<p>I've wondered about this for a while, maybe someone here knows the answer...</p>
<p>Are transfer students who switch to better schools generally regarded as weaker applicants for grad school or jobs once they graduate? I know while it's not the case for everyone, maybe even most people, it's easy to think of transfers as the kids who couldn't get in the first time (since a lot of the time their stats are lower). Anyone have any experience with this? Thanks!</p>
<p>I had the same question too, but here is something to think about.
When you apply to GRAD school it is my understanding that they only look at your last 2 years of college work, thats your upper division courses, so I don't think they'll see transfer applicants as any less competetive as those who entered a university as a freshmen.</p>
<p>I don't think grad schools care about transfers . . i went to CC cause i didn't have the grades to get into a good school, but a lot of my friends at cc went there not cause they had bad stats in hs, but cuz their family didnt have the money for 4-years of university for all their kids.<br>
I got decent grades at CC and transfered to UCLA a year and a half ago, and had a 4.0 ever since. I am actually doing better at LA than comm college, and better than most freshman admitts. I think what will matter to admissions is 1. how the student does in the last two years, especially in upper-div major courses, and 2. how they did at the university that they transfered to.<br>
So, as long as you do well at the univ you transfer to, I wouldn't worry about any "transfer stigma"!</p>
<p>Some grad schools understand how it may be, in some cases, more difficult to enter as a transfer than it a freshman. They may, in fact, be impressed that you took the initiative an dmotivated yourself enough to pursue transferring.</p>
<p>meow meow do you think you could post your stats as a transfer student. Most of us are trying to transfer and it might ease a lot of the worry to know what stats UC transfer students got in with.</p>
<p>Any ideas about how employers look at transfers when they apply for jobs? I know they can generally get to see you as a person better (as opposed to applications and stats), so that might work to your advantage. I might not want to go to grad school right away, so just curious what you guys think...</p>
<p>The 2002 valedictorian of UCLA told me that getting into grad school isn't so much about numbers. She said when you put together your application, do so with the following thought: What do I have to offer to my prospective Department Head? If you're applying to the political science department, the head of the political science department will look at your application and ask himself/herself, "How can I use this person." </p>
<p>To answer your question, no. I don't think being a transfer will hurt you so much.</p>
<p>I had a 3.63, because of a C in Political Science, a B in Chemistry and B in Calculus. I also had two W's - one in a 2-unit phys ed class, another in Biology. I had lots of volunteer work - but I don't think that mattered much. I worked at a biotech company the whole time I was at JC, I think they really really took that into account.
Getting into UCLA and Berkeley can be a gamble. If u have a science major like physics, chemistry, etc. they dont expect u to have as high a gpa as business or english, etc.
With all the other UCs, my friends almost all got accepted, including UCSD and UCSB. They had GPAs as low as 3.3 for science majors, 3.1 for other majors.
I only applied to UCLA, as a biochem major. I have friends who applied to more competitive majors like psych who didnt get in with 3.8, and one friend who got rejected as a 4.0 communications major. But I have a friend with a 3.5 who got in as a physiological science major . . . so I guess it really depends on what u study!</p>