<p>Like they care if you drop out. Just more money for them to accept other students. hehe</p>
<p>There are many students who take AP classes in high school and get scores high enough to place out of classes at Berkeley. (Requirements here: [University</a> of California - Counselors](<a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/educators/counselors/adminfo/freshman/advising/credit/berkeley.html]University”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/educators/counselors/adminfo/freshman/advising/credit/berkeley.html)) </p>
<p>There are also students who take college classes from CC while still in high school, and “many college courses taken in high school can be used to fulfill college/university requirements and may count towards high school graduation requirements” ([Berkeley</a> College Tools](<a href=“http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:-jpbcmma_PoJ:collegetools.berkeley.edu/documents/cat_5-87/Community_College_A_Positive_Pathway.ppt+uc+berkeley+community+college+in+high+school&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a]Berkeley”>http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:-jpbcmma_PoJ:collegetools.berkeley.edu/documents/cat_5-87/Community_College_A_Positive_Pathway.ppt+uc+berkeley+community+college+in+high+school&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)).</p>
<p>Lastly, freshmen spring admits often take classes at community college to fulfill some pre-reqs in their semester gap. </p>
<p>My question is this, Sakky: Do you think that students who test out of classes by taking APs, or take transferable CC classes while in high school, or in the gap before attending Berkeley should also have to pass classes offered at Berkeley in the same subjects? I mean, it would only be fair, right?</p>
<p>I’m not sakky; I’m obnoxious, so I’ll throw in my $0.02. </p>
<p>A lot of (top private) schools don’t accept AP credit with the justification that AP exams are not of the same rigor as equivalent courses at the respective schools. Berkeley is almost at the same caliber as these schools. It follows that Berkeley should do away with AP credits in order to encourage (read: require) all admits to take the equivalent course at Berkeley. </p>
<p>Now you will probably ask “what about transfers credits?” I don’t know.</p>
<p>It does seem more likely that Berkeley would make people retest for AP than for CC/transfer credit. Though, APs at least have more uniformity than CC’s since Berkeley can look at what CollegeBoard’s been doing. Also, if you get to the point where everyone has to retake, you might as well just let people pass out of any course they can take the final in(!).
Slippery slope to not even having a university, just a testing center for a degree.</p>
<p>Sorry, got carried away on the last bit. XD
I do shudder with the idea of having to take a 1A/1B Calc final…</p>
<p>Berkeley’s AP policy is actually middle-of-the-road. On one extreme you have the top privates disallowing AP credit, on the other extreme you have schools like UCSD disallowing courses that are deemed satisfied by AP credit. In Berkeley, if you are man enough to take Math 1A/1B despite having 5’s in AP Calc AB and BC, you can; although many will come to regret their decision after the first midterm.</p>
<p>That was a terrific slippery slope (and I think this is the first time in this thread that a fallacy was properly labeled). It’d be a very interesting education model. </p>
<p>
Maybe it’s just me, but if you’re feeling overwhelmed by Math 1B, then perhaps you should not skip it just because you got a 5 on Calc BC. I skipped 1A/1B, but I didn’t find material in either of those courses difficult at all. I regularly helped people throughout freshman year on math homework, and while it wasn’t a piece of cake, each assignment took only a small amount of frustration and intuition. Same goes for Phys 7A, although I don’t think AP Phys C:Mech is the Berkeley equivalent of Phys 7A…7A is harder by far and has greater breadth. Thankfully, you can’t test out of Phys 7B. That class is arguably the most useful physics class offered for the more technical students on campus.</p>
<p>First off, everyone at Harvard, Yale, etc. is laughing their a** off at this thread. </p>
<p>This is a pathetic attempt by some to prop themselves up on a high horse. Sakky should go work for Fox News. You’d be perfect. You’re really good at complaining, giving yourself recognition for your own inherent greatness, and seem to have a lot of free time on your hands. A perfect republican specimen. =)</p>
<p>Also, transfer students entering 4-year institutions generally have more real world work experience in their field of study than their HS –> UC counterparts. So, I believe transfer students, having both academic and professional merit, sure as hell deserve their place at Cal or any other school.</p>
<p>@UCcasualty: You just propped yourself on a high horse. </p>
<p>Next, transfers to top privates enroll in transfer programs that doesn’t consider their CC education. They essentially have a truncated four year schedule in two years. Either that or they just don’t bother with giving credit for exams aside from the very basic requirements (ie. foreign language, writing supplements, etc).</p>
<p>@inconnu: Uh, no. HS grads, CC transfers, Calfornians and Americans all deserve a chance at a higher education. I just felt that it was trying to be argued that transfers are somehow less capable of succeeding academically; as if they fail to meet some merit requirement. Which is the only reason I made that statement.</p>
<p>This thread makes me do a double-take though. I can’t believe all this babble about a freakin’ UNDERGRADUATE education at a PUBLIC university. News flash, but these days a bachelors degree is barely worth the paper it’s printed on. Good luck to anyone who chooses to stop after their undergrad studies, because if your ****ed off right now about people who are “less qualified” than you being able to study with you, I can’t wait to see how you react when the person that is less qualified and educated than is your boss.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t claim to be great, and I never have.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I do think we have a problem, and problems are never solved if nobody ever says anything about them. Does anybody wish to argue that the issues I presented are not actually a problem? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, there it is again - that somehow the transfer students are to blame. To be clear, I am not blaming any of them. I blame the system. </p>
<p>Besides, let’s take your argument on its merits. If it’s genuinely true that transfer students are equally as capable of succeeding academically as the freshman admits, then they’ll have no problem in passing those weeder exams and this entire discussion will be a nonissue, right? So why such vociferous resistance? </p>
<p>Again, I pose the fundamental question: why should freshman admits be weeded, but not the transfers? I see a lot of complaints about ‘unfairness’ and inequity attributed to the transfer students; well, what about the unfairness associated with not having to endure the weeders that other students are forced to suffer through? I suspect there are plenty of freshman admits who were weeded out of their majors who would have actually successfully completed the upper-division coursework and graduated had they simply been allowed to skip the weeders (possibly by taking the counterpart courses at a CC). Granted, they wouldn’t have earned top grades, but they still would have passed. </p>
<p>Like I’ve always said, my ideal solution is to simply never weed anybody at all (accompanied with a possible heightening of admissions difficulty into certain majors). But given that weeding does occur, it is only fair that it apply to everybody in the major, not just certain groups of students. Again, what’s fair is fair. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, yes. Or, allow students to skip those weeders by taking corresponding CC courses or through post-high-school AP exams (if high school graduates are still allowed to take AP exams). The same principle applies: all students should be accorded the same opportunity to skip weeders.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And they have that chance, at least, far more so than citizens of practically any other nation in the world. There are thousands and thousands of 4-year colleges in the country, and that’s not even counting the boatloads of community colleges - I am convinced that anybody with a reasonable work ethic can find a 4-year college somewhere that will admit them. </p>
<p>But that’s not relevant - the relevant question is whether everybody should be admitted to the UC system in general, or to Berkeley specifically. Yet the fact is, the UC system is not open admissions and never will be. The California Master Plan specifically states that only a certain percentage of the student population, whether freshman admits or transfer applicants, is even eligible for UC, and even of those who are, the vast majority of them will never be admitted to Berkeley. For example, if I attend community college and earn a 2.0 GPA , I won’t be eligible for a UC, heck probably not even a CalState, and certainly not Berkeley. But why not, for I’m still a Californian, so I could argue that I nevertheless still “deserve” a chance at Berkeley or some other UC. But we all know that, whether you like it or not, that person will not be admitted, for the UC’s and CalStates are not open admissions programs. If you want to argue that they should be, then you are free to do so, but that’s a fundamentally different question than what has been posed here. </p>
<p>Given that only a small percentage of the student population - whether freshman admits or transfer students - will be admitted to Berkeley (or even be UC eligible at all) - the question on the table is then, how to make the program fair between those two groups of students. What I have argued is that clearly the fact that transfer students get to skip over weeders that the freshman admits are forced to endure is not fair. Either everybody (in a particular major) should be weeded, or none of them should be. As the situation stands now, the transfer students are indeed receiving special treatment, and I think that’s hard to defend. If anybody would like to argue that one group of student truly deserves special treatment over another, I’m interested in hearing the argument.</p>
<p>The gambit that I’ve seen played here is the issue of AP credits amongst various freshman admits to skip over weeders. To that, I would say that while I agree the AP system is also deeply problematic and should be reformed, let’s deal with one problem at a time. Just because you may not be able to solve every problem doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t solve any.</p>
<p>The only relevant question that should be asked about transfer admissions is, “Are transfer students as qualified as other Berkeley students when they graduate?” Even if transfer admissions are unfair, are we really saying that the University should create arbitrary restrictions to prevent qualified people from getting Berkeley degrees? </p>
<p>Questions of fairness are immaterial, but I’m going to address them quickly for the hell of it. Currently, it is argued that upper division courses are easier than lower division “weeders” and transfer admission is unfair because it allows people to escape the more difficult lower division courses.</p>
<p>So the fairness argument is contingent on the idea that lower divisions are harder than upper divisions. I don’t buy it for two reason. First, I’ve taken 3 “weeders” in one semester. With the generous curve/scale, the classes were only slightly harder than a high school class. Second, the idea that lower division classes are harder than upper division classes seems constructed ad hoc for the argument it’s suppose to support.</p>
<p>But wait! I have an even better reason why transfer admissions are not unfair. Transfer admission is available to everyone. Regular freshmen admits had the choice of going to CC and transferring, but they didn’t. The option is available to everyone when they leave high school.</p>
<p>Before you rush to respond, really ask yourself why you dislike transfer admissions. What are your reasons and how well are these reasons supported?</p>
<p>
Ummm… we have grade distribution data from CourseRank and CampusBuddy that show that UD courses are in fact easier. Your claim is completely wrong. Professors and staff advisers from various majors/departments all back this up; don’t believe me, go ask your major advisers.</p>
<p>Are UD courses really easier (I would consider “easiness” to be how easy it is to get an A), or have the C/D/F students been removed? I think the main shift in grading from LD to UD is the fact that they don’t give as many Ds or Fs anymore. It’s harder to fail if you’ve made it that far, but it’s not necessarily easier to succeed.</p>
<p>Most of the biology UDs I have taken are immensely easier than Biology 1A/L. You also need to take in to account that many UDs (or at least the IB UDs I’ve taken) may stay away from the curving that LDs are notorious for.</p>
<p>I have completed five IB UDs and am taking one more this semester. Two of them were curved, two were barely curved (i.e. the curve was very slight, I actually doubt they were curved at all), the other one was completely uncurved (and the one I am taking this semester I believe to be uncurved as well).</p>
<p>There are other reasons besides difficulty that can account for the difference in grade distribution. Most people pledge while they are freshman and sophomores, which can adversely affect grades. Also, people might need some time to get used to college. In addition to that when you start classes at Berkeley, frequently there is a gap between what students know and what professors think they know, which might make a class more difficult, but doesn’t really say anything about the inherent difficulty. In upper divisions, professors have a better idea of what your background is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid that argument works the other way as well, for freshman admission is also available to everyone. Transfer students had the chance to be admitted to Berkeley as freshmen if they had built the appropriate high school academic record.</p>
<p>Presumably the vast majority of transfer students simply did not attain the type of high school record necessary to be admitted to Berkeley as a freshman. Of this I have no problem, for I too believe in second chances. But I don’t believe in second chances with special privileges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough - then if all of that is true, that is all the more reason why the transfer students will have little difficulty passing the final exams of the weeders they currently skip, as I have proposed. You will be facing those very same frat/sorority pledges and freshman admits who are having trouble adjusting who you have identified, which means that you ought to do well on the curve on a relative basis. So, again, why not implement such a policy? What do the transfer students have to fear? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That seems to be a reason to dispense with (lower-division) weeders entirely. If the true reason that those courses are difficult is that there truly is a gap between what students know and what profs think they know, then why even run those courses as weeders at all, particularly if the transfer students are not required to take them? Just pass everybody to allow them to enter the upper division, and if they truly don’t understand the material, then that fact will inevitably be exposed in the upper division coursework. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I stated previously, I have no problem with transfer admissions per se. My concern has to do with fairness - nobody should receive special treatment.</p>
<p>Besides, I would turn this line of questioning around: what exactly are the true reasons why the detractors oppose my proposal? It would be one thing to disagree on the merits of the proposal, perhaps due to logistical concerns. It’s quite another to engage in the vituperative, ad-hominem behavior that only heightens the suspicions that I have indeed struck a nerve by identifying an inequity that benefactors wish I had not uncovered. That, to me is the most logical reason for why this discussion got personal so quickly, as why else would people be so eager to shoot the messenger?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the purposes of this discussion, I don’t think it matters. What matters is, at the end of the day, transfer students are allowed to skip over difficult weeders that the freshman admits are not allowed to skip, and it doesn’t matter why those weeders are difficult. All that matters is that they are indeed difficult.</p>
<p>What I am asking is how can transfer admissions possibly be unfair when it is available to everyone. You complain about special treatment, but everyone who is admitted to Berkeley as a freshman can probably be admitted as a transfer. If it’s so unfair to freshman admits, then why don’t they do what transfers do.</p>
<p>“What I am asking is how can transfer admissions possibly be unfair when it is available to everyone.”</p>
<p>So along that line of logic religious/ideological persecution should be valid in society because they could just change their beliefs?
So theft/cheating is fair, just because everyone can steal/cheat?
what??
Symmetry does not imply equity. Extreme examples, but the point is that you’re completely confusing availability of options with the balance between them.</p>
<p>The fact that freshmen are willing to go to berkeley despite an unfairness that most aren’t even thinking about does not say anything about whether that unfairness exists.</p>