<p>^ As in an inter-campus or community college transfer student?</p>
<p>sakky,</p>
<p>I think I'm starting to come around to your side of the debate, but I think that ee_stu has proposed a much better idea on the whole.</p>
<p>And what do you mean by "transfer only," anyway? I'm afraid I'm not quite understanding your idea here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I think that ee<em>stu has proposed a much better idea on the whole.
[/quote]
And Ee</em>stu didn't need a 900 word post to make his point.</p>
<p>Yet his point wouldn't have been as clear or effective had sakky not written his post. I've said to sakky that conciseness is a godsend, but at the same time nobody can argue that he isn't incredibly thorough.</p>
<p>Sure, if there were going to be upper-division entrance exams administered to all, I would have no problem with it. But it would show that the school has completely lost confidence in the professors ability grade students accurately. </p>
<p>But thats not what we're talking about here. There have been people on this thread that have outright said that transfers (1 should not be given a shot at the top UCs because the undergrads at other institutions are "superior"; (2 if CC transfers are allowed they should have to prove themselves because their transcripts don't carry as much weight, 3) and finally, that freshman admission is harder than transfer admission, so community college is some kind of short-cut (despite the much larger aggregate number of freshmen acceptances).</p>
<p>That is what we, or at least a few of us, are arguing against.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet his point wouldn't have been as clear or effective had sakky not written his post.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. I was responding to Sakky's post after all. It's not like I was writing some standalone post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But thats not what we're talking about here. There have been people on this thread that have outright said that transfers (1 should not be given a shot at the top UCs because the undergrads at other institutions are "superior"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ever heard of a starw man argument? I don't think I made this arguemtn, but I think what was said was that they should not be given priority, but obviously "given a chance."</p>
<p>DRab, if Ccc students were not given top priority, who should get top priority for transfers? This is what has come up, with ee_stu offering the best responses. Should intercampus UC transfers get top priority? Should no one get priority--or just California residents? What do you think?</p>
<p>Damn, deleted post. Basically, I said I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the issue. It seems most fair to give equal priority to California residents. Giving extreme priority to CCC students serves a few purposes, including allowing lower income students greater chances at earning a bachelors' degree and filling CCCs, amongst other things.</p>
<p>To clarify my last post, I don't think I advanced either the argument I clarified or the one that was offered.</p>
<p>In 2004, 373 students from City College of San Francisco (a CC) applied to Berkeley, and 161 were accepted. </p>
<p>My counselor has informed me that UCSD's statistic for the average GPA of transfer students is 2.9 Maybe he was talking about transfer students from CCs but he assured me that I should get in fine. </p>
<p>How do these statistics match up to anyone else's knowledge?</p>
<p>Your counselor is mistaken about the transfer gpa average for UCSD:</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I am simply talking about weeders, not the whole kit-and-kaboodle.</p>
<p>However, I agree, your proposal is perhaps even better than mine. In fact, I would add that I think Berkeley should simply scrap all weeder courses entirely, and then have everybody (both continuing students and transfers) take certain "junior-level" exams in order to get into the upper division. This might be similar to the qualifying exams that PhD students have to take in order to become PhD candidates. This would surely be fairer.</p>
<p>However, if this is not possible, then I would still say that it is the transfers who should have to take waiver exams for the weeders. Not for ALL the classes, just for the weeders. After all, right now, as it stands, continuing students have to survive the torture of weeder courses. Transfer students don't have to. And that's a problem with fairness. If the continuing students have to be weeded, then so should the transfers. Otherwise, if you say that the transfer students should not be weeded, then the continuing students should also not be weeded. What's fair is fair. </p>
<p>Now, some of my might argue that the transfer admissions process could itself be considered a weeder process. I strongly disagree. Think of it this way. Compare 2 guys, both upperclassmen at Berkeley, but one was a freshman-admit (hence, a continuing student), and the other is a transfer from a CC. The CCtransfer student simply had to survive getting admitted through the transfer admission process. However, the freshman-admit had to survive TWO processes - both getting admitted as a freshman, and then surviving the weeders. That's TWO opportunities to get knocked out, vs. the ONE opportunity for the CC transfer. That's not fair. If the freshman-admits have to survive 2 rounds of effective weeding, then so should the transfers. Otherwise, then, like I said, the freshman-admits should not be weeded. </p>
<p>The point is that you have to be fair to everybody. It should not be any easier to get a Berkeley degree as a transfer student than it is as a freshman-admit. Right now, as it stands, the transfer process gives transfer students a 'get-out-of-many-weeders-free' card', in the sense that transfers often times get to skip over many (and in some cases all) of the weeders in their major.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, please don't post such long, disorganized arguments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't tell me not to post something, unless you are advocating censorship. I am going to post whatever I want, however I want it, as part of my basic right to free speech. Nobody has the right to tell me not to post in the way that I want. You have freedom of speech, and so do I. If you don't like my posts, then don't read them. But I don't tell you how to post, so don't tell me how to post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why? Transfers graduate with similar GPAs and in similar time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but that's possibly (in fact, probably) because they don't have to complete the weeder sequence. Obviously if freshman admits didn't have to undergo weeders, then they would have higher GPA's and more of them would graduate on time. After all, it is precisely the weeders that tend to hand out bad grades and force people to repeat them (hence, delaying their graduation) </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. The current situation is ALSO intrinsically unfair because the transfer students do not have to undergo weeders. What about that unfairness? </p>
<p>I agree that a test by itself would have some fairness problems. After all, nobody can design a perfectly fair test. But having nothing at all, now THAT is some real unfairness. After all, like I said, the problem is that Berkeley students have to undergo some notorious weeders that the transfer students don't have to. </p>
<p>To make things fair, how about this. I propose that these transfer weeder exams weed out the same percentage of students as are now currently weeded out by the Berkeley weeder courses. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now, I'm afraid that you are using a straw man. First off, who ever said anything about being tested on something outside your major? In fact, most current weeders are INSIDE your major, and I think it's fair that if you are trying to transfer into that major, you should be tested on it. For example, if you are trying to transfer into computer science, then what is so unfair about having to take a waiver exam for Data Structures (CS 61B)? Data Structures is a foundation piece of computer science. If you don't know Data Structures well, then you probably shouldn't be admitted as a computer science transfer at all, and you certainly shouldn't be allowed to just skip over it and into the upper division. You should at least be forced to take that class. That's exactly the way it ought to be. </p>
<p>Secondly, who ever said anything about not having any prep? I propose a system where I would tell you EXACTLY the waiver exams you would be expected to pass, at the moment that I tell you of your admission. Secondly, I don't even propose that you take those waivers at the moment that you arrive at Berkeley. You can take them during any semester. It would just be a condition of graduation. Hence, you would have plenty of time to prep. If you want to wait until your very last semester to take them, fine. But the point is, I think it's fair that you either pass those waivers, or you pass the weeder course itself. </p>
<p>Again, it all gets down to a matter of fairness. Freshman admits have to take weeders. Transfers don't have to. That's a problem.</p>
<p>So you say that cc courses are highly rigorous and you learn a lot of them. Fine, then if that is really true, then you should have no problem in demonstrating that knowledge. If the courses you are taking are really as good as you say they are, then you will have little problem in passing those waivers. All of the resistance by CC transfers to the notion of waiver exams simply fuels the suspicion that maybe they know that they can't pass them.</p>
<p>The bottom line is this. There is a strong feeling by many people at UC - current students, alumni, etc. - that the transfers are basically getting special treatment in not having to take weeders. One way to solve that is through a system of weeder waivers exams. Is it perfect? No. But it's a lot better than nothing, which is what we have now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Matt_30, you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying that no school is obligated to take transfer students, not Harvard, not Yale, not Berkeley, not anybody. Each school has the right to determine its own admissions policies. In fact, Princeton has not admitted a single transfer student for about a decade now. Nobody has the "right" to demand that a particular school take transfers. Each school has the right to decide whether they will entertain transfer applications or not. THAT's my point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet his point wouldn't have been as clear or effective had sakky not written his post. I've said to sakky that conciseness is a godsend, but at the same time nobody can argue that he isn't incredibly thorough.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, well, you know what the problem is, because I believe I told you. I tried writing terse posts. The problem was that people started complaining that I was overgeneralizing or that I was not getting into the details, or that I was not talking about certain exceptions, etc. etc.</p>
<p>The point is, no matter how you post, somebody is going to complain. If a post is long, then people will complain. If it's short, then people will complain. In other words, you can't win. Hence, I've decided to stop trying to please other people and will just post the way that I want to post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, there it is again. Again, I would say that this may be true PRECISELY because transfers don't have to complete the weeder courses. </p>
<p>While I prefer not to talk about myself, I will say this. Far and away my worse grades were in weeder courses. If I didn't have to take weeder courses, my GPA would be a whole lot better. And in fact, practically every student or alumni says the same thing - that if they didn't have to take weeders, they would have far better GPA's. And in fact, some of them would have graduated earlier because they wouldn't have had to repeat some of their (failed) weeder courses.</p>
<p>Hence, when you say that transfer students do just as well as the freshman-admits, I know where you are getting this from. It's because Berkeley has said so in its literature. The problem is that that statistic is hugely misleading the way that Berkeley presents it. Berkeley says that transfer students have similar GPA's to the continuing students. The problem is that the continuing students GPA's include those weeder courses, which are often times quite bad grades. So really, that Berkeley statistic proves nothing at all.</p>
<p>In fact, what Berkeley OUGHT to do is publish the statistics that show ONLY those upper-division grades of courses that transfer students and continuing students take together. THAT would be fair. But Berkeley doesn't do that. Instead, Berkeley insists on comparing apples and oranges, and passing that off as the real McCoy. I strongly suspect that this is a deliberate choice, that Berkeley almost doesn't WANT to show people the relevant data. </p>
<p>The same could be said about the 'time-of-completion' statistic. Again, it is the weeder courses that tend to delay people's graduations. If you don't have to take them, then, sure, you will probably have a good time-of-completion statistic.</p>
<p>The point is, the statistics do not tell us anything about whether transfers should take weeders. Like I said, I too would like to have not taken any weeders, as my GPA would be a whole lot better.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The CCtransfer student simply had to survive getting admitted through the transfer admission process. However, the freshman-admit had to survive TWO processes - both getting admitted as a freshman, and then surviving the weeders.
[/quote]
You are continually assuming that community college courses are all easy. As has been stated, that's not the case. Community college courses ARE college courses; they are articulated, and those students who complete them and transfer do just as well as the students who went through weeders!</p>
<p>
[quote]
then what is so unfair about having to take a waiver exam for Data Structures (CS 61B)?
[/quote]
These exams are pointless. Community college students take difficult courses they must succeed in if they want to transfer to Berkeley.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Matt_30, you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying that no school is obligated to take transfer students, not Harvard, not Yale, not Berkeley, not anybody. Each school has the right to determine its own admissions policies.
[/quote]
We should name this fallacy: the Berkeley Ivy fallacy. BERKELEY IS NOT AN IVY. It's not meant to be an ivy. BERKELEY IS obligated to take transfer students as part of the UC SYSTEM governed by the UC REGENTS (Berkeley ABSOLUTELY does not have the right to determine its own admissions policies--only to make their own 'personal' adjustments) , as its fulfillment of being an institution for the citizens of California.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But thats not what we're talking about here. There have been people on this thread that have outright said that transfers (1 should not be given a shot at the top UCs because the undergrads at other institutions are "superior"; (2 if CC transfers are allowed they should have to prove themselves because their transcripts don't carry as much weight, 3) and finally, that freshman admission is harder than transfer admission, so community college is some kind of short-cut (despite the much larger aggregate number of freshmen acceptances).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, Matt_30, let me put it to you this way. The truth is, there is indeed a perception within UC that transfer students are not that good. Like it or not, that perception exists. Maybe transfer students really are just as good as the continuing students. But how would anybody really know? </p>
<p>This is where my idea of a waiver exam comes in, or perhaps ee_stu's proposal which is perhaps even better. But the point is, if there was a more fair mechanism in which transfer students could prove that they can survive the weeding process, then that would go a long way towards dispelling the notion that transfer students are not as good. </p>
<p>But the point is, something ought to be done. I am not saying that my ideas are perfect. If somebody has a better idea, then let's hear it. But the point is, we can't do nothing. Not if we want to change the perception. If nothing is done, then the perception will persist. This is particularly so if transfer students continue to get what is perceived by many to be special treatment as it pertains to weeders.</p>
<p>Sakky, you are approaching 'weeders' as if they are part of some sadist system, just there to punish you and not serving any other purpose. If that's the case, then the last thing we would want is to create MORE sadistic punishment by doing the same to transfers. Besides, transfer students also have lower gpas because of having to take particular tough classes. </p>
<p>You seem ignorant to the life of a community college student. YOU have the perception that transfers are 'weaker' than those who came in as freshmen; that much is clear.</p>