Are Transfers Disadvantaged?

[Banstaraí]

I saw a casual remark in a CHE fora that gave me pause a few months back and I've been considering for a while. A professor noted that she had to take a much more difficult route as she had transferred during her undergraduate. Her grades were stellar at University B, but at University A where she spent only one semester, they were so-so and when she asked about her rejection from a program it was tied to not only the grades at University A, but the fact that she transferred.

This worries me quite a bit as I've followed a similar path. I absolutely loathed my first school and left after one semester, with a 2.93 GPA. My second school wasn't ideal either, but it was a quick fix; over 3 semesters I kept up a 3.965. Now I'm where I originally wanted to be, W&M, but it is my third school...

Has anyone else, as an undergraduate transfer, felt any sort of bias in PhD admissions? Or at this point do you think its simply become an accepted part of "college culture" given that roughly 1/3 of all undergraduates transfer at least once?

[emmm]

It seems that it might be harder to form the relationships needed for great LORs if you are not at any one school for very long. Also, it might affect your ability to take part in a long-term research experience. It might also indicate that you are never satisfied where you are and prefer moving on rather than dealing with whatever difficulties that arise where you are. None of these might apply to you, but they are perhaps issues you might need to address, so that they are not assumed to apply to you.

[Gneiss1]

I didn't find any sort of bias as a transfer. I'm not saying there isn't any, but I certainly didn't notice any. I had got in to two universities with funding and received two rejects (one to a school that I knew was probably out of my reach). Also, to two of the places I applied they didn't even require a transcript from any colleges you attended for 12 credit hours or less. I'm not sure how many credits you took at your university A but its possible you wont have to even disclose that information.

I know a lot of people that did two years of community college for their general studies then transferred to a "real college" to finish the other two. I realize that isn't quite the same as transferring between universities, but it is a transfer still. I don't think you will see too much bias assuming the rest of your application is strong.

Good luck:)

[TakeruK]

I think you might not be so disadvantaged because it sounds like you transferred in your first year and at the end of your second year. As far as I know, most graduate programs really only care about your 3rd and 4th years, and those were at the same place. I know in Canada it's really common for students to attend a "college" (usually a non-degree granting school) for their first two years (easier admission, cheaper tuition) and then transfer and do 2-3 years at a "university" and get their degree. By the time they graduate, any differences from their first two years compared to a student that didn't transfer are "washed out", so to speak, from the more important 3rd and 4th years! I don't know how it works in the US exactly (I know that "college" and "university" basically mean the same thing for you guys!) but I'm assuming people do that kind of thing too?

[Edit: Gneiss posted while I was typing this and I guess it's "community college" vs "[real] college" for you guys! Fun fact: in Canada, a community college usually has vocational stuff and its courses are usually not transferable to a degree program!]

In addition, a lot of people end up doing research in their 3rd summer. Transferring could make it harder because that only gives you 1 year (your 3rd year) to find something for that summer while also being brand new to the school! But if you do end up getting research, then I think you can count it as "overcoming" this aspect of the disadvantage. Maybe by staying an extra year in undergrad to get more courses that you may have missed when catching up on transfer credits, and getting more research done could also help overcome any possible disadvantages.

Edited June 3, 2012 by TakeruK

[Banstaraí]

My first school I completed 15 credits at; my second I did 52, and actually took on the senior research thesis (as a sophomore) there, as my AP credit put me so far ahead in the department. I presented it at our chapter's Phi Alpha Theta symposium. At W&M because many of my credits didn't transfer (taking 300/400 level history classes is the culprit there) I actually have to do 3 years here (not complaining at all! Love this school), so it sounds like I'm on track, which is a relief. Should all my LORs come from W&M or should I attempt to get one from a prof at my second school? I did have one professor there for three semesters straight (actually my thesis advisor too), and he is in the subfield I'm interested in. I don't forsee having problems with getting all three from W&M, but I was wondering if I should attempt to cover all bases in terms of my transferring with one of my LORs, or just leave it for the personal statement?

[emmm]

Yes, you actually do sound quite well positioned -- good luck :-)

[TakeruK]

Usually classes above 2nd year don't transfer because in the end you are going to get a degree from W&M so W&M wants you to take their senior courses, which is what matters! So, going with that theme, your application will be considered primarily as a "W&M undergrad" so there is no reason to get LORs from your 1st and 2nd schools if they are just going to say that you took courses there. However, since you did some research work at school#2, if you think your advisor there will have good things to say, then ask him/her for one. It would be the same as if you did a summer research project at some other school during your undergrad.

Research LORs are better than LORs from profs who only taught you. So if you have 3 research based LORs from W&M then get your thesis course advisor to write an LOR for you about your research with them. If you do have 3 research LORs from W&M then you have to choose between subject relevance (you mention school #2advisor was in your subfield) and time relevance (your research ability are probably better at W&M?). But even if you have to make this choice, I don't think you can really lose, since having 4 research projects completed in your undergrad is a great thing!

[rockandroll]

I started out at a music conservatory, taking very few classes in any other subject. I spent five semesters there and had a 3.65 GPA. I then transferred to a large state school and ended up studying psychology and another related subject. When I applied to grad school, I had a 3.8 overall GPA and 4.0 in my majors. I finished this degree in just two years, so I was worried that I wouldn't have enough experience under my belt, or that they would think that I was too fickle and therefore a risky investment. Because of that worry, and the fact that I hadn't yet figured out my specific research interests, I applied to only master's programs. In the end, I was accepted to five out of seven with large scholarships at all of the programs that offer funding to master's students, and was told by two professors that I would have totally been qualified for Ph.D. programs had I applied. I was also asked a million questions from each professor who I spoke with at each program about my former music career and what it was like to switch. It seems that it ended up serving as something to set me apart from the other applicants, and I suspect that the pace at which I finished my degree and the grades that I got after transferring (as well as the fact that I focused my personal statement on this very subject) vouched for my seriousness in this new field.

I feel like if you address what you perceive as a weakness or a questionable spot in your application- WITHOUT making excuses, and in a way that creates a narrative out of it and highlights your strengths- it doesn't have to hurt you. You don't want to bring up every weakness in case they don't perceive it as such, in which case you would be calling attention to something unnecessarily- but it's better to address something and own it as a part of your personal history than to make it seem like you're covering something up because you know it's questionable.