<p>if freshman applicants were smarter, why are they spending more money and putting more effort into it, when transfers end up in the same position after 2 years?</p>
<p>lets compare..CC is cheaper, involves less commitment (2 yrs instead of 4 in high school), and gives a student better chances of being admitted...its win win win.......totally makes sense to say transferring is better. Both logically and financially.</p>
<p>haha time to evaluate who is smarter (transfers or freshman admits) </p>
<p>(i'm just kidding, this post is super bias)</p>
<p>Actually I purposely did not attend college right after highschool for the reasons ILC just said. I decided early into sophmore year I was not going to go straight to college. I instead enjoyed my highschool days and was able to figure out who I was before I started on a career path. I went from being an honor student to just being average and I wouldn't change a thing. I am still just as smart as when I was an honors student only now I am wise too. :P</p>
<p>Throughout high school, I never even considered going to a CC- it was a 4 year or bust. I figured I didn't work that hard to go to "high school pt 2." I got into UCSB and UCI as a freshman and was seriously considering going into debt by starting at UCSB, but in the end, I figured it was worth it to sacrifice a little for the same degree w/ half the cost.</p>
<p>cc sometimes feels like highschool part II. I can't say anything because i didn't go to CC but a smart, motivated friend of mine went to CC for personal reasons (basically he got screwed out of going to the UC of his choice - rescinded) but he choose to go to a CC that was far away so he wouldn't have to deal with the unmotivated people in his highschool that would drag him down.</p>
<p>One key thing no one has stated is the job prospects. Sure you may graduate with the same degree as other kids who got in freshman year... but guess who will get the job first? I hope you know top companies weather it be buisnesses, engineering firms ect. hire the students who attended the university for 4 full years first. They know how hard it was to get in during highschool and how hard they had to work to get their 4.2's and high SAT scores to get into top UC's, so they know that's the type of person who is extremely motivated. From my own knowledge of knowing how big oil companies work in southern california (dad and mom work there), they strictly do not hire transfer students who come out of UCLA. They only go for the students who were there for the full 4 years. Some may say it's unfair... but if you look at the big picture it really isn't. These companies want the best students and students who are willing to work hard for them. If they had a choice between a kid who fooled around during highschool vs. a kid who worked hard throughout highschool and college... which one do you think they will choose? So yes transfers and freshman admits are equal at the end when it comes to the type of degree the receive... however it is definitly not the same when it comes to companies recruiting students. I can tell you right now that if student A transfered to UCLA and graduated with a 3.5 GPA and student B got into UCLA as a freshman and graduated with the same 3.5 GPA... that student who was there for the full 4 years definitly has an advantage in terms of job prospects than the transfer.</p>
<p>Then how would a company find out if you were a transfer? If you have a diploma from a top university, isn't that good enough to get you a good paying job?</p>
<p>I CHOSE to go to a CC instead of a four year. Not because of money particularly, and not because I couldn't get in out of high school had I wanted to, but because I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life, where I wanted to go, and I didn't want to take a crapshoot with the direction of my life at 16 years old.</p>
<p>I was known as "the smart kid" by TONS of kids who ended up going to UCs and up out of high school, but I never even took the SAT. I helped write and revise several UC essays for friends in high school, but I stopped taking high school seriously halfway through sophomore year because I thought it was useless. I watched as everyone I knew applied to Harvard, UCLA, UCB, etc, but I didn't fill out a single application. </p>
<p>Instead, I ended up enrolling at a CCC at 16 and taking classes that were much more substantial than anything my high school offered. I didn't even attempt to go to a four year school out of high school, and I'm pretty confident that I wouldn't have been as successful (both academically and personally) had I started there after just turning 17. CC was frustrating sometimes, but only because I knew I was there to go on to bigger and better things. CC enabled me to become confident in myself and my work and allowed me to take risks that I think I would've been too intimidated to take at a four year. I became incredibly involved on campus, which was something I was always too shy to do in high school. CC made me grow up and figure my s hit out because I was under the gun to get myself on a transfer track, lest I become a lifer. I think I may have floundered for a long time had I been given free reign at UCLA at 17.</p>
<p>So no, I really wouldn't have jumped at the chance to go to UCLA or somewhere similar right out of high school. </p>
<p>sounds like bull crap to me. Companies care a lot more previous job expirience, activities, personality, and potential ( leadership ability) to succeed than where u did ur lower devision classes or your high school performance. they understand that a lot of people do not have the same opportunities as others (financialy wise). Also most international students go to ccc.</p>
<p>Also I know some studnets who started at smc that went on to go ucla med school and harvard law schools.</p>
<p>You guys really don't seem to understand my point. First off when it's you're first job... doesn't matter if you graduated from Harvard or any university.. they look at your transcript. They KNOW that you are a transfer when you're UCLA/UCB ect transcript only has classes for your junior and senior year! They request everything to see. I never said companies don't hire transfer students... I said from my personal experience with knowledge of big businesses and enginering firms that they prefer to hire 4 year grads. It just makes more sense. Doesn't mean they won't hire transfers... it's just a preference. I know if I was running a company and had my money on the line, I would prefer to hire a student who was motivated since age 15 or 16 who worked his/her ass off in highschool to get high GPA's and SAT's to get into a good school. That right there says something about the person. They know what they want, and they are dedicated to working hard in order to achieve their goals. If I was offering a position lets say an entry level Accountant, and I had 2 applications. One from a UCLA student who had a 3.5 GPA for ALL 4 years, and another student who transfered into UCLA and also graduated with a 3.5 GPA.... I would prefer to choose the student who was there for all 4 years. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong I'm a transfer student and I hope to be attending UCLA next year... but I'm not dumb enough to say that I'm on the same level as someone who got into that school as a freshman. I have respect for them as I know how much work they had to do in highschool in order to get in.</p>
<p>I think you're making vast assumptions about transfers, though.</p>
<p>Just because someone is a transfer DOESN'T mean that they weren't motivated since 15 or 16, it just means that they took a different path. </p>
<p>And I think it depends on the industry. I've been on lots and lots of professional job interviews and no one has requested much more than a gpa, if that. They only care about whether or not you have a diploma (or will), and that's it. Occasionally if the position is v. competitive they'll ask GPA. But no one has EVER asked, much less cared, about whether or not I'm a transfer. It's not about how I got to UCLA, it's about what I've done since I've been there. </p>
<p>They'd much prefer me to be a transfer and motivated to get my s hit done than some 5th year senior who has no work experience or skills in the field. Which isn't to say that other industries, like the ones you stated, don't look at transcipts because I'm sure they do. But I don't think it goes for many, if not most, fields. I know lots and lots of transfers who've graduated and gone on to be EXTREMELY successful. I think it doesn't play as big a role as you're assuming.</p>
<p>My cousin is a transfer student to ucla engineering school and he got a job as an engineer in a top 5 construction companies in california. He beat several cal and stanford grads because he had high gpa in upper devision classes (engineering classes that matter) and he had school activities and good communication skills.</p>