What makes University Chemistry harder than CC.

[Titus Times]

I'm wondering if anyone who is taking pre med classes at a university could help me out here. What is it about undergrad Pre reqs (chem,bio,ect.) that make them harder than the same Community College course. You don't have to be a transfer student to answer this but that answer would probably be best.

I mean we generally use the same books, I even have some teachers here that taught sciences at universities. We have smaller class sizes and its easy for us to talk to our teacher before/after class even during class, but some universities have small classes to. So what is it, someone give me a breakdown that you find makes your Chem/Bio ect. more difficult than it needs to be or more difficult than a CC.



I'll be glad to hear your gripes/complaints or input about how your class is tougher than it should be or whatever have you, im just looking for something to compare my college to before I transfer to know what I may have been missing.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Josh7]

I'm wondering if anyone who is taking pre med classes at a university could help me out here. What is it about undergrad Pre reqs (chem,bio,ect.) that make them harder than the same Community College course. You don't have to be a transfer student to answer this but that answer would probably be best.

I mean we generally use the same books, I even have some teachers here that taught sciences at universities. We have smaller class sizes and its easy for us to talk to our teacher before/after class even during class, but some universities have small classes to. So what is it, someone give me a breakdown that you find makes your Chem/Bio ect. more difficult than it needs to be or more difficult than a CC.



I'll be glad to hear your gripes/complaints or input about how your class is tougher than it should be or whatever have you, im just looking for something to compare my college to before I transfer to know what I may have been missing.

The test-question difficulty may be one factor.

The competitiveness of students at a university is also probably much higher than at a community college where many students may not be of the same caliber as university students

 

[bigdogrob4284]

Also university versions tend to go more in depth with each topic.

 

[DAPI]

I'm wondering if anyone who is taking pre med classes at a university could help me out here. What is it about undergrad Pre reqs (chem,bio,ect.) that make them harder than the same Community College course. You don't have to be a transfer student to answer this but that answer would probably be best.

I mean we generally use the same books, I even have some teachers here that taught sciences at universities. We have smaller class sizes and its easy for us to talk to our teacher before/after class even during class, but some universities have small classes to. So what is it, someone give me a breakdown that you find makes your Chem/Bio ect. more difficult than it needs to be or more difficult than a CC.



I'll be glad to hear your gripes/complaints or input about how your class is tougher than it should be or whatever have you, im just looking for something to compare my college to before I transfer to know what I may have been missing.

I'm just going to throw it out there, though not exactly the same. Many students at my college took bio in HS using the same book we used in college. They got A's in HS bio, yet C's in college bio... Why? Because the tests are harder and the curve is stiffer. I would assume the same to be true (more often than not) when comparing a CC to a University.

 

[sinombre]

I'm just going to throw it out there, though not exactly the same. Many students at my college took bio in HS using the same book we used in college. They got A's in HS bio, yet C's in college bio... Why? Because the tests are harder and the curve is stiffer. I would assume the same to be true (more often than not) when comparing a CC to a University.

This is pretty much the answer to the thread.

 

[TangoDown]

The test difficulty thing is a generalization. CCs vary across the country JUST as universities do, and tests are created by individual professors. "My brother's friend down the street that went to Podunk Jr College got an A in Diff. Equations while smoking pot everyday and taking 18 units" is not a representation of all CCs in the country.

In terms of student population, it honestly depends. It is true that you've got a ton of people who don't care or who don't try, but there are always those who do. And they vary depending on the class. At my CC, a lot of UC Berk kids take O-Chem (bad choice if they're trying to get into Med School, as they already attend a university), and they set the curve. Does that mean all CCs have that level of competition in their STEM classes? No. And that's my point.

Now you SHOULD take your STEM classes at a uni IF it's not going to kill you financially, simply to avoid trouble with certain Med Schools. You should also RESEARCH the specific CC you're going to and look at its articulation agreements with various schools. My CC, for example, has an articulation agreement for every major in all UCs and CSUs (California), and many kids transfer from the CC every year and end up at great universities as juniors, are not shell shocked by any major "step up" in difficulty, and do very well. That doesn't mean YOUR CC will be like that. And that's why you should research.

 

[Ruhroh]

From my personal experience, it's definitely the depth. I did not go to a CC, but an unranked and uncompetitive small-school environment. EG my chemistry class only really covered what was required on the MCAT - even less, since I had no exposure to electrochemistry until MCAT studying. On the other hand, I have seen the chemistry tests of my friend who went to an Ivy, and his exams covered some very esoteric (some would say useless) material. I don't know if it would necessarily make his class harder, but there did seem to be more breadth.

 

[Titus Times]

This is pretty much the answer to the thread.

Not quite, answers like its harder and a stiffer curve really don't give me an answer at all. What makes it harder was the question, i'm trying to get something to gauge the difference.

Other poster, very helpful, but I'm sure it will be harder that is the reason I asked the question, do you have any examples of the level of depth you go into. Who knows we may go into equal depth.

And I agree the curve will be less forgiving, but some of our sciences courses are taught by teachers who do not curve at all.

 

[TangoDown]

Not quite, answers like its harder and a stiffer curve really don't give me an answer at all. What makes it harder was the question, i'm trying to get something to gauge the difference.

Other poster, very helpful, but I'm sure it will be harder that is the reason I asked the question, do you have any examples of the level of depth you go into. Who knows we may go into equal depth.

And I agree the curve will be less forgiving, but some of our sciences courses are taught by teachers who do not curve at all.

That I can't help you with, because I haven't taken any yet due to all the classes being impacted 🙁. Albeit, I'm just sick of people who claim a desire to be physicians and physician scientists going into threads like these and perpetuating massive generalizations based on either no evidence or extremely limited anecdotal evidence based on individual experiences like "my cousin John's CC excursion in Mississippi."

 

[thesauce]

Not quite, answers like its harder and a stiffer curve really don't give me an answer at all. What makes it harder was the question, i'm trying to get something to gauge the difference.

Other poster, very helpful, but I'm sure it will be harder that is the reason I asked the question, do you have any examples of the level of depth you go into. Who knows we may go into equal depth.

And I agree the curve will be less forgiving, but some of our sciences courses are taught by teachers who do not curve at all.

This is really the point. They don't have to curve it because people are already doing well.

 

[Titus Times]

From my personal experience, it's definitely the depth. I did not go to a CC, but an unranked and uncompetitive small-school environment. EG my chemistry class only really covered what was required on the MCAT - even less, since I had no exposure to electrochemistry until MCAT studying. On the other hand, I have seen the chemistry tests of my friend who went to an Ivy, and his exams covered some very esoteric (some would say useless) material. I don't know if it would necessarily make his class harder, but there did seem to be more breadth.

This is very helpful, you also alluded to another point I was going to make. Some universities are much harder than others, Ivies vs small privates and then your party schools where the curve may be even greater than my CC.

I'm kinda looking for raw examples of the difficulty level (be it tougher or easier), similar to your answer.

That I can't help you with, because I haven't taken any yet due to all the classes being impacted 🙁. Albeit, I'm just sick of people who claim a desire to be physicians and physician scientists going into threads like these and perpetuating massive generalizations based on either no evidence or extremely limited anecdotal evidence based on individual experiences like "my cousin John's CC excursion in Mississippi."

I agree and thanks for your input, good luck with your schedule next time around Uncle Ruckus.

 

[Titus Times]

This is really the point. They don't have to curve it because people are already doing well.

Im not sure if you mean people at my CC are doing well or people are doing well at the Uni. If you mean my college I will say those same classes usually have a class average between 49 and 62 on each exam at my CC. And certain teachers will not add a curve. We have an articulation agreement with Tons good universities including UNC Chapel Hill, majority of our students go there after two years, we also have nursing programs and other mid level programs which can bring the need to weed students out idk if that makes a difference here though.

 

[sinombre]

Not quite, answers like its harder and a stiffer curve really don't give me an answer at all. What makes it harder was the question, i'm trying to get something to gauge the difference.

Other poster, very helpful, but I'm sure it will be harder that is the reason I asked the question, do you have any examples of the level of depth you go into. Who knows we may go into equal depth.

And I agree the curve will be less forgiving, but some of our sciences courses are taught by teachers who do not curve at all.

Well, I at least have relevant perspective as I took chemistry and biology at a community college and physics, o-chem, biochem, and genetics at a university. The answer really is that simple for general chemistry, and this is mainly because it is such a standardized subject.

Science course grades tend to have a roughly normal distribution, so if they aren't curved it's probably (though not necessarily) because the difficulty and/or performance of students do not warrant a curve.

 

[Aerus]

Not quite, answers like its harder and a stiffer curve really don't give me an answer at all. What makes it harder was the question, i'm trying to get something to gauge the difference.

Other poster, very helpful, but I'm sure it will be harder that is the reason I asked the question, do you have any examples of the level of depth you go into. Who knows we may go into equal depth.

And I agree the curve will be less forgiving, but some of our sciences courses are taught by teachers who do not curve at all.

This is my own opinion about this topic. Please note I use logic rather than straight anecdotal evidence.

The key to this is the caliber of the students. Whether the professors curve or not is not incredibly relevant.

Imagine if you're a teacher at a high school with a general student body that isn't that motivated to succeed or don't have the resources to succeed. Then compare that with a super expensive private school in a super rich neighborhood with students that have been pampered and tutored since childhood and were basically groomed for success.

The teacher isn't going to go at the same pace into the same depth and make their tests of same difficulty at both schools. They adjust to the student body. This concept sort of applies when comparing your usual CC's with a university. The student body just isn't the same.



Let's say a professor who teaches at a university, also teaches at an average CC. Do you think they will do everything EXACTLY the same at both institutions?

If they curve, then the answer is obvious. Taking the course at the CC will GENERALLY (though not always) be easier, since you're being compared to the student body there.

If they DON'T curve at either places, then it means their test is generally easy enough where not everyone fails. As long as you're the best of the crop, you won't fail. They still have to adjust their tests so that a certain amount of people pass. If they consistently fail everyone in the class each year, then I don't think that looks good for the school or the professor. So, you still see the trend where taking the same course at the CC will generally be easier. It's the student body, not the professor, that makes this distinction between a CC and a university.

I'm not the best at explaining my opinion on this, so please bear with me. If there was anything confusing about what I said, I'd be happy to explain it further.

 

[TangoDown]

This is my own opinion about this topic. Please note I use logic rather than straight anecdotal evidence.

The key to this is the caliber of the students. Whether the professors curve or not is not incredibly relevant.

Imagine if you're a teacher at a high school with a general student body that isn't that motivated to succeed or don't have the resources to succeed. Then compare that with a super expensive private school in a super rich neighborhood with students that have been pampered and tutored since childhood and were basically groomed for success.

The teacher isn't going to go at the same pace into the same depth and make their tests of same difficulty at both schools. They adjust to the student body. This concept sort of applies when comparing your usual CC's with a university. The student body just isn't the same.



Let's say a professor who teaches at a university, also teaches at an average CC. Do you think they will do everything EXACTLY the same at both institutions?

If they curve, then the answer is obvious. Taking the course at the CC will GENERALLY (though not always) be easier, since you're being compared to the student body there.

If they DON'T curve at either places, then it means their test is generally easy enough where not everyone fails. As long as you're the best of the crop, you won't fail. They still have to adjust their tests so that a certain amount of people pass. If they consistently fail everyone in the class each year, then I don't think that looks good for the school or the professor. So, you still see the trend where taking the same course at the CC will generally be easier. It's the student body, not the professor, that makes this distinction between a CC and a university.

I'm not the best at explaining my opinion on this, so please bear with me. If there was anything confusing about what I said, I'd be happy to explain it further.

The issue with your logic is that you compare a high school population of typical students to kids with the highest caliber of educational and economic privilege as an analogy for the difference between university and community college students. Most kids that attend your typical university are going to come out of a typical high school, and most kids in CC are coming out of a typical high school (though you'll typically see a larger percentage with GEDs when compared to Unis).

And you just painted the entire student body of community college as unmotivated to succeed. Now if a kid is in a General Chemistry or Organic Chemistry class at a CC, he is motivated to succeed. That doesn't mean he will, but testing into a General STEM class and then stepping foot into it displays a level of motivation.

 

[siffster]

Hi there OP,

I attended a CC for financial reasons and later transferred to a UC. From experience, I feel that the science classes I took at my CC covered way more and were much more intense, but that might have been because the classes were on a semester system, while most UC's go by the quarter system. Most of my professors at my CC did not curve because they didn't have to. The test questions were fairly straightforward and yet there were always people who bombed the exams. In the UC system, you only get like an hour to take a test. In a class of 400, the professors purposely make the tests harder so that there's competition between the students.

Look, the material doesn't change. Bio/chem/physics will stay the same wherever you go. It's in the hands of the professor to set the difficulty. I've had professors that do not curve, and professors that do curve at my current university. Same goes for my CC. Some may perceive CC to be easier because of the test difficulty, but keep in mind that CC's cover MUCH more material, and they have an integrated lab section(mine did at least) which also determines your grade.

Quarter system:10 weeks
Semester system: 17 weeks (think)

 

[Aerus]

The issue with your logic is that you compare a high school course to kids with the highest caliber of educational and economic privilege as an analogy for the difference between university and community college students. Most kids that attend your typical university are going to come out of a typical high school, and most kids in CC are coming out of a typical high school (though you'll typically see a larger percentage with GEDs when compared to Unis).

And you just painted the entire student body of community college as unmotivated to succeed. Now if a kid is in a General Chemistry or Organic Chemistry class at a CC, he is motivated to succeed. That doesn't mean he will, but testing into a General STEM class and then stepping foot into it displays a level of motivation.

Sorry, I might have made my post unclear. I was comparing students from a poorly funded high school in a not so great neighborhood with students from a rich, private high school. They're both high schools, so the comparison shouldn't be far off.

No, I'm not assuming everyone in a CC is unmotivated. There are definitely highly motivated and intelligent people at a CC. They might be there for various reasons. Money (which makes them really wise to go to a CC first), lack of resources to take core college preparatory classes, lack of an AP/IB classes, and many other issues.

However, you ALSO see other students mixed in there, including students who are unmotivated in school, students who didn't bother to apply to colleges, students who had bad grades and couldn't get into schools, adults who came to the US with very little English, and more. I'm not saying anyone in this group is stupid either, but they certainly lower the average "caliber" you need to reach in order to pass and even succeed in the class.

It's all relative. There are no extreme assumptions. Is it possible for your whole class in CC to be gifted, but economically troubled geniuses? Yes. Is it possible for your whole class in CC to be high school drop outs? Yes. On average, the level of achievement between your typical CC and university is different.

 

[DAPI]

The answer is the test is harder.

Whether this means the test is more in depth or has more breadth or w/e, the answer is the same.

Things that can make this harder can be as simple as not giving constants, like the molar gas constant (think pv=nRt) or making students use it in its atmospheric constant or Pascal's, or mmHg or w/e. Making students memorize all these values can add significant difficulty to the exam. Also, multiple choice vs short answer, how the question is asked, how many questions on the exam there are (time spent/question), patial credit, what kind of calculator vs no calculator.

A thousands things can make a test more difficult so for us to try to list them would be futile.

 

[487806]

I'm just going to throw it out there, though not exactly the same. Many students at my college took bio in HS using the same book we used in college. They got A's in HS bio, yet C's in college bio... Why? Because the tests are harder and the curve is stiffer. I would assume the same to be true (more often than not) when comparing a CC to a University.

👍 A very crucial point.

 

[Jas1360]

It's not actually harder or easier at a CC or University. I have been to more schools than I would like to admit but I think that's what makes my response count.

Class difficulty is dependent on the instructor, the class size, and each students learning style. Basically, the instructor has control of how easy or challenging they would like to make the course. Also, the quality of the teaching by the instructor makes a huge difference. I have noticed that many of the profs at research universities are not that interested in teaching large classes and they simply stand up and lecture as quickly as possible with no attempt to answer questions or receive feedback from students to gauge understanding. I have never met at teacher at a CC who was not interested in teaching. Not all of the CC profs were great teachers but they all wanted to help their students learn. Some of the best teachers were at the CC but I have also met a handful of great teachers at research universities too.

Class size has obvious benefits already mentioned.

Finally, learning styles makes people think a class was hard or easy depending on the teaching style and format that they experienced. I had a teacher who had a reputation of being terrible and difficult. I actually found his explanations to be very useful and I was able to do quite well in his class. So those who thought he was hard just had a learning style that did not work with his teaching style.

 

[Aerus]

It's not actually harder or easier at a CC or University. I have been to more schools than I would like to admit but I think that's what makes my response count.

Class difficulty is dependent on the instructor, the class size, and each students learning style. Basically, the instructor has control of how easy or challenging they would like to make the course. Also, the quality of the teaching by the instructor makes a huge difference. I have noticed that many of the profs at research universities are not that interested in teaching large classes and they simply stand up and lecture as quickly as possible with no attempt to answer questions or receive feedback from students to gauge understanding. I have never met at teacher at a CC who was not interested in teaching. Not all of the CC profs were great teachers but they all wanted to help their students learn. Some of the best teachers were at the CC but I have also met a handful of great teachers at research universities too.

Class size has obvious benefits already mentioned.

Finally, learning styles makes people think a class was hard or easy depending on the teaching style and format that they experienced. I had a teacher who had a reputation of being terrible and difficult. I actually found his explanations to be very useful and I was able to do quite well in his class. So those who thought he was hard just had a learning style that did not work with his teaching style.

This is very true, but I would like to point out that, while the professor has total freedom in how hard they make the class, if they execute their freedom too much at your average CC, the majority of the class can end up failing.

At your typical university, you, on average, will have a more competitive student body. That gives the professor more freedom to make the course however hard they want.

Thus, I believe that the student body at the institutions are what make the difficulty levels differ from each other. The professor is the one who sets the difficulty in the first place. But the difference is because of the student body.

 

[TangoDown]

Sorry, I might have made my post unclear. I was comparing students from a poorly funded high school in a not so great neighborhood with students from a rich, private high school. They're both high schools, so the comparison shouldn't be far off.

No, I'm not assuming everyone in a CC is unmotivated. There are definitely highly motivated and intelligent people at a CC. They might be there for various reasons. Money (which makes them really wise to go to a CC first), lack of resources to take core college preparatory classes, lack of an AP/IB classes, and many other issues.

However, you ALSO see other students mixed in there, including students who are unmotivated in school, students who didn't bother to apply to colleges, students who had bad grades and couldn't get into schools, adults who came to the US with very little English, and more. I'm not saying anyone in this group is stupid either, but they certainly lower the average "caliber" you need to reach in order to pass and even succeed in the class.

It's all relative. There are no extreme assumptions. Is it possible for your whole class in CC to be gifted, but economically troubled geniuses? Yes. Is it possible for your whole class in CC to be high school drop outs? Yes. On average, the level of achievement between your typical CC and university is different.

You think there aren't unmotivated people at your typical state university? We're not comparing Harvard to Skyline Jr College here...that's a different story, as to get into a school like Harvard, you NEED to be extraordinary motivated.

I agree that it's all relative, but until you can prove with quantifiable, relevant data that CCs lower the caliber of information in classes, then I'm not going to take your opinion as anything more than conjecture.

Remember that there are prerequisites for everything. Kids with very little English skill are not sitting in O-Chem because O-Chem requires General Chem, which requires either Intro to Chem or testing into General Chem, and that requires a baseline English score that varies depending on school.

And remember that professors have no qualms with dropping unmotivated people, and people that can't comprehend the material also have no qualms with dropping the class. That's why most of the STEM classes at my school get filled up for the first couple weeks and then half the class drops right at the deadline after they bomb the first exam. I had 75% of my English 1A class drop by the end of the semester. Was the class overwhelmingly challenging for me? No, I had a college prep high school education (and actually paid attention in my Eng classes lol). But people dropped because they didn't want to put in the work or lacked the necessary essay writing skills.

 

[SoulinNeed]

As someone who has attended both, I'm going to say nothing at all. What I mean by that is that the difficulty of the class depends on the Professor. Each school, University or not, will have hard and easy professors.

 

[thesauce]

The issue with your logic is that you compare a high school population of typical students to kids with the highest caliber of educational and economic privilege as an analogy for the difference between university and community college students. Most kids that attend your typical university are going to come out of a typical high school, and most kids in CC are coming out of a typical high school (though you'll typically see a larger percentage with GEDs when compared to Unis).

And you just painted the entire student body of community college as unmotivated to succeed. Now if a kid is in a General Chemistry or Organic Chemistry class at a CC, he is motivated to succeed. That doesn't mean he will, but testing into a General STEM class and then stepping foot into it displays a level of motivation.

I would say that his analogy is fair. In general, those who did well in high school go straight to a 4 year university. Those that didn't, end up in community college. Obviously this doesn't apply to all cases, but it's certainly a trend. Community colleges specifically tailor their advertising toward the late bloomer crowd for a reason.

 

[Jas1360]

As someone who has attended both, I'm going to say nothing at all. What I mean by that is that the difficulty of the class depends on the Professor. Each school, University or not, will have hard and easy professors.

Exactly

 

[Aerus]

You think there aren't unmotivated people at your typical state university? We're not comparing Harvard to Skyline Jr College here...that's a different story, as to get into a school like Harvard, you NEED to be extraordinary motivated.

I agree that it's all relative, but until you can prove with quantifiable, relevant data that CCs lower the caliber of information in classes, then I'm not going to take your opinion as anything more than conjecture.

Remember that there are prerequisites for everything. Kids with very little English skill are not sitting in O-Chem because O-Chem requires General Chem, which requires either Intro to Chem or testing into General Chem, and that requires a baseline English score that varies depending on school.

And remember that professors have no qualms with dropping unmotivated people, and people that can't comprehend the material also have no qualms with dropping the class. That's why most of the STEM classes at my school get filled up for the first couple weeks and then half the class drops right at the deadline after they bomb the first exam. I had 75% of my English 1A class drop by the end of the semester. Was the class overwhelmingly challenging for me? No, I had a college prep high school education (and actually paid attention in my Eng classes lol). But people dropped because they didn't want to put in the work or lacked the necessary essay writing skills.

There definitely are unmotivated people everywhere, even in the top Ivy leagues. While high school success is somewhat correlated with college success, it isn't perfect. Some people crack under the pressure of college and do miserably, even in a place like Harvard.

Again, you're not reading what I'm saying carefully. It's all RELATIVE. While there are unmotivated people everywhere, do you think that people at your state school, let's say UC Irvine in California, will have just as a high percent of "unmotivated" students as your average CC? I guess it's possible, but I highly doubt it.

Getting into a university already proves that they have SOME degree of motivation. This acts as sort of a barrier. Some people can slip through, but the percentage should be lower, on average, than your typical CC.

It's hard to quantify things like this, but why do you think Adcoms look down on taking all prereqs at a CC as opposed to your home university? They're not doing this for no apparent reason. If both classes at both places were equally difficult, then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

If there are requirements to enter classes in CC, there are requirements to enter classes at a university. What's the difference? The student body.

 

[TangoDown]

I would say that his analogy is fair. In general, those who did well in high school go straight to a 4 year university. Those that didn't, end up in community college. Obviously this doesn't apply to all cases, but it's certainly a trend. Community colleges specifically tailor their advertising toward the late bloomer crowd for a reason.

No, he compared rich kids groomed for success to unmotivated kids out of the ghetto as an analogy for university vs community college, and that makes absolutely no sense. But like he said, people go to CC for a VARIETY of reasons.

And in reality, it's an utter fallacy of logic to state, based on the notion that kids going into CC are unmotivated, that the classes are easier. Remember that most kids going into CC without necessary skills end up in a remedial class, where if they do well, they learn what is necessary to succeed in the next step.

That is why you don't see kids dropping out of high school at 15 with no science education in General Chem their Freshman year of CC. CCs have placement tests for a reason, and as previously stated, prerequisites and remedial classes for a reason.

 

[TangoDown]

There definitely are unmotivated people everywhere, even in the top Ivy leagues. While high school success is somewhat correlated with college success, it isn't perfect. Some people crack under the pressure of college and do miserably, even in a place like Harvard.

Again, you're not reading what I'm saying carefully. It's all RELATIVE. While there are unmotivated people everywhere, do you think that people at your state school, let's say UC Irvine in California, will have just as a high percent of "unmotivated" students as your average CC? I guess it's possible, but I highly doubt it.

Getting into a university already proves that they have SOME degree of motivation. This acts as sort of a barrier. Some people can slip through, but the percentage should be lower, on average, than your typical CC.

It's hard to quantify things like this, but why do you think Adcoms look down on taking all prereqs at a CC as opposed to your home university? They're not doing this for no apparent reason. If both classes at both places were equally difficult, then this wouldn't be an issue at all.

If there are requirements to enter classes in CC, there are requirements to enter classes at a university. What's the difference? The student body.

Plugging "UC Irvine" into my state school reference is unjustified. We have a CSU system, and we have many other public colleges in the state that don't require a HS GPA of 3.5 and a SAT score of 1900+ to get into.

So the notion you perpetuate is because students may end up going to a CC because they are ill prepared, THEREFORE the STEM classes they take will be dumbed down. But you're negating the fact that a severely ill prepared person will NOT be taking Organic Chemistry or General Bio or Calculus Based Physics their Freshman year of CC. Remedial courses exist for a reason.

 

[Aerus]

No, he compared rich kids groomed for success to unmotivated kids out of the ghetto as an analogy for university vs community college, and that makes absolutely no sense. But like he said, people go to CC for a VARIETY of reasons.

And in reality, it's an utter fallacy of logic to state, based on the notion that kids going into CC are unmotivated, that the classes are easier. Remember that most kids going into CC without necessary skills end up in a remedial class, where if they do well, they learn what is necessary to succeed in the next step.

That is why you don't see kids dropping out of high school at 15 with no science education in General Chem their Freshman year of CC. CCs have placement tests for a reason, and as previously stated, prerequisites and remedial classes for a reason.

You haven't read what I said, have you? You're still assuming I'm only looking at the extremes, when that's the exact opposite of what I'm doing.

If a university (with admission barriers) have unmotivated students, then it should make sense that a CC (with lower barriers) would have more unmotivated students or at least students of a lower achievement caliber.

What you're assuming is that students at both institutions are of the same caliber and that the admission barriers mean absolutely nothing.

 

[Jas1360]

People always use the curve argument but many schools do not use the standard bell curve anymore.

Many schools do not curve at all so x%=A and y%=B.

If schools used a real standard curve the difference would be much greater because the 50 percentile of every class would earn a C. So if you were surrounded by super smart kids and you were average you would be earning Cs. But at a community college you would be earning Bs or even As.

I have met plenty of teachers at CC who are trying to prepare their students for transferring to 4 year universities and they know that making the class too easy would only hurt their students. Instead, CCs offer many tutoring options to try and help those students with weak educational backgrounds so that they can catch up with the rest of their peers.

 

[Aerus]

Plugging "UC Irvine" into my state school reference is unjustified. We have a CSU system, and we have many other public colleges in the state that don't require a HS GPA of 3.5 and a SAT score of 1900+ to get into.

So the notion you perpetuate is because students may end up going to a CC because they are ill prepared, THEREFORE the STEM classes they take will be dumbed down. But you're negating the fact that a severely ill prepared person will NOT be taking Organic Chemistry or General Bio or Calculus Based Physics their Freshman year of CC. Remedial courses exist for a reason.

Alright, compare San Jose State University with any CC. SJSU still have some admission requirements that CC's generally don't have. It's still the same. While the gap may or may not be smaller, it's still a gap.

 

[TangoDown]

You haven't read what I said, have you? You're still assuming I'm only looking at the extremes, when that's the exact opposite of what I'm doing.

If a university (with admission barriers) have unmotivated students, then it should make sense that a CC (with lower barriers) would have more unmotivated students or at least students of a lower achievement caliber.

What you're assuming is that students at both institutions are of the same caliber and that the admission barriers mean absolutely nothing.

Where did I state that they are the same caliber at both institutions? I LITERALLY stated that kids that are ill prepared and thus attending a CC will NOT start out at the same course level as someone who is prepared would.

You continue to equivocate my argument.

 

[TangoDown]

You haven't read what I said, have you? You're still assuming I'm only looking at the extremes, when that's the exact opposite of what I'm doing.

If a university (with admission barriers) have unmotivated students, then it should make sense that a CC (with lower barriers) would have more unmotivated students or at least students of a lower achievement caliber.

What you're assuming is that students at both institutions are of the same caliber and that the admission barriers mean absolutely nothing.

Alright, compare San Jose State University with any CC. SJSU still have some admission requirements that CC's generally don't have. It's still the same. While the gap may or may not be smaller, it's still a gap.

And how is the admission requirement relevant to those who are, AGAIN, ill-prepared for the courses we are discussing and thus NOT taking those courses? I can walk into a CC with no high school education, and I am not going to be placed into any college level courses just on the basis of the placement test. You can be admitted to a CC easily, but you can't just walk into a General Chemistry class without displaying that you have the adequate base of knowledge to tackle said course.

 

[Aerus]

Where did I state that they are the same caliber at both institutions? I LITERALLY stated that kids that are ill prepared and thus attending a CC will NOT start out at the same course level as someone who is prepared would.

You continue to equivocate my argument.

Yes, but there are prereqs at just about all institutions for these courses. Who sets the caliber for what is considered a "satisfactory" pass to get into these courses? If a prereq is too high, then much fewer people will be able to get in.

If, to get into a CC Ochem class, you need to take Gen Chem at the CC, and if everything I've said has been true thus far up to here (since it seems you haven't said anything about it), then the CC Ochem class would still be easier to get into than your university Ochem class. Again, relative barriers makes a difference.

You haven't answered why Adcoms generally look down upon CC prereq courses as opposed to University prereq courses. I doubt this trend exists for fun.

 

[Koosalagoosagoo]

My gen chem II professor at my CC used Purdue test banks for our test and we had to take the acs, which was hella easy compared to her test...just a personal anecdote.

 

[JonnyL]

I've taken chem classes at both and i've found my cc classes to be harder. The exam difficultly was generally the same level but i didn't have a curve to save my ass in cc. Just my personal experience.

 

[TangoDown]

Yes, but there are prereqs at just about all institutions for these courses? Who sets the caliber for what is considered a "satisfactory" pass to get into these courses? If a prereq is too high, then much fewer people will be able to get in.

If, to get into a CC Ochem class, you need to take Gen Chem at the CC, and if everything I've said has been true thus far up to here (since it seems you haven't said anything about it), then the CC Ochem class would still be easier to get into than your university Ochem class. Again, relative barriers makes a difference.

You haven't answered why Adcoms generally look down upon CC prereq courses as opposed to University prereq courses. I doubt this trend exists for fun.

Most CCs have remedial courses. You can't get into General Chem without completing the survey course, testing into the course, or displaying proof of passing grade your high school course.

What level of knowledge is considered satisfactory to get into the general courses? That's relative to the college, which is (in the case of what is satisfactory, loosely) regulated by the state the college is in. It's the same as a university. What level of knowledge is considered satisfactory to take the placement test at SF State and test into General Chemistry as opposed to taking the placement test and testing into Gen Chem at Stanford? Does it vary? Probably.

And "Adcoms looking down on CCs" is again relative to the situation the applicant is in in terms of utilizing said CC prerequisites (courses taken to transfer, vs taken in an attempt to get an easier A, etc) and dependent on the med school in question. There is no significant quantifiable information out there that displays any disadvantage transfer applicants have within the application process (or while in Med School, for that matter). Only quantifiable information in terms of some schools not preferring them and rumors spread by pre-meds and advisers.

 

[Geebeejay]

I'm wondering if anyone who is taking pre med classes at a university could help me out here. What is it about undergrad Pre reqs (chem,bio,ect.) that make them harder than the same Community College course. You don't have to be a transfer student to answer this but that answer would probably be best.

I mean we generally use the same books, I even have some teachers here that taught sciences at universities. We have smaller class sizes and its easy for us to talk to our teacher before/after class even during class, but some universities have small classes to. So what is it, someone give me a breakdown that you find makes your Chem/Bio ect. more difficult than it needs to be or more difficult than a CC.



I'll be glad to hear your gripes/complaints or input about how your class is tougher than it should be or whatever have you, im just looking for something to compare my college to before I transfer to know what I may have been missing.

they're probably not much harder at all. But i would imagine that the professors at university are more reputable, and therefore "better", than those at the CC (less funding = less pay + inadequate research opportunities = less pull for top professors). Also, I bet it would be easier to find your way to the top of the curve at a CC.

 

[Aerus]

Most CCs have remedial courses. You can't get into General Chem without completing the survey course, testing into the course, or displaying proof of passing grade your high school course.

What level of knowledge is considered satisfactory to get into the general courses? That's relative to the college, which is regulated by the state the college is in. It's the same as a university. What level of knowledge is considered satisfactory to take the placement test at SF State and test into General Chemistry as opposed to taking the placement test and testing into Gen Chem at Stanford? Does it vary? Probably.

And "Adcoms looking down on CCs" is again relative to the situation the applicant is in in terms of utilizing said CC prerequisites (courses taken to transfer, vs taken in an attempt to get an easier A, etc) and dependent on the med school in question. There is no significant quantifiable information out there that displays any disadvantage transfer applicants have within the application process (or while in Med School, for that matter). Only quantifiable information in terms of some schools not preferring them and rumors spread by pre-meds and advisers.

The bolded is all I'm saying. Barriers which determine the crop of students will often affect the difficulty of the barriers of getting into the classes. That, in turn, will affect how hard a professor can make a course.

Even if we completely disregard non English speakers and ill prepared students and just look at motivation level as your "caliber level", admission barriers will probably still affect the difficulty.

This might be a stretch of an analogy, but it might illustrate what I'm saying in a better way. Let's compare Harvard Medical School with Drexel School of Medicine.

BOTH have incredibly smart students (otherwise they wouldn't be there). Which school is harder to be at the top of the class at? More than likely, it's Harvard. Again, I'm not make the extreme assumption that Harvard is 100% harder than Drexel to be top of your class, but since their admission barriers differ, you will generally see a difference in difficulty to stay on top.

This analogy differs from my previous one in that students at both schools, while prepared for the material, might not be of the same caliber.

Anyways, there is no quantifiable proof that CC courses are easier than courses at your typical (or not so typical) University. Then again, there is no quantifiable proof that CC courses are of the same difficulty as any university.

 

[TangoDown]

they're probably not much harder at all. But i would imagine that the professors at university are more reputable, and therefore "better", than those at the CC. Also, I bet it would be easier to find your way to the top of the curve at a CC.

Why would someone with more research experience and publications be better? That also makes no sense. It is true that a professor will make or break a course, but if noble prize-winning professor walks into my lecture hall and teaches like rock, I'm not going to learn anything.

 

[circulus vitios]

An arrogant ivory-tower professor with something to prove.

 

[TangoDown]

The bolded is all I'm saying. Barriers which determine the crop of students will often affect the difficulty of the barriers of getting into the classes. That, in turn, will affect how hard a professor can make a course.

Even if we completely disregard non English speakers and ill prepared students and just look at motivation level as your "caliber level", admission barriers will probably still affect the difficulty.

This might be a stretch of an analogy, but it might illustrate what I'm saying in a better way. Let's compare Harvard Medical School with Drexel School of Medicine.

BOTH have incredibly smart students (otherwise they wouldn't be there). Which school is easier to be at the top of the class at? More than likely, it's Harvard. Again, I'm not make the extreme assumption that Harvard is 100% harder than Drexel to be top of your class, but since their admission barriers differ, you will generally see a difference in difficulty to stay on top.

This analogy differs from my previous one in that students at both schools, while prepared for the material, might not be of the same caliber.

Anyways, there is no quantifiable proof that CC courses are easier than courses at your typical (or not so typical) University. Then again, there is no quantifiable proof that CC courses are of the same difficulty as any university.

My whole argument is that the barrier of entry becomes increasingly irrelevant for a CC student as he or she takes and does well in the remedial courses presented to him or her. And that is why good CCs offer articulation agreements to good universities - because people can come out of those community colleges prepared to do well. Hell, you can automatically transfer to any UC with a 3.2 GPA and start taking Upper Division bio courses from my CC. That agreement proves that the people in the UC system feel people are adequately prepared to succeed.

 

[Jas1360]

My whole argument is that the barrier of entry becomes increasingly irrelevant for a CC student as he or she takes and does well in the remedial courses presented to him or her. And that is why good CCs offer articulation agreements to good universities - because people can come out of those community colleges prepared to do well. Hell, you can automatically transfer to any UC with a 3.2 GPA and start taking Upper Division bio courses from my CC. That agreement proves that the people in the UC system feel people are adequately prepared to succeed.

Good point, my University offers big scholarships to students who transfer from the CC with a certain GPA.

 

[Drogo]

Just from my experience. I just finished Gen Chem. II last semester (at CC). While taking it I studied a little with a gal also taking Gen. Chem II at a university.

We learned the exact same material, but the tests were all approached very differently. My prof. gave my class 12 exams.

My friend only had 3 monster exams (covering 3-5 chapters each). At the uni the class avg for the first exam among all the gen chem II courses (mind you, probably hundreds of students) was 53%.

My class had averages ranging from 68-88% on these 12 exams.

We only got tested on one chapter per exam versus 3-5 chapters per exam for her class.

So definitely she had a way tougher time when it came to exams. Did we both learn the same material? Yes. Were her exams a lot more rigorous? Yes.

Hopefully this sheds some light on the major differences.

Also as a side note, I know one university starts off their Gen Chem 1 course 5 chapters in versus my CC where they start on chapter 1 of the book.

 

[Aerus]

My whole argument is that the barrier of entry becomes increasingly irrelevant for a CC student as he or she takes and does well in the remedial courses presented to him or her. And that is why good CCs offer articulation agreements to good universities - because people can come out of those community colleges prepared to do well. Hell, you can automatically transfer to any UC with a 3.2 GPA and start taking Upper Division bio courses from my CC. That agreement proves that the people in the UC system feel people are adequately prepared to succeed.

Well, yes. One would assume that a person who has taken some CC classes would be decently prepared, as opposed to a student straight out of high school.

Using the UC's transfer policy doesn't work well, since as we both agree, there are smart intelligent people at CC's too. What we're talking about (in this thread) are the classes at a CC (specifically a prereq like Chemistry) in general. Once the CC student leaves the CC and transfers to a 4 year (like a UC), they would have already had some experience with college level material (as opposed to the people who came straight from high school).

I also just realized what you said in the previous post:

And "Adcoms looking down on CCs" is again relative to the situation the applicant is in in terms of utilizing said CC prerequisites (courses taken to transfer, vs taken in an attempt to get an easier A, etc) and dependent on the med school in question.

You've said so yourself. Some take courses to transfer, some take it for an easier A.

 

[TangoDown]

Well, yes. One would assume that a person who has taken some CC classes would be decently prepared, as opposed to a student straight out of high school.

Using the UC's transfer policy doesn't work well, since as we both agree, there are smart intelligent people at CC's too. What we're talking about (in this thread) are the classes at a CC (specifically a prereq like Chemistry) in general. Once the CC student leaves the CC and transfers to a 4 year (like a UC), they would have already had some experience with college level material (as opposed to the people who came straight from high school).

I also just realized what you said in the previous post:



You've said so yourself. Some take courses to transfer, some take it for an easier A.

What I meant was that med schools consider it an easier A, as opposed to a transfer student taking CC courses due to circumstance.

And yes, if a student takes the remedial courses at CC, he will be prepared for the college level course. If the remedial course is adequate, then the notion that CC students house unprepared students and hence the general courses are easier goes out the window.

Point is, you ain't getting into General Chem without the adequate baseline of knowledge, regardless of if you got it in HS or the CC. Hence. the CC course doesn't have to be dumbed down.

 

[Aerus]

What I meant was that med schools consider it an easier A, as opposed to a transfer student taking CC courses due to circumstance.

And yes, if a student takes the remedial courses at CC, he will be prepared for the college level course. If the remedial course is adequate, then the notion that CC students house unprepared students and hence the general courses are easier goes out the window.

Point is, you ain't getting into General Chem without the adequate baseline of knowledge, regardless of if you got it in HS or the CC. Hence. the CC course doesn't have to be dumbed down.

Ah, thanks for clarifying what you said. I should assume that you wouldn't just plot holes in your post like that. 😛

Let me try to explain it this way then.

Standard for adequate baseline of knowledge at CC = Standard for adequate baseline of knowledge at University?

I consider this "adequate baseline of knowledge" as another grade. If I was teaching a class with students of a lower average caliber, I wouldn't want to grade them exactly the same as the way I graded another class with students of a higher average caliber.

 

[Jas1360]

I am curious to know how many of you that are here arguing that CC classes are easier have taken a single CC course. How many of you have taken the same class at both the CC and the university.

Because of my unusual background I can say I have taken certain courses at both a University and a CC. I graduated HS and has a good SAT and ACT and was accepted into the only two Universities I applied to, both private schools. So I took at least one semester of Chemistry and biology at the university first and did very well. Then I had an educational gap and when I decided to return to school I had recently moved to the state so I choose the CC for tuition reasons until I was going to gain my in state status. At the CC I choose to retake biology and chemistry I because it had been such a long gap and I wasn't sure if I remembered enough to jump into second semester chem or bio. I did well the second time around too, as expected, considering I had taken the classes before I should have done well. I also took other classes at the CC. I can tell you that the difficulty of every class I have ever taken is based on the three factors I already mentioned.

1. The instructor
2. The class size
3. Individual learning styles

If grades were based on a standard curve and if all students throughout the nation took the exact same exam it would always be easier to earn a better grade at a school with less competitive students. This is not the case and it makes fair comparison impossible.

Even in my University, there were two professors teaching O Chem II the semester I took it. These professors were smart and they compared their exams to each other after our first exam. Our class did better on the exam than the other class even though both professors agreed the other instructor had given an easier exam.

Why would that happen? Both classes had about 200 students and they had all taken organic I and they had all been in the university setting.

Maybe my professor was a better teacher so even though hi test was harder, then students were better prepared. Maybe my class just happened to have more above average students than the other class. Or maybe the learning style of the students in the other class did not match the teaching style of the professor so they were not able to grasp the concepts and apply them.

 

[amad01]

You'll never get an answer to this question. The only data you can really compare is school X vs school Y SAT scores for incoming freshman. Other than that, it would be impossible to compare student X vs student Y. Factors include classes taken, major, course loads, professors, tests, assignments, curves, other students, extra credit, grading policies, etc.

This is why I feel it is unfair to judge a CC student vs any other student on where they went to school. This is why the MCAT was created and it is the great equalizer. So when someone tells you University Chemistry is harder than CC, just shake it off cuz you'll never really know unless you take the same class at each school... but then you'd have to take it with each professor because every professor will have different difficulty.....

 

[Aerus]

I am curious to know how many of you that are hear arguing that CC classes are easier have taken a single CC course. How many of you have taken the same class at both the CC and the university.

Because of my unusual background I can say I have taken certain courses at both a University and a CC. I graduated HS and has a good SAT and ACT and was accepted into the only two Universities I applied to, both private schools. So I took at least one semester of Chemistry and biology at the university first and did very well. Then I had an educational gap and when I decided to return to school I had recently moved to the state so I choose the CC for tuition reasons until I was going to gain my in state status. At the CC I choose to retake biology and chemistry I because it had been such a long gap and I wasn't sure if I remembered enough to jump into second semester chem or bio. I did well the second time around too, as expected, considering I had taken the classes before I should have done well. I also took other classes at the CC. I can tell you that the difficulty of every class I have ever taken is based on the three factors I already mentioned.

1. The instructor
2. The class size
3. Individual learning styles

If grades were based on a standard curve and if all students throughout the nation took the exact same exam it would always be easier to earn a better grade at a school with less competitive students. This is not the case and it makes fair comparison impossible.

Even in my University, there were two professors teaching O Chem II the semester I took it. These professors were smart and they compared their exams to each other after our first exam. Our class did better on the exam than the other class even though both professors agreed the other instructor had given an easier exam.

Why would that happen? Both classes had about 200 students and they had all taken organic I and they had all been in the university setting.

Maybe my professor was a better teacher so even though hi test was harder, then students were better prepared. Maybe my class just happened to have more above average students than the other class. Or maybe the learning style of the students in the other class did not match the teaching style of the professor so they were not able to grasp the concepts and apply them.

You make very great points, but as TangoDown said, I'm going to try not to use anecdotes as part of my reasoning. This is just a logic showdown. There are anecdotes (as seen in this thread alone) about classes at universities being easier or harder for a variety of uncontrolled reasons. It's best to stick with facts that can be generally applied to all institutions of that category.

In reality, nobody can really ever prove if taking a class at a CC is easier than taking a class at a more reputable University, since these things must consider way too many factors. There are also way too many extraneous factors that do not apply to every institution, so statistical comparisons and quantifiable data is, I would think, impossible to obtain.

This topic is more about seeing which logic prevails. In reality, we may never truly know.