<p>If you didn't need to take weeders your gpa would be "better" too.</p>
<p>I'm apathetic overall.</p>
<p>The academic atmosphere is okay. There are some very smart kids, primarily in Engineering, and some dumb kids. Overall the average student is quite intelligent.</p>
<p>I find that many of the students however are "users" and only talk to you for your notes, etc. Also, I'm a female and have had trouble making female friends because none can take jokes...yeah, bookwormy types. However there can be "good" bookworms, and bad ones. Hence, the people I talk to here are guys....but I'm not complaining because it's more interesting. A lot of people here have no sense of humor either. But, besides that, it's okay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Studies show that transfer students do better than their "regular" counterparts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Show the studies.</p>
<p>Heh, I was about to ask the same.</p>
<p>"In general the only time I have ever heard about transfer students is when people speak derisively of them as weaker students. From my experience, which is a rather small sample, they did prove in general weaker students."</p>
<p>Actually, it's the freshman admits that are the weaker students...if it weren't for them dropping out, there wouldn't be any room for transfer students.</p>
<p>Seriously, I don't think you're allowed to say that you don't like your experience at Cal on CC. It's annoying, because the second you do, someone tells you that it's because you have a total lack of social skills or that maybe this isn't the right place for you or that you're clearly in the total minority and unrepresentative of 99.9% of people's experiences. </p>
<p>So how to answer your question? I don't. But a lot of people do, clearly, and you'll just have to see whether you like it or not once you're here this fall.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, it's the freshman admits that are the weaker students...if it weren't for them dropping out, there wouldn't be any room for transfer students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nice try, but that's not a fair comparison. Freshmen have to go through weeders which is often the reason why they drop out. For most majors you have to take at least one weeder as a prerequisite so it's hard to avoid them completely for freshmen. Transfer students start in junior year with upper-division classes, in which grading is easier and weeders are pretty much non-exsistent.</p>
<p>Even with the weeders, entering freshmen graduate at about the same rate as transfer students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Seriously, I don't think you're allowed to say that you don't like your experience at Cal on CC. It's annoying, because the second you do, someone tells you that it's because you have a total lack of social skills or that maybe this isn't the right place for you or that you're clearly in the total minority and unrepresentative of 99.9% of people's experiences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nah. Feel free to talk about your bad experiences. They happen at any college. The point is to get both perspectives right? We are only annoyed when people seem to be overly-negative towards Berkeley due to their own personal bias.</p>
<p>"Nice try, but that's not a fair comparison. Freshmen have to go through weeders which is often the reason why they drop out."</p>
<p>Obviously, Cal does not believe transfer students need these "weeder" classes or they would be required. Nice try though. I believe anyone who ridicules transfer students are just jealous these students do as well as freshman admits..</p>
<p>"For students who graduate within four years of attaining junior status at UC, transfer juniors earn similiar grades as native juniors. There are virtually no substantive difference in the upper-division GPAs of native juniors and junior transfers overall or by disciplinary category. In addition, transfer juniors and native juniors complete their degrees in a similar number of terms after reaching junior status."</p>
<p>....and they didn't have to work their butts off in high school to graduate with a degree from Berkeley.</p>
<p>Former Cal Chancellor Clark Kerr said it best: "If you're bored at Berkeley, you're bored with life." In the case of Shiboing Boing, he hates his life in addition to hating Cal.</p>
<p>Guys, this is about personal experiences. This is not a debate thread, unless one of you is contesting the personal experiences of another individual (which you'd be hard-pressed to do).</p>
<p>My first year I lived in Foothill and had a good time. I slacked a bit, since it was so easy to slack living so close to campus, so I often woke up at 9AM, rolled out of bed, walked to my 9AM class and got there just on time. I lived with a good group of people. All but 1 or 2 people in the suite got along very well. The only complain I had was that the room next to mine could be loud at night (they liked their late night music), but they would quiet down if I asked them, so it wasn't too big a deal.</p>
<p>Classes were generally good. I wasn't hugely impressed, but since they were mostly lower division classes, I wasn't really expecting much in the way of in-depth, interesting topics. They were mostly introductory courses. They weren't bad, but they weren't anything special (note this is the EECS major).</p>
<p>My second year improved a lot. I lived in an apartment with three other people that were previously in my dorm suite in Foothill. We get along great and that makes life a lot of fun, especially when we share classes. The classes themselves got a lot better, too, since I got into upper division courses much more. The topics were much more focused, the assignments more interesting (and difficult), and the classes were just better organized. That's the inevitable result of being able to focus on topics more than giving broad overviews and introductions.</p>
<p>Both years I was involved in mock trial and the university symphony. I had a great time in both groups. I got to travel to four different states to compete in mock trial tournaments (unfotunately out of my own pocket) and my first year was competing in the national tournament (have to place in the top two of the region to qualify). That was a lot of fun.</p>
<p>To comment specifically on your questions:</p>
<p>*Social life? Are students engaged in conversations and like having social times during classes and all? Is it pretty laid back? Is there a strong school spirit?</p>
<p>Students do not have conversations in class unless the class is big and the professor sucks. Most students focus on paying attention to the lecture. Most professors are laid back and don't mind you putting up your feet and just relaxing while listening, but most professors will ask you to keep quiet if you are having a conversation during lecture. And that's expected.</p>
<p>School spirit varies heavily. You go to a football game and you'll see a lot of school spirit. There are a lot of spirited people, but it's not like people will think you're weird if you aren't wearing a Cal shirt. Like most things at Berkeley, it's all about choice: there are groups of people that are spirited, and you can join them, but it is up to you.</p>
<p>*Students: How would you describe a typical Cal student? Smart yet social and fun? Personalities?</p>
<p>Oh, depends so much. There is such a spectrum of kids at Berkeley. Some are smart, some aren't. Some are social and fun, some aren't. I can't exactly describe a typical student because there really isn't one. I can say that most students are willing to have some fun, if provoked, and most are relatively intelligent. I've known my fair share of idiots and bores, though, so again, it really varies.</p>
<p>*Campus aesthetics? The site provides some pictures, but how would you rate campus aesthetics?</p>
<p>Outside, the aesthetics are great. Nice greenery, beautiful buildings, etc. You'll see about 100 squirrels during your first walk across campus. You may see a deer or two during a semester if you're lucky. My buddies have seen families of raccoons around as well. There's a good amount of nature in the area and complement the campus well.</p>
<p>Inside buildings, it isn't so pretty. Of course, it depends on the building, but man are poorly maintained inside. Walk around Cory and Evans and you'll see what I mean. Dwinelle is marginally better than those. Hearst Mining and Soda are pretty nice, but they're the exception.</p>
<p>*Dorm life? Describe your dorm life? How is it? </p>
<p>Depends on your roommates, if you want to talk about social life. In terms of other things, dorm life can be very relaxed or very busy, depending. There'll be somebody organizing events for your dorm, and you can either attend or not, it's up to you. Most will attend a few at first, but after a few weeks you'll have a group of friends and the attractiveness of these events will generally fade.</p>
<p>In my experience, dorm life gets old after the first year. A lot of students will have a solid group of friends after the first year, and will move into an apartment with them. It's cheaper, it's more fun, and it's more flexible. I think most people view dorms as a freshman thing.</p>
<p>Regarding professors and classes, you've got to do your own research. Unless you're in EECS, there aren't a lot of great online resources to find the best classes and the best professors. Ask around to find out, because it will make your college experience so much better if you can avoid bad professors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obviously, Cal does not believe transfer students need these "weeder" classes or they would be required. Nice try though. I believe anyone who ridicules transfer students are just jealous these students do as well as freshman admits..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And besides, many freshmen DO get out of weeders - either through course work done at a community college or through AP. So if a person supports the idea that transfer students should have to either take weeders or test out of them AT Berkeley, him or her should also support the elimination of transfer credit and AP credit for freshmen.</p>
<p>You know what's weird, I think weeders are easier than upper divs.</p>
<p>"Former Cal Chancellor Clark Kerr said it best: "If you're bored at Berkeley, you're bored with life." In the case of Shiboing Boing, he hates his life in addition to hating Cal."</p>
<p>I'm with strykur. </p>
<p>ha, I bet someone will cite this as evidence of the berkeley 'group think' in practice. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Regarding professors and classes, you've got to do your own research. Unless you're in EECS, there aren't a lot of great online resources to find the best classes and the best professors. Ask around to find out, because it will make your college experience so much better if you can avoid bad professors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are you talking about? I though CoE students have access to evaluations from professors and what not? You might have to take a certain course in sequence, but you can know what to expect!</p>
<p>
[quote]
And besides, many freshmen DO get out of weeders - either through course work done at a community college or through AP. So if a person supports the idea that transfer students should have to either take weeders or test out of them AT Berkeley, him or her should also support the elimination of transfer credit and AP credit for freshmen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's true that some freshmen get out of weeder courses, but I think he overwhelming majority do not, especially the pre-med and engineering majors. Some avoid taking them and instead take something else if possible, others decide to forgo the general thing entirely (and say, pretty much give up on their chances of studying medicine). Very few if any of the transfer students take the main weeder classes at Berkeley, and these are the ones giving out many poor and many average grades to students. One need not support one or the other of your suggestions; it's not a true dilemma. You could easily say that the AP test or SAT II or IB or some additional Berkeley test is acceptable for both parties or acceptable for the regular students while some additional test must be designed for the transfers, or that students shouldn't receive credit for the particular weeder courses through AP or SAT II or IB tests (as most courses aren't weeder courses, and many of the course skipped through AP scores are not weeders). Also, in your false decision, why would freshmen not receive transfer credit while transfer would for cc classes (or other university classes)? That is absurd! I don't know of anyone advocating the elimination of all transfer credit, just some people advocating that transfer students demonstrate their knowledge of weeders by showing that they can pass cumulative exams in those subjects (and if they can't, have them take the class).</p>
<p>What exactly is a weeder class anyway? Just an intro class? Would say, Econ 1 or Rhetoric 10 be considered a weeder?</p>
<p>^ Do all majors have weeder courses? </p>
<p>I though it was only Haas, MCB, and other impacted majors that had weeder courses.</p>
<p>EDIT: I'm referring to DRabs post. Not talkells.</p>
<p>A weeder class is often an introductory class, but does nt have to be. I think of them as classes which give out high percentages of low to average grades (Fs-Cs) relative to other classes. They are most commonly found in the sciences (in the pre-med curriculum) and in technical subjects. The humanities and social sciences tend not to have as many. In a broader sense, a weeder course is any class that tries to get students not to be able to move on. My dad's Saturday morning biology class for pre-meds at Yale in the 70's would count here, as would the 8:00 AM chem classes. Rhetoric 10 "weeds" people by giving them a better idea of what rhetoric and the rhetoric department is, but it isn't a weeder in the very tough grading sense. I think econ 1 is, though, but i'm not sure. UGBA 10 is. I think when most people say weeders, they mean the toughest grading courses, particularly the sciences courses, and not classes such as the psych pre-reqs. Of course, I'd be interested in what others have to say about the subject because I'm not expert on it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's true that some freshmen get out of weeder courses, but I think he overwhelming majority do not, especially the pre-med and engineering majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a viciously incorrect assessment of the situation, DRab. For example, the equivalent ("non-weeder") courses to Math 1A and 1B, both definite weeders and both for premeds and engineers, can most certainly be taken at a CC and counted at Berkeley as credit for the major. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Some avoid taking them and instead take something else if possible, others decide to forgo the general thing entirely (and say, pretty much give up on their chances of studying medicine).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK. So you're saying Berkeley weeders are intimidating for freshmen. Well, I'll have you know that classes at community college, especially in science-related majors, can be equally intimidating. Do you want to impose an unqual, arguably racist standard in degrees of intimidation--so that surviving the intimidating freshman year Berkeley is somehow seen as superior to surviging the intimidating freshman year at community college? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Very few if any of the transfer students take the main weeder classes at Berkeley, and these are the ones giving out many poor and many average grades to students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very few if any freshmen students take the main weeder classes at community college, and those are the ones that also give out many poor and many average grades to students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
One need not support one or the other of your suggestions; it's not a true dilemma. You could easily say that the AP test or SAT II or IB or some additional Berkeley test is acceptable for both parties or acceptable for the regular students while some additional test must be designed for the transfers, or that students shouldn't receive credit for the particular weeder courses through AP or SAT II or IB tests (as most courses aren't weeder courses, and many of the course skipped through AP scores are not weeders).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said I opposed what you are proposing. What I said was that freshmen regularly receive weeder credit for 4s and 5s on AP tests that are arguably "easier" than weeder classes. Since many on this forum believe that CC classes are ALSO easier than weeders and think it unfair that that is so, they must not be allowed to employ a double standard. If the grade hard-working transfer students got in their CC classes isn't going to be counted for credit, then neither should the AP grade hard-working freshmen students earned on their tests be counted for credit. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, in your false decision, why would freshmen not receive transfer credit while transfer would for cc classes (or other university classes)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the second time that I've noticed you misconstruing my words. Please stop. What I posted was not a decision "decision." </p>
<p>Read it again::</p>
<p>"And besides, many freshmen DO get out of weeders - either through course work done at a community college or through AP. So if a person supports the idea that transfer students should have to either take weeders or test out of them AT Berkeley, him or her should also support the elimination of transfer credit and AP credit for freshmen."</p>
<p>What I did post was a general commentary which I believe points out a double standard that exists on this issue among forum posters. I never said I agreed with either side, nor did I say freshmen should NOT receive transfer credit like transfer students. Indeed, I think things are just fine as they currently are, both for freshmen and transfers. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know of anyone advocating the elimination of all transfer credit, just some people advocating that transfer students demonstrate their knowledge of weeders by showing that they can pass cumulative exams in those subjects (and if they can't, have them take the class).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That would be such a waste of time and money as well as a smack in the face for community colleges and the College Board. That means that it will be unpopular with the administration and highly unlikely to ever get through.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think when most people say weeders, they mean the toughest grading courses, particularly the sciences courses, and not classes such as the psych pre-reqs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK. You obviously are not a psychology student and as such, you are not qualified to judge the difficulty of the psych prerecs. </p>
<p>Here they are::</p>
<p>Psychology Psychology 1
(AP Psychology units will satisfy this prerequisite provided the score was at least 4.)</p>
<p>Evolution One course from:
Molecular & Cell Biology 41 or 41X
Anthropology 1
Integrative Biology 60 </p>
<p>Biological Science Two courses from:
Molecular & Cell Biology 31, 32, 50, 61, 64
Biology 1A, 1B, 11
Integrative Biology 31 (AP Biology with a score of 4 or 5 will satisfy this prerequisite.) </p>
<p>Social Science Two courses from:
Anthropology 3
Sociology 3or 3AC
Linguistics 5
Political Science 1 or 2 (not both) </p>
<p>Quantitative One course from:
Statistics 2, 20, or 21 (AP Statistics with a score of 4 or 5 will satisfy this prerequisite). </p>
<p>Most intended psych majors take Anthropology 1 for the Evolution requirement, Bio 1A and 1B for the Biological Science requirement (since many intend to go to medical school,) and Statics 20 for the Quantitative requirement. What do all of these have in common? THEY ARE WEEDERS and they are POPULAR with intended psychology majors. Yet, you, because of your lack of obvious knowledge, refuse to class them as such. Care to go back on your word?</p>
<p>
[quote]
OK. You obviously are not a psychology student and as such, you are not qualified to judge the difficulty of the psych prereqs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why are you so angry today, greatestyen? There's no need to be mad at me. I know what the psych pre-reqs are, and I know you have to get above a 3.2 in the pre-reqs to major in psych. I talk to many people about classes and while I have no direct knoweldge of taking the courses, I feel like I know a lot about them and how difficult it is to get above a 3.2 in them. I know psych majors who are not geniuses or work-horses who think it is laughably easy. They can easily be completed in a year or so. I am not trying to discredit the psych major or the pre-reqs, but I think it's fair to say with regard to grading, it's easier to complete the psych pre-reqs than the engineering pre-reqs by far, and while I don't think getting above a 3.2 in the psych pre-reqs is a cake-walk, it's not incredibly difficult. The courses are weeders in the sense that many classes exist and so one must invest a large time commitment into taking them in order to go onto psych. They are NOT weeders in the sense that they are really difficult or grade harshly compared to other weeders.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most intended psych majors take Anthropology 1 for the Evolution requirement, Bio 1A and 1B for the Biological Science requirement (since many intend to go to medical school)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Antrho 1 a weeder? Not in the harsh grading sense. Most psych students taking Bio 1A and 1B? Show me some stats and I'll believe you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Statistics 20
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps this is a weeder, I am not sure. What's the grade distribution in this course?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Care to go back on your word?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, not in the least.</p>