If it’s harder then ever to get into top colleges, why do professors complain students now are bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to any admissions officers’ podcasts, they are all trying to save people. They all sound like lovely humans who mean well, obviously got into this profession to make a difference, but you can tell they are also a little too idealistic and naive (so many sound so young, in their mid to late 20’s, but even the older ones sound idealistic). They talk so much about “distance traveled”, placing a lot of emphasis on helping first-gen, low income, and especially rural kids.

In principle I agree with them too, but it sounds like in reality, a lot of these kids are just not ready when they come on campus. A lot of resources are being spent on outreaching to these kids, flying them in all expenses paid, paying for college prep experiences for them during the summer after they are admitted, and setting aside special mentors and remedial classes for them once they arrive. Professors are complaining, but they also want to help these kids. I support efforts to advance upward mobility (the world is too unfair) and hope some of these kids do come out swinging on the other side, but there will be some who won’t make it. This is not a movie and life is not The Blind Side, but I understand why they try. In the long run, their well-intended crusade could end up fracturing long-standing institutions; you can already see that happening on campuses. I guess to them, that’s a risk worth taking.

America is an idealistic country and a young country so we always try to force things to happen sooner. In general, I tend to think that’s a good thing. In countries that have been around longer and are more practical like the UK, they let poor kids rise to the top on their own and somehow make it to Oxbridge from dirt poor families, but those kids are rare and typically white. Tuition is also much lower there so the economic barriers are not as high if the universities don’t go out of their way to manufacture a special path for the poor kids.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Wow. So much of this is problematic.
Contrary to popular belief, college -- and elite colleges -- is not just a pathway or tool for the upper- and upper-middle class to continue education after high school. College is one of the most reliable tools for economic mobility FOR THE LOWER CLASSES. It's baked into the ethics of the US educational system. They are not just supposed to serve as finishing schools for the elite, many of whom -- let's be honest here -- probably could get into high income jobs through connections. College is a place where the playing field can be leveled. And to suggest that first income students are only allowed to go to community college is so classist. If they can get into Harvard or UVA based on GPA and test scores -- even if the threshold for their scores is slightly lower to account for the fact that they don't have the familial advantages -- so be it. Contrary to popular belief, those schools are not just welcoming low income students into college if those students fail to admit rigerous admissions criteria. Sure, the criteria might be slightly less rigerous, but again, that's because of the role of higher ed in the US as a place to break down class barriers.

In the city where I live, the selective K-12 schools require a test for admission. They also prioritize students from low-income neighborhoods, because those students have more factors working against them (if you're from a rich area, your score required to get in will on average be higher than in a poorer area). They still have to have a high test score and a high GPA, and to be more merit-based they even fill a large chunk of the seats based on score alone without any other considerations. On paper, does that mean that a kid from a lower-income neighborhood will enter with a lower score than one from a higher income neighborhood? Typically, yes. BUT THEN the schools provide wraparound support to help those students keep up and graduate, which they ultimately do end up doing. They take the same classes, they are graded on the same rubric. And maybe their GPA still ends up lower because they had to work a job to support their family, instead of having their family provide them with tutoring support.

THAT is why colleges prioritize students from low income or first generation backgrounds. They typically have disadvantages that wealthier students typically do not have. BUT THEN it should be up to the college to provide the additional support needed to make sure those students are successful, be it through one-on-one counseling or a summer bridge program or some other supports.

I am aware none of this addresses OP's question but I just had to sound off here about the previous comments.

Ok? Then just go to the state university?

I fall into the camp that says don't lower standards for anyone at elite schools, whether first gen or black or legacy. It hurts these schools in the long run and doesn't necessarily deliver the benefits anticipated. A lot of those kids end up with a chip on their shoulders.

First gen or whatever who has the aptitude and merit to get in and perform competitively, absolutely fine. But lowering standards is only playing games with them that can backfire and hurt them more than you might think. There's already a culture of what I'd call "privileged bitterness" that is mollycoddled by admin but doesn't do anyone favors.

[Anonymous]

My husband is a professor at a top 10 school. He literally has never complained once about the quality of his students; in fact, he has said frequently that the type of work they're doing is something he would never have been able to do at that age. When a professor whines about how students these days can't do X,Y, or Z, it gets picked up in the media because they're eager to paint the picture of an entitled younger generation -- it's a tale old as time and this happened with millennials as well.

As a parent of a high-achieving kid, his ability to write is probably the place I see the greatest difference (in a negative direction) from when I was his age. His district also has zero geography education. I think writing is deemphasized in elementary school now, but that's just my own anecdata. On the other hand, he is doing algebra and he is in 5th grade. Times, standards, and requirements change and professors will always be comparing their students to what they themselves were able to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to any admissions officers’ podcasts, they are all trying to save people. They all sound like lovely humans who mean well, obviously got into this profession to make a difference, but you can tell they are also a little too idealistic and naive (so many sound so young, in their mid to late 20’s, but even the older ones sound idealistic). They talk so much about “distance traveled”, placing a lot of emphasis on helping first-gen, low income, and especially rural kids.

In principle I agree with them too, but it sounds like in reality, a lot of these kids are just not ready when they come on campus. A lot of resources are being spent on outreaching to these kids, flying them in all expenses paid, paying for college prep experiences for them during the summer after they are admitted, and setting aside special mentors and remedial classes for them once they arrive. Professors are complaining, but they also want to help these kids. I support efforts to advance upward mobility (the world is too unfair) and hope some of these kids do come out swinging on the other side, but there will be some who won’t make it. This is not a movie and life is not The Blind Side, but I understand why they try. In the long run, their well-intended crusade could end up fracturing long-standing institutions; you can already see that happening on campuses. I guess to them, that’s a risk worth taking.

America is an idealistic country and a young country so we always try to force things to happen sooner. In general, I tend to think that’s a good thing. In countries that have been around longer and are more practical like the UK, they let poor kids rise to the top on their own and somehow make it to Oxbridge from dirt poor families, but those kids are rare and typically white. Tuition is also much lower there so the economic barriers are not as high if the universities don’t go out of their way to manufacture a special path for the poor kids.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Low income students have less options for college, and most colleges are not as cheap as the top colleges will be for them. They also typically can’t take on steep loans, because their parents’ credit is poor. State schools can actually put many into a decent amount of debt compared to going to a top college. There’s also no evidence they are less prepared, that’s just dcum classist nonsense. Please read the privileged poor.

DP here. There’s lots of evidence that they aren’t prepared. State testing scores, math and reading levels, placement test results and performance once they are in college. Kids from low performing schools with uneducated parents as a whole don’t catch up once they go to college. The gap in missing skills is too big.

People forget that the path to immigration for Asian immigrants has been graduate school, H1B or E something. This doesn’t mean that all Asians are more intelligent because of their race, far from it! It does mean that the population of Asian Americans in the US has a far higher IQ range than Hispanic Americans whose path was different. If the pathway to the US from Latin American countries was highly educated professional skills rather than manual labor it would be different. This can change over generations but not as fast as the education system is falsely portraying.

Once again, please read the privileged poor. You don’t know where these kids are coming from. They’re not just random low income students chosen out of a hat. Most are nowhere near inner city youth either. Please stop assuming you know everything about a population based off of a few statistics. You need to actually research into the class of poor students that are evaluated and chosen to enter Ivy League institutions and the like.

Please enlighten us...

Well for starters, many come from top magnets and boarding schools. They’re educationally privileged.

At least these kids are qualified and can do the work. It sucks for the non FGLI kid who performed better yet got rejected but this is no different than getting bumped for a donor kid.

It used to be that athletes were the only unqualified kids being admitted. There weren’t that many and many schools offered special classes for them. Most major donor kids had access to private schools and tutors. While they got in over higher IQ middle class kids, they weren’t really dragging down the classes. The unqualified FGLI kids are dragging down the quality.

Athletes were never unqualified, they just have skills that your little grinder will never have and you resent that. Some of them may not be at the top of the distribution but they are well qualified at any Ivy, Patriot, UAA, NESCAC, etc.

I don't know a single recruited athlete that is not a grinder. Competition forces the grinding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to any admissions officers’ podcasts, they are all trying to save people. They all sound like lovely humans who mean well, obviously got into this profession to make a difference, but you can tell they are also a little too idealistic and naive (so many sound so young, in their mid to late 20’s, but even the older ones sound idealistic). They talk so much about “distance traveled”, placing a lot of emphasis on helping first-gen, low income, and especially rural kids.

In principle I agree with them too, but it sounds like in reality, a lot of these kids are just not ready when they come on campus. A lot of resources are being spent on outreaching to these kids, flying them in all expenses paid, paying for college prep experiences for them during the summer after they are admitted, and setting aside special mentors and remedial classes for them once they arrive. Professors are complaining, but they also want to help these kids. I support efforts to advance upward mobility (the world is too unfair) and hope some of these kids do come out swinging on the other side, but there will be some who won’t make it. This is not a movie and life is not The Blind Side, but I understand why they try. In the long run, their well-intended crusade could end up fracturing long-standing institutions; you can already see that happening on campuses. I guess to them, that’s a risk worth taking.

America is an idealistic country and a young country so we always try to force things to happen sooner. In general, I tend to think that’s a good thing. In countries that have been around longer and are more practical like the UK, they let poor kids rise to the top on their own and somehow make it to Oxbridge from dirt poor families, but those kids are rare and typically white. Tuition is also much lower there so the economic barriers are not as high if the universities don’t go out of their way to manufacture a special path for the poor kids.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Low income students have less options for college, and most colleges are not as cheap as the top colleges will be for them. They also typically can’t take on steep loans, because their parents’ credit is poor. State schools can actually put many into a decent amount of debt compared to going to a top college. There’s also no evidence they are less prepared, that’s just dcum classist nonsense. Please read the privileged poor.

DP here. There’s lots of evidence that they aren’t prepared. State testing scores, math and reading levels, placement test results and performance once they are in college. Kids from low performing schools with uneducated parents as a whole don’t catch up once they go to college. The gap in missing skills is too big.

People forget that the path to immigration for Asian immigrants has been graduate school, H1B or E something. This doesn’t mean that all Asians are more intelligent because of their race, far from it! It does mean that the population of Asian Americans in the US has a far higher IQ range than Hispanic Americans whose path was different. If the pathway to the US from Latin American countries was highly educated professional skills rather than manual labor it would be different. This can change over generations but not as fast as the education system is falsely portraying.

Once again, please read the privileged poor. You don’t know where these kids are coming from. They’re not just random low income students chosen out of a hat. Most are nowhere near inner city youth either. Please stop assuming you know everything about a population based off of a few statistics. You need to actually research into the class of poor students that are evaluated and chosen to enter Ivy League institutions and the like.

Please enlighten us...

Well for starters, many come from top magnets and boarding schools. They’re educationally privileged.

At least these kids are qualified and can do the work. It sucks for the non FGLI kid who performed better yet got rejected but this is no different than getting bumped for a donor kid.

It used to be that athletes were the only unqualified kids being admitted. There weren’t that many and many schools offered special classes for them. Most major donor kids had access to private schools and tutors. While they got in over higher IQ middle class kids, they weren’t really dragging down the classes. The unqualified FGLI kids are dragging down the quality.

Athletes were never unqualified, they just have skills that your little grinder will never have and you resent that. Some of them may not be at the top of the distribution but they are well qualified at any Ivy, Patriot, UAA, NESCAC, etc.

I don’t object to the athletes getting in at all. They raise money for the school and build school spirit, alumni stay more engaged giving the academic students more networking opportunities. They give more than they take. The FGLI students just take and provide no benefit.

Most athletes provide no benefit. They used to provide an alumni donor benefit but now that benefit no longer exists except to the extent they are donating restricted funds to subsidize their own sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to any admissions officers’ podcasts, they are all trying to save people. They all sound like lovely humans who mean well, obviously got into this profession to make a difference, but you can tell they are also a little too idealistic and naive (so many sound so young, in their mid to late 20’s, but even the older ones sound idealistic). They talk so much about “distance traveled”, placing a lot of emphasis on helping first-gen, low income, and especially rural kids.

In principle I agree with them too, but it sounds like in reality, a lot of these kids are just not ready when they come on campus. A lot of resources are being spent on outreaching to these kids, flying them in all expenses paid, paying for college prep experiences for them during the summer after they are admitted, and setting aside special mentors and remedial classes for them once they arrive. Professors are complaining, but they also want to help these kids. I support efforts to advance upward mobility (the world is too unfair) and hope some of these kids do come out swinging on the other side, but there will be some who won’t make it. This is not a movie and life is not The Blind Side, but I understand why they try. In the long run, their well-intended crusade could end up fracturing long-standing institutions; you can already see that happening on campuses. I guess to them, that’s a risk worth taking.

America is an idealistic country and a young country so we always try to force things to happen sooner. In general, I tend to think that’s a good thing. In countries that have been around longer and are more practical like the UK, they let poor kids rise to the top on their own and somehow make it to Oxbridge from dirt poor families, but those kids are rare and typically white. Tuition is also much lower there so the economic barriers are not as high if the universities don’t go out of their way to manufacture a special path for the poor kids.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Wow. So much of this is problematic.
Contrary to popular belief, college -- and elite colleges -- is not just a pathway or tool for the upper- and upper-middle class to continue education after high school. College is one of the most reliable tools for economic mobility FOR THE LOWER CLASSES. It's baked into the ethics of the US educational system. They are not just supposed to serve as finishing schools for the elite, many of whom -- let's be honest here -- probably could get into high income jobs through connections. College is a place where the playing field can be leveled. And to suggest that first income students are only allowed to go to community college is so classist. If they can get into Harvard or UVA based on GPA and test scores -- even if the threshold for their scores is slightly lower to account for the fact that they don't have the familial advantages -- so be it. Contrary to popular belief, those schools are not just welcoming low income students into college if those students fail to admit rigerous admissions criteria. Sure, the criteria might be slightly less rigerous, but again, that's because of the role of higher ed in the US as a place to break down class barriers.

In the city where I live, the selective K-12 schools require a test for admission. They also prioritize students from low-income neighborhoods, because those students have more factors working against them (if you're from a rich area, your score required to get in will on average be higher than in a poorer area). They still have to have a high test score and a high GPA, and to be more merit-based they even fill a large chunk of the seats based on score alone without any other considerations. On paper, does that mean that a kid from a lower-income neighborhood will enter with a lower score than one from a higher income neighborhood? Typically, yes. BUT THEN the schools provide wraparound support to help those students keep up and graduate, which they ultimately do end up doing. They take the same classes, they are graded on the same rubric. And maybe their GPA still ends up lower because they had to work a job to support their family, instead of having their family provide them with tutoring support.

THAT is why colleges prioritize students from low income or first generation backgrounds. They typically have disadvantages that wealthier students typically do not have. BUT THEN it should be up to the college to provide the additional support needed to make sure those students are successful, be it through one-on-one counseling or a summer bridge program or some other supports.

I am aware none of this addresses OP's question but I just had to sound off here about the previous comments.

Ok? Then just go to the state university?

I fall into the camp that says don't lower standards for anyone at elite schools, whether first gen or black or legacy. It hurts these schools in the long run and doesn't necessarily deliver the benefits anticipated. A lot of those kids end up with a chip on their shoulders.

First gen or whatever who has the aptitude and merit to get in and perform competitively, absolutely fine. But lowering standards is only playing games with them that can backfire and hurt them more than you might think. There's already a culture of what I'd call "privileged bitterness" that is mollycoddled by admin but doesn't do anyone favors.

I really hate the argument that "state schools" (many of which are incredibly difficult to get into) are the place where lower income students should attend because they can't "cut it" at the privates.

Also, a very easy google search provides data and research against the claim that students from low income backgrounds perform less well than other students.
https://www.jkcf.org/research/opening-doors-how-selective-colleges-and-universities-are-expanding-access-for-high-achieving-low-income-students/

And also the entire argument that elite institutions are currently flooded with low-achieving poor students is just baloney as well.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/11/21/no-change-elite-college-low-income-enrollment-1920s

The call is coming from inside the house. If professors are complaining about ill-prepared students, and those students are just as likely to be from the middle and upper classes as they were 100 years ago (which is to say, they are), people on this board need to look at their own children. The argument that all of this is because of diversity is Fox News class and race baiting garbage.

[Anonymous]

The assumptions made throughout this thread just show how completely sheltered some of you are. Which is in itself a case for supporting FGLI kids at elite schools—so your kids can actually interact with some people who are not like them. My guess is many of their assumptions will be challenged.

My kid’s HS is sending two to Ivys this year. One is an athlete from a UMC family. Nice kid, but has been known to cheat. The other is FGLI, tremendous character, and has been running circles around everyone else in math and science, no cheating required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a professor at a top 10 school. He literally has never complained once about the quality of his students; in fact, he has said frequently that the type of work they're doing is something he would never have been able to do at that age. When a professor whines about how students these days can't do X,Y, or Z, it gets picked up in the media because they're eager to paint the picture of an entitled younger generation -- it's a tale old as time and this happened with millennials as well.

As a parent of a high-achieving kid, his ability to write is probably the place I see the greatest difference (in a negative direction) from when I was his age. His district also has zero geography education. I think writing is deemphasized in elementary school now, but that's just my own anecdata. On the other hand, he is doing algebra and he is in 5th grade. Times, standards, and requirements change and professors will always be comparing their students to what they themselves were able to do.

For every one with lower writing ability, there is another with even higher writing ability. Mine went through an IB program in high school which required lots of writing and was an excellent writer before he even went off to college. There he won several $$$ prizes for his work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a professor at a top 10 school. He literally has never complained once about the quality of his students; in fact, he has said frequently that the type of work they're doing is something he would never have been able to do at that age. When a professor whines about how students these days can't do X,Y, or Z, it gets picked up in the media because they're eager to paint the picture of an entitled younger generation -- it's a tale old as time and this happened with millennials as well.

As a parent of a high-achieving kid, his ability to write is probably the place I see the greatest difference (in a negative direction) from when I was his age. His district also has zero geography education. I think writing is deemphasized in elementary school now, but that's just my own anecdata. On the other hand, he is doing algebra and he is in 5th grade. Times, standards, and requirements change and professors will always be comparing their students to what they themselves were able to do.

You or I would also probably have been placed in algebra much earlier also if we were growing up in this generation. But why is that inherently better to get put into an algebra class a few years earlier? I actually think that being able to write well is a more important skill than getting to algebra or calculus earlier?

In any case there is firm evidence out there that many of you seem to be neglecting. For example the UCSD system seeing a huge number of kids failing to meet middle school math standards on Entrance exams, despite many of these kids having completed calculus in high school. (And there is a lot more firm evidence if you bother to look for it, e.g. PISA scores falling worldwide.) It's great that your husband isn't seeing declines, but he is one person, and I just feel we shouldn't ignore the bulk of the evidence and try to address the problem for the sake of our young people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even at places like Harvard or Stanford, professors complain students are not prepared for college. In Purdue, which isn’t easy to get into for engineering and CS, professors complain that most of their class are using AI and not learning the material. These colleges regularly turn away straight A students, so what is going on?

The reason is high GPAs in high school are not a guarantee of proficiency in foundational areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to any admissions officers’ podcasts, they are all trying to save people. They all sound like lovely humans who mean well, obviously got into this profession to make a difference, but you can tell they are also a little too idealistic and naive (so many sound so young, in their mid to late 20’s, but even the older ones sound idealistic). They talk so much about “distance traveled”, placing a lot of emphasis on helping first-gen, low income, and especially rural kids.

In principle I agree with them too, but it sounds like in reality, a lot of these kids are just not ready when they come on campus. A lot of resources are being spent on outreaching to these kids, flying them in all expenses paid, paying for college prep experiences for them during the summer after they are admitted, and setting aside special mentors and remedial classes for them once they arrive. Professors are complaining, but they also want to help these kids. I support efforts to advance upward mobility (the world is too unfair) and hope some of these kids do come out swinging on the other side, but there will be some who won’t make it. This is not a movie and life is not The Blind Side, but I understand why they try. In the long run, their well-intended crusade could end up fracturing long-standing institutions; you can already see that happening on campuses. I guess to them, that’s a risk worth taking.

America is an idealistic country and a young country so we always try to force things to happen sooner. In general, I tend to think that’s a good thing. In countries that have been around longer and are more practical like the UK, they let poor kids rise to the top on their own and somehow make it to Oxbridge from dirt poor families, but those kids are rare and typically white. Tuition is also much lower there so the economic barriers are not as high if the universities don’t go out of their way to manufacture a special path for the poor kids.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Wow. So much of this is problematic.
Contrary to popular belief, college -- and elite colleges -- is not just a pathway or tool for the upper- and upper-middle class to continue education after high school. College is one of the most reliable tools for economic mobility FOR THE LOWER CLASSES. It's baked into the ethics of the US educational system. They are not just supposed to serve as finishing schools for the elite, many of whom -- let's be honest here -- probably could get into high income jobs through connections. College is a place where the playing field can be leveled. And to suggest that first income students are only allowed to go to community college is so classist. If they can get into Harvard or UVA based on GPA and test scores -- even if the threshold for their scores is slightly lower to account for the fact that they don't have the familial advantages -- so be it. Contrary to popular belief, those schools are not just welcoming low income students into college if those students fail to admit rigerous admissions criteria. Sure, the criteria might be slightly less rigerous, but again, that's because of the role of higher ed in the US as a place to break down class barriers.

In the city where I live, the selective K-12 schools require a test for admission. They also prioritize students from low-income neighborhoods, because those students have more factors working against them (if you're from a rich area, your score required to get in will on average be higher than in a poorer area). They still have to have a high test score and a high GPA, and to be more merit-based they even fill a large chunk of the seats based on score alone without any other considerations. On paper, does that mean that a kid from a lower-income neighborhood will enter with a lower score than one from a higher income neighborhood? Typically, yes. BUT THEN the schools provide wraparound support to help those students keep up and graduate, which they ultimately do end up doing. They take the same classes, they are graded on the same rubric. And maybe their GPA still ends up lower because they had to work a job to support their family, instead of having their family provide them with tutoring support.

THAT is why colleges prioritize students from low income or first generation backgrounds. They typically have disadvantages that wealthier students typically do not have. BUT THEN it should be up to the college to provide the additional support needed to make sure those students are successful, be it through one-on-one counseling or a summer bridge program or some other supports.

I am aware none of this addresses OP's question but I just had to sound off here about the previous comments.

Ok? Then just go to the state university?

I fall into the camp that says don't lower standards for anyone at elite schools, whether first gen or black or legacy. It hurts these schools in the long run and doesn't necessarily deliver the benefits anticipated. A lot of those kids end up with a chip on their shoulders.

First gen or whatever who has the aptitude and merit to get in and perform competitively, absolutely fine. But lowering standards is only playing games with them that can backfire and hurt them more than you might think. There's already a culture of what I'd call "privileged bitterness" that is mollycoddled by admin but doesn't do anyone favors.

Literally nothing that you wrote is true. You are just blithering the worst type of nonsense.

[Anonymous]

I'm a prof. The problem (generally speaking) isn't the first gen kids (a few, yes, but this is a much, much broader problem). Nor generally is it the athletes (honestly, in my school the athletes in certain sports end up at the low end of the grade distribution but this has always been true). If these were the issues, profs wouldn't make general statements about "students today."

The problem is that kids coming out of HS are far less prepared than they were a decade ago. Hallway conversations are often about how entitled kids don't even seem to recognize they are asking for unusual accommodations (test retakes, "study guides" that tell them exactly what material from the class lectures/readings is going to be on the test). They complain that there is too much material even though everyone I know is teaching less content than we did when I started my career. They don't have good study skills (they often prepare for a test by simply reading the slides posted online rather than making flashcards/documents that will enable them to memorize or quiz themselves).

My guess is that this is a combination of lax school policies and universities having trouble identifying the best students for admission. For instance, a) some universities are still test optional; b) so many kids get extra time on standardized testing that a disproportionally larger set of kids with the highest SAT scores are not necessarily the best students from that HS, and c) grade inflation makes it difficult for universities to differentiate the best students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to any admissions officers’ podcasts, they are all trying to save people. They all sound like lovely humans who mean well, obviously got into this profession to make a difference, but you can tell they are also a little too idealistic and naive (so many sound so young, in their mid to late 20’s, but even the older ones sound idealistic). They talk so much about “distance traveled”, placing a lot of emphasis on helping first-gen, low income, and especially rural kids.

In principle I agree with them too, but it sounds like in reality, a lot of these kids are just not ready when they come on campus. A lot of resources are being spent on outreaching to these kids, flying them in all expenses paid, paying for college prep experiences for them during the summer after they are admitted, and setting aside special mentors and remedial classes for them once they arrive. Professors are complaining, but they also want to help these kids. I support efforts to advance upward mobility (the world is too unfair) and hope some of these kids do come out swinging on the other side, but there will be some who won’t make it. This is not a movie and life is not The Blind Side, but I understand why they try. In the long run, their well-intended crusade could end up fracturing long-standing institutions; you can already see that happening on campuses. I guess to them, that’s a risk worth taking.

America is an idealistic country and a young country so we always try to force things to happen sooner. In general, I tend to think that’s a good thing. In countries that have been around longer and are more practical like the UK, they let poor kids rise to the top on their own and somehow make it to Oxbridge from dirt poor families, but those kids are rare and typically white. Tuition is also much lower there so the economic barriers are not as high if the universities don’t go out of their way to manufacture a special path for the poor kids.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Low income students have less options for college, and most colleges are not as cheap as the top colleges will be for them. They also typically can’t take on steep loans, because their parents’ credit is poor. State schools can actually put many into a decent amount of debt compared to going to a top college. There’s also no evidence they are less prepared, that’s just dcum classist nonsense. Please read the privileged poor.

DP here. There’s lots of evidence that they aren’t prepared. State testing scores, math and reading levels, placement test results and performance once they are in college. Kids from low performing schools with uneducated parents as a whole don’t catch up once they go to college. The gap in missing skills is too big.

People forget that the path to immigration for Asian immigrants has been graduate school, H1B or E something. This doesn’t mean that all Asians are more intelligent because of their race, far from it! It does mean that the population of Asian Americans in the US has a far higher IQ range than Hispanic Americans whose path was different. If the pathway to the US from Latin American countries was highly educated professional skills rather than manual labor it would be different. This can change over generations but not as fast as the education system is falsely portraying.

Once again, please read the privileged poor. You don’t know where these kids are coming from. They’re not just random low income students chosen out of a hat. Most are nowhere near inner city youth either. Please stop assuming you know everything about a population based off of a few statistics. You need to actually research into the class of poor students that are evaluated and chosen to enter Ivy League institutions and the like.

Please enlighten us...

Well for starters, many come from top magnets and boarding schools. They’re educationally privileged.

At least these kids are qualified and can do the work. It sucks for the non FGLI kid who performed better yet got rejected but this is no different than getting bumped for a donor kid.

It used to be that athletes were the only unqualified kids being admitted. There weren’t that many and many schools offered special classes for them. Most major donor kids had access to private schools and tutors. While they got in over higher IQ middle class kids, they weren’t really dragging down the classes. The unqualified FGLI kids are dragging down the quality.

Athletes were never unqualified, they just have skills that your little grinder will never have and you resent that. Some of them may not be at the top of the distribution but they are well qualified at any Ivy, Patriot, UAA, NESCAC, etc.

I don't know a single recruited athlete that is not a grinder. Competition forces the grinding.

You are absolutely correct. I fixed it below.

Athletes were never unqualified, they just have additional skills that your little solely academic grinder will never have and you resent that. Some of them may not be at the top of the academic distribution (many are) but they are well qualified at any Ivy, Patriot, UAA, NESCAC, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a prof. The problem (generally speaking) isn't the first gen kids (a few, yes, but this is a much, much broader problem). Nor generally is it the athletes (honestly, in my school the athletes in certain sports end up at the low end of the grade distribution but this has always been true). If these were the issues, profs wouldn't make general statements about "students today."

The problem is that kids coming out of HS are far less prepared than they were a decade ago. Hallway conversations are often about how entitled kids don't even seem to recognize they are asking for unusual accommodations (test retakes, "study guides" that tell them exactly what material from the class lectures/readings is going to be on the test). They complain that there is too much material even though everyone I know is teaching less content than we did when I started my career. They don't have good study skills (they often prepare for a test by simply reading the slides posted online rather than making flashcards/documents that will enable them to memorize or quiz themselves).

My guess is that this is a combination of lax school policies and universities having trouble identifying the best students for admission. For instance, a) some universities are still test optional; b) so many kids get extra time on standardized testing that a disproportionally larger set of kids with the highest SAT scores are not necessarily the best students from that HS, and c) grade inflation makes it difficult for universities to differentiate the best students.

We have no accommodations or any knowledge of these conditions like ADHD, depression, autism when we were going through high school college. Recognition and treatment of these conditions is actually progress, not a negative. We were told we were doing something wrong and fix it without any insight into what was wrong and how to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to any admissions officers’ podcasts, they are all trying to save people. They all sound like lovely humans who mean well, obviously got into this profession to make a difference, but you can tell they are also a little too idealistic and naive (so many sound so young, in their mid to late 20’s, but even the older ones sound idealistic). They talk so much about “distance traveled”, placing a lot of emphasis on helping first-gen, low income, and especially rural kids.

In principle I agree with them too, but it sounds like in reality, a lot of these kids are just not ready when they come on campus. A lot of resources are being spent on outreaching to these kids, flying them in all expenses paid, paying for college prep experiences for them during the summer after they are admitted, and setting aside special mentors and remedial classes for them once they arrive. Professors are complaining, but they also want to help these kids. I support efforts to advance upward mobility (the world is too unfair) and hope some of these kids do come out swinging on the other side, but there will be some who won’t make it. This is not a movie and life is not The Blind Side, but I understand why they try. In the long run, their well-intended crusade could end up fracturing long-standing institutions; you can already see that happening on campuses. I guess to them, that’s a risk worth taking.

America is an idealistic country and a young country so we always try to force things to happen sooner. In general, I tend to think that’s a good thing. In countries that have been around longer and are more practical like the UK, they let poor kids rise to the top on their own and somehow make it to Oxbridge from dirt poor families, but those kids are rare and typically white. Tuition is also much lower there so the economic barriers are not as high if the universities don’t go out of their way to manufacture a special path for the poor kids.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Low income students have less options for college, and most colleges are not as cheap as the top colleges will be for them. They also typically can’t take on steep loans, because their parents’ credit is poor. State schools can actually put many into a decent amount of debt compared to going to a top college. There’s also no evidence they are less prepared, that’s just dcum classist nonsense. Please read the privileged poor.

DP here. There’s lots of evidence that they aren’t prepared. State testing scores, math and reading levels, placement test results and performance once they are in college. Kids from low performing schools with uneducated parents as a whole don’t catch up once they go to college. The gap in missing skills is too big.

People forget that the path to immigration for Asian immigrants has been graduate school, H1B or E something. This doesn’t mean that all Asians are more intelligent because of their race, far from it! It does mean that the population of Asian Americans in the US has a far higher IQ range than Hispanic Americans whose path was different. If the pathway to the US from Latin American countries was highly educated professional skills rather than manual labor it would be different. This can change over generations but not as fast as the education system is falsely portraying.

Once again, please read the privileged poor. You don’t know where these kids are coming from. They’re not just random low income students chosen out of a hat. Most are nowhere near inner city youth either. Please stop assuming you know everything about a population based off of a few statistics. You need to actually research into the class of poor students that are evaluated and chosen to enter Ivy League institutions and the like.

Please enlighten us...

Well for starters, many come from top magnets and boarding schools. They’re educationally privileged.

At least these kids are qualified and can do the work. It sucks for the non FGLI kid who performed better yet got rejected but this is no different than getting bumped for a donor kid.

It used to be that athletes were the only unqualified kids being admitted. There weren’t that many and many schools offered special classes for them. Most major donor kids had access to private schools and tutors. While they got in over higher IQ middle class kids, they weren’t really dragging down the classes. The unqualified FGLI kids are dragging down the quality.

Athletes were never unqualified, they just have skills that your little grinder will never have and you resent that. Some of them may not be at the top of the distribution but they are well qualified at any Ivy, Patriot, UAA, NESCAC, etc.

I don’t object to the athletes getting in at all. They raise money for the school and build school spirit, alumni stay more engaged giving the academic students more networking opportunities. They give more than they take. The FGLI students just take and provide no benefit.

Most athletes provide no benefit. They used to provide an alumni donor benefit but now that benefit no longer exists except to the extent they are donating restricted funds to subsidize their own sport.

Any data to support this? Didn’t think so. Your fact free uninformed opinion oozes with resentment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you listen to any admissions officers’ podcasts, they are all trying to save people. They all sound like lovely humans who mean well, obviously got into this profession to make a difference, but you can tell they are also a little too idealistic and naive (so many sound so young, in their mid to late 20’s, but even the older ones sound idealistic). They talk so much about “distance traveled”, placing a lot of emphasis on helping first-gen, low income, and especially rural kids.

In principle I agree with them too, but it sounds like in reality, a lot of these kids are just not ready when they come on campus. A lot of resources are being spent on outreaching to these kids, flying them in all expenses paid, paying for college prep experiences for them during the summer after they are admitted, and setting aside special mentors and remedial classes for them once they arrive. Professors are complaining, but they also want to help these kids. I support efforts to advance upward mobility (the world is too unfair) and hope some of these kids do come out swinging on the other side, but there will be some who won’t make it. This is not a movie and life is not The Blind Side, but I understand why they try. In the long run, their well-intended crusade could end up fracturing long-standing institutions; you can already see that happening on campuses. I guess to them, that’s a risk worth taking.

America is an idealistic country and a young country so we always try to force things to happen sooner. In general, I tend to think that’s a good thing. In countries that have been around longer and are more practical like the UK, they let poor kids rise to the top on their own and somehow make it to Oxbridge from dirt poor families, but those kids are rare and typically white. Tuition is also much lower there so the economic barriers are not as high if the universities don’t go out of their way to manufacture a special path for the poor kids.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Low income students have less options for college, and most colleges are not as cheap as the top colleges will be for them. They also typically can’t take on steep loans, because their parents’ credit is poor. State schools can actually put many into a decent amount of debt compared to going to a top college. There’s also no evidence they are less prepared, that’s just dcum classist nonsense. Please read the privileged poor.

DP here. There’s lots of evidence that they aren’t prepared. State testing scores, math and reading levels, placement test results and performance once they are in college. Kids from low performing schools with uneducated parents as a whole don’t catch up once they go to college. The gap in missing skills is too big.

People forget that the path to immigration for Asian immigrants has been graduate school, H1B or E something. This doesn’t mean that all Asians are more intelligent because of their race, far from it! It does mean that the population of Asian Americans in the US has a far higher IQ range than Hispanic Americans whose path was different. If the pathway to the US from Latin American countries was highly educated professional skills rather than manual labor it would be different. This can change over generations but not as fast as the education system is falsely portraying.

Once again, please read the privileged poor. You don’t know where these kids are coming from. They’re not just random low income students chosen out of a hat. Most are nowhere near inner city youth either. Please stop assuming you know everything about a population based off of a few statistics. You need to actually research into the class of poor students that are evaluated and chosen to enter Ivy League institutions and the like.

Please enlighten us...

Well for starters, many come from top magnets and boarding schools. They’re educationally privileged.

At least these kids are qualified and can do the work. It sucks for the non FGLI kid who performed better yet got rejected but this is no different than getting bumped for a donor kid.

It used to be that athletes were the only unqualified kids being admitted. There weren’t that many and many schools offered special classes for them. Most major donor kids had access to private schools and tutors. While they got in over higher IQ middle class kids, they weren’t really dragging down the classes. The unqualified FGLI kids are dragging down the quality.

Athletes were never unqualified, they just have skills that your little grinder will never have and you resent that. Some of them may not be at the top of the distribution but they are well qualified at any Ivy, Patriot, UAA, NESCAC, etc.

I don't get athletic families' obsession with the idea that they are special. We all have worked in a team, failed, and won. That isn't some unique experience to throwing a ball.

Because they are special which is why they are coveted in IB. It is why they have superior admissions success to med school other items held equal and also why they tend to perform better in med school as well. It is why Ken Griffin specifically said that they are who he prefers to hire at Citadel because they perform when things are tough.

Cry and whine all you want because deep down you are just resentful because you know that they are better.

Well, not just Citadel. All of finance likes them. And the rest of corporate America.

They perform, on a schedule, with public scrutiny. With their failures on display. And then after a humiliating defeat, in front of family and friends they take a few hours, shake it off go back at it again. Over and over for years. The athletes are valuable to an organization because of the string of failures they faced before they could succeed.

Also, and this is what really pisses of the grinder set, the professors love the athletes too. They are admired, because what they do is difficult. And they are more successful at life.

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/11/ivy-league-athletics-career-success-harvard-study

Competition, failure, resilience, teamwork and leadership is not unique to sports.
The same dynamic occurs with robotics competitions for example...so much failure.