<p>I wish you were right. It would have made his argument better.</p>
<p>"I am saying that no school is obligated to take transfer students, not Harvard, not Yale, not Berkeley, not anybody."</p>
<p>Together with the comments that transfers are not prepared enough or have not been tested enough (with todays status quo) implies to me (and I may be wrong) that transfers don't belong, they don't fit in, ect..</p>
<p>Gabe edited his post but I'm going to bring it back up.</p>
<p>What exactly did Sakky mean when he said CC transfers don't take weeder courses, if not "CC students have taken no classes where a high percentage of students receive sub-standard grades."</p>
<p>I personally do not think that the two things you offer are reformulations of the same idea. He did say they don't take the Berkeley weeder courses, at least not most if not all of the lower division ones in general. For clarification, how high is a high percentage, and what is a "standard grade?"</p>
<p>Perhaps sakky will come back to this thread and clear things up.</p>
<p>Sakky, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are pro's and con's of CCC, as there are attending of UCB for your first two years. With a little research you could have learned more about these weeder courses, and if your disdain for them was really as great as it sounds, TRANSFERRED. </p>
<p>You chose the "college experience". Deal with it. It sounds like sour grapes because you didn't want to spend 2 miserable years at a CCC, but do want the perks it offers. get over it.</p>
<p>Personal attacks, guitarshark85? I have refrained from personally attacking anybody on this thread. </p>
<p>Besides, trust me, I am doing more-than-fine. You don't have to worry about me. </p>
<p>What I am talking about is an issue of FAIRNESS. It should not be any easier for transfer students to graduate from UC as it is for the continuing students. That's the issue at hand.</p>
<p>exactly how much more easily does one get into a school if they are in the TAP program?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I make no such assumption. My position is that if transfers really are as good as you say they are, then they will have little problem in passing a properly conducted waiver exam.</p>
<p>All of this resistance to this idea merely fuels the idea that the transfer students have something to hide. If the transfer students really are academically as strong as you say they are, then they will have little trouble passing these exams. So what's the problem? </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't particularly see this as being 'cruel' punishment, but rather a check to ensure that all people who have entered the upper division have met certain minimum academic standards as determined by the department. How is that cruel? For example, anybody who wants to become a NAVY SEAL has to pass all of the SEAL BUDS regime. That's how the SEALS maintain their elite special forces status. You don't have a situation where certain people get special privileges to skip over certain part of BUDS. The Navy doesn't say "Oh, well, those people don't have to pass the BUDS swimming/diving portion." EVERYBODY has to undergo BUDS. That's a fair way to run a program. I wouldn't call that a matter of sadism, I would call it a matter of fairness. </p>
<p>Since weeders probably do have a valid purpose, I think it is entirely fair that transfer students should not be allowed to simply skip them willy-nilly, which is precisely what is happening now.</p>
<p>Now, do some transfer students also have to undergo tough CC courses? Of course! But that's neither here nor there. Why? Because they had to do that as a simple matter of getting admitted. In contrast, many freshman admits had to undergo tough high school courses in order for them to get admitted. Hence, that's a wash. Both groups of people had to work hard just to get admitted. The difference is that the freshman-admits, despite their hard work in getting admitted, STILL have to survive a bunch of UC weeders, whereas the transfers don't. That's where the unfairness comes in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
During upper division, transferred students will be taking almost the same classes, and thus the same workload, as upper division freshman admits. Any preparation for the waiver exams during this time will be addition workload that will detract from the time spent studying upper division courses. This will put a transfer student at a disadvantage as compared to their freshman admits counterparts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, not necessarily. The transfer student could take these waiver exams after admission, but before he matriculation to Berkeley (i.e. during the summer before matriculation). Thus, presuming that he passed, his time to graduation would not be delayed.</p>
<p>Done right, I don't see what the issue is. Again, if the person is transferring into a major, and he can't pass the waiver exams for the weeder courses for that major, then we have to seriously question whether that person was really good enough to have been admitted into the major in the first place. For example, if you are admitted into Berkeley CS, and you can't demonstrate decent knowledge of Data Structures, Discrete Math, Linear Algebra, and Machine Structures, then you probably shouldn't have been admitted in the first place. At the very least, I think it is fair that you should have to take those classes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sure we both agree that the best course of action would be to get UCB to scrap the weeder courses as you said. It seems that the proposal you are pushing is not an honest solution to the unfairness that freshman admits have. Instead, it seems like a retaliation proposal to punish transfer students because of the anti-transfer student sentiment that you harbor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I don't harbor any sentiments one way or another. I am simply trying to formulate a more just solution. </p>
<p>However, I will say that there are a lot of freshman-admits who do harbor quite a few anti-transfer sentiment, mostly because they would also love to be able to skip over the weeders that the transfers get to skip. Given the choice, they would dearly love to take classes in CC's that allowed them to skip over weeders. But they don't have that choice. And that's a problem. </p>
<p>Look, guys, I am open to ideas. I have already said that I have heard of one idea proposed here that I happen to like a lot. But the point is, the situation as it exists today is suboptimal, because of the weeder-skipping issue. There are many ways to solve this problem, but we can't just do nothing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, not necessarily. The transfer student could take these waiver exams after admission, but before he matriculation to Berkeley (i.e. during the summer before matriculation).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>BS. Freshman admits take their exams over the span of 2 years while CC transfer students should do it within the span of one summer?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not going to respond to every post. The point your trying to get across is continuing students have taken classes with a rigorous grading structure where as CC students have taken no classes where a high percentage of students receive sub-standard grades. Therefore, continuing students at Berkeley who have survived weeder courses are the cream of the crop, unlike the transfers who don't belong (because schools have no obligation to accept them) and need to, on top of their grades, prove they know what their grades and graduation rates already show; all this just so they have as tough a time as the freshman admits (because they dont already).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with what Drab has said - this is a straw man. </p>
<p>My point, again, comes down to a matter of whether the same standards are being applied to everybody. I would argue not. Again, what if the Navy SEALS allowed some candidates to skip over certain aspects of the selection process? That would inevitably spark concerns of fairness. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This is not a serious question, is it? The reason schools take transfers is not to change the perceptions of continuing students or give poor ole sub-standard transfer students the opportunity to get a degree from a top university, the only reason transfers are there is because they have already proved they are bright and motivated and they present an excellent opportunity for the university to enrich its ranks. Pure self-interest.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, I agree, pure self interest. In fact, it is precisely that same self-interest that caused university adcoms to be embroiled in many of the political intrigues of modern history. For example, during the early 1900's, many of the top universities in the country embarked on a deliberately racist policy to place quotas on the number of Jews they admitted. Why? Self-interest. They felt that if they had too many Jews, then the number of socially prominent WASPS who would want to come to the school would decline. By the same token, up until just a few decades ago, many universities, especially those in the South, deliberately prohibited all African-Americans from even applying. </p>
<p>Why did things change? Because the issue of fairness was raised. It was determined that, from an ethical standpoint, it was simply not fair for universities to practice religious or racial discrimination. That's a violation of contemporary social mores. </p>
<p>Now, obviously, I am not saying that this situation is equivalent to the abolition of Jewish Quotas or to the Civil Rights Movement. But it illustrates that you can't just talk about how pure self-interest trumps fairness. If pure self-interest trumped fairness, then many universities to this day would still not be admitting any African-Americans, and they would probably still be explicitly capping the number of Jews. Universities have often times had to subsume their self-interest in the name of fairness. In many cases, they were forced to do so at the barrel of a gun. For example, President Kennedy had to send US Marshals to escort James Meredith, an African-American, to desegregate the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss). Ole Miss certainly did NOT want Meredith to be there, and if they were allowed to operate according to their own self-interest, they certainly would not have allowed him to come. In fact, Meredith's enrollment at Ole Miss sparked riots and protests by students and faculty. Ole Miss's self-interest was trumped by issues of fairness. </p>
<p>Again, the point of this is not to say that this situation is as ethically important as the Civil Rights Movement. Obviously it is not. The point is simply to demonstrate the sometimes schools have to be forced to do the fair thing, even if it is not in their own self-interest. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The narcissism in subjective educational quality differences held by continuing students, who have maybe taken 1 course at a CC in the summer to complete a foreign language requirement, is irrelevant. Results are all that matter. This issue of fairness is pointless, as you would be hard pressed to find a solution to a nonexistent problem. Fair (within the constructs of this debate) is hard to quantify and even harder to effectively advocate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that results are what matters. That's why I am offering the opportunity for transfers to simply take some waiver exams. Not the actual courses, just the exams. If they can pass them, then my concerns will be satisfied. But if they cannot, then that raises concerns. Of if they don't want to, then that just makes it seem as if they have something to hide. </p>
<p>I agree with you that fairness is a subjective issue. Just like prior to the 1960's, it was considered 'fair' by many states to enact Jim Crow Laws to discriminate against African-Americans. I'm sure that many of Berkeley's sports fans consider it 'fair' to be admitting certain notably unstudious students who happen to be star football or basketball players. And I'm sure that if somebody advocated not admitting any transfers at all (which I do not advocate), then that might be seen by some people as being 'fair'.</p>
<p>I believe fairness comes down to a political judgment. I am stating that I believe the current situation has a problem of fairness, and that should concern people from a political standpoint. And I have stated why I believe that there is a problem of fairness and some possible solutions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"But I think Sakky was extremely concerned that freshman admits have lower gpa during lower division because of the curve grading (especially within hard science and engineering) and level of competition"</p>
<p>He should have said that in the first place if that was his real concern.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it was implied. The point is, again, a matter of fairness. </p>
<p>Like I said, if the transfers really are just as good as the continuing students, then they should have no problem in passing a set of equivalent exams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BS. Freshman admits take their exams over the span of 2 years while CC transfer students should do it within the span of one summer?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, my focus is on the weeders, not all lower division courses. There usually aren't THAT many lower-division weeders in a given major, at most 3 or 4 (usually less). So why is it so problematic for a guy to prep for at most 3 or 4 waiver exams during a summer, when the exam topics are about things that he is supposed to know anyway?</p>
<p>Because the test taking environments are totally different. During the summer, there are work or internship duties and summer courses to fulfill while during the schoolyear, students are able to digest the material as the course progresses and take the exams with the materials still fresh in their mind. Not to mention, UCB students don't all take "Data Structures, Discrete Math, Linear Algebra, and Machine Structures" in the same semester.</p>
<p>sakky, I have an issue that might be of concern. Say Berkeley is the only UC that creates a policy like yours, that attempts to make things more similar for the freshmen and transfer students. How could this potentially reflect in enrollment statistics? What would the consequences be for low-income transfer enrollment? What would the consequences be for minority transfer enrollment? I believe that if these things would likely be significantly altered in negative ways if some sort of waiver exam type policy were introduced, the administration would not do it. Certainly if all the UCs adopted such a policy, or especially UCLA, then things would be greatly mitigated, but I'm sure you think that to many it's a huge political factor that some would demand you consider.</p>
<p>Edit: can you think of any other factors that might come up, politically or otherwise? Do you think "fairness" trumps all of them?</p>
<p>Let's not forget that this whole discussion is academic, not anything close to reality. They are trying to figure out ways to get more transfer students; it's an integral part of the California Higher Education Master Plan. No leaders in the entire state in any way related to the UCs would even consider such a ridiculous idea as making transfers jump through additional hoops when the statistics show their graduation rate is just as good as other students.</p>
<p>g1a2b3e, that obviously explains why sakky had a private meetings with a high ranking Berkeley official years ago on the subject.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that results are what matters. That's why I am offering the opportunity for transfers to simply take some waiver exams. Not the actual courses, just the exams. If they can pass them, then my concerns will be satisfied. But if they cannot, then that raises concerns. Of if they don't want to, then that just makes it seem as if they have something to hide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Have something to hide? And you say you didn't have any predispostion of or innate hate towards transfers? If the conditions were FAIR, transfer students wouldn't mind taking the exams anyday. </p>
<p>And that transfer students graduate and go on to be employed or admitted for graduate work is indicative of good results to me. If you're still offering waiver exams 2 years from now, I'll be accepting a high-paying employment offer, thank you.</p>
<p>Sakky you've been talking about weeders on this site for at least two years, so sorry if I missed the answers to these questions along the way. Didn't you used to want restricted admissions in order to lessen the necessity of weeders? Is it still your goal to weaken weeders or have you switched positions? Is your beef with weeders and community college transfers or is the latter debate just a side effect of the former?</p>
<p>
[quote]
g1a2b3e, that obviously explains why sakky had a private meetings with a high ranking Berkeley official years ago on the subject.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bang!</p>
<p>
[quote]
And that transfer students graduate and go on to be employed or admitted for graduate work is indicative of good results to me. If you're still offering waiver exams 2 years from now, I'll be accepting a high-paying employment offer, thank you
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is an unsubstantiated generalization.</p>
<p>I don't see this as an issue of fairness. Everyone has the opportunity to go to a CCC and skip the weeders. The freshmen CHOSE to come in as freshmen, and they knew what they were getting into.</p>
<p>I don't mean to "personally attack" you, but it just sounds like your upset because you didn't go to a CCC and your GPA reflects that.</p>
<p>"Just like prior to the 1960's, it was considered 'fair' by many states to enact Jim Crow Laws to discriminate against African-Americans. I'm sure that many of Berkeley's sports fans consider it 'fair' to be admitting certain notably unstudious students who happen to be star football or basketball players. And I'm sure that if somebody advocated not admitting any transfers at all (which I do not advocate), then that might be seen by some people as being 'fair'."</p>
<p>Be very cartful here. In regards to this issue, I made sure to say that the reasons the argument of fairness doesn't hold up, in this discussion, is because there is a nonexistent problem.</p>
<p>Also I never said that issues of fairness outweigh the motivations of self-interest, or vise-versa. The point was that transfers are necessary (not motivated by pity) to better the university itself.</p>
<p>Before this issue of how wavers should be implemented is even brought up there are two other points that need to be addressed first. First, is that transfers don't take weeder courses (or that somehow transfers don't work as hard to get into Berkeley as continuing students) and second that wavers are the end-all be-all solution if (and thats a big if) youre right on the first point.</p>