<p>Does Bob Jones even have a grad program?</p>
<p>GandS, your idiocy (and ironic screen name) is not appreciated by those of us who are trying to paint Cal in a more positive manner. Also, work on your spelling.</p>
<p>Yes, you're quite the painter. and Feel free to folow mee arround and corect my speling whenever you like, because we all know this will be graded.</p>
<p>i go to cal and i can say without hesitation that virtually everything college senior has said is true.</p>
<p>sakky,</p>
<p>Lower high school achievement does not equal lesser academic ability later on. I had a bad high school experience because of family issues, but I performed more than well enough at UCLA.</p>
<p>I know your stance on transfers already, but I also have to agree that while your argument is intuitive, it's not based on any sort of facts.</p>
<p>sakky is right when he says that the academic work to get into Cal as a freshman is much more compared to transfering to Cal as a junior. However, he is dead wrong to say, "the fact is, they probably are not as naturally talented as the freshman admits were." Many transfer students were born into given scenarios that prevented them from unleashing their potential talent. One can not look at acceptance statistics or numbers to predict one's "natural" intellect because it overlooks so many factors.</p>
<p>I don't know if it's true that it's harder though. I had to work pretty hard at my CC to get my GPA. Much harder than I worked in high school, which was already pretty hard. I think a lot of hot air gets blown up transfer's skirts just to ruffle feathers.</p>
<p>However, I do think that the SAT should be required for transfers.</p>
<p>All these whiners are starting to make me sad. Please leave Berekley as soon as you can. Drop out. Transfer. Graduate. I really don't care how, just leave. Soon. You're taking spots from people that will actually contribute and make something of their experience. Leave the school to the people that enjoy it. After all, nobody is keeping you hear, so when you talk about how horrible it is without taking any action it just makes you look apathetic and lazy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lower high school achievement does not equal lesser academic ability later on
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky is right when he says that the academic work to get into Cal as a freshman is much more compared to transfering to Cal as a junior. However, he is dead wrong to say, "the fact is, they probably are not as naturally talented as the freshman admits were." Many transfer students were born into given scenarios that prevented them from unleashing their potential talent. One can not look at acceptance statistics or numbers to predict one's "natural" intellect because it overlooks so many factors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you guys are just misunderstanding the way statistics works. Statistics never dictates that certain characteristics will always occur together. They only dictate that certain characteristics will probably occur together.</p>
<p>Case in point. I can say that smoking is dangerous. Why? Because we have statistics that shows it to be so. Specifically, we have health statistics that show that smokers have shorter average lifespans and suffer from certain diseases, such as lung disease and emphysema, at much higher rates. </p>
<p>But think about what that means. Does that mean that EVERY smoker suffers from a shortened lifespan? Does that mean that EVERY smoker comes down with lung cancer or emphysema? No, it does not. As a corollary, it also doesn't mean that every nonsmoker will enjoy long life or that every nonsmoker will avoid lung cancer. Yet the facts remain that from a statistical point of view, smoking is dangerous. Just because one guy in the world smokes 3 packs a day and lives disease-free to be 100 years old, does that mean it is now safe to smoke? </p>
<p>Or to put a more quantitative spin on it, I said that transfer students tended to be correlated with poor high school academic performance and natural talent. Hence, the statistical R-squared value is a positive number. However, I never said that the R-squared value was equal to 1, which is what is necessary for 100% perfect correlation. The link between smoking and lung cancer is not a perfect 100% correlation either. However, from a statistical standpoint, it is fairly high. </p>
<p>With that in mind, we can analyze the following quotes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lower high school achievement does not equal lesser academic ability later on. I had a bad high school experience because of family issues, but I performed more than well enough at UCLA
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm afraid to say that lower high school achievement does tend to equal lower academic achievement later on, and strongly so. Again, I never said that this was ALWAYS so. But you know as well as I do that the guys who did poorly in high school tended to be extremely unmotivated, undisciplined, or just not naturally bright people. Not all of them. But a very high proportion. Most of them will not do well in college, heck most of them probably don't WANT to go to college. Heck, there is definitely a strong link between high school achievement and later academic achievement.</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Let's say it was really true that high school achievement was not linked to later academic achievement. If that was really true, then there would be no reason for any colleges to ever consider high school grades for freshman admissions purposes. So why are all these college adcoms demanding to see high school transcripts from their applicants, if these high school transcripts don't tell them anything meaningful? Are they just stupidly wasting their time in reading these transcripts? Why do the UC's use the index formula to determine who is minimally eligible to apply to UC as freshmen, where that formula is largely weighted towards high school achievement? Why input high school achievement into the formula if there really is no link between high school achievement and later academic achievement? Is this just some silly arbitrary rule constructed by the politicos in Sacramento that has no basis in reality? Maybe UC should admit a bunch of people who flunked out of high school? After all, if high school performance is meaningless, then who cares that these guys flunked out? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I know your stance on transfers already, but I also have to agree that while your argument is intuitive, it's not based on any sort of facts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, the simple fact that you are not admitting based on high school grades must mean that the population sample you obtain must have lower high school grades than the sample that you did admit based on high school grades. It's simple statistics.</p>
<p>For example, let's say I have a pool of random people. Let's call that X. Then I pull out the best basketball players out of that pool. Let's call that Y. Subpool Y will alost certainly be taller, on average, than the pool of X. At the same time, by pulling out Y out of X, I will have made the average height of X decline (because I have pulled out some people who are taller than average). Let's call this new pool X' (X prime). Now, I pull out of X' the best soccer players into a new subpool, which I call Z. Z will probably have shorter height than Y. Why? 2 reasons. #1, Y, which consists of largely tall people, has already been pulled out and has therefore been eliminated (hence Y has taken the first cut out of X). And #2, the criteria for membership in Z is less based on height than is the criteria for membership in Y. The upshot is that Y will probably be taller than Z. QED. That's simple population statistics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, he is dead wrong to say, "the fact is, they probably are not as naturally talented as the freshman admits were." Many transfer students were born into given scenarios that prevented them from unleashing their potential talent. One can not look at acceptance statistics or numbers to predict one's "natural" intellect because it overlooks so many factors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not dead wrong, I am dead right. See above. Obviously there are always SOME people who were born into scenarios that prevented them from unleashing their potential talent, just like there are some people who can smoke 3 packs a day and never get lung cancer. However, there are plenty of other people who were born into scenarios that were highly conducive to education, and through immaturity or laziness or simple lack of brains, simply frittered away their high school days. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We all know that at every high school, there are some students who are born with every privilege in the world, but end up performing extremely poorly anyway because of laziness or irresponsibility or lack of talent. </p>
<p>The point is, things like natural talent, responsibility, and the like tend to be correlated with high school grades and SAT scores. Again, that's why all colleges use high school grades and test scores to determine who to admit. If that wasn't true, then Harvard might as well give the guy who flunked out of high school and bombed the SAT the same chances of admissions as the guy who graduated valedictorian with a 1600. In fact, why should anybody even bother trying to get good high school grades, or get a high SAT score, if there really is no correlation between those things and your chances of admission? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I had to work pretty hard at my CC to get my GPA. Much harder than I worked in high school, which was already pretty hard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One (of many) issues that I have with the transfer process is that since it doesn't take into account high school performance, or SAT score, that basically means that you can wipe away an extremely poor high school performance with a good 2 years of community college performance. So that means that somebody who was simply extremely lazy during high school can still get into Berkeley with a good 2 years of hard work in a community college. If that's the criterion of admission, then fine, then freshman admissions should be run in the same manner. For example, if transfer candidates can apply using only 2 years of community college performance, then freshmen candidates ought to be able to apply using only 2 years of high school performance. So somebody who is on academic probation for his fresh/soph years in high school, but does very well in his jun/sen years should be able to get those fresh/soph grades waived. What's fair is fair. As of right now, freshman admissions are based on a longer track record of academic achievement than are transfer admissions. It ought to be based on the same track record length.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>You fail to recognize that transfers don't just go to a community college, CSU, or other UC and just sit there and do nothing. They have to perform well enough in their classes to get to their transfer institutions. Even if these students were unmotivated in high school, if they go on to become stars at a CC or other college, how can we say that they are still somehow deficient?</p>
<p>Again, I don't see a problem with requiring SATs and other more standarized measures for admissions, but these attacks on transfers just continue to ring silly to me. I have yet to see any sort of really good statistical analysis that shows that transfers perform poorly. I see, however, a lot of conjecture.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you talking about the same high school GPA? I would love to see this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"The Berkeley campus is strongly committed to admitting transfer students, who make up about one-third of our fall 2005 class. Transfer students do very well at Berkeley, graduating with similar grade point averages and at similar rates as students who started Cal as freshmen."</p>
<p>It's not figure-based, but I think their word can be taken seriously. As the previous posters mentioned, it's not all about the figures, and people have to deal with various cirumstances during hs. On paper they may be underachievers, but not always in real life. </p>
<p>GentS, it's good that you're having a good time at Berkeley, but there's no reason for you to proscribe those who feel as if Berkeley did not meet their expectations. I highly doubt that anyone comes into college without high expectations, and many times they're not met. Berkeley has its fair share of problems, many of which are out of the students' hands.</p>
<p>If transfer students are performing in general as well as their freshman admit counterparts, and are getting into good graduate programs as well as their counterparts, then what's the problem?</p>
<p>I still argue that a hint of bitterness or jealousy fuels much of transfer hate.</p>
<p>Using statisticss in the application process to explain natural talent doesn't work. It becomes very clear how ridiculus this is when race is added to the mix. Blacks make up less than 5% of the student body at Cal and the other top UCs. This also applies to top private and ivy league schools. Asians however, make up almost 50% of the student body at Cal and a huge portion of other top ivy and private schools despite being only 3.8% of the US population. There are 4 times as many blacks as asians. So does the fact that so few blacks can get into top colleges imply that they are somehow less naturally talented than other racial groups? Does this imply that Asians are superior in intellect since so many go to top colleges despite being an extremely small part of the US population? Of course not. Statistics don't mention anything about poverty, broken families, cultural and etc.</p>
<p>Nobody should be denied a second chance at getting in UC Berkeley, or any other top college or University, because they didn't do good in high school. There are some people who don't do well in high school because they are were not ready to study or goofed off. Some of these very same people are extremely talented and end up becoming top students at a junior college, CSU, or somewhere else. People presenting these circumstances deserve a second chance to get into UC Berkeley or any other UC campus. Once they get into UC they should be judged solely on their performance at UC. End of story.</p>
<p>Sakky, you are such an elitist. </p>
<p>Here's a new word for you to learn this weekend:</p>
<p>egalitarian</p>
<p>Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.</p>
<p>d-a-d,</p>
<p>I'm not sure I agree with that either. College admissions are by nature meritocratic. There is no real true egalitarianism in that. But, what sakky doesn't recognize is that transfer students have performed to a level that shows that they are capable of being UC students.</p>
<p>There is also the fact that UCs serve a slightly different mission from their private counterparts. For better or for worse, that's the nature of a public university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Using statisticss in the application process to explain natural talent doesn't work. It becomes very clear how ridiculus this is when race is added to the mix. Blacks make up less than 5% of the student body at Cal and the other top UCs. This also applies to top private and ivy league schools. Asians however, make up almost 50% of the student body at Cal and a huge portion of other top ivy and private schools despite being only 3.8% of the US population. There are 4 times as many blacks as asians. So does the fact that so few blacks can get into top colleges imply that they are somehow less naturally talented than other racial groups? Does this imply that Asians are superior in intellect since so many go to top colleges despite being an extremely small part of the US population? Of course not. Statistics don't mention anything about poverty, broken families, cultural and etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure about African Americans being only 5% of the Cal population. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's wrong, but I can't find anything on it. Care to show where you get your info?</p>
<p>ccmadforever,<br>
I realize the some people aren't happy with their education at Cal, but when you and these other people start talking about the student body being a bunch of idiots, what you are doing is calling me an idiot, and calling all of my friends idiots. Say whatever you like, but when you start calling my friends idiots I'm not going to just sit here and say, "hey, that's your oppinion."</p>
<p>i don't remember labeling the student body at berkeley as "idiots." i do remember saying they were mediocre, in which you agreed, saying harvard and uci students were the same. </p>
<p>i also don't understand how this generalization leads to the point of labeling all your friends as "idiots."</p>
<p>Drab this is from 2003 -</p>
<p>"the percentage of African-American and Hispanic students has declined at UC Berkeley. Blacks now make up just 3.8 percent of the undergraduate student population, down from 6.1 percent in 1997, while the percentage of Hispanics has fallen from 13.2 to 10.2 percent."</p>
<p>from <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8163%5B/url%5D">http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8163</a></p>