<p>Merced's awesome... its like this building, and ummm, yeah.</p>
<p>Man I would've been excited to go to Merced...I mean, if Berkeley and UCLA were out of the picture why not :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did you not realize you would have to come up with tuition for all four years??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Err...no. My mom's an accountant, so I assumed she would've been able to figure it out. She's the one who forced me to go to Duke in the first place. Her income didn't drastically change, but tuition changed a bit, my room and board got more expensive, and I had a bit less outside scholarship-age...which added up to a lot more than the nothing we paid last year. We didn't realize that the aid situation would be precarious...but anyhow, that's not the only reason I want to transfer.</p>
<p>UC Merced is the most prestigious UC in Norcal other than UCB, UCD, and UCSC. =)</p>
<p>really sucks to hear that penguins... its okay hopefully the money situation will sort itself out. Duke's better anyways :)</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that all the help that SMC student was getting was necessarily because of the UCs favoring CC. The reason CCs exist it to confer AA/AS, certificates, and transfer students to 4-year schools. Duke has absolutely no interest in seeing any of it's students (especially the good ones) transfer away.</p>
<p>If it's any consolation it's much harder for out of state students to get in than either UC-UC, Cal state-UC, or CC-UC transfers.</p>
<p>When we talk about priority we're not talking about dismissing hordes on non cc students, if two students have sufficiently similar stats the nod goes to the student from community college. If you have a 3.8 (assuming your in state) and everything else is up to specs you stand a good chance of getting in.</p>
<p>why would you leave duke?</p>
<p>"1290 was my SAT score 2 years ago, about average for freshman Cal admits."</p>
<p>I think it's significantly under average.</p>
<p>Isn't it true that CCs vary widely? I would imagine so, as there are hundreds in the state. Certainly many are filled with PhDs from the top graduate programs and caring, amazing teachers and small classes and etc etc, but many are not so fortunate.</p>
<p>Is it fair that something is demanded of the freshmen applicants that is not demanded of the transfer applicants? Test scores and rrequired weeder courses, to name a few?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is it fair that something is demanded of the freshmen applicants that is not demanded of the transfer applicants? Test scores and rrequired weeder courses, to name a few?
[/quote]
With respect, what would be the point of SAT scores when an applicant has already completed years worth of college courses? Even at schools where they require SAT scores of transfers, it is not very significant. The SAT is supposed to be one factor that gauges potential college success; clearly extensive college work is a much better gauge.</p>
<p>In short, it absolutely is fair that those are required of freshmen but not transfers. Transfers have a college record to use, freshmen don't.</p>
<p>"I think it's significantly under average."</p>
<p>The average SAT score for berkeley admits was a 1320. So no it's not significantly under average. It's well within the limmits of the middle 50%.</p>
<p>First off, let me say that neither the freshman-admits nor the transfers have any monopoly on talent or work ethic. I have seen extremely lazy freshman admits. I have also seen extremely lazy transfers. In fact, 2 guys that I know, one a freshman-admit and the other a transfer, basically spent one memorable semester going to each of their classes no more than 3 times, once for the first day of class, one for the midterm, and once for the final. They spent the rest of the semester drinking beer, using certain 'recreational' pharmaceuticals, playing video games and poker, watching TV, hanging out with their girlfriends, and basically just lounging around, doing nothing.</p>
<p>For these students, where they are freshman-admits, or transfer, I think that that UC should either light a fire under their butts to get them to start taking their studies seriously, or else expel them. After all, they are occupying spots that could be used by other students who actually want to be serious students. If certain students insist on being lazy, then fine, but the state shouldn't subsidize their laziness with tax dollars. </p>
<p>However, there is a certain notion of fairness that has to be interjected into this discussion. I agree that community college students ought to have an opportunity to earn a 4-year degree. But my question is, why does it necessarily have to be at Berkeley or UCLA? In fact, why does it have to be at a UC at all? There is an entire school system, the California State University system, that offers 4-year degrees. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is, to say that community college students need an opportunity to get a 4-year degree and therefore have to go to Berkeley or UCLA is a strong non-sequitur. After all, you don't hear community college students saying that just because their school doesn't offer 4-year degrees, that they automatically 'deserve' the right to go to Harvard or Stanford. So why demand the right to go to Berkeley or UCLA? The 'public' status only goes so far. After all, transfer students can't simply demand the right to go to, say, West Point or the Naval Academy, yet those are clearly public schools. </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Berkeley or UCLA should not accept any transfer students. Far from it. In fact, I have myself proposed that, in theory, Berkeley or UCLA could one day transform themselves into purely transfer institutions (in the sense that 100% of all their undergrads would be transfer students), and I would have no problem with that. In fact, if properly done, I would probably actually support that idea. </p>
<p>The question really comes down to a matter of fairness. I have no problem with transfer students trying to get into Berkeley or UCLA. But it should be no easier to get in that way than it is through the regular freshman admissions procedure. </p>
<p>However, the biggest problem that I see with the transfer process is one that Drab touched upon just briefly, which is the notion that transfer students get to skip over notorious Berkeley/UCLA weeder courses. Why is that? If transfer students have a mechanism to skip over these courses, then freshman-admits should also have that same mechanism. What's fair is fair. Hence, I propose that transfer students should have to take a waiver exam for each weeder course that they intend to skip to ascertain whether they are really worthy of skipping over that course. If they do not get a certain score on that exam, then they have to take that weeder course just like the freshman-admits do. </p>
<p>Lest you think this is radical, let me give you an anology. Neither MIT nor Caltech accept AP exams to get out of their core science/math requirements. Instead, if you want to skip over, say, freshman physics, you have to take a tough waiver exam. You can't just say to MIT that you have a top AP score and top grade in AP Physics, so you should be allowed to waive out of the physics requirement. Uh-uh. MIT is going to want you to PROVE that you are worthy of waiving that requirement by demonstrating that you are knowledgeable about physics at the level that MIT demands. Otherwise, you have to take physics with everybody else.</p>
<p>I think a similar sort of thing would be a boon to the UC's. You can't just say that you took a computer data structures course in CC and got a good grade, and so you should be allowed to skip over Berkeley CS61B (a notorious weeder). I think it's fair to ask you to prove your knowledge by taking a waiver exam. Hey, if you really are that good at data structures, then you will pass the waiver exam. But if you're not that good, then I think it's fair that you should not be allowed to skip it. After all, the freshman-admits can't just skip that notorious weeder by just taking the class in a community college (i.e. during one of their summers). So why should the transfers be allowed to skip over it?</p>
<p>It's not fair to make CC students take so much of those "waiver exams." 2 years worth of college is about 16 courses right? But if you meant that these waiver exams should only cover those weeder courses, then it's still not fair to CC students because UCB students who took each weeder course one by one had time to absorb the material and also are able to take those exams at semester intervals. A better proposal would be to standardize those "waiver exams" so that ALL incoming upper division students must take them, both UCB and CC students.</p>
<p>As much as we would like to standardize the process more, how realistic is such a proposal? I mean wouldn't it take going through a lot of red tape to implement some of the policies you guys are suggesting. I'm not saying it is not worth it; I'm just suggesting that you guys remember that we are dealing with the famed UC bureaucracy...</p>
<p>"I agree that community college students ought to have an opportunity to earn a 4-year degree. But my question is, why does it necessarily have to be at Berkeley or UCLA? In fact, why does it have to be at a UC at all? There is an entire school system, the California State University system, that offers 4-year degrees."</p>
<p>I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Of the relatively small number of CC students that transfer MOST go to Cal States. There is no component of necessity. And of course they should have an opportunity to get in at the top universities, the question that should be asked is, why not?</p>
<p>"to say that community college students need an opportunity to get a 4-year degree and therefore have to go to Berkeley or UCLA is a strong non-sequitur."</p>
<p>Of course that doesn't make sense, your oversimplifying the argument. This is less than 6,000 people we're talking about, not the entire population of CC transfers. Top students, at institutions that do not offer 4-year degrees, are desired by the university - not the other way around. A smart individual, despite the reputation of his/her alma-matter, will find a way to be successful in their lives. </p>
<p>"So why demand the right to go to Berkeley or UCLA?"</p>
<p>Not only is it smart policy, we've earned it. I would expect the same treatment by Harvard or Yale if I had comparable marks. </p>
<p>"the biggest problem that I see with the transfer process is one that Drab touched upon just briefly, which is the notion that transfer students get to skip over notorious Berkeley/UCLA weeder courses."</p>
<p>Why? Transfers graduate with similar GPAs and in similar time. Your statement assumes that CCs don't have courses that are notoriously difficult. Not true. Part of the difficulties CC transfers often have to deal with is the narcissism freshman admits hold, that somehow they had a 'better' or 'deeper' education. These extra hoops would only serve to perpetuate the stereotypes, as these tests would be designed for students to fail. If you make the test to easy or general you cry about how it's a lower standard; if you make them similar to a midterm or final then you cannot realistically expect someone to recall the specifics of a field of study outside their major, on a class they took 2 years ago, and ace the test without any prep. It's intrinsically unfair.</p>
<p>"After all, the freshman-admits can't just skip that notorious weeder by just taking the class in a community college (i.e. during one of their summers)."</p>
<p>What it really comes down to is the notion that CC can never offer the quality of education a UC (specifically a top UC) can offer. That community college is a short-cut to bypass the hassles of HS. That community college students have not learned enough to be at the same level. Which, of course, is untrue. </p>
<p>Make no mistake about it, these past two years have been some of the most academically rigorous of my life. </p>
<p>The transfers that will come in will have higher GPA's and more varied life experiences (for the most part) than most freshmen admits, yet still they're berated, called inferior, and continually asked to prove they're "worthy". It's nonsense.</p>
<p>As you said it's a matter of fairness. Is it right to hold transfers students, who have shown there ability to succeed and continue to handle college level work, at a different standard than freshmen who have not.</p>
<p>Sakky, please don't post such long, disorganized arguments. Your bottom line about "weeder courses" doesn't even make sense. Community college students have to complete a variety of courses with high grades if they want to get into UCLA or Cal. No one gets bye with ALL AP credits.</p>
<p>But more importantly, that argument means almost nothing since transfer students do just as well at Cal as those who entered as freshmen. Thus we can assume that transfer students are accomplished to a similar level as those who completed the "weeder courses."</p>
<p>Yeah, it kinda bugs me how the transfers are stereotyped as the dumbest of the dumb. I wonder if this idea is just seen here on these boards or if this is the general consensus of the UCB community...</p>
<p>i don't think anyone stereotypes transfers as the "dumbest of the dumb", but it is generally easier to get into the UC's as transfers vs freshman admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i don't think anyone stereotypes transfers as the "dumbest of the dumb", but it is generally easier to get into the UC's as transfers vs freshman admissions.
[/quote]
People need to stop thinking it's such a simple "EASIER TO GET IN AS A TRANSFER!" thing. You should have pages and pages of analysis before you can even say a comparison can be made.</p>
<p>Why is this thread 7 pages long? It is not necessary.</p>
<p>Did you know the reason Robert Birgeneau wanted to be chancellor at Berkeley was because of an experience he had with a transfer student?</p>