the Atlantic: The Elite College Students Who Can't Read Books

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet so many studnets who actually are reading these dense books in high school, and understanding them, and writing papers about them, and translating "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" from Latin into English, are not getting into these colleges because they don't have a 4.6 GPA.

I think college ADs are asleep on the job.

Oh for sure. Many of them are barely out of college themselves and looking for quirky interesting applicants, not necessarily truthful ones.

Or The reality is the kids that are reading 50 books a year are not their best performing alum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish you guys could see the students in my college classes that I teach. They lack the ability to take notes. They don’t read the textbook. They panic before a test and want a study guide defining exactly what is on the test. They do not want to study any information more than what is on the test. They will ask you questions the morning of the exam. They ask for extra credit. The quality of the student skill set has plummeted in the last 20 years. They are used to fill-in-the-blank guided notes from middle and high school. They are used to re-takes. And, they never see textbooks. It’s easy to ignore the soft copy textbook—why read that? —signed a professor.

+1000 (from another professor)

Whose fault is that? My child is a senior. DC has has, maybe, 6 required books over middle and HS. They don't teach note taking, typing, computer skills as part of the basic education. They are given study guides. They are given extra credit, retakes, etc. They don't use textbooks. This is what they are used to and what they expect.

This is not all on the kids.

Nope. It's on schools and parents.

Actually, I think we can blame the passage of No Child Left Behind and teaching to the test that resulted from it.

+1

People love to blame parents for everything but the truth is 99% of parents are sheep who just do what they are told or what other parents are doing. The population of parents is constantly shifting because kids are born and then become adults so the parents you want to blame are never even the same set of parents. If you want to blame individual parents for how their individual kid turned out go ahead. But blaming major trends in education and student behavior or ability on parents makes no sense. There are good parents and bad ones. Involved and checked out. Same as it ever was.

The change is inside the schools and the systems and that's heavily influenced by a funding program that ties school funding directly to performance on (highly imperfect and gameable) standardized tests. There are good things about NCLB but there are a lot of negative externalities and the decreased focused on holistic learning (that used to require kids to read entire books and then write essays on them in order to reach college-level literacy -- that used to be like 90% of the high school ELA curriculum) in favor of teaching to the test has consequences. This is one of them. Schools and teachers have no incentive to assign or take the time to explore entire texts because there's no way to test it. Even in non ELA classes there is less time to let kids explore concepts deeply -- the goal is often to get students to a level of testing competence and then move on. Thus the trend toward higher and higher level math and science in high school with students taking AP classes across a broad range of subjects.

Compare this to for instance A Levels in the UK where students choose a smaller range of subjects and do deep study over a two year period before sitting for exams that yes may include a multiple choice or short answer component but also generally involve longer and deeper levels of writing (for humanities subjects) or practical components (for science subjects). And because of how university works there the incentive just isn't there for someone to be taking AP level classes across like 14 subjects. The point is to identify your area of focus and dive deep to gain real mastery. As a result students matriculating to Oxford and Cambridge are far better prepared for the kind of research and deep study that will be necessary at those universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Aren't admissions more competitive than ever? Aren't these the superhuman students who aced the hardest classes, scored extremely highly on SATs, had very time-consuming ECs....? We are told nobody has a chance at these schools, and yet, those who are actually there, can't read a book? How is this possible.

It’s competitive largely because of the rampant grade inflation in high schools. This is established fact. When everyone gets As, they mean nothing. And getting all As in high school does NOT mean the students are well prepared for college. Nor are they graduating from college well prepared for the working world, by the way. See recent Fortune article revealing that 6/10 employers have already fired new college grads because they are “unprofessional and unprepared.”

So you are saying that 1) the level of competitiveness is an illusion, because undeserved 4.0s are enlarging the pool 2) AOs can't tell the best students from the grade-inflated ones?

Yes. No way for AOs to vet this with the exploding number of apps.

My kids also go to a local private and read at least 4-5 books a year in class.

At least 4-5...for English. And then different books for the language (if senior year and Lit) and diff books for English. Let's not forget extra electives or humanities seminars. I'm astounded by this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dcs go to a good public high school in the south. Ds has not had to read a book since middle school. Dd has had one book to read for AP English Lit so far, that's it.

You need to rethink labeling this school “good.”

My kid goes to a suburban public school in California. He has read 5-8 novels a year in English class every year.

I’m in a suburban district in California that’s supposedly good and my middle schooler was assigned two whole books to read in three years of public middle school. And those two books were at an elementary level.

PP here. Sounds like there’s a difference between schools that are “supposedly” good and actually good. Reading is fundamental. If a school doesn’t require students to read novels then I would question its reputation.

Many schools DO require students to read novels throughout the year. Just like in the old days. If your school has discontinued this practice, you may want to push back.

Oh come on. You are coming across as precious and a bit dim now. If a school district is highly rated by all measures used to assess public schools, it is “good.” If that same school district doesn’t make middle school kids read a whole book, it’s “supposedly good.” The fact you can’t seem to understand that the same district can be both goes to your limitations more than anything.

[Anonymous]

Tl;dr

The fix will take a few years.

Many states, for example Virginia, recently mandating Science of Reading (and therefore forbidding Balanced Literacy/Whole Language/Lucy Calkins) for all their state-wide public schools will help a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dcs go to a good public high school in the south. Ds has not had to read a book since middle school. Dd has had one book to read for AP English Lit so far, that's it.

You need to rethink labeling this school “good.”

My kid goes to a suburban public school in California. He has read 5-8 novels a year in English class every year.

I’m in a suburban district in California that’s supposedly good and my middle schooler was assigned two whole books to read in three years of public middle school. And those two books were at an elementary level.

PP here. Sounds like there’s a difference between schools that are “supposedly” good and actually good. Reading is fundamental. If a school doesn’t require students to read novels then I would question its reputation.

Many schools DO require students to read novels throughout the year. Just like in the old days. If your school has discontinued this practice, you may want to push back.

Oh come on. You are coming across as precious and a bit dim now. If a school district is highly rated by all measures used to assess public schools, it is “good.” If that same school district doesn’t make middle school kids read a whole book, it’s “supposedly good.” The fact you can’t seem to understand that the same district can be both goes to your limitations more than anything.

Someone bring over a writing teacher to help this PP…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Aren't admissions more competitive than ever? Aren't these the superhuman students who aced the hardest classes, scored extremely highly on SATs, had very time-consuming ECs....? We are told nobody has a chance at these schools, and yet, those who are actually there, can't read a book? How is this possible.

Test prep. Read a short passage find the main idea. Move onto the next skill. Meanwhile, they've never read a whole book about anything. I totally understand why this is happening. Since there's no homework these days, I assign it. My kid is always reading a book for homework, and we're always discussing it.

But that just sounds like a run of the mill 4.0 GPA/grade grabber who we are repeatedly told can't get into, e.g. Columbia.

I mean, my 8th grader is not a big reader and she read a non-fiction psychiatry book over just a few days this summer and we discussed it. Pretty sure she would be capable of discussing Pride and prejudice and Crime and punishment within a couple of weeks. I read these books in HS. They are interesting and not that hard to read.

Those books aren't interesting at all. I mean, Crime & Punishment? Are you now going to tell me War & Peace is interesting too?

Perhaps if we let a kid read a non-fiction psychiatry book instead of Pride and Prejudice or whatever, then things would be better.

But, if you want to read Crime & Punishment, then go for it.

DP. Read Crime and Punishment in high school and it still ranks as one of my all time favorites. It’s phenomenal.

NP. Crime and Punishment is one of the best books I’ve ever read. So so good. Have re-read it several times. Never read War and Peace so I can’t comment there.

My nerdy kid read C&P for school, liked it, and W&P to while away the boredom while at summer camp in middle school. He didn't really like it, but he read it and understood it enough to have an opinion. You don't have to like all the books, but reading them matters.

Reading books matters…not any particular book. Sure, it needs to be a legit book, but if C&P isn’t your thing, then read The Hobbit (or insert one of literally thousands of books here).

Totally agree. There were 20 other book in his bag. I was following the discussion of these titles though.

For some reason in this discussion there are “right” books and “wrong” books.

Well, I don't feel that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet so many studnets who actually are reading these dense books in high school, and understanding them, and writing papers about them, and translating "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" from Latin into English, are not getting into these colleges because they don't have a 4.6 GPA.

I think college ADs are asleep on the job.

Oh for sure. Many of them are barely out of college themselves and looking for quirky interesting applicants, not necessarily truthful ones.

Or The reality is the kids that are reading 50 books a year are not their best performing alum.

And the ones who can't read are?

[Anonymous]

This explained the stupidity and "me" thinking of kids today. A Lot cannot read, write, and expect a full paying job because they have a degree that a lot cheated for and did not earn. I have seen so many people in my company pushing their work off to older and more experienced people because they just cannot do the work. And then I have seen these older people point out the issues or do the work FOR these idiots. At which point I blame the older generations for cow towing the younger people when I personally just throw it back on them. They should be fired if they cannot do the job and let someone who can read/write and actually use their brain get the money and the jobs they deserve. Don't think America is the only ones that have this problem, I am seeing a whole bunch of people contracted in from India doing the exact same thing. If they whine enough someone else does the work. It's sickening the laziness that has come with everyone being connected. We will soon be a planet of stupid people, but eh, the cave men survived right? Oh wait no they are out with the dinosaurs, guess it comes around just like fashion just a lot slower lol. Soon we will be a a planet of grunting people again who beat their chests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Aren't admissions more competitive than ever? Aren't these the superhuman students who aced the hardest classes, scored extremely highly on SATs, had very time-consuming ECs....? We are told nobody has a chance at these schools, and yet, those who are actually there, can't read a book? How is this possible.

Test prep. Read a short passage find the main idea. Move onto the next skill. Meanwhile, they've never read a whole book about anything. I totally understand why this is happening. Since there's no homework these days, I assign it. My kid is always reading a book for homework, and we're always discussing it.

But that just sounds like a run of the mill 4.0 GPA/grade grabber who we are repeatedly told can't get into, e.g. Columbia.

I mean, my 8th grader is not a big reader and she read a non-fiction psychiatry book over just a few days this summer and we discussed it. Pretty sure she would be capable of discussing Pride and prejudice and Crime and punishment within a couple of weeks. I read these books in HS. They are interesting and not that hard to read.

Those books aren't interesting at all. I mean, Crime & Punishment? Are you now going to tell me War & Peace is interesting too?

Perhaps if we let a kid read a non-fiction psychiatry book instead of Pride and Prejudice or whatever, then things would be better.

But, if you want to read Crime & Punishment, then go for it.

I will tell you that War and Peace is extremely interesting. I’ve read it four times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet so many studnets who actually are reading these dense books in high school, and understanding them, and writing papers about them, and translating "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" from Latin into English, are not getting into these colleges because they don't have a 4.6 GPA.

I think college ADs are asleep on the job.

Oh for sure. Many of them are barely out of college themselves and looking for quirky interesting applicants, not necessarily truthful ones.

Or The reality is the kids that are reading 50 books a year are not their best performing alum.

The article is about the school's required great books course. All of their "best performing alum" took it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Aren't admissions more competitive than ever? Aren't these the superhuman students who aced the hardest classes, scored extremely highly on SATs, had very time-consuming ECs....? We are told nobody has a chance at these schools, and yet, those who are actually there, can't read a book? How is this possible.

bc kids lie on the apps.

I mean columbia's app makes you list all the books you've read in the last 2 years...

I love that they still do this! When I applied it also asked what magazines we read. I’m sure they saw my list and were like “this girl has no concept of discernment” and took me on as an intellectual charity case.

I was accepted but didn’t attend until grad school, but as a kid whose mom was always telling me to put books and magazines down and do a chore or go outside, I loved the idea of institutionally-sanctioned reading.

[Anonymous]

I will tell you that War and Peace is extremely interesting. I’ve read it four times.

War and Peace is excellent!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Aren't admissions more competitive than ever? Aren't these the superhuman students who aced the hardest classes, scored extremely highly on SATs, had very time-consuming ECs....? We are told nobody has a chance at these schools, and yet, those who are actually there, can't read a book? How is this possible.

bc kids lie on the apps.

I mean columbia's app makes you list all the books you've read in the last 2 years...

I love that they still do this! When I applied it also asked what magazines we read. I’m sure they saw my list and were like “this girl has no concept of discernment” and took me on as an intellectual charity case.

I was accepted but didn’t attend until grad school, but as a kid whose mom was always telling me to put books and magazines down and do a chore or go outside, I loved the idea of institutionally-sanctioned reading.

You could just make a whole list up, using AI to tailor it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Aren't admissions more competitive than ever? Aren't these the superhuman students who aced the hardest classes, scored extremely highly on SATs, had very time-consuming ECs....? We are told nobody has a chance at these schools, and yet, those who are actually there, can't read a book? How is this possible.

Test prep. Read a short passage find the main idea. Move onto the next skill. Meanwhile, they've never read a whole book about anything. I totally understand why this is happening. Since there's no homework these days, I assign it. My kid is always reading a book for homework, and we're always discussing it.

But that just sounds like a run of the mill 4.0 GPA/grade grabber who we are repeatedly told can't get into, e.g. Columbia.

I mean, my 8th grader is not a big reader and she read a non-fiction psychiatry book over just a few days this summer and we discussed it. Pretty sure she would be capable of discussing Pride and prejudice and Crime and punishment within a couple of weeks. I read these books in HS. They are interesting and not that hard to read.

Those books aren't interesting at all. I mean, Crime & Punishment? Are you now going to tell me War & Peace is interesting too?

Perhaps if we let a kid read a non-fiction psychiatry book instead of Pride and Prejudice or whatever, then things would be better.

But, if you want to read Crime & Punishment, then go for it.

I will tell you that War and Peace is extremely interesting. I’ve read it four times.

An opinion. There is no factual answer when talking about art, literature, film or music.