@ PurpleTitan, yes I am aware of all that. Even with the matriculation agreements, I expect that foundation courses at Cornell are much more rigorous than those at any community college. Wouldn’t you expect so? I’ve never thought a 2+ 2 process resulting in a degree from, say, Cornell is equal to a 4 year degree from Cornell even though the diploma does not reveal how many years a student spent studying at Cornell and even though, technically, the diplomas are indistinguishable-the experiences are not.
thank you everyone. I just wanted check what were your opinions on Cornell not accepting my credit. I’ve crossed out Cornell not because of the course. i will be applying to penn state this September.
@lostaccount, arguably, the foundation courses aren’t the same quality and the experience may not be the same, but I would see two Cornell grads both with 3.8 in the same major as the same regardless of where they spent the first two years. Why should I hold the CC experience against the transfer when he/she has shown that they can do as high quality work in advanced courses (which in demanding majors make the foundation courses seem like child’s play) as someone who started off in Cornell?
And I’d rate the Cornell CS major with a 3.8 GPA in CS courses who started as a transfer higher than the Cornell CS major with a 3.3 CS GPA who started in Cornell.
Also, NASA, look at this from Cornell’s point of view. They seem to have fully answered your questions about policies they have a right – and maybe an obligation – to maintain. Then consider your thread title with respect to this.
If Cornell lists in an articulation agreement that a general chemistry course at some other college is accepted in lieu of a general chemistry course at Cornell, then that indicates that Cornell sees that other college’s courses as a sufficiently rigorous course that covers the same material as the Cornell course. So why the elitist disdain against transfer credit or transfer students?
Indeed, the value of a four year school over a two year school is the offering of upper level courses, which are generally required (as part of one’s major) in order to earn a bachelor’s degree. That does not prevent a two year school from offering lower level courses equivalent in content and rigor to the four year school’s lower level courses.
Here is an example of a student who started at a community college, transferred to a state university, graduated top of the class, and went on to a well respected PhD program:
http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/05/10/medalist2011/
http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/people/aaron-benavidez
@ucbalumnus To be fair, it wasn’t just any state university :P.
@ucbalumnus I have no personal experience with CC’s in CA, but my impression from this site (and others) is that they might differ significantly in quality from many in my area in the east.
I don’t think I’m alone in my thoughts. When my own three boys were going through their college visit days I often asked if their DE credits would transfer. Whether they would or not depended upon the college. Higher level state colleges always accepted them, but we were warned by profs not to count on the same level of foundational knowledge. It would depend upon the actual course/prof. Lower level private colleges almost always accepted them and I don’t recall any warnings. Higher level private colleges rarely accepted them (esp in the desired major) and we were told the reason was they couldn’t depend upon the content in those classes.
Two of my three boys had their DE courses count and both told me if they’d taken the same course at their college it would have been more rigorous (based upon peers taking the course and second courses within the field).
DE courses for my other boy didn’t count and he’s really glad they didn’t. He’d have had a lot to make up on his own if he’d missed material covered.
I talked with one of the DE profs who was surprised to hear his course didn’t count and started a rant about elitism vs reality. Then I brought him the first test that lad had. It took him less than 30 seconds to change his mind about the two courses being equivalent. He then marveled at some of the questions being asked and said he didn’t see that material until Grad school. “Why,” he asked, “did any undergrad need to know that? You won’t need that until you get to research.” Uh… yeah. This is a research school where undergrads DO research from early on.
It all depends upon the college one is attending as to the depth one needs.
I am not at all surprised that a top research school won’t accepted CC credits. If Berkeley is smart, they also will be suspicious about some non-CA CC’s - or maybe they don’t care and assume any student heading that route will catch up if they desire to.
Then too, TOP students can do many things. Average students find many of those things much more difficult.
Some minds can become Bill Gates. Others? It’s not so easy.
@Creekland, the UC’s tend to trust the CA CC’s more than other CC’s. Thus why it’s easier to transfer in to a UC from a CA CC than from elsewhere.
UMich is a bit notorious for denying a lot of credit of transfers even when they accept transfer.
Seems like the DE/CC instructors/departments could look at course materials from typical target schools (e.g. state flagship, typical target private schools for students in those classes) and emulate them. Since the material is college frosh/soph level material, it should not be out of reach of an instructor who has the academic qualifications to teach such a course.
UCs favor transfers from California CCs over other transfers. But they also have detailed articulation agreements with California CCs that they do not have with other schools. Presumably, this gives the CCs incentive to offer courses that match the frosh/soph level courses at UCs (also CSUs) – otherwise, they would not be articulated for subject credit.
I think our CC targets their material fairly well for their students. What students need to realize is that the content is at a CC level (higher than regular high school - less than AP for science/calc). It will give them a basic foundational knowledge, but if they plan to then transfer to a school at much higher levels, they will have a bit of catching up to do considering most incoming students at those levels have completed AP, so intro courses are designed accordingly unless majors are allowed to use AP credit to skip those intro courses. Even then, AP covers more and goes deeper than what I’ve seen from many of theses CC classes.
It doesn’t matter if a student learns the deeper material in a freshman class or in later classes, but switching from one type to the other can cause significant problems as that material gets missed. If they are majoring in something else all together, it doesn’t matter if they get all the deeper material TBH.
@Creekland, this probably differs a lot by district/state. I wouldn’t expect CC classes to cover less than AP classes as a general rule.
@PurpleTitan From my contacts in the homeschool world across the US (where we use DE and AP a bit), it happens more often than not. I suspect it’s why more top (private) colleges allow AP credit, but not DE. Technically getting a 5 on an AP test is supposed to equal an A in a college intro class, but it’s pretty common that it doesn’t happen or even come close.
At the statistically average high school where I work, it’s the rare student who can even get a 2 or 3 on an AP test after taking the DE class (getting an A or B), and if they did manage a 3 or greater, they taught themselves a bit of the course outside of class using review books and other materials. My IRL data includes Stats, Calc, Bio, Chem, and Physics locally. My boys had DE English too. In hindsight, having found them an AP course would have been better, but… it’s just English. 
My online knowledge from the homeschool world covers the US+ with many students heading on to college at all levels from CC to Top 10.
CC’s have a purpose (we used them for DE - I often recommend them to students), but how much value one puts into the content of their classes varies. One really needs to look hard at them and compare that to their goals.
@Creekland, the same colleges that don’t allow DE credit may often allow CC credit.
I suppose that was the confusing part. Are you talking about DE courses with mostly HS students or actual CC courses on a CC campus?
Both. Some students take DE on the high school campus and some take them on CC campuses. The courses are supposed to be identical - same syllabus, etc.
My two older kids took theirs on the CC campus. One had his credits transfer and the other didn’t. My youngest went to our public high school rather than homeschooling high school. His courses were at our high school. His courses counted. It all depended upon the colleges they chose.
Some colleges don’t want DE because they feel the credit was a high school credit, not college (can’t count both ways). Others don’t want the DE due to the content. Higher level schools tend to be in the latter category from my experience with my own kids heading to college.
And then there are the schools (many) that will allow CC credit, but not counting toward one’s major field(s) of study.
It really helps students heading the CC route if they do their homework PRIOR to signing up for classes (knowing their goals), not after and then ending up in the OP’s position.
Penn St is a good school. Assuming their transfer app is accepted (the GPA could be a problem), they aren’t “screwed” by not getting into Cornell. Then too, most of us on here realize the chance of getting accepted to Cornell with the reported GPA is pretty slim.
Colleges are free to accept or not accept credits from other schools just as they are free to accept or not accept certain AP/IB scores for credit. And you can choose to transfer to the school or not. Get the facts and make your choice.
A million years ago when I transferred to UPenn they would not accept a Bio credit I had…but I decided the school was great in every other respect so I went anyway and took the required science courses there. Despite my annoyance, it is a trade-off I’d make again (and again and again) without blinking an eye.
^ this would definitely be the case in several Midwestern states, in Pennsylvania, in Tennessee, in New jersey, in Missouri. There may be one or two exceptions but by and large, in these states at least, the pace is faster than AP, the autonomy required is higher than AP, but the depth and/or breadth of content wouldn’t match AP classes. (it is thus an excellent complement for advanced high school students who have taken AP, because these classes require different skills than AP classes, skills they’ll need to succeed in college.) Going from cc to 4-year is more or less of an adjustment. In Illinois, where articulation agreements are well-done, students who go from cc to uiuc have to up their game significantly but also need to review material that wasn’t necessarily covered in their cc class. In Pennsylvania, articulation agreements are between cc and directionals, and the level of expectation at the directional is nowhere near what it is at the flagships, whereas students find the cc to directional a big gap to match (as do ‘branch’ students when they get to the flagship, and ‘branches’, while they function like CA cc 's, are a little step above cc 's academically speaking. ‘branches’ and directional are probably the same.)
I know many instructors at NY community colleges. I know some who are adjuncts at a 4 year university and at a local CC. In NY, the community college classes are taught at a much lower level than at the university. The students who start at the cc are often (but not always) less well prepared for higher level classes than those who started at the university. That does not mean they can’t succeed but they often fail to produce the level of scholarship that those who began at the university are capable of. In terms of the foundation courses, they are markedly different and much easier at the cc. Students who would not pass the foundation courses at the 4 year school may get As at the community college.
The reality is that for some majors, the foundation courses are more difficult than the upper level classes. The early classes are often survey classes that move rapidly and cover a huge amount of material. They are required and don’t allow the student the luxury of focusing on topics of interest. In contrast, the higher level classes often cover less material (although presumably have more depth), involve more discussion and allow more selection of areas of interest. They require less in terms of acquiring huge amounts of facts/material. Students who took foundation classes in less rigorous schools won’t necessarily do poorly in upper level classes. They will just never know a large amount of more general information that will be known by those students who got a strong foundation in a rigorous school.
An analogy: consider someone who studies cartography. Usually the student would learn the layout of the world, the country, etc and then may specialize in maps of a small area, say New Orleans. Studying the layout of the world would require memorizing a huge amount of information, much of which might be boring to someone interested in a very specific area of the world. In contrast, learning the details about New Orleans would be relatively easy to someone whose interest focuses on that city. It is obviously possible to simply jump to the study of New Orleans without knowing much about the layout of the world, state, etc. You could probably get 100s on a course that focuses on the layout of New Orleans without ever knowing what country New Orleans is in. Would you be the same as someone who had a good foundation? No.
Re: #36
While that may apply to some majors where the lower level courses are not all that important as prerequisites for upper level courses, and the lower level courses are more difficult than upper level courses, how many majors are really like that?
In your cartography example, the foundational knowledge that would be a prerequisite for cartography of the world or a city would be the basic principles of cartography (e.g. how map features are measured and selected, and how they are put on a map in ways that are readable to the user), as opposed to cartography of the world being a prerequisite for cartography of a city.
Perhaps more difficult is the wrong word but different, with lower level classes being more survey classes and upper level being focused on specific topic areas within the major and I’d say most are like that. If you look at the transcripts for many students you see a trend towards improving grades with the upper level classes compared to lower level ones. Students often call those earlier classes “weeding out” classes but that is not the intention. They are simply classes that bombard students with a lot of material and information that is necessary to provide them with a strong background. It is certainly true in many humanities and many sciences.
There is a fairly obvious explanation for that, in that students in upper level courses are usually majoring in the subject, hence taking the courses of their interest, rather than exploring various subjects or taking general education courses that may not be of their interest when they are frosh/soph students taking lower level courses. Also, at schools where some majors are capacity-restricted, only the stronger students from the lower level courses are admitted to the major to take upper level courses in those majors.
In the sciences, where prerequisite requirements tend to be important, a student whose knowledge of the lower level material is not up to par will have difficulty with the upper level material. So the elitist doubting of a science student who performed well in upper level courses in his/her major due to having taken lower level courses at a community college makes no sense. And that likely applies to many other subjects besides science ones.