@TheVisionary I just think that UC’s should have the same requirements across the board for prereq’s. Berkeley wants a history class, but Davis and SB want 1 or 2 Econ classes, but wait Davis, Irvine, and LA want a stats course (but they don’t all accept the same stats course because I’m convinced they’re trying to break us). I honestly want to SIR at San Diego because they have just the simple Poli Sci courses…
Appears that you only need three PS courses at any UC:
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/transfer/preparation-paths/political-science-majors/index.html
@SoCalDad2 “Note: The following courses count toward the major on some campuses and constitute sound preparation for the major on all UC campuses. Students can complete these courses after transfer without negatively affecting their competitiveness for admission.”
“Students can complete these courses after transfer without negatively affecting their competitiveness for admission.”
@SoCalDad2 I wish that were true… They can say that all they like, but if they have an applicant with a 3.8 and all required and recommended pre-reqs done they may take that person over someone with a 3.9 who is missing prereq’s. Some UC’s are pickier than others, and I just happen to want to go to one of the pickiest ones…
You are saying that the UC is lying on its website. What is your basis for that conclusion?
@TheVisionary While having a course that is not offered at one’s primary CC is certainly a benefit, this does not mean that lacking courses not offered at one’s CC makes them less competitive. Adcoms recognize that people can only really complete what is available to them. So, no, it will not be held against applicants if they cannot complete certain classes - and this holds even if completing those classes makes one more competitive.
It’s not really a claim, per se - the UC’s reiterate that point (as well as the PS being only supplemental) constantly. Naturally, it is impossible that the UC’s would refuse to provide truthful information to prospective transfers.
“I have a hard time believe that universities are truly viewing students who have not finished prereqs as equally competitive as those who have completed them with high marks simply because one college did not offer specific courses.”
If my college does not offer certain prerequisites, then they will consider my course work as it stands. They want to see how I took advantage of the resources available to me. This is rather evident, too, in the fact that the UCs want diverse students from various backgrounds to enroll. Closing the gates to students who lacked the opportunity to take certain classes is out of character.
That said, if one is an engineering applicant, and they lack all the engineering courses they need, then of course they won’t be admitted, regardless of whether they have a high GPA or not. This is attributable to the necessity for transfers to not only graduate in a timely manner, but succeed in their chosen major. In this scenario, both are unlikely. Moreover, here, being denied to lacking classes (let’s say 5+ prereqs) is not contradictory with the UCs’ point that missing courses not offered at one’s CC will not be held against you - it’s more a function of common sense.
I think there’s one CC that is missing 10 or so engineering prerequisites, which is why I brought up the example. American Feather College, or something?
@goldencub I did specify that, in cases in which applications are viewed independently from the rest of the application pool, it is reasonable to believe that expectations which specific students could not meet at their college would not be held against them. I am not skeptical of the statements that the UCs make rather the way that statement is interpreted and the claim that results.
Take employment for example. Assuming that all applicants in this scenario are educated enough to hold the position, it is unreasonable to hold lack of work experience against a twenty year old applicant; however, that does not mean that they are truly going to be seen as equal to a thirty year old applicant, who holds ten more years of work experience. There is a difference between something not being against an applicant and an applicant being seen as equal to a potential competitor. There are applicants every year who are waitlisted or receive rejections for no other reason than the fact that another applicant submitted an application that was slightly more favorable.
If an admissions officer reads an application that impresses them thoroughly, then it would be unlikely for them to be dissuaded by the applicant did not finish the prereqs or didn’t create the cure for cancer as a EC. If you are, however, an applicant who is going to be weighed alongside the rest of the application pool, the idea that lacking in any area, regardless of whether it might not be your fault, could never be result in applicants receiving a spot over you because the process is completely fair seems rather idealistic.
@TheVisionary I don’t follow. You think that some students having an advantage (i.e. completing all recommended courses) translates into other applicants having a disadvantage as a consequence. That seems at odds with the position the UCs take (as there are a plethora of factors the UCs consider, such that having a recommended course or two missing will not necessarily be a huge disadvantage - especially for a major like PoliSci, that is competitive but not impacted).
Eh. Experience in a field is dissimilar from missing courses not offered at the CC. That is, the UCs don’t just look for the best applicants on paper - they want students who will likely fit in and do well after transferring.
Additionally - while the application process is competitive, such that one who cured cancer (etc.) would likely be selected over somebody who didn’t, that’s more a function of the competitive nature of college admissions than the likelihood that not taking a class offered at one’s college will not be held against you. There are ways in which one’s application, while missing prerequisite courses, can make a lasting impression, so as to win the spot over somebody who does have all of the prereqs completed. There are a large number of factors that go into the decision, and not completing courses that were unavailable to the applicant is a relatively minor factor.
Of course it’s not advisable to not complete all of the prerequisites for one’s major - if an applicant can bear to commute to a nearby CC to complete the prerequisites, doing so will make them stand out. But UC admissions are not so competitive that one will be expected to commute a long distance to take required classes, especially if doing so is extraordinarily inconvenient for them. Also, given the holistic admission process, the applicant is considered as an individual, and many factors are viewed. As such, the decision is only formulaic to an extent (GPA is the big factor here), with all other factors specific to the individual being considered.
If somebody is missing a prerequisite course that is offered at their college, then that will absolutely be held against them, and with fairly good reason (given certain exceptions, such as not being able to enroll in a class that is rarely offered). But if a prerequisite class is not offered at one’s CC, then they can’t expect students to go out of their way to complete it.
Forgive me if I come across as rude or indignant - I don’t mean to be. There have been a number of arguments on here that do not contribute to general discussion, and I respect you and your position, yada yada (formalities) - anyway, I don’t want to follow that trend. Given that you’re a PoliSci major, I presume you’re at least somewhat open to debate.
@SoCalDad2 I’m saying that you look less competitive because you don’t have classes done. I have spoken with friends who work in Haas admissions and while the UC website does indeed say that, the people reviewing applications can toss someone in the rejection pile because their lack of prerequisite completion makes them look less appealing.
“There are ways in which one’s application, while missing prerequisite courses, can make a lasting impression, so as to win the spot over somebody who does have all of the prereqs completed.” @goldencub
I am not arguing against the above. As competitive as college admissions have grown to be, it is still not simply a numbers game. My point was not to challenge the idea that the UCs are considerate of applicants who do not have access to the courses that they would need to meet major or degree requirements, rather to challenge the idea that because they are understanding of the idea that all applicants do not have the same opportunities means that the probability of acceptance does not still lean in favor of those who have access to all that they need to meet every requirements.
It is a tricky matter because there are those who take that policy and interpret it as, “If a course is not offered at your college, then it negates the fact that you have not completed all prereqs in the eyes of the officer.” Simply because the UCs hold that position does not mean that those who are able to complete every requirement with solid grades will not statistically have an advantage. It also does not mean that applicants cannot rise above in every single other category of the application and be accepted as many have. This is not a question of whether an applicant who does not have access to specific courses still has a solid chance of admissions. My skepticism is only with those who claim that it is universally disregarded. “It does not matter” (i.e. even if you are hanging on the edge and you are the type of applicant who the admissions team would be debating over, they would never choose another applicant over you because they have met all the requirements and you hadn’t regardless). The idea that because the universities strive towards maintaining a perfectly fair admissions process it is always perfectly fair.
Ultimately, it is not about being skeptical of the ethics or fairness of admissions officers because powering though thousands of applications over the span of a few weeks is a hell of a job. But I also think that it is fair for applicants to feel as though if they had met every requirement or had access to the opportunities that their competitors did they would have better chances, even slightly, despite the ideal of fairness that the university tries to maintain.
Is anybody else spending their free time stalking old threads trying to find/hunt down past Poli Sci transfers to get their stats? Just me? Okay…
Same haha. Very anxious about the coming results. Though I most likely will end up going to CSULA.
Transfer threads become my daily routine… Anyone got admissions from UCLA or UCSD?
@iunique I’ve been admitted to UCSD and UCI. UCLA will most likely come out on the 22nd…