I believe that admission to elite schools were much more meritocratic 20 years ago versus today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grew up in the NYC suburbs. I'm in my 40s, so was applying to colleges in the early 90s. We went to SAT prep class. I was also had what was called a "gifted & talented coach" who would probably be seen as a private college advisor in today's market. We all applied to 6-10 schools, except for the handful that applied for the state colleges and they applied to 3-4. We were stressed as hell. We were fixated on the elite colleges. Some of the parents were working every angle during the admissions process the way some to today.

The difference: no one talked about this with random people back then. There was no place where you'd be telling strangers about this stuff. My friends were going to SAT classes, too, but it's not like people outside our wealthy enclave were doing it. We went to class and saw the kids from our school and the handful of others in the area like it (wealthy, white).

You all perceive that it was "more fair" back then, but it's because you just didn't know that the same stuff was going on. Or maybe you did know, but you were in denial about it being more than just senators and celebrities taking part.

I applied in the early 2000s and this is my perception too. And I say this as a regular MC kid! I think the intensity was kept in certain pockets - specific schools, specific high-performing kids at those schools - but it was still there. I defintely recall (wealthy, white) kids saying they got screwed by the admissions process because they didn't get into Princeton or Stanford. The sense of entitlement definitely was a thing then too.

I read College Confidential a lot back in the day and let me tell you, the stress was palpable. Now with the further democratization of information, more kids are applying, the schools aren't getting bigger, and the frenzy is at a fever-pitch. My children are in the nanny/preschool years and I truly hope the bubble bursts by then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m afraid OP is right. I went to a top (at the time, the top) SLAC from a public HS in a small city on almost a full ride need based scholarship. I remember my dad saying essentially that schools like that were for rich WASPs not for people like us and that they weren’t going to let me in. I think it was my outstanding SATs that caught their eye. With test optional and the dumbing down of SAT scores, I just think kids like that have no chance now.

You don’t understand that your story proves the opposite. Parents like yours told kids like you not to apply, so they didn’t. Today kids have more access to information than just their parents and guidance counselors (my guidance counselor discouraged me from applying to anything but state flagship). While you defied the guidance of your parents, most kids didn’t. Now they know more.

[Anonymous]

But the admissions officers know far less. The emphasis on raising the number of apps has killed the analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m afraid OP is right. I went to a top (at the time, the top) SLAC from a public HS in a small city on almost a full ride need based scholarship. I remember my dad saying essentially that schools like that were for rich WASPs not for people like us and that they weren’t going to let me in. I think it was my outstanding SATs that caught their eye. With test optional and the dumbing down of SAT scores, I just think kids like that have no chance now.

You don’t understand that your story proves the opposite. Parents like yours told kids like you not to apply, so they didn’t. Today kids have more access to information than just their parents and guidance counselors (my guidance counselor discouraged me from applying to anything but state flagship). While you defied the guidance of your parents, most kids didn’t. Now they know more.

+1

Also, test optional now expands opportunities for today's kids who probably wouldn't have applied in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the admissions officers know far less. The emphasis on raising the number of apps has killed the analysis

Also the emphasis on protecting yield and rejecting students who are clearly viewing the school as a safety.

I would have been heartbroken if Brown rejected me and I no longer had a safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Specifically, I believe that the most meritocratic conditions were in place from approximately 1985 to 2005. By then, colleges had stopped discriminating based on race, gender and religion. Compared to today, the SAT was much more difficult; SAT achievement tests/SAT II’s; grade inflation was less prevalent (teachers, especially in English classes, were tougher for sure); tuition was lower across the board, leading to less of a bimodal economic distribution on campus that we see today; and apps were done on paper, so no “shotgunning.”

Not sure I agree. It is a lot harder now. There are many more "qualified" applicants for the same number of seats. As such, having a certain GPA, SAT and EC's gets you a lottery ticket, but from there, it is a crap shoot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

You are conflating smarter with higher achieving.

This^^^

Not sure it's always better to be taking 10+ AP courses in HS.

I was tops in my class, 1400 SAT/4.0 UW in the 80s. I took 2 AP courses as that is all my HS offered (English in 12th and APUSH). There were not AP science courses available. 400+ in my graduating class and only 13 of us made it to Calculus in HS (12th grade)--not AP calc. Yet somehow we all went on to be successful adults, but with way less stress and mental health issues. I suspect that's partly due to us being allowed to be HSers, not college students at age 15.
I attended a T10 university and graduated with a 3.9 GPA with a double major that required me to take overload almost every semester in my 5 years in 2 difficult majors/time consuming majors.

So despite higher achievement, which is the only tangible evidence you have , you’re comfortable calling them dumber. Ok.

I have tangible evidence every day at work that the current undergraduate population is _less_prepared_. I don't learn anything about the HS stats even of the students who are majors in my program. I don't hear about their GPAs or their APs, and every year I have to tell them to take their HS extracurriculars off their resumes. All I know is that they cannot do a whole basket of things as well as students could 20 years ago: absorb written material, identify important concepts, and redeploy them in arguments; memorize key details that are too fundamental and important to be left aside for notes or Google; plan ahead for complex or long-term projects; strike out on their own to find potentially appropriate research materials; write in an organized and compelling way, with minimal errors; and assume with humility and maturity the consequences of their own choices. This is not just a pandemic thing, and those who think high stats are a sign of great college preparation might want to make sure that their students are ready in these other ways, too. Because I can't see your SAT score: all I know is that I have to show you how to mine your textbook properly for high-priority information or constantly tell you to provide evidence in your papers. Yes, I'm paid to do that, but you'd get much more out of our time together (and your tuition dollars) if you could already do that and I could teach you how to participate in the wider world of our discipline.

--College prof

This is interesting, because last year several “profs” on this board claimed they could see all of that (SAT, GPA, etc. — they used it to justify some argument). Regardless, I think your viewpoint is the general trend across the country; however, I do believe in this region, this alleged dumbing down is not the case. Maybe I’m biased because we live in a good school district, but my kids, and their friends are waaaay more intelligent and capable that I ever was at their age. They are better writers, they get conceptual math, they know their science and history, they can make valid arguments, etc.

“they get conceptual math”
and now we know everything we need to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you OP.
-- GenX grad of a non-selective state flagship

Yep.

I mean when you have 16 area high schools hiding merit scholar awards from recipients and their parents in the name of 'equity', something is very, very wrong with our system.

We are taking merit COMPLETELY out of the equation.

Fairfax county poured in insane amount of $ into their 'equity' department that is in charge of making sure everyone meets at the lowest common denominator. APS wouldn't teach any new material during Covid in spring of 2020 because it wasn't fair that some students didn't have the same resources. So, instead or working with those families, they decided the entire school population should be held back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

You are conflating smarter with higher achieving.

This^^^

Not sure it's always better to be taking 10+ AP courses in HS.

I was tops in my class, 1400 SAT/4.0 UW in the 80s. I took 2 AP courses as that is all my HS offered (English in 12th and APUSH). There were not AP science courses available. 400+ in my graduating class and only 13 of us made it to Calculus in HS (12th grade)--not AP calc. Yet somehow we all went on to be successful adults, but with way less stress and mental health issues. I suspect that's partly due to us being allowed to be HSers, not college students at age 15.
I attended a T10 university and graduated with a 3.9 GPA with a double major that required me to take overload almost every semester in my 5 years in 2 difficult majors/time consuming majors.

So despite higher achievement, which is the only tangible evidence you have , you’re comfortable calling them dumber. Ok.

I have tangible evidence every day at work that the current undergraduate population is _less_prepared_. I don't learn anything about the HS stats even of the students who are majors in my program. I don't hear about their GPAs or their APs, and every year I have to tell them to take their HS extracurriculars off their resumes. All I know is that they cannot do a whole basket of things as well as students could 20 years ago: absorb written material, identify important concepts, and redeploy them in arguments; memorize key details that are too fundamental and important to be left aside for notes or Google; plan ahead for complex or long-term projects; strike out on their own to find potentially appropriate research materials; write in an organized and compelling way, with minimal errors; and assume with humility and maturity the consequences of their own choices. This is not just a pandemic thing, and those who think high stats are a sign of great college preparation might want to make sure that their students are ready in these other ways, too. Because I can't see your SAT score: all I know is that I have to show you how to mine your textbook properly for high-priority information or constantly tell you to provide evidence in your papers. Yes, I'm paid to do that, but you'd get much more out of our time together (and your tuition dollars) if you could already do that and I could teach you how to participate in the wider world of our discipline.

--College prof

+100

We pulled our kids out of public and put them in a Jesuit private high school that still teaches those hard skills. Public, even at one of the best systems in the country, was a friggin' joke. My kids were doing nothing in advanced courses and receiving straight As.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

You are conflating smarter with higher achieving.

This^^^

Not sure it's always better to be taking 10+ AP courses in HS.

I was tops in my class, 1400 SAT/4.0 UW in the 80s. I took 2 AP courses as that is all my HS offered (English in 12th and APUSH). There were not AP science courses available. 400+ in my graduating class and only 13 of us made it to Calculus in HS (12th grade)--not AP calc. Yet somehow we all went on to be successful adults, but with way less stress and mental health issues. I suspect that's partly due to us being allowed to be HSers, not college students at age 15.
I attended a T10 university and graduated with a 3.9 GPA with a double major that required me to take overload almost every semester in my 5 years in 2 difficult majors/time consuming majors.

So despite higher achievement, which is the only tangible evidence you have , you’re comfortable calling them dumber. Ok.

I have tangible evidence every day at work that the current undergraduate population is _less_prepared_. I don't learn anything about the HS stats even of the students who are majors in my program. I don't hear about their GPAs or their APs, and every year I have to tell them to take their HS extracurriculars off their resumes. All I know is that they cannot do a whole basket of things as well as students could 20 years ago: absorb written material, identify important concepts, and redeploy them in arguments; memorize key details that are too fundamental and important to be left aside for notes or Google; plan ahead for complex or long-term projects; strike out on their own to find potentially appropriate research materials; write in an organized and compelling way, with minimal errors; and assume with humility and maturity the consequences of their own choices. This is not just a pandemic thing, and those who think high stats are a sign of great college preparation might want to make sure that their students are ready in these other ways, too. Because I can't see your SAT score: all I know is that I have to show you how to mine your textbook properly for high-priority information or constantly tell you to provide evidence in your papers. Yes, I'm paid to do that, but you'd get much more out of our time together (and your tuition dollars) if you could already do that and I could teach you how to participate in the wider world of our discipline.

--College prof

Not a college prof, but I'm seeing this. How does a kid learn this when the school hasn't taught it? Is it time to call a tutor?

And this, generally speaking, is why parents are choosing private schools over public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget international recruitment for athletics.

This was happening in soccer in the 70-80s. All of my youth soccer coaches were from Holland, England and Germany---came on a full-ride to play at US colleges when they tapped out of the Academy system at 18 and wouldn't be able to make their National team/go pro over there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you OP.
-- GenX grad of a non-selective state flagship

Yep.

I mean when you have 16 area high schools hiding merit scholar awards from recipients and their parents in the name of 'equity', something is very, very wrong with our system.

We are taking merit COMPLETELY out of the equation.

Fairfax county poured in insane amount of $ into their 'equity' department that is in charge of making sure everyone meets at the lowest common denominator. APS wouldn't teach any new material during Covid in spring of 2020 because it wasn't fair that some students didn't have the same resources. So, instead or working with those families, they decided the entire school population should be held back.

+1 grade inflation too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the admissions officers know far less. The emphasis on raising the number of apps has killed the analysis

You have no evidence this is true. None.

The indisputable fact is the elites are still able to pick top students with a high likelihood of success there, and they always will be able to.

Here is another fact that is ignored: the hard part of elite admissions is choosing who to DENY, because there are many, many more qualified candidates than spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the admissions officers know far less. The emphasis on raising the number of apps has killed the analysis

You have no evidence this is true. None.

The indisputable fact is the elites are still able to pick top students with a high likelihood of success there, and they always will be able to.

Here is another fact that is ignored: the hard part of elite admissions is choosing who to DENY, because there are many, many more qualified candidates than spots.

You have missed the point completely. They aren't really more qualified when we have dumbed down standardized testing, as well as not requiring it and put in serious grade inflation and instigated teach to the test with little emphasis on the skills the professor talks about.

Now we have 200 Valedictorians in my kids senior class. Yeah, kids aren't geniuses compared to 20 years ago. Mine have a 4.6gpa with time to play 2 sports per season and have a part-time job, no struggle. Doubtful they could have done that back in the day at my high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the admissions officers know far less. The emphasis on raising the number of apps has killed the analysis

You have no evidence this is true. None.

The indisputable fact is the elites are still able to pick top students with a high likelihood of success there, and they always will be able to.

Here is another fact that is ignored: the hard part of elite admissions is choosing who to DENY, because there are many, many more qualified candidates than spots.

You have missed the point completely. They aren't really more qualified when we have dumbed down standardized testing, as well as not requiring it and put in serious grade inflation and instigated teach to the test with little emphasis on the skills the professor talks about.

Now we have 200 Valedictorians in my kids senior class. Yeah, kids aren't geniuses compared to 20 years ago. Mine have a 4.6gpa with time to play 2 sports per season and have a part-time job, no struggle. Doubtful they could have done that back in the day at my high schools.

I did it at Whitman 25 years ago, no 4.6, but near the top of my class. There were always kids who could pull that off. I think the huge difference is that now top schools are both need blind and full need met without loans. That valedictorian/class president/year book educator/4 year multi sport starter who would have gone to their state flagship 20 years ago for financial reasons is now applying to the same elite schools that similar kids at NCS or Sidwell are because those schools are actually more affordable that the state flagship