<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>You know as well as I do that correlation is not causation, and that anecdotal evidence can be poor.</p>
<p>Let’s compare statistics, I say. I’m gonna check OSR graduation rates.</p>
<p>Correlation is not causation, but the true meaning of that phrase is often times misunderstood. I am not proposing on this thread that something be done about the rigor of the CC’s (by the way, I think that something should be done about that, but for the purposes of this thread, that’s neither here nor there). I am merely looking at things from the Berkeley standpoint. Specifically, if transfer students are not well prepared, it doesn’t really matter why they are not well-prepared, just that they are not well-prepared. Hence, from the perspective of Berkeley, the distinction between correlation and causation is meaningless. It doesn’t matter why those students are bad, it only matters that they are bad. Hence, the difference between the cause and the correlation is irrelevant.</p>
<p>Note, again, I am not saying that I know that transfer students are bad. I don’t know. I am saying that if they are bad, then the reasons for why they are bad are not relevant from the perspective of Berkeley. </p>
<p>And you last sentence gets down to the other point that me and yllwjep have been saying - namely that the OSR data is ambiguous. Graduation rates of transfer students cannot be fairly compared to graduation rates of freshman-admits, principally because the rates of freshman-admits are affected by the weeders. That’s like comparing the rate of survival of 2 groups of soldiers - one group who fights a war for just 2 years, and another group who fights for 4 years, including an initial 2 years of bloody trench warfare attrition. Obviously the statistics of the first group of soldiers are going to look better. What SHOULD be compared are the graduation rates of transfer students and the graduation rates of freshman-admits once they have made it to year 3. That would be a fair comparison.</p>
<p>Graduation rates between three years and five years are comparable as well.</p>
<p>I think the point you’re missing is that you might be making a big deal out of a few bad cases that have resonated with you. I don’t believe we should make broad generalizations based on anecdotes.</p>
<p>Of course it is true that we should not make broad generalizations out of a few anecdotes. Yet the opposite is true also - just because a few transfer students do very well does not mean we can simply conclude that all transfer students are solid. Which is why I propose finding out what the story is. If transfer students really do pass the weeder exams, then that goes a long way towards proving that they really are solid. If they don’t, well…</p>
<p>Sakky, transfers are passing a weeder exam…it’s called “graduating.” I don’t know what’s a better indicator of student success than obtaining one’s diploma! If transfers are doing it in the same numbers and time as their 4-year counterparts, what’s a better indicator?</p>
<p>The problem is what has been stated before - plenty of Berkeley freshman admits could have also done just fine in the upper division, but were booted out by the weeders. That’s simply not fair. As stated before, the difficulty of graduation should be the same for both transfers and freshman-admits. It should be no harder, but also no easier. </p>
<p>Now, again, some people have suggested that the real problem is with the lower-division weeders, and that the upper division should be changed to become the weeders, not the lower-division. The problem with that is that, like I said, if I am to be weeded out, it is better than I be weeded out as quickly as possible. I shouldn’t have to be hanging around for Berkeley for 3 years, and only after that point find myself weeded out. That’s just a massive waste of my time and Berkeley’s time. Weeders should be done as quickly as possible. The problem of course, is that the present structure allows transfers to skip over the early weeders, which means that it is possible for some (not all, but some) transfer students to graduate from Berkeley who would have been weeded out had they gone through those weeders, but didn’t get weeded out because they were allowed to skip over them. That’s the problem with using simple graduation as the indicator.</p>
<p>I still don’t get why this bothers you, other than pride.</p>
<p>If they’re doing the university justice in admissions to grad school, professional school, and in the job market, why do you care that they didn’t take your Bio 1A class and suffer with you?</p>
<p>I think it’s a terribly prideful reason that you’re spelling out there.</p>
<p>Pride? It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with justice. Why should the school weed out freshman-admits more than it does transfers? If it’s good for Berkeley to weed out freshman-admits, then Berkeley should also weed out transfer students with the same intensity. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. What do you propose saying about all those transfer students to the guy who came to Berkeley as a freshman and was expelled because of poor performance in the weeders? What do you want to tell him? Do you want to tell him that it’s good and right that transfer students don’t have to undergo those deadly weeders? Do you want to tell him that allowing transfers to skip the weeders is fair? I think that once you do, you start running real fast, because that guy is going to want to kick you in the teeth.</p>
<p>I think that what you told me about him shows that he’s not a good student to begin with. He didn’t even go to class at the CC? That should tell you something.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t believe in mandating policy because one four-year couldn’t hack it. Policy should be mandated based on careful evaluation of the whole system, and so far it works. If it ain’t broke…</p>
<p>And maybe that guy wasn’t cut out to be in his major. Maybe he wasn’t cut out to be at Cal! Who’s to say that he might not have crapped out at the upper-div level?</p>
<p>You’re right, he’s not a good student to begin with. But what does that say about other transfer students who also got a 4.0 and got into Berkeley? If that guy can pull straight A’s in the CC without going to class, then that means that other people are probably doing it too. Hence, there is no assurance that just because you get top grades at a CC, then you must be a good student. No assurance whatsoever.</p>
<p>And besides, I am not talking specifically about that one student. I am talking about all the other Berkeley freshman admits who do go to class every day, who do work hard, and STILL find themselves weeded out. What exactly are you planning to tell them about the transfer students who are allowed to skip over the weeders? And believe me, there are plenty of freshman-admits who get weeded out. It’s not just one guy. It’s a whole bunch of students that you have to answer to. </p>
<p>The point is, if you think my ideas are inappropriate, then I would like to hear what you are going to tell all those Berkeley freshman-admits who get weeded out every year. It’s not just one guy. It’s substantially more than that. Take EECS as an example. It is estimated that 50% of incoming Berkeley freshman who intend to major in EECS will never graduate with an EECS degree, and it’s usually because they find the lower-division weeders to be too difficult. How exactly do you plan to justify to all these students that it’s perfectly fine for transfer students to skip those weeders? I would like to hear what you are going to tell them.</p>
<p>I don’t care about them. College isn’t about some student’s feelings, it’s about the programs. If transfers are out there getting PhDs, JDs, and MDs, I don’t care.</p>
<p>Aha, good, so you admit that for you, fairness has nothing to do with it. That’s what I thought. So basically, you are implicitly implying that some (not all, but some) transfer students may be getting an unfair advantage, and you don’t care. As long as the transfer students get theirs, who cares what happens to the other students, right? If Berkeley is behaving unfairly to freshman-admits, well, that’s too bad for them. That’s their problem, not yours, right? Well, at least you’re being honest, so that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>No, because I think that your notion of fairness is based on pride and pride alone. If these students are shown to be as capable after graduating, the road to get there should not matter.</p>
<p>If I thought that transfers couldn’t hack it, I’d agree with you. However, the great majority of transfers I meet do just as well as their non-transfer counterparts, so I don’t think it should matter. </p>
<p>And even if you tested them on the final material, it wouldn’t be “fair.” Half the weeder class challenge is actually taking those absurd courses to begin with! There is no way to make transfer and four-year experiences the same. There is no way to make it “fair.”</p>
<p>And putting words in other people’s mouths is rude.</p>
<p>UCLAri, then what are you going to say about those freshman-admits who could have completed the upper division just fine, but were not allowed to get there because of the weeders? At the very least, you have to agree that the present situation is unfair to them. </p>
<p>I agree with you that I can never make the situation perfectly fair. But that doesn’t mean that you then do nothing. That’s a copout. I may not be able to attain perfect fairness, but I can make it more fair. That’s better than doing nothing. </p>
<p>And you keep insinuating it’s all a matter of pride. However, I would point you to your own quote - that if they are capable of graduating, the road should not matter. Again, what are you going to tell those freshman-admits who can’t graduate because they can’t get past the weeders? I see that you continue to dodge the question, as if you deliberately choose not to see them.</p>
<p>So a test is going to prove that they’re capable? What does it prove? You can’t possibly test for every weeder, and no test could possibly recreate the experience.</p>
<p>And not only that, but you’ll seriously discourage transfers. The more barriers you put up, the more they’ll go elsewhere. Can the UCs afford that loss of revenue?</p>
<p>Loss of revenue? Ha! Sorry to have to point this out, but Berkeley actually LOSES money on each undergrad it brings in. Simply put, the money that Berkeley brings in through each undergraduate does not equal the revenue that is spent on educating each undergrad. This is not just specific only to Berkeley - this is actually true of most schools. At Berkeley, as at most schools, the bulk of the revenue comes from research grants and from alumni donations, not from tuition. Berkeley would actually be far better off financially by having less students. But that’s neither here nor there. </p>
<p>Look, I am not saying that a test is perfect. But it’s a lot better than nothing - and that’s what we have right now. Nothing. So just because I can’t make it perfect, it’s better to have nothing? </p>
<p>And why can’t we test for every weeder? There aren’t THAT many weeders. Maybe only 4-5 at the most. What’s so terrible about having to pass 4-5 more exams on things that you are supposed to have learned? Again, I am not asking you to get an ‘A’ on the exams. I am just asking for you to pass. And you won’t have to do them all at once. You can spread them all out over your 2 years at Berkeley. So it’s about one more final exam every semester, on things that you are supposed to have learned. What’s so terrible about that? </p>
<p>And you say that they’ll go elsewhere. Oh really? Where exactly are they going to go? To the CalStates? Fine, I have no problem with the bad transfer students going to the CalStates. To the elite privates like Stanford or Harvard? I would argue that if you can successful transfer into one of those schools, then you’re probably not going to transfer to UC anyway, so it’s a wash.</p>
<p>Guess what sakky? Life’s not fair. Suppose a hopeful tranfer student is taking classes at night (like I’m sure many of them do) and is still putting in 40 hours a week at work because they might be older with more responsibilites or they don’t get the same finanial aid or whatever. Ok, that prospective tranfer student is pulling down a 3.9 (I believe that’s about the average) while doing all of this, and his counerpart at Cal is breezing by his/her “weeder” classes with C-'s, living in a dorm or a fraternity, partying it up, going to the city on the weekend for the white stripes concert…etc. You tell me which one is getting the raw deal? Now before you freak out about this not being the way it always is, let me say that I agree in advance. But this scenario does happen. Many tranfers students are older with families to support, or even just supporting themselves because at 26 years old not too many families are still doling out the rent money for their kids. Just think about that as you complain about how unfair it is.</p>
<p>sakky is a girl? oh snaps, i thought it was a guy all along =</p>
<p>drats! well i’ll just sit back an enjoy this online debate =P</p>
<p>I’m a guy. </p>
<p>And to conor, you also know that the flip side of your scenario happens also. A transfer student skates by his CC classes because they are easy while the Berkeley freshman-admit gets thrown out of Berkeley for poor grades in the lower-division weeders. </p>
<p>Look, Conor, I don’t see why you are objecting so vociferously. I said it before, I’ll say it again, if the transfer students that are brought in are really that good, then they will easily pass those weeder final exams, and so there is no problem. What’s the big deal? If you really did learn the stuff, then you should be able to easily demonstrate that fact. All these objections merely make myself and other people think that there is something to hide.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I think you’re still reading into it too much. It’s not that we have anything to hide, we just see this as a needless impediment in demonstrating what we already know: Transfers do as well.</p>
<p>If the tests were there, I’d kick their asses if I had majored in anything. I just see this as a waste of time and resources when there is no demonstrable gap as of right now. Now, if transfers start not graduating or show different ability in getting into good grad programs, then I’d worry.</p>