<p>-<em>- i was just trying tomake msyelf feel better after all of my friends gotaccepted and i didnt -</em>-</p>
<p>
[quote]
And to imply that the conflict between research and teaching is quasi-universal is very irresponsible. The reality of the situation is that MOST (talking numbers here) professors at large research universities are very approachable and equally able in research and teaching. The problem is therefore almost universally confined to math, science, and engineering departments where research (and thus teaching) tends to be cutthroat. In the humanities and most social sciences, both research and teaching, tend to fluff up-making for a "better undergraduate experience" for the majority of the students in those fields.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if I could agree with this. Believe me, advancement in the academic departments in the humanities has NO shortage of cutthroat-ness. </p>
<p>In fact, I could argue that competition to get to the top of the academic pyramid in those fields is even more cutthroat than it is in the sciences and engineering, for a number of reasons. First of all, the stakes are far higher. Let's face it. There's not a whole lot you can do with a humanities PhD except become a prof. With a science or engineering PhD, you can quite reasonably go work in industry. Hence the competition to obtain tenure-track positions in the humanities, and (especially) the competition to actually get that tenure is truly white-hot. The stakes are lower in the sciences and engineering, because there are jobs in the private sector readily available.</p>
<p>Secondly, humanities excellence is inherently subjective in the way that science/engineering is not. If you discover something great in science/engineering, it's fairly obvious that you have done so. For example, if you prove some new law of physics, nobody can deny it, even if you're the biggest jerk in the world. Excellence in humanities, however, is highly subjective, meaning that politics and influence inevitably play a role as to who gets a tenure-track job, and then who actually makes tenure. The upshot is that there tends to be more backroom scheming and politicking going on in humanities departments. That doesn't mean that science/engineering faculty are free from politicking. But it does mean that it tends to be more intense in humanities departments. </p>
<p>I would further dispute the point that humanities profs in the major research universities are equally skilled at teaching and research. After all, think of it this way. If that were really true, then why even have the LAC's? One of the core reasons for the existence of LAC's like Williams and Amherst is that they are supposed to provide better teachers than the major research universities do, especially in the humanities, which is what most of the LAC's specialize in. Most of the LAC profs aren't prominent researchers. So if research university profs were really as good at teaching as they are in research, then they must be far better teachers than the LAC profs are (because LAC profs aren't prominent researchers), and therefore those people who choose LAC's over research universities for that better teaching are being stupid. I highly doubt that all these LAC students are stupid.</p>
<p>Back to the top. Wheee.</p>
<p>Berkeley students are pretty apathetic about change. Sakky has good ideas but I certainly don't see any reform movements going on. I attribute it to the large asianess of the campus (which equal apoliticism) and the fact so many people here just don't care about the things I pointed out about providing an ivy-league experience.</p>
<p>And most people are dumb anyways, I have to sit through retarded class after class of stupidity. Everyone's a moron, I'm just saying the truth. 1 out of every 20 people is actually halfway intelligent. 4 or 5 out of every 20 people will get the A's but that's because they work all the time and game, I doubt the remember anything afterwards.</p>
<p>Berkeley is a waste of time and money and I feel sorry for all the smart people that are going to go in and feel suffocated by the stupidity at this school.</p>
<p>Wow you sound like you are at the top of the world!</p>
<p>Yay. Back to the top, that's where this thread needs to be. </p>
<p>You contradict yourself. How can everybody be a moron, while 1 out of ever 20 people is "actually halfway intelligent?" You speak in absolutes, with made-up statistics, and you come off looking like a bitter, childish prick.</p>
<p>Many Berkeley students are interested in change. What change? It depends. It seems that more of them are more interested in national and local politics than campus policy, but many are interested in campus change. </p>
<p>Asianess equals apoliticism? You are such an absolutist and generalist. Every person who got A's is a workaholic and gamer, but wait, don't you want the people who get A's to be smart, hard workers? What about your A's? Are you just another terrible Asian workaholic gamer? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley is a waste of time and money and I feel sorry for all the smart people that are going to go in and feel suffocated by the stupidity at this school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I guess it's a good thing that these smart people are in the minority, so that there aren't that many of them feeling suffocated. Right? Go make up more statistics about how dumb Berkeley students are and how terrible a place it is, whatever makes you feel better about your situation.</p>
<p>Remember how most of the points you bring up on the first page are wrong, or most people disagree with you about them, greatly to the extent that you describe? And remember how you stand by each and everyone all the way, even when it's something like the first point, which is wrong in what you'd call an "objective" way? But no, you probably don't. I'm here to remind you, though. Remember?</p>
<p>I will respond to sakky's reply at a later time. </p>
<p>But for now...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley students are pretty apathetic about change. Sakky has good ideas but I certainly don't see reform movements going on. I attribute it to the large asianess of the campus (which equal apoliticism) and the fact so many people here just don't care about the things I pointed out about providing an ivy-league experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are on laughably shaky intellectual grounds by stating that you don't see "any" reform movements going on. Sakky has already pointed out that Berkeley yielded to certain amounts of student pressure to create the freshman/sophomore seminar program. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And most people are dumb anyways, I have to sit through retarded class after class of stupidity. Everyone's a moron, I'm just saying the truth. 1 out of every 20 people is actually halfway intelligent. 4 or 5 out of every 20 people will get the A's but that's because they work all the time and game, I doubt the remember anything afterwards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In light of the numerous errors in expression you have committed on this forum, your "most people are dumb anyways" claim is truly pathetic. Moreover, notice your mix-ups in referring to "students" as "people." Are you talking about just one? Both? What's the difference? If I was an LSAT writing sample reader, you'd be failing. </p>
<p>In the end, just what qualifies you indentify low student intelligence? How do you do it? By test scores? Obviously that would be highly idiotic, since the long-standing trend at Berkeley is for each incoming freshman class to score higher than the last. So, perhaps you judge intellectual ability on performace in weeders? Emotional intelligence on dealing with the campus bureaucracy? I don't really know. You don't tell me. And that fact that you don't is highly unintellectual. Maybe it's just how you Southers are. Can't win an argument with your brain so aim for the crotch, huh? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley is a waste of time and money and I feel sorry for all the smart people that are going to go in and feel suffocated by the stupidity at this school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is such an idiotic comment. For one, what exactly constitutes a "waste of time and money"? A Berkeley degree? The city of Berkeley? The campus? The WORLD-RENOWNED RESEARCH? Honestly, tell me, because I just don't agree with the idea that time spent learning is ever "lost"... </p>
<p>Second, what in the world are you talking about when you say "the stupidity of the school"? As proven by the counteless program rankings, Berkeley is if not the smartest then almost the smartest school in the world. Clarify your statements, please.</p>
<p>I but exist to serve. Do my posts sound any childish than some of the pro-berkeley rants on this thread? No. I'm just offering a perspective that differs from the mold. </p>
<p>And you didn't really refute as in say that all the things I said aren't absolutely refutable. You're right, they are just a perspective, but a starting point.</p>
<p>FOr example, lets take a typical class of 100 people.</p>
<p>How many people out of that class regularly comment in class or discussion? Usually about 5-10 at most. In my 20-25 person discussions about 5 people usually talk and everyone else is silent unless they HAVE to talk. </p>
<p>And the sophmore/freshman seminar program was here 4 years ago. Yeah, real responsive there ... not. In addition these are useless classes that don't count towards major requirements in most cases. They're just filler classes to try to make people feel better but often no real pedagogical value. The real weeder classes that a lot of people must take and are difficult are still impersonal wonders. Berkeley gives an inch when the students do deserve yards.</p>
<p>I don't really care if you are a sample reader or not; my internet posts are not meant to be masters thesis; they are only starting points for ideas. (And the writing sample on the LSAT is not graded btw) To proofread them and make them fullproof against attack is impossible because of all the rapid pro-ucb'ers. The point was if you pay attention in class you will see facts fitting the paragon. Most people don't participate. If you ask most people that take a class after its over some pertinent facts about the class, most will not remember. Its high school redux.</p>
<p>Intelligence is highly subjective, whatever, you can choose to argue the semantics. My standard is holding a conversation that shows a decent amount of reading; like looking reading a damn newspapre daily and remembering the facts. Sadly, most berkeley students do not even meet this standard.</p>
<p>World Renowned Researc =! Undergraduate reputation. Many employers recruit on campus but not nearly as many as at the ivies (in terms of overall quality of jobs). In addition, when they do recruit, they only slice away a tiny sliver of students at the top of the class. Berkeley produces like 4 investment bankers a year, big whopdie do. </p>
<p>Asian people tend to the apolitical, its a well known demographic fact; deal with it.</p>
<p>Lots of people that make good grades at berkely are more the study all day type that forget stuff afterwards. We had a few in my high school; I'm just pointing it out. Good at getting grades and whatever was needed for a grad school application whatever. Bad at conversation, providing useful insights in class, etc.</p>
<p>I'm just pointing it out so that people know. </p>
<p>Don't worry pro-ucb'ers. Most people will believe you and come to Berkeley anyways. My message isn't targeted to them; my message is targeted to the people in the berkeley acceptance pool that care about more than just berkeley's rank or reputation or getting the grade to go to med school, which is a pretty small minority.</p>
<p>Anyways this brings me to my last anecdote. A few years ago (maybe more than a decade), there was a preteen girl that was raped by a college student in a Las Vegas restroom. A friend of that rapist walked in, saw the rape, and then walked out without saying a word. That girl was then murdered. </p>
<p>This was all caught on tape, and the friend was a UCB student who had to end up leaving because of all the heckling he got. It is easy to see why a Berkeley student would be amoral. Relationships at Berkeley are nothingmore than shallow, momentary excursions. You go to a prof for an hour a week to suck up so you can get a good recommendation. You barely see most people on a common basis. Developing relationships with new and interesting people is a rare exception at Berkeley, you'll fall into your old high school cliques and mostly stay that way, living a static existence emotionally, continuing to be a child if you wish. You'll take classes, maybe learn a few new things, it's just a slightly smarter version of high school without the social interaction at Berkeley, nothing more.</p>
<p>Ah. Ok. Now your argument actually makes some sense. </p>
<p>My counterpoints: </p>
<p>
[quote]
How many people out of that class regularly comment in class or discussion? Usually about 5-10 at most. In my 20-25 person discussions about 5 people usually talk and everyone else is silent unless they HAVE to talk.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This, I think, is very very true. However, I do not agree in that not talking implies not knowing. I never talk in discussion unless I have to. Yet, that in no way means I don't know the material. I know it quite well, actually. I think many others do the same. </p>
<p>
[quote]
World Renowned Researc =! Undergraduate reputation. Many employers recruit on campus but not nearly as many as at the ivies (in terms of overall quality of jobs). In addition, when they do recruit, they only slice away a tiny sliver of students at the top of the class. Berkeley produces like 4 investment bankers a year, big whopdie do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, ok. So you're talking about "undergraduate reputation" as concerns big time companies. Very narrow view in my opinion, but at least you've acknowledged it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Intelligence is highly subjective, whatever, you can choose to argue the semantics. My standard is holding a conversation that shows a decent amount of reading; like looking reading a damn newspapre daily and remembering the facts. Sadly, most berkeley students do not even meet this standard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hm. I somewhat agree with this. I think that there are different sections of students. You seem to think that most are premed. Well, being premed doesn't require reading a newspaper does it? In fact, it's not even necessary for financial success. My family doctor hardly knows anything about the news. Yet he's still a great doctor. Why is newspaper knowledge so importart for premeds to have? That's right, it's not. </p>
<p>Now, if you looked towards the humanities and social science undergraduates, I think you would actually find quite a lot of newspaper readers. In fact, large numbers of them can frequently be seen in humanities hotspots on campus. This makes sense. They deal with human civilization, not human biology. So they need to know more about the civilization aspect through news papers. </p>
<p>I won't even bother excusing the engineers' lack of newspaper knowledge, for it should be obvious as to why that is so. </p>
<p>What you say about the lack of opportunites to meet new people, is very true. However, I feel that most students would actually want to keep to their high school friends. And it's understandable. Thousands of in-state students matriculate to Berkeley with at least 20 high school classmates, friends, and lovers. It's natural for people that know each other to stick together and be hostile to new relationships. You, as an out of stater, obviously have had to deal with this issue. (Notice I call it an issue, not a problem-because for most students at Berkeley who are like this, hanging out with their high school buddies is something they've long looked forward to.) But in the end, most students are very happy with this situation-myself included.</p>
<p>PS, though the story you tell is quite tragic and I'm sure we all regret it, do you have any evidence that the student walked out because he was indispitably "amoral"? (Like a confession log?)</p>
<p>If not, then this is just another case of you imposing your biased notions on the Berkeley experience. The guy who walked out might have done so for a different reason-like fear. Either way, this could have happened to any college student. Ever heard of the girl who murdered her parents and got into Harvard? Or the transfer community college student who forged his transcript and got into Yale? Both of these schools offer much "better" social lives for undergrads than Berkeley does. Yet, they have the same "amoral" problem. So, a Berkeley student need not be thought of as more "amoral" than a pampered Harvard or Yale student. Consequently, this problem shouldn't be cast as a largely Berkeley-specific problem. It's obviously not.</p>
<p>Man, if only that student would've got into harvard the poor little girl would still be alive.</p>
<p>All the stories you listed happened before. The guy was AT harvard/yale; though you're right the ivies love undermining the old WASP ethic by allowing taliban members and the like now. Sad.</p>
<p>I agree that some silent people know a lot about the material but stay silent, but I highly doubt that they even form a substantial plurality of the class. Most people just don't keep up with their reading.</p>
<p>Though they are different sections of students, a lot of the activities I did in my later years did involve the humanities; volunteering and whatnot and I was suprised how little people knew. I just feel that a lot of people just don't try or care very hard at Berkeley and it shows in the student life; even those that join these groups that are supposedly self-selecting for motivated people.</p>
<p>That was just one example. I also don't feel like the undergraduate education reputation means much outside of california; Berkeley students don't seem to do overly well versus other schools in placement of students at out of state institutions and jobs; though without hard statistics I can't prove that. It's just something I've sensed listening to fellow seniors discuss job prospects and how they've fared in graduate/professional school admissions. As such, the Berkeley reputation only seems to be ok for out of state and pretty good for in-state-schools. Even then Berkeley students seem to get the shaft despite gpa deflation in some majors. I can't find the link but even BOalt ranked ivies with grade inflation above Berkeley grads, assigning harvard like a 90+ index score and Berkeley students around a 75 which is a little above average. I don;t know how the formula works so its just a relative gauge, but I imagine other schools would do the same.</p>
<p>Now, for the cliquishness, I think we are in agreement then. I merely stated it was hard to make new friends and find new avenues. That is understandable; people are busy with old friends and activites and not everyone may want to make new friends. Considering 15% of students are out of state this is something they should consider. 85% of the other students may be happy with their cliques; thats fine, but 15% of the students is still significant so I thought I'd give them a heads up.</p>
<p>Once again, the stories listed about the other schools more or less involve the admissions process, and yes there have been tragic things that occurred at other top schools too; sometimes certain people will be bad no matter what. However, at Berkely because you will not have to deal with other people or even really grow as a person since you don't have to meet new people or challenge your preconceptions many times due to the lack of enriching activites (by this I mean having groups that actually accomplish things together and do it on a consistent basis, like every weekday or a few times a week as high school activities use to), I do think Berkeley fails in this point.</p>
<p>The Berkeley degree only shows that you completed some classes and got out; it doesn't seem to imbue the same level of maturity or mutlifaceted experience, since so many people don't try at berkeley and a lot of the experience easily passes most people by for many reasons. I pointed out that story because it seems representative of the general apathy and malaise of most students I meet in general, "anything's-ok-as-long-as-I-watch-out-for-myself" mentality of the Berkeley student's I've met (which is constrained to at least 2 history, poli sci, mcb, econ, and philosophy classes apiece and various medical and editing related ec's).</p>
<p>PA, what I don't get about you is that you seem to be upset that people are going to school just to get a degree, without any passion for what they're studying, yet you seem to be the exact same way. You consistently say you just do what it takes to get the grades and are just worried about how much money you'll make as a lawyer. I agree that there are alot of people studying things just because the job prospects are better for certain majors and I don't like that, but you strike me as the exact same way. As an English major I find that most people are taking the classes because they're actually interested in what's being taught, and I know for a fact that nobody is majoring in English because they think its a shortcut to a high paying job. So maybe you just majored in the wrong subject, the subject that you thought would get you into the best law school or whatever. And its funny that out of the 4 or 5 graduates or soon to be graduates on these boards, one is a grad student at MIT, one is a Grad student at Harvard, and one will soon be a law student at Columbia, yet we constantly hear (from those same people) how going to berkeley wont get you into the top grad programs. As Alanis would say, isn't it ironic, don't you think?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And its funny that out of the 4 or 5 graduates or soon to be graduates on these boards, one is a grad student at MIT, one is a Grad student at Harvard, and one will soon be a law student at Columbia, yet we constantly hear (from those same people) how going to berkeley wont get you into the top grad programs. As Alanis would say, isn't it ironic, don't you think?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The issue is not that Berkeley "can't" get you into the top graduate programs. Obviously plenty of students do. After all, with such a large student population, you are bound to have some students who do very well. </p>
<p>The real issue is that many such students feel that they succeed in spite of Berkeley, not because of it. While I happen to know quite a few Berkeley grads who have gone on to top graduate schools, I have been struck by how lukewarm their endorsement is of the Berkeley experience. GS, if you think that I'm bad, you should hear what some of these other guys have to say behind closed doors. In essence, many of them compare their experiences with that of other graduate students who did go to the top private schools, and they see that those other schools seemed to have actively helped their colleagues get to where they are, whereas they, at Berkeley, received little help and consequently had to do it all themselves. While that might boost their self-reliance, that doesn't exactly make them particularly grateful to Berkeley. The attitude seems to be that since they had to do all the heavy lifting themselves to get to where they are, they don't owe anything to Berkeley. It's like if you have parents who are indifferent to you, and you succeed anyway, you probably aren't going to credit your parents with your success. </p>
<p>However, let me be clear. I give credit where credit is due. Berkeley can provide an impressive suite of resources for those who are aggressive enough to access them. Berkeley does have a brand name that is better than most. Berkeley does have world-class prof's who, if you can strike up a personal relationship with them, can help you immensely in getting into graduate school. In short, while I believe that Berkeley undergrad has many flaws, I also agree that you could do a lot worse than going to Berkeley. </p>
<p>What I would say is that it's all relative. I don't think Berkeley undergrad matches up well with the top private schools. But it matches up extremely well to the top public schools and some of strong (but not top) private schools. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't find the link but even BOalt ranked ivies with grade inflation above Berkeley grads, assigning harvard like a 90+ index score and Berkeley students around a 75 which is a little above average. I don;t know how the formula works so its just a relative gauge, but I imagine other schools would do the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, the differences weren't THAT extreme.</p>
<p>Well it seems all that matters is if you fall into the ranges. None of the UC's get gpa's adjusted wheras most of the top ivies and top lsac's do. </p>
<p>UC doesn't seem to help at all, though it doesn't seem to hurt much either.</p>
<p>How does double majoring in MCB and Econ exactly an easy way to inflate your gpa? I've suffered hard knocks for trying to do so much.</p>
<p>And I do have to worry about how much I make in the future, My parents have like 100k debt from Berkeley alone for being out of state, and I'd like to do something which will repay them back. And I've pointed out before I've wanted to go clerk after law school and go into public service. I will now have to go in private practice longer because Berkeley had some crappy profs knock down my gpa so I can no longer be sure of any private aid.|</p>
<p>And I majored in the things I was interested in. I liked ochem so I thought I'd continue taking mcb. I liked economics because it is very related to law. It took me a while to realize about all the gaming that goes on with majors; I'd never even heard about Econ being a place for Haas rejects until junior year.</p>
<p>And I was like you GS before, I thought Berkeley was a good place. Certainly I felt the weeder classes were actually stronger by comparison to the upper div classes I've taken. The professors and GSI taking them have more experience teaching the class. This means they are more thorough, the tests are fairer and create normal distributions (which is necessary for fair grading using a quota system), and if you have a bad gsi you can easily switch to another one.</p>
<p>These things are less true about my last 2 years here when I've either had 1 or 2 gsi's, both of which could be (and in some instance have been) bad teachers, and professors who teach a class less often than others and create tests with uneven distributions.</p>
<p>I'm lucky I will be able to get into CLS; because Law School is largely a function of your LSAT score, and not your GPA or recs. I could've gone to any other school and likely have done better and gotten my money's worth. </p>
<p>I really wanted to do a masters in econ but I didn't feel I could get into a good enough program to be worth it since I switched majors relatively late in my career and a lot of other students that had specialized before had a leg up on me. Berkeley really does favor specialization and its very difficult to grow at berkeley since so many opportunities have such big hills to climb over as Sakky has pointed out.</p>
<p>I'm really sorry for ever going here, the experience has been so uneven, and the social scene is almost dead. Self-reliance is great and all but a lot of things at Berkeley have to do with bureacratic mess and the relatively poor quality of the student body. I've actually felt like I've gotten dumber here associating with such poor peers.</p>
<p>Anyways that's just my story without revealing too much about my biographical info so people like GS can't come to my room and beat me up.</p>
<p>"I've actually felt like I've gotten dumber here."</p>
<p>If that's the case, then I'd hate to see what you were like before you got to berkeley. (only kidding)</p>
<p>"Anyways that's just my story without revealing too much about my biographical info so people like GS can't come to my room and beat me up."</p>
<p>I'm not a violent person.</p>
<p>This is a response to sakky's posts on transfer students.</p>
<p>My question is, why should we care that they had <strong><em>ty high school GPAs and low SAT scores? Yes, going to a CC is giving them a second chance... and it's what makes America different than say, countries such as Korea and Taiwan. There, if you screw up high school, then you're screwed for life. And I think that's total *</em></strong>***. Some people are late bloomers, they don't reach their full potential that early. Others, sure, are just damn lazy in high school... so? They wanted to have fun when they were young, I don't penalize them for that. And when they finally mature some and get serious about academics, I applaud them.</p>
<p>It sounds like you're bitter that you somehow had to work "harder" than these people. I've been a hard worker all my life, and when I look back on my high school career, I think there were times when I cared about school way too much for it to be healthy. However, I'm not bitter that there are people who worked 10x less than me in high school who will end up getting the same Berkeley degree as me. I'm happy for them. I'd hope that others would be too.</p>
<p>I know a lot of people who actually slacked off in high school for the PURPOSE of going to a CC... i.e. they realized that they didn't really need to try hard in high school anyway, as they could probably transfer to a UC, so they thought they might as well have fun and milk the "teen life" for all its worth. I know this disgusts some people, but I honestly don't see the problem with it. I know I, personally, could never do it... because I'm too anxious and paranoid about everything, but if they want to do it, good for them!</p>
<p>I will admit that somebody who's worked up to their full potential in high school will probably have an easier time in college, whereas the "slackers" will have to work twice as hard to catch up. But I'm confident that most of them can do it, and will be just as successful with their education and in life as most of the freshman admits.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My question is, why should we care that they had <strong><em>ty high school GPAs and low SAT scores? Yes, going to a CC is giving them a second chance... and it's what makes America different than say, countries such as Korea and Taiwan. There, if you screw up high school, then you're screwed for life. And I think that's total *</em></strong>***. Some people are late bloomers, they don't reach their full potential that early. Others, sure, are just damn lazy in high school... so? They wanted to have fun when they were young, I don't penalize them for that. And when they finally mature some and get serious about academics, I applaud them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, read my posts carefully. I have said many times that I have no problem with the CONCEPT of transfer students. In fact, I have said that in theory, Berkeley could be comprised of ALL transfer students, and that wouldn't be a problem.</p>
<p>The problem I have is with the specific IMPLEMENTATION of the transfer process within Berkeley, and in particular, that transfer students get to skip over some or all of Berkeley's notorious weeder classes. THAT is the issue that galls me. Why should transfer students be allowed to skip over weeders to the upper divisions, but freshman-admits not be? </p>
<p>If you screwed up in high school but then made it up through good performance in community college such that you transfer to Berkeley, good for you. But that doesn't mean that Berkeley should make it easier for you to get a degree than it is for the people that Berkeley admits as freshmen. If the freshman-admits have to survive the Berkeley weeders, then so should the transfers. What's fair is fair. Transfer students shouldn't be given special treatment.</p>
<p>Look, the point is, if transfer students should not have to take weeders, then neither should the freshman-admits. It should be no easier for transfer students to graduate from Berkeley than it is for freshman-admits. That's fairness. Transfer status should not be a "get-out-of-weeder" free card.</p>
<p>Like I said, my proposition is that the transfers should have to take the final exams of the weeder classes that they are skipping over. I'm not asking for them to get A's. I am just asking for them to pass. If transfer students really are as good as you say they are, then they will be able to pass these exams with no problem. If they can't, then that only proves that they aren't good enough and should not have been admitted at all. The bottom line is that if the freshman-admits have to pass weeder classes in order to graduate, then the transfer students should have to prove that they can at least pass the exams of those weeder exams in order to graduate. What's fair is fair.</p>
<p>No yeah... after I posted, I read through the other posts that you made and realized my error. I'm sorry! Stupid me... I just read some of your beginning posts on transfers and got angry and jumped to conclusions.</p>
<p>Though, you're saying that they should be required to take the final exam when they haven't taken the class? Now, I think THAT'S a little unfair :/</p>
<p>As an incoming freshman to Cal, I think they should just do away with the weeders all together! :) Haha, just kidding.</p>
<p>The #1 one reason NOT to go to Berkeley is: THE ONE UC YOU GOT INTO WAS UCR.</p>