<p>Remember that not everyone will be accepted to UVA, and not everyone wants to attend UVA, either. There are many fine schools in VA and beyond the Commonwealth that could well match a student's goals and interests - whether that student is IN, OOS, or a transfer. And students are/can be very successful elsewhere.</p>
<p>Well I personally know some CCs transfer. Most of them are ambitious and hardworking. Also, a large part of CCs transfers are actually Asian.</p>
<p>I note, with some irony, that this issue is not confined to UVa.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Currently, Virginia Tech offers guaranteed acceptance into the College of Life Sciences and the College of Engineering for all VCCS and Richard Bland College students who complete the designated requirements with a 3.0 GPA or higher. Dean said Tech is “currently in discussion with VCCS on guaranteed admissions into other colleges,” in which they hope to have completed by this academic year. </p>
<p>The University of Virginia has already made an agreement to guarantee admittance into its Liberal Arts and Sciences College to any VCCS student who completes credentials with a 3.4 GPA or higher. A student with a 3.7 or higher is guaranteed admission into every academic program of William and Mary except education, said Tech’s University Registrar and chief transfer officer, Wanda Dean. George Mason University offers guaranteed admissions to VCCS students who hold a 3.0 or higher and Radford University is on its way to signing an agreement, says Herndon.</p>
<p>Amy Widner, public relations coordinator for Undergraduate Admissions, reports that “for fall 2006, (Tech) admitted 825 transfer students, with 415 of them coming from VCCS.” </p>
<p>Most schools have or will create a designated quota goal for a specific number of VCCS students to be accepted, Herndon said. While Herndon assures that “the intention (of Virginia state policy on transfers) is not to give an advantage to VCCS students but to give options and promote higher education,” students who started out at four-year universities hold differing opinions on the matter. </p>
<p>“I believe this policy puts current Virginia Tech students at a disadvantage. I came into Virginia Tech as a university studies major, with the intent of completing the course requirements for admittance into the College of Engineering,” said Luke Birchenough, junior building construction major. “These courses were extremely rigorous, almost as if professors were trying to weed out students. Basically, I don’t think its fair that I had to take the tough classes at Tech while someone in the VCCS can get in taking a much easier route. This policy almost discourages a student from coming to Tech if they are not accepted to their program of choice. Why not just do the community college thing for two years, then have a guaranteed in?”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, as a student of Tech, i've met a few of those CCs. And let me tell you, its hard as crap to maintain a 3.0 in engineering here, and apperently most of the CCers in engineering do not graduate with a 3.0. This is simply because they entered with a 3.0, and they thought they could get by with the same amount of effort/work expelled in CC and still get a 3.0. Boy were they in for a surprise.</p>
<p>Side note: Do you think UVa will be able to set up some type of agreement by May 1st decisions for the other schools? Or if they even do, will it not take effect until next year?</p>
<p>First of all, I don’t work in admissions, so I don’t know any more about this topic than you. However, I would guess that even if UVa came out with an agreement before May 1st for the Engineering School, it wouldn’t be very meaningful for at least a year since no one would know what the requirements were beforehand. </p>
<p>UVa obviously has a “target” to meet for the enrollment of community college transfers, as does Tech. I think these agreements are merely tools to help four-year schools meet their “targets.” UVa is free to accept a transfer student even if he or she does not meet all of the terms of a transfer agreement. The Data Digest indicates that UVa accepted 71 transfers to the E-School last year, and 44 of those enrolled. I have no idea how many, if any, of those transfers were from community colleges.</p>
<p>Showbox makes an excellent point: transfers could be in for a huge awakening if they're not prepared and diligent. The VA state schools must pull in VA CC transfers - and it doesn't look like that policy is going to be altered. (This reminds me somewhat of the open enrollment policy that the City Universities of New York had about 30 years ago. The premise was that anyone in NYC and boroughs is entitled to an education. I don't know if this policy is still in existence or not - but it sure discouraged me from applying to any of the NYC sponsored colleges.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Shoebox, I'm getting a little fed up with your bratty contempt for CC students. Apparently you see them as competing with you for the spot you dream of having at the UVA-E school. Yes, boy will those CC students be in for a surprise once they arrive at a rEall college! Oh boy, they aren't anywhere as qualified as you are!</p>
<p>cool beans - that was not my point at all. I was just merely passing on something my advisor has pointed out to me. I was in his office last semester with a typical scheduling meeting and he asked how I was doing, and said that about 50/50 freshmen have above a 3.0 for first semester. Of those, 1/3 will drop by the end of their first year, and of those left, around 50% will have above a 3.0. It was by accident that he even mentioned CC students, as he advises first-years and transfer students only.
And frankly, I don't think I, or any other 4-yr, is more "qualified". I just think that a 3.0 is low for automatic admission to the E-school at VT. The level of work is just not the same, and I don't believe that allowing students to enter at such a level is setting them up for tough times. And since a previous poster (SuperNova, pg 5 I believe) pointed out [with numbers] that GPAs for CCers on average drop atleast some. If those CCers are entering with 3.0s, it seems silly that on average, they'll have below a 3.0 by the end of the year. And VT likes to pride itself on a great percentage of its graduates receiving job offers in engineering, yet most firms wont hire an engineer with below a 3.0. So, before you go bashing me for simply pointing out what could be a serious problem for CCers, think a bit of where i'm coming from. </p>
<p>And yes, I see them, and every other E-school transfer as competing for my spot. I don't mind the equal level playing field. What I don't agree with is if they made an agreement for the E-school, because that would mean that the CCers are more "qualified" than me, even if we have the same GPA, even if I am coming from an engineering program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don't believe for a second that you care about CC transfers. Instead, you're bad mouthing what you're perceive to be the competition. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What I don't agree with is if they made an agreement for the E-school, because that would mean that the CCers are more "qualified" than me, even if we have the same GPA, even if I am coming from an engineering program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>CCers who have the same GPA as you would, on average, be far more life experienced than you are. They often have full time or near full time jobs to support themselves while in school, and hail from nearly every corner of the planet, and are almost always considerably older--and more mature--than you. I think they would be more attractive transfer candidates to UVA than the college freshmen already attending a fine engineering institution yet who seems to be asking for more.</p>
<p>Marsden & dajada07:</p>
<p>Here you go:</p>
<p>
[quote]
HB2134: Students, admission of; rules to be established requiring 75% thereof be domiciles.
Chief Patron
Del. Tim Hugo (R-40)
Tim Hugo (R-40)
Centreville, VA
Served: 2003</p>
<p>Status
01/18/2007: In Education Committee
Introduced</p>
<p>Summary
Admission of in-state students at public institutions of higher education. Provides that the board of visitors or other governing body of each public institution of higher education must establish rules and regulations requiring that at least 75% of students admitted and enrolled at the institution be Virginia domiciles.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>cool beans - Numbers speak louder than words. And it's unfair to say that just because they go to a CC they are more "mature". Just because someone's "more experienced in life" does not mean they'll do better in engineering. A good GPA and scores means you'll do well in engineering. Besides, they do make attractive transfer candidates, which is why I support the CAS agreement, other than the fact that its totally guarenteed. Like I said in my last post, i'm not bashing any of the CCers. I have plenty of friends trying to transfer. But this whole thing started when I was disscussing the transfer agreements with other schools besides CAS, because quite frankly someone who has had a year or two under their belt strictly in a specialized degree program such as artitechture, engineering, or even nursing, will most likely do better in that field than someone who has an associates in another field. Now, that will not always be 100% true, but it will be true most of the time. That was my point: I don't think there should be auto-admittance into those types of schools.
And frankly, its none of your business of why im "asking for more". I'm trying to find a college that fits me and I will do well with in life. I have perfectly sound, legitimate reasons for my want to transfer, and I refuse to address any more of your posts because we're so off topic, and because of that comment. </p>
<p>supernova - Oh dear. And, for a side/background note: Centreville is in NoVa. Not sure how many people would know that on here, but I happen to live about 10minutes from the other "C'ville" and its a pretty wealthy area in some parts. Sort of brings to my mind that good ole NoVa is once again flexing its muscles in the education world. My question is, how on earth can they guarentee 75% enroll? You could essentially admit 75%, but then not all may accept. So, in the end, I would think that admissions would be broken down into 1:5 OOS to IS ratio. Crazy. It will be interesting to see if this is followed by an increase in state funding to its universities.</p>
<p>Well, some of the negative comments towards CC students earlier were pretty unfair. I suppose that's what happens with generalizations, maybe from the other side it's easier to see. Although I must admit, on the whole my experience is much more towards what Coolbeans describes than some of the other negative descriptions. </p>
<p>I also haven't seen any numbers that are so extremely convincing, although I admit maybe I missed them or didn't look that hard. I mean, statistics can be manipulated anyway. I could probably find the positive ones that policy makers are using to support this.The only ones I saw were the GPA drop at W and M which isn't surprising since they're known for tough grading, and at the other school (can't remember which one) it was like not even a drop of .5, which isn't even half of a letter grade. A drop like that would be expected at first as someone acclimated I would think. I wouldn't expect that their GPA would go up. Even a freshman admit would probably have a GPA drop compared to what they had at high school college prep level, although by all definitions in this thread these are people "prepared" for the work. </p>
<p>Also I thought the numbers given were very vague, we would need more a breakdown IMO. Not just the average and average drops. We would have to see entering GPA range vs drop range. And more than two schools, that makes it kind of sketchy, like at the other schools they didn't drop or something. And while appreciate you relaying what someone told you anecdotally, I'm sure you understand that it's not the same as a hard number. This person could have lied to you for their own motivation for all I know, I mean I really can't base my opinion off of this.</p>
<p>super.nova</p>
<p>Thanks for the information. While a bill's proposal does not mean that it will pass the legislature, it does create a higher profile for this issue in an environment where the arguments in favor of more OOS students will be advanced by….no one. What is to be gained politically by defending the interests of OOS students? Still, you would think that the much reduced and still declining role of the state in funding Virginia's colleges, including UVA, would morally push the lawmakers into ceding more control and say to those who are paying the bills. But politicians will do what politicians will do and that does not augur well for the long-term health and reputation of our beloved University of Virginia. Public vs private is a key question and while I can't envision the University as a private institution, political actions such as this can only increase the desire of UVA's true constituencies (students, alumni, faculty) to argue more for a private solution. Let's hope that the politicians' push for their parochial interests are little more than political grandstanding and will go nowhere. </p>
<p>Re this whole transfer issue, I don't know much about transfers and probably even less about community colleges. While only a spectator to this transfer/CC discussion, IMO any move by the University to dilute the quality of the student body, eg, guaranteeing admission to CC students with a certain GPA, in order to respond to some political constituency is the wrong policy. Granted, my wishful, idealistic thinking will likely be ignored as the pressures from local voters are stronger than those from people like me who want the University to improve its academic profile and status through the admission of more, higher achieving OOS students. However, I just can't imagine this discussion at schools that UVA would like to consider as its peers. Yes at UC-Berkeley, Michigan or UNC-CH, but near unimaginable at schools like Duke, Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Emory, Georgetown, etc where UVA does have a legitimate shot at winning the cross-admit battle. </p>
<p>Moves to further limit OOS enrollment or to promote back doors for weaker students will negatively impact the University's selectivity and its prestige. A good reputation is a difficult thing to achieve, but it's an even harder thing to reclaim once it has been damaged or lost.</p>
<p>Supernova, thanks again for your diligent research. Dismaying information, but information nonetheless. I'll take heart in the fact that this particular proposal has been introduced--and voted down--more than once before. </p>
<p>Dajada, you're quite right about a good rep being a tough thing to achieve and an easy thing to lose. I have the feeling that a few bad players are trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg...</p>
<p>Marsden - You think they would get the message by now. However, with the GA just coming off of elections, who knows. It may finally pass. Hopefully the GA will step back and realize that they're taking everything too far and rethink things (i.e. 75% IS mandate, transfer agreement, funding, ect). But with that bill being re-introducted, I doubt it.</p>
<p>Dajada - Ditto for what marsden said. The sad thing is that the actual transfers arn't the "bad players" as Marsden said. Instead, its the silly politicians that are, and I don't think they'll ever change.</p>
<p>So, the big question of the moment: why on earth is the GA doing all of this??? I've drafted a letter that I'm going to send Thursday via email (too much going on for classes) so feel free to post anything that I should definently mention =)</p>
<p>Cav Daily opinion piece on transfer issue:</p>
<p>super nova - Thanks. Obviously someone else agrees with the transfer agreement, but also making it not guarenteed.
Side question, but are you a current student at UVA?</p>
<p>Also, I sent a letter to my local rep and Senator in the GA about this. It will be interesting to see their response, and I'll be sure to sum it all up on here once I do.</p>
<p>Update -- looks like HB2134 will NOT pass this year.</p>
<p>And are you suprised? The biggest thing about that is that it would be almost impossible to regulate that, as they would have to accept a ridiculous amount of IS students in order for them to enroll 75%. Either that, or each year the class size would be most likely significantly different. I could see them mandating an admittance percentage, but definently not an enrollment percentage.</p>