<p>4 years of high school + 2 of a college = 6</p>
<p>Generally speaking, students don't work hard 6 years. Either, you work hard 4 years in high school and go to a university...or you work hard for 2 years in community college and go to a university.</p>
<p>But thanks for informing me on the 4 + 2 = 6. Since I went to community college..I needed that mapped out for me.</p>
<p>lol! i wasnt arguing on the opposition of CC, i am on your side! i go to a jc haha</p>
<p>KJ Spice meant that a UCSD student who wanted to transfer to UCB had worked hard during the 4 years in HS and 2 years at UCSD.</p>
<p>I have this long post typed up but rather than debate with people over it I'll just save it and admire its beauty :p</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll just save it and admire its beauty
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A true artist or writer would pour his/her heart into it and then upon completion, destroy it. :D</p>
<p>Like I said, it's nothing personal against CC students. Especially those who go to CC because they want to work or save money or because they cant necessarily afford a 4 year despite working just as hard in hs. Those people should definitely get in over a lot of students at 4 year universities. I just think someone at a UC, who say, realizes that the school isnt right for them should automatically be given less priority, isnt fair. It's the mentality that all the UCs are the same that prevents those students from having the same advantage as a CC student. Obviously not all UCs are equal.</p>
<p>Just curious what people think. I went to a 4 year university, and was not satisfied with the shcool. I am choosing to go to a cc next year and transfer into ucla (its not all about prestige why I want to go there). Should I have less of a chance than others to get in? And no, money is not an issue.</p>
<p>I think it's unfair that there are so many students at top schools doing poorly because they had inflated grades during HS.</p>
<p>The objective of a UC education isn't too weed out who "works the hardest" (as if HS was all that hard) it's to develop minds so that a person will contribute back to society.</p>
<p>And this nonsense about CC being less challenging than the equivalent UC course is not true at all. I've been to enough summer sessions to know that at the introductory level the material is all the same - though the caliber of the students may vary.</p>
<p>BTW, the average TTM (time to transfer) is about 3 years. And UCs only count your last 3 years of HS. So on a time-for-time basis it about the same.</p>
<p>On top of that, your not going to do very well if you didn't learn the basics in HS. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of transfers to UCLA/CAL had high SAT scores BEFORE they started community college.</p>
<p>1290 was my SAT score 2 years ago, about average for freshman Cal admits.</p>
<p>If you think it's unfair, thats one thing (one I don't agree with either), but if you think CC transfers can't compete thats a completely different statement, you would be utterly mistaken.</p>
<p>"I went to a 4 year university, and was not satisfied with the shcool. I am choosing to go to a cc next year and transfer into ucla (its not all about prestige why I want to go there). Should I have less of a chance than others to get in?"</p>
<p>You need 30 semester units to get priority (either 30 or 60 I don't remember, I'm almost sure it's 30) assuming you did OK at the other 4 year and do well in CC you should have a good shot.</p>
<p>Never said they couldnt compete...Never said you should get priority if you're already at a 4-year either. I just said it is unfair that a CC student automatically gets priority regardless of circumstances</p>
<p>I don't understand. You said CC is a "short cut" because it's not as tough. Then, in another post, you say they produce the same caliber student as a UC does with it's lower division tranfers. Then you call it unfair.</p>
<p>Either CC transfers are inferior or CC classes cover the same material as a course at UCSD, UCLA, ect..</p>
<p>of course they cover the same material! or else why would your units transfer? ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just said it is unfair that a CC student automatically gets priority regardless of circumstances
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like other posters have said, priorities are given to CC students since these students are at an institution that DO NOT confer 4-year degrees. Students who consistently score A's at their UC can and do transfer to UCB, only that priority is given to CC students first. There's nothing unfair about this process. And mind you, the transfer students admitted to each UC were admitted accordingly so it's not like a B or C average student would into UCB over a UC transfer anyways.</p>
<p>Might as well throw in my two cents. First of all KJSpice, it seems as though this forum is filled primarily with cc students promoting their own interests. Speaking of unfair, I don't think it is fair for a cc student to comment on the quality or difficulty of a UC education based on hearsay or their own biased opinions having only set foot on a UC campus during a field trip from their cc. It is, however, fair for a UC student who has taken classes at a community college to compare the quality of the two. I don't know if KJSpice has completed any cc classes or not, but I know that many, maybe even a majority of UC students have taken cc courses at one point in time or another in their academic career, and are therefore qualified to speak. I do think qualified cc students should have a place to go after completing two years, even priority at such schools as Cal States or lower tier UCs, but I think at the more elite/competitive UCs (ie Berkeley and UCLA) they should start on an even playing field with intercampus transfer applicants since neither group (cc students and intercampus) of applicants was likely accepted as a freshman.</p>
<p>EE<em>STU IS A GENIUS. If ee</em>stu posted on every thread there would be no reason for me to be here. Thanks ee_stu!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think at the more elite/competitive UCs (ie Berkeley and UCLA) they should start on an even playing field with intercampus transfer applicants since neither group (cc students and intercampus) of applicants was likely accepted as a freshman.
[/quote]
Your definition of Berkeley and UCLA as "elite/competitive" causes you to miss the point. Both of them are STILL UCs, both of them still public institutions. Both need transfers just as much as all the other UCs need transfers.</p>
<p>That's true but accepting transfers just for the sake of accepting transfers is ridiculous. I was assuming that Berkeley and UCLA will still get the same number of transfers as the other UCs, my point was simply that those CHOSEN for admission should come from an even playing field. The issue is not a matter of one UC having more transfer students than another, rather it is the mode of selection that I suggest needs to be altered. But mine is just one of many opinions, minority opinions at that. Your point is well taken though, I guess I'm playing a devil's advocate of sorts.</p>
<p>I think the reason why they give CC students priority is because there's an assumption that all UCs are equally good and if you're already at a UC, there's no reason to transfer to another.</p>
<p>I don't know that they assume all UCs are equal. Everyone knows they are far from it. As it has been said countless times on this thread, they simply feel that being at a 4-year university is good enough, regardless of which one, and regardless of a lower tier UC student's aspirations of attending an upper tier UC.</p>