<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I don’t see good evidence that Berkeley is particularly sympathetic to your experiences. The transfer –> Berkeley track seems to be a streamlined thing you can do, and I don’t think it necessarily makes the subtle efforts to figure out what transfer applicants really thrived under their circumstances to obtain excellent preparation.</p>
<p>it’s not a charity…it’s a competition. The basis for admission is academic, it’s foolhardy to think that growing up in a tough situation makes one more deserving of admission. </p>
<p>(that’s what the convo’s about now…right? :D…i haven’t really read the last few posts)</p>
<p>I guess I made the grades then :)</p>
<p>However, I am beginning to think “meh.” I’ve met so many wonderful people from Berkeley that I strongly feel the OP of this thread isn’t speaking for everyone. The girl who called me and encouraged me to take summer courses was super nice and we had a nice chat about student life. However, for some reason, I liked reading the responses from current students on this forum who probably don’t really represent the general population of the Berkeley campus. I was born and raised in the East Bay and it feels weird moving back. Crowded hills, narrow streets, and blocks of buildings and shops aren’t really my things. I like wide open spaces and more than ten feet between houses. </p>
<p>The weather is ideal though^^</p>
<p>Actually I’m feeling pretty good. I just looked and I got a 100% on a final for a prereq class I had no interest in and thought I did crappy on. I think everyone has felt that blissful feeling at least once.</p>
<p>@ mathboy98: Sorry, I don’t think I was clear enough. I was trying to say that multi-factorial influences such as our upbringing, experiences, live-altering events, financial situation, etc have led us to or away from Berkeley due to the subjective nature of our lives. I wasn’t trying to make a statement about the acknowledgement of sympathy in UCB’s admissions policies. I was just saying that we all (despite whatever circumstances) were admitted to Cal. In regard to admissions, I agree with you and anonymous. Generally, admissions are stats-based.</p>
<p>As for the “transfer to Berkeley streamlining topic”, I don’t really see anything inherently wrong with it. Transfers generally still have to maintain an average of around a 3.7 GPA to be admitted (when looking at UCB’s middle 50% of transfer GPA’s). This GPA, while more easily obtained at a CCC than at Berkeley (almost always) is still legitimate, and a perfectly reasonable means with which to consider an applicant. Transfers do have about the same graduation rate, as I’m sure you know. </p>
<p>I agree with you insofar that Berkeley admissions should consider some other variables of applicants. The example you initially provided about your very intelligent friend being rejected, and some less qualified kids being admitted, definitely occurs. I agree that this should be limited if at all possible. I’m with you on implementing a standardized test that would assess different college-necessary/related skills that would be more akin to the nature of college. As we both know, the SAT does poorly in assessing this.</p>
<p>Sorry if I misinterpreted anything or am being unclear. Please let me know lol. I haven’t slept in two days.</p>
<p>Sure, then I’m all with you emil.</p>
<p>I think one of the best things about the Berkeley admissions system is that there are things you can do in a streamlined fashion to really increase your chances. For instance, having very high stats does help. I don’t think we should veer away from this, and I think the streamlined policy for transfers is nice too.</p>
<p>What we need to be doing is checking whether the transfers and freshmen we admit are the best qualified possible to succeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t prove that. In fact, that’s precisely my point: transfer GPA’s are misleading, because they are allowed to skip many weeders. Many Berkeley freshman admits would have had higher GPA’s if they were allowed to skip the weeders.</p>
<p>A fair comparison would be to compare transfer GPA’s to post-weeder freshman GPA’s. Furthermore, such a GPA would be trivially easy to calculate, and the fact that Berkeley has never bothered to calculate it only heightens the suspicion that the administration is trying to hide something.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I can’t speak for the others, I can say that, for the record, I have no problem with transfers admissions per se, and indeed, I have actually argued that Berkeley might be better off if all admissions were enacted through transfer admissions (meaning Berkeley had no freshman- admits).</p>
<p>But, given that Berkeley runs both freshman admissions and transfer admissions, it is only fair to ask whether such a dual-admissions system is fair for both parties. If there is a possible source of unfairness, then it is entirely appropriate to identify it and demand reform. Should people simply shut their eyes and their mouths in the face of unfairness because doing so betrays an inappropriate “attitude”? I think not. If something is indeed unfair, then people should say so, for that is how improvement occurs. Generally speaking, reform doesn’t happen until somebody points out the inequity of a particular system.</p>
<p>The real question then is, is the current system fair. To that, I would say: why should transfer students be allowed to skip weeders that the freshman-admits are not allowed to skip?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since you agree that the situation is indeed unfair, then let’s push for a reform where transfers are not allowed to skip those weeders that freshman-admits are forced to endure. Either have transfer students endure those weeders, or allow the freshman-admits to skip them. </p>
<p>My point is this: freshman-admits have a legitimate grievance. If you don’t want that grievance to be directed towards the transfer students - for which I agree is not their fault - then take away the excuse. Let the freshman-admits skip the weeders. </p>
<p>But as long as that inequity persists, then the freshman-admits have a legitimate grievance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As long as transfer student are enjoying what is in effect, a special treatment - that is, being allowed to skip weeders - then they will inevitably have to suffer the brunt of the hostility. Such is the burden of anybody who enjoy special treatment. </p>
<p>Hence, what I think the transfer students should do is join the freshman-admits in demanding that the special treatment they enjoy should be abolished. That way, the freshman-admits will no longer have to feel that they are being treated unfairly, and transfer students will no longer have to be the targets of hostility. Everything would be fair.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if transfers students continue to believe that they should receive special privileges, then that’s a different issue entirely, and freshman-admits are then entirely justified in expressing resentment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To name just a few: Chem 3B, CS 61B, Math 1B, Physics 7B. EECS 40.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue has to do with perception. I agree that many majors do not weed. But as long as some of them do, the perception will persist that the transfer students have an easier ride.</p>
<p>I would make a (possibly politically charged) analogy towards AA. It is probably true that a relatively small percentage of the population benefited from race-based AA. But as long as the perception existed that some people - however few - may have unfairly benefited from AA, resentment would inevitably be engendered, initiatives such as Prop 209 are inevitable. </p>
<p>The point simply is, whenever any particular group of students is perceived to be enjoying special privileges - fairly or unfairly- resentment will inevitably be directed towards those students. That is why special treatment is so insidious. </p>
<p>To be clear, I don’t blame the transfer students. They’re not at fault. I blame the system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough: then that only means that the transfer students should be required to undergo the same weeders as the freshman-admits. After all, the implication of your post is that the transfer students are actually equally qualified, if not more so, than the freshman-admits. If that is true, then they should have no fear of the weeders, right? They should do well in the weeders. So, why not have them take the weeders? What’s the problem?</p>
<p>The only problem I see is that the transfers would indeed perform poorly in the weeders, and that’s why they don’t dare to take them. But if that is the case, then the freshman-admits have a legitimate beef: why should they be forced to take weeders that the transfers are not forced to take?</p>
<p>I leave the following open question for the readers here: can anybody articulate a rationale for why the transfer students should be allowed to skip weeders?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If what you are saying is true, then Berkeley freshman-admits should be allowed to “skip” weeders by simply taking their counterparts at a community college. For example, instead of taking CS 61B, I should be allowed to take the equivalent course at a community college. After all - you said it yourself - the community colleges adhere to the same standards as the UC’s, right?</p>
<p>But the fact is, you’re not allowed to do that (at least, not easily). Berkeley freshman-admits are not easily allowed to skip notorious weeders by taking counterpart courses at a community college (otherwise, many would have surely done so rather than suffer the gauntlet of the weeders). That’s evidence of special treatment provided to the transfer students. </p>
<p>Again, the underlying logic is that, since transfer-admits are coming to Berkeley, they should abide by the same rules that the freshman-admits are forced to abide by. To argue otherwise is to argue for special treatment.</p>
<p>
Life isn’t fair. Get over it and stop b itching.</p>
<p>OK first off sakky, since my post is jumbled, let me note: I think the gist of it is that I agree with the spirit of your posts, but think we should restrict the group of frosh admits who would be legitimately angry with transfers having to endure less. I thought of doing so because I hold nothing against the transfers I know who jumped into the upper division.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s hilarious when someone posts something like this on an online forum, whose actual purpose is discussion and by natural extension, thought of better things. Perhaps such an individual should be reprimanded exactly for what (s)he is reprimanding others for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly though, people I know got worse grades when they went on from Math 1B to upper division math, from Physics 7B to something like Physics 137AB. And many CS majors COULD skip CS 61B via the AP exam, and never endured Hilfinger unless they chose to subject themselves to him in the upper division. People I know who find themselves in much pain in the higher level EECS found 7B a class for an easy A! In all these cases, only in the case that a really harsh professor is chosen does it become a problem to do well. This is in fact true in the upper division too in the non-“creampuff” majors - hard professors mean a huge struggle. If someone found 1B with Marina Ratner tough, try taking her Math 185 class - I didn’t do this, but know of how the class went from others who took it.</p>
<p>Now Chem 3B, I know nothing about. Same with Chem 4A, etc. I have a feeling in those cases, the “weeder” complaint may be legitimate. </p>
<p>Same with Math 1B - you can skip it as a freshman with AP Credits. Same with 61B and even 7B if you’re not in engineering, you can skip it. If you are in engineering, chances are you’ll find it a breeze if you select a good professor. </p>
<p>Another thing - someone I know in EECS, at least so he said earlier, could skip physics 7AB not out of AP credits, but out of community college credits. EECS majors are required to do 7B even if they have a 5 on the AP E&M exam though!! So it seems community college credits can be valuable even for frosh.</p>
<p>But you cannot skip these classes necessarily as a premed wherein I can pinpoint the source of a lot of the animosity. I don’t think EECS majors are going to be complaining if transfers jump straight into CS 162 and manage.</p>
<p>And certainly, I have no problem if transfers skip straight to upper division math, for instance – if they can hold their own, I think they’re admirably prepared.</p>
<p>@sakky, you consider Physics 7B a weeder?</p>
<p>Do you think there would be any problem taking it over the summer? I got a 5 on AP Physics E&M (and Mech), but I’m definitely ready to pull all nighters (It is every day).</p>
<p>@mathboy, we can’t skip 61B since they got rid of the AB exam. I can’t even skip it with taking a full course in it over the summer (8 units).</p>
<p>Thanks Ramblinman, you just made me feel old. So back in my day, we could…</p>
<p>And back in my day, Physics 7B was not hard. It’s probably more legitimate for sure than the AP exam, but if you had a solid E&M course, you’re likely fine.</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m wishing I was a year older so that I could have taken Comp Sci AB, as now I still have to take Comp Sci 47B.</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m looking forward to 7B, I’m glad I didn’t test out of it, because I want an extremely strong knowledge of E&M.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, I see. </p>
<p>This is definitely true. God, silly ignorant freshmen who think that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if they are indeed weeders, then I don’t think it’s fair if they can skip them. Then again, this seems to bother premeds most, and there doesn’t seem to be a significant advantage to going through Berkeley’s difficulty for them in terms of admissions anyway, so I’d argue the unfairness is even more widespread.</p>
<p>Then again, many majors don’t have the concept of weeding in the lower division and in fact might accomplish more of their cleansing in the upper division, in which case it’s in fact scary that transfers may start off with the hardest classes.</p>