like EECS will on average do better (GPA-wise. Someone said that at Cal Day may be wrong).</p>
<p>I don’t care whether or not someone is a transfer student or not, the only thing that I dislike is people hold up classrooms excessively (Asking too many obvious questions. A few here and there aren’t bad, but when someone has to explain every single step in detail it gets frustrating), and I don’t expect that too much at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And for many majors, easier grading within the upper division is a reality as a explicit matter of policy.</p>
<p>A typical GPA for courses in the lower division is 2.7.</p>
<p>A typical GPA for courses in the upper division is 2.9.</p>
<p>[Grading</a> Guidelines for Undergraduate Courses | EECS at UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml]Grading”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml)</p>
<p>Hence, I would propose as a first reform is that we should equilibriate these deliberately differentiated grading policies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s irrelevant for the purposes of this argument for two reasons. Firstly, a GPA comparison is being made between all Berkeley freshman admits, including those who are weeded out of various majors, and those specific transfer students who actually come to Berkeley, which obviously excludes those students who are not admitted to Berkeley. A far more fair comparison would be between transfer students and those freshman-admits who successfully survived the weeders. </p>
<p>But secondly, and far more importantly, transfer students are coming to Berkeley. They should therefore abide by the same rules that other Berkeley students are forced to undergo. Either that, or those other Berkeley students should not have to abide by those rules either. What’s fair is fair.</p>
<p>Think of it this way. If you invite me to your house, then I should be willing to respect the same rules as everybody else who lives in your house. If I am not willing to do so, then I should not be invited to your house. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, by that same logic, nothing is stopping the transfer students from simply applying to Berkeley as a freshman-admit. Yet I think we can all agree that very few of them would have been admitted under that system. </p>
<p>To be clear, I have no problem with providing people with second chances. The problem comes with providing people with special privileges that other students are not allowed to enjoy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid I have to diametrically disagree. The question is not about the difficulty of the material, but rather the difficulty of the grading, which are not the same thing, and often times not even positively correlated. In certain cases, they are actually negatively correlated - surely many of the savvier Berkeley students here have nightmarish memories of the ‘easy’ exam (in terms of the difficulty of the material), or even the ‘easy’ course, as if the material is easy, then that means that most students will score highly, which means that the grade curve will hinge on a few points here and there. </p>
<p>As a case in point, I remember one guy who scored in the 80’s % on a particular exam - but that was unfortunately equal to an F (or at best a D) because the mean of the exam was a 95. It wasn’t even that he didn’t understand the material, as he calculated most of the final answers correctly. What killed him was that he didn’t completely show all his work, hence losing partial credit at various set-points, so despite understanding the material well, he nonetheless failed the exam. </p>
<p>The real problem, as I have said before, is the harshness and arbitrariness of the weeder grade curves. I have often times said that weeders should not be implemented at all, or if they must be, should be graded on a P/NR basis (where if you fail the weeder, the fact simply isn’t recorded on your transcript at all). But of course that would require that Berkeley actually admit that certain courses are indeed weeders in the first place, which the school is oddly loathe to do, despite the fact that the students know full well that they exist. </p>
<p>But again, if we must have weeders, and if the freshman-admits are forced to survive them, then it is only fair that the transfer admits be forced to survive them as well. What’s fair is fair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Berkeley makes such a policy unnecessarily difficult, by effectively blocking concurrent enrollment except under unusual circumstances that require justification. </p>
<p>*Concurrent Enrollment</p>
<p>You may not enroll simultaneously in the College of Letters and Science at Berkeley and in another institution. If you have unusual circumstances, see the dean of the College to request approval before enrolling in the other institution.*</p>
<p>[College</a> Policies-Transferring Credit](<a href=“http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/collegepolicies/credit.html]College”>http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/collegepolicies/credit.html)</p>
<p>Hence, a Berkeley freshman-admit is effectively barred from taking courses at a community college to transfer to Berkeley because he cannot even enroll in that community college in the first place while maintaining his Berkeley standing. Now, granted, that student could withdraw from Berkeley temporarily - and indeed, I have advocated exactly that on other threads - but that begs the question of why should that be necessary? </p>
<p>Just consider the matter from a civil liberties standpoint. If I, as a Berkeley student, choose to spend my free time enrolling in additional courses at a local community college, why should Berkeley care about that? It’s my free time which I should be allowed to use as I wish. If anything, I would say that Berkeley should encourage students to do so, as that’s clearly more educational than the partying, watching TV, or playing endless hours of video games that many other students engage in. {Vicissitudes once told of a scatological story of one student who played WoW so obsessively to the point that he would even have a special cup to urinate in so he wouldn’t have to leave his computer. If Berkeley should ban any sort of behavior, it should be that.} Yet Berkeley has inexplicably decided to ban concurrent enrollment. </p>
<p>One easy way to solve this problem is for Berkeley to simply drop that ban, the purpose of which I still cannot comprehend. But as long as that ban is in force, it is unnecessarily difficult for Berkeley freshman admits to take and transfer community college credits over to Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the transfers really are well-qualified, then they would be able to pass the weeders with relatively little time wasted. They could even take the transfer courses concurrently with the later coursework. </p>
<p>I would also propose that a superior system is to not have weeder courses at all, and to simply run departmentally-run admissions exams for impacted majors. If X slots within the economics major are available, and more than X students - whether freshman admits or transfers - want to enter the major, then they all take a comprehensive exam run by the Economics department, and those who score in the top X are admitted to the major. That would clearly be a fairer way to determine admissions to impacted majors than the current system where grades from various schools are inherently incomparable. </p>
<p>It would also provide the accompanying advantage that those who aren’t admitted would be allowed to pursue a non-impacted major without forever having to carry the baggage of the weeder courses of the impacted major. If you’re not going to major in Economics anyway, who cares what your “pre-Econ” weeder grades were? Let them walk away with a clean slate.</p>
<p>“Yet I think we can all agree that very few of them would have been admitted under that system.”</p>
<p>Yet I think we can all agree that you make far too many unqualified assumptions about what other people think.</p>
<p>Let me state this again. There is no such thing as a weeder class, in the sense that weeder classes are not more difficult than upper-division classes, in terms of grading or otherwise. Weeder classes, by virtue of being lower-division, contain many students who are not academically qualified for the major. They will not do well in the “weeder” class and will then not continue on to take upper-division courses in the major, since they are only in their first or second year here and still have time to switch to an easier major. </p>
<p>Upper-division courses contain fewer of these unqualified students and thus have a slightly higher average grade distribution by necessity. If the average grade distribution for upper- and lower-division classes were the same, it would be harder to obtain the same grade in an upper-division class as for a lower-division class, since only the surviving, qualified students remain to compete with each other. A small percentage of transfer students then join the upper-division classes, replacing the frosh admits who got “weeded” out (due to being academically unqualified, not due to the weeder classes being objectionably harsh).</p>
<p>Obviously, not all of the transfer students will be as academically unqualified to take the upper-division classes as the weeded students, and so the average GPA should rise. I would in fact argue that transfer students are more likely to work harder, study smarter, and get the help they need in office hours (in many upper-division classes I’ve taken, I’ve noticed a disproportionate amount of transfer students relative to their overall class percentage, and no, not because they are struggling with the material more than the average student) because when they come to Berkeley, they are essentially stuck in their intended major and won’t have a backup in case they fail.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I haven’t made a single unqualified assumption about what others think. If anybody is doing so, it is you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I’m afraid that you’ve neglected, perhaps purposefully, is that grading is stochastic and not perfectly correlated with upper-division success in any case. Nobody can calibrate a perfect grading scheme. There are indeed some freshman admits who flunk the weeder courses who would have passed the upper-division courses if they were allowed to proceed. Granted, maybe they wouldn’t have gotten top grades in those courses. But they would have passed. Yet they weren’t even given the chance as the weeders had eliminated them.</p>
<p>I’ll give you a clear stochastic example. Surely we can all think of examples where students who otherwise have excellent grasp of the material nevertheless make silly mistakes on an exam. Some students read an exam question wrong. Some students calculate an initial part of the answer wrong, and that mistake propagates throughout the rest of the answer, rendering the entire answer wrong. The student actually does know the material, he just happened to have encountered some misfortune on the exam. But weeders don’t care about that. If you fail, then you fail.</p>
<p>My favored solution is to then simply eliminate the weeders, perhaps accompanied with a more stringent admissions regime. But given that weeders do exist, it is only fair that all Berkeley students - whether freshman admits or transfers - are forced to undergo them. What’s fair is fair. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then if that is the case, then transfer students should have no fear in taking the weeders. After all, if transfer students really are more likely to work harder and study smarter, and obtain the help they need, then the weeders should not present any difficulty for them, right? So why the vehement resistance to having them take the weeders? </p>
<p>Frankly, the fact that that proposal is resisted so strenuously only serves to heighten the suspicion that the transfer students really do have something to hide. You basically have two choices. If transfer students really are as highly qualified as you say, then they should have no problem with the weeders. However, if the transfer students are not really highly qualified such that they would have problems with the weeders, then they shouldn’t be admitted (to the major in question). Either way, some reform is necessary.</p>
<p>Busy studying for my MCB final, so sorry that I can only quote a few sentences from the research paper “Transfer Student Experiences and Success at Berkeley” as my short reply.</p>
<p>“Academic Achievement
Despite the presence of both transfer-related rejection and transfer concealment in this
population of graduating university students, these students were very successful
academically. The average GPA for the survey respondents was 3.44, with the majority
having a grade point average within the 3.5 to 4.0 range or 3.0 to 3.49 range.”</p>
<p>“Transfer students at UC Berkeley have historically
performed very well academically, maintaining university grade point averages that are
minutely different from freshman admitted students (See Table 4). Their graduation
rates have been comparable to freshman admits as well, with the most recent (spring
2006) 4-year cumulative rate of 88% surpassing the comparable 6-yr freshman
graduation rate of 87%.”</p>
<p>I think these two quotes tell reflect many transfer students are qualified to be a Cal bear.
(48.9% of Survey Respondents have GPA 3.5~4.0, 37.0% 3.0~3.49, according to table 3) </p>
<p>here is the link
<a href=“Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education”>Publications | Center for Studies in Higher Education;
<p>P.S they are just comparing the first semester Berkeley GPA. So this is in fact the gpa comparison between lower div vs upper div.
P.P.S I am a transfer student. ;)</p>
<p>To bad its just a survey so you can only take it with a grain of salt. Obviously a 4.0 student is gonna more likely respond than say somebody with a 2.3 GPA. Also the survey was answered by 263 students even thought ~2000 enroll every year.</p>
<p>Some of us transferred from other UC schools. The transfer acceptance rate for us is even less than your freshman admissions.</p>
<p>“approximately half of the community college transfer
students on the spring 2006 degree list were invited to take part in an online survey about their academic and social experiences.”
“The response rate was 47.6%; nearly 1/4 of the graduating transfer student population
participated in the current survey.”</p>
<p>I think nearly 1/4 of the whole graduating transfer student population is pretty representative. I have never taken stat, so I can be wrong.
Also, the paper doesn’t provide the percentage of ppl response to the GPA questions.
However, as a online survey, ppl should be less hesitated to response the GPA question. Of course, u can argue that low GPA student would be less interested in answer the survey, but this is really arguable.</p>
<p>i am a transfer student and i am very subpar, in fact, i am incredibly stupid, i have been accepted to haas and in the process skipped a year (applied to cal last year as a senior in high school)</p>
<p>-also, to whoever said a few pages back that transfers do not take into account $ to go to cc since they would get financial aid from cal, i’m proof that is not entirely true, my parents make/have too much money for financial aid but are not paying for my college education, and so going to cc was my only choice due to $ (despite having wanted to attend tufts out of high school :\ )</p>
<p>"I am sick of talk about prestige. Is there any other university on CC that is as obsessed with prestige as Berkeley, where students constantly bemoan the erosion of their prestige? What is prestige anyway? Prestige is good marketing. Prestige is a slick sales pitch. Prestige is what happens when consumerism gets a hold of universities–higher education reduced to a question of what looks good.</p>
<p>If there has been any decline in the quality of education at Berkeley it is because of the increasing number of students who value appearance over substance."</p>
<p>@Cavilier: I could not have said it better myself.</p>
<p>I find it incredibly pathetic that some students-who are supposedly brilliant enough to get into such an amazing school as Berkeley-think they are being abnormally observant and relevant by bringing up such stupid generalizations as “transfer students are subpar and undeserving.” Prestige is an abstract concept, in the same way things like love and justice are abstract; however, like with love and justice, there are those that will blatantly misinterpret appearances and find superficially convincing ways of defending their ignorance-all because of prestige. prestige is precisely what cavilier said it is: good marketing. If the prestige of the school you attend has the ability to make yourself feel so superior to your fellow classmates just because of their goddamn background, then perhaps reconsider who is the “undeserving” one. And if this ridiculous notion of “prestige” holds such sway over the way you speak about other people, then it would not be unfair to say that when you graduate from Cal, it will follow you. It will follow you into the workplace, when you look at your colleagues and think to yourself “they’re subpar. they don’t deserve this. i worked harder.” The resentment in your attitude will be crystal clear. You will have assumed away the dignity and individuality of that person. You will be f ucked if you are only able to function within a transparent hierarchical structure, just like high school and undergrad and innumerable other workplaces, where higher-ups make the lower-downs feel good about themselves by using labels like “prestige” and “the best of the best,” because that’s really what this is all about. Going to Cal is prestigious and that makes you feel good. Transfers getting in make you feel less good about going to such a great school. Stop focusing on other people and just focus on yourself and learning. Education doesn’t only happen in school. Sadly, there are so many people who cling to their GPA’s and resumes as evidence of “being successful.” Such blindness is destructive.</p>
<p>This beyond ****es me off. What’s grossly subpar here is your attitude, and I highly doubt that graduating from the number one public university in the country, according to the abominable usnews rankings, will do anything to fix it. Good luck.</p>
<p>on second thought, most likely a ■■■■■.
still, I stand by what I said.</p>
<p>If anyone ever decides to take a look at the policies of the University of California, you will discover that the designs of the University’s admissions policies were meant to accomodate a large number of community college transfers. Originally, the UCs were meant to accomodate only the top 10% of HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, while a good number of slots were open to transfers so that community college students could conclude their higher education at a UC. The whole state education system was designed for the purpose of having students begin their college education at local community colleges, at which point they would finish at a UC or CSU. If you look at the state budgets for higher education, the largest amount by far goes to community colleges, because they educate the most students.</p>
<p>Because the UC is a state institution, there are some accomodations which Berkeley must fulfill as a public school.</p>
<p>@ lomkh: I’ve read through this entire thread. I’m glad that you’ve decided to post, especially considering your evident will and desire to achieve. Congratulations on being admitted to Haas btw! You’re the first I’ve ever seen to accomplish this feat in a year. </p>
<p>@ OP and those that support the stereotype that transfers are less adequate: Sure, we all acknowledge that CC’s are generally less competitive and less rigorous than Berkeley. There is no need to argue such a blatantly obvious point. However, what many on this thread have neglected to acknowledge is the background and upbringing of the individual in question. I recall one person bringing this up earlier in the thread, but I don’t believe there was a response.</p>
<p>The means through which people learn socially, cognitively, and experientially are all relevant to this topic. It’s not appropriate to assume, but IS appropriate to acknowledge that many transfer students did not have the financial, familial, or social support to achieve an acceptance to Berkeley as an incoming freshman. Certainly there are the outliers who experienced a deplorable upbringing and achieved the seemingly impossible, but this is not nearly representative of the populations we’re dealing with, and therefore is irrelevant.</p>
<p>Transfers may or may not be qualified by quantitative means to be at Berkeley. It is relative. However, it is grossly inaccurate to presume that transfers cannot or generally do not provide Berkeley with substantial intellectual vitality. Anecdotal evidence about “so-and-so in whatever class” does not substantiate the claims of ignorance that have been plastered throughout this thread. </p>
<p>The topic of the OP did not reference weeders, but rather he/she commented on the perception he/she maintained regarding the aptitude of the transfers. The “weeder classes issue” has been one that has been extrapolated to rationalize the belief that transfers are inadequate, and this fosters the social stigma imparted on the transfers. I do agree that it is unfair for freshman to have to cope with the “weeders” of Berkeley when compared to the caliber of “weeders” at a community college. However, justifying the worth of transfers through this issue is as illogical as it is unrepresentative. </p>
<p>First, not all transfers are majoring in a technical field. The weeders associated with a premed concentration or engineering/computer science do exist, however, not all transfers have to deal with weeders. Consider the psychology major. There are prerequisites one must satisfy. In my experience, I will happily acknowledge that my CCC classes have been much more simple than what I would expect from a UC psychology class. I believe that many would agree that my experience is representative of a transfer in a social science major. However, being at a community college where units are cheap and courses easier, it does allow one the option to concentrate more specifically in the major, itself. This further prepares the student for UC-level work.</p>
<p>As was mentioned earlier in this thread, transfers are typically non-traditional students. I couldn’t agree more with this statement. One may act grossly sub-par and happen to be a transfer, but that transfer was clearly innovative enough to get into Berkeley. </p>
<p>The way I see it, there needs to be a significant alteration in the attitudes of some of you. I can clearly perceive the hostility and general attitude of arrogance that some of you have displayed throughout this thread. I understand the discrepancy in rigor that irritates the 4-years, but that is not an excuse to devalue, stereotype, or rationalize the oppression of the transfers. </p>
<p>The key statement, if I may put it so bluntly: It is the attitudes of the 4-year students that maintain this bias which need to change - not the system, itself. Contempt for another is afflictive; those of you that withhold such ignorant beliefs would be much happier and less judgmental if you examined yourself as opposed to comparing yourself to others. </p>
<p>It is this social elitism that permeates the governments of the world which has in part led to the oppression and exploitation of millions. As a contemporary society, and at large, a society maintaining a higher level of awareness, it shocks me to see the same persecutory beliefs maintained at such a highly regarded and respected school in Berkeley.</p>
<p>As humans, we have the ability to think logically and debase our illogical beliefs. The example raised by the OP is one which should be considered afflictive and illogical.</p>
<p>I was admitted as a freshman, but choose the transfer route anyways, because of problems I need to take care of at home as well as financial issues.</p>
<p>Reading this tread is honestly disheartening. I hope OP is ■■■■■■■■, as there are many studies analyzing the performance of transfers as opposed to freshman admits, and there is never really a discrepancy between the two groups.</p>
<p>I was at Haas on Cal Day and 4/6 of the student panel were transfers. Also they were all student body president/club leaders. Transfers have to put in a lot of effort to get into Cal (depending on the major). Who cares about the SAT, I scored 2300 without studying in hs, it’s just simple math and English.</p>