Tell High School Students to Stop Contacting Professors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It might help to consider how the professor can justify time- and resource-expenditure on a high-schooler in response to institutional incentives.

My kid did a free summer STEM program at our local research university that gave him legitimate access (no cold-calling!) to a few of the profs there because those profs had agreed to sponsor a certain number of HS kids in their labs for the summer. It was a thing they did and got credit for doing internally: they put those kids' names on their CVs and the kids' photos on the lab's website and later bragged about the kids' college admission successes. At the end of the summer, my kid had a good enough working relation with one of the grad students in the lab where he'd worked over the summer that it was natural to extend the arrangement through the school year.

But here's the key: these profs were given an institutional incentive to welcome those high-schoolers (rising seniors) into their labs.

With no such institutional incentive, it's just cruel to expect high-schoolers to cold-call professors seeking research experience. That's like expecting undergrads to recruit a future dissertation committee by asking random profs to do them a personal favor. The institutional incentives to work with grad students and undergrads can be extended to high-schoolers, but it takes some advance work that high schools and universities ought to be doing together.

So who has the power here, if not the professors? Dean's? Chancellors?

The point is that this use of professors' time needs to be recognized within the institution. For such mentoring to do any good, it can't be just responding to an email or two. Most professors are happy to do that. Beyond that, most profs would be happy to do one-off outreach at a high school. But having a high-schooler working in your lab? Serving as your informal research assistant? That's a much bigger commitment, and the prof has to be able to put it on her or his CV or otherwise get institutional acknowledgement. For that to be possible, there has to be some kind of program in place -- some way of codifying that 'this is one of the things we do.'

I'm the parent who wrote the post under discussion here, and just yesterday I talked at length with the professor my kid is working with. The prof is putting a fair bit of time in mentoring my kid, and one of the prof's grad students is putting even more time into it, and they're incentivized to do this because each can put it on their CV in terms of their participation in the XYZ Program, an 'outreach' program that everyone internally assessing that CV recognizes as an important use of institutional resources. (The prof told me that participation will count toward their upcoming tenure case -- not as much as teaching or publications, but some.)

Who set up this program? I don't know -- all I can say is 'the university' or maybe 'the university's Board of Governors.' Not individual professors, or an individual department -- though it's possible that an individual department could decide that it's going to encourage its faculty to do such 'outreach' and give credit for that internally under 'departmental service' or the like.

The point is that you can't expect professors to put tens or scores of work-day hours into something that doesn't figure as an institutionally recognized part of their jobs. It's not about whether they're 'kind' or whether they 'care' or the like. It's about the nature of jobs they do. There could be -- and are (you can look them up) -- outreach programs that enable high-schoolers to do college-level research. But cold-calling isn't a way to find them or create them.

But it’s still not clear what the “why” is for the university. I mentioned earlier state schools serving taxpayers, and I guess there could be lower-ranked schools concerned about enrollment. But for the vast majority of large research universities it isn’t clear to me what their incentive is to want their scarce professors’ time to be spent on this. If anything, I think there would be strong institutional incentives to discourage this type of thing from taking root.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s kinda obnoxious for HS kids to think they should get a job doing research.

The professor has a slew of graduate students at his fingertips to help with research. Why would someone think he would ask a kid in HS to help with research?Tell me why. Let me real here.

Go get a job at the mall and leave this professor alone.

And I think you haven’t bothered to read the thread. The kids are being told they need to do research. They would probably be happier spending one their last free summers lifeguarding than do research.

Blame the HSs, the AOs, the consultants and the parents.

Don't blame the AO's. I speak to AO's all of the time (athletic recruiting). I have never been asked about a kids research even at the very top schools. They ask about a lot of stuff but research never comes up.

Athletic recruits are hooked. A 4.0, good test scores, and "standard strong" ECs are more than enough. Just because athletes do not benefit much from research does not mean no one does.

Also, have your talked to Caltech or MIT AOs?

I do blame the AOs. This is in their control. All their false concern for kids’ mental/emotional well-being is just cr@p.

DCUM generally thinks AOs are liars, but you're blaming them for something they have never told you is required?

Definitely smarter to go with people on the internet or consultants. The consultants who haven't worked in admissions, have irrelevant info because they retired years ago, or who were part-time readers doing data entry and first looks at essays and letters of rec. Seems like a great plan.

The AOs can clearly state on their webpages that research relationships with professors at the college level will not be given any more weight in admissions than a regular job.

They bear a great deal of responsibility for not controlling this.

So on top of stating what they want, they have to anticipate every bizarre strategy cooked up by the consultant industry?

This isn't on them. It's on gullible, wealthy people who think they need to do all this stuff. Normal people don't have access to this stuff and aren't doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It might help to consider how the professor can justify time- and resource-expenditure on a high-schooler in response to institutional incentives.

My kid did a free summer STEM program at our local research university that gave him legitimate access (no cold-calling!) to a few of the profs there because those profs had agreed to sponsor a certain number of HS kids in their labs for the summer. It was a thing they did and got credit for doing internally: they put those kids' names on their CVs and the kids' photos on the lab's website and later bragged about the kids' college admission successes. At the end of the summer, my kid had a good enough working relation with one of the grad students in the lab where he'd worked over the summer that it was natural to extend the arrangement through the school year.

But here's the key: these profs were given an institutional incentive to welcome those high-schoolers (rising seniors) into their labs.

With no such institutional incentive, it's just cruel to expect high-schoolers to cold-call professors seeking research experience. That's like expecting undergrads to recruit a future dissertation committee by asking random profs to do them a personal favor. The institutional incentives to work with grad students and undergrads can be extended to high-schoolers, but it takes some advance work that high schools and universities ought to be doing together.

So who has the power here, if not the professors? Dean's? Chancellors?

The point is that this use of professors' time needs to be recognized within the institution. For such mentoring to do any good, it can't be just responding to an email or two. Most professors are happy to do that. Beyond that, most profs would be happy to do one-off outreach at a high school. But having a high-schooler working in your lab? Serving as your informal research assistant? That's a much bigger commitment, and the prof has to be able to put it on her or his CV or otherwise get institutional acknowledgement. For that to be possible, there has to be some kind of program in place -- some way of codifying that 'this is one of the things we do.'

I'm the parent who wrote the post under discussion here, and just yesterday I talked at length with the professor my kid is working with. The prof is putting a fair bit of time in mentoring my kid, and one of the prof's grad students is putting even more time into it, and they're incentivized to do this because each can put it on their CV in terms of their participation in the XYZ Program, an 'outreach' program that everyone internally assessing that CV recognizes as an important use of institutional resources. (The prof told me that participation will count toward their upcoming tenure case -- not as much as teaching or publications, but some.)

Who set up this program? I don't know -- all I can say is 'the university' or maybe 'the university's Board of Governors.' Not individual professors, or an individual department -- though it's possible that an individual department could decide that it's going to encourage its faculty to do such 'outreach' and give credit for that internally under 'departmental service' or the like.

The point is that you can't expect professors to put tens or scores of work-day hours into something that doesn't figure as an institutionally recognized part of their jobs. It's not about whether they're 'kind' or whether they 'care' or the like. It's about the nature of jobs they do. There could be -- and are (you can look them up) -- outreach programs that enable high-schoolers to do college-level research. But cold-calling isn't a way to find them or create them.

I'm asking who has the power to make the institution recognize/reward this kind of service

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s kinda obnoxious for HS kids to think they should get a job doing research.

The professor has a slew of graduate students at his fingertips to help with research. Why would someone think he would ask a kid in HS to help with research?Tell me why. Let me real here.

Go get a job at the mall and leave this professor alone.

And I think you haven’t bothered to read the thread. The kids are being told they need to do research. They would probably be happier spending one their last free summers lifeguarding than do research.

Blame the HSs, the AOs, the consultants and the parents.

Don't blame the AO's. I speak to AO's all of the time (athletic recruiting). I have never been asked about a kids research even at the very top schools. They ask about a lot of stuff but research never comes up.

Athletic recruits are hooked. A 4.0, good test scores, and "standard strong" ECs are more than enough. Just because athletes do not benefit much from research does not mean no one does.

Also, have your talked to Caltech or MIT AOs?

I do blame the AOs. This is in their control. All their false concern for kids’ mental/emotional well-being is just cr@p.

DCUM generally thinks AOs are liars, but you're blaming them for something they have never told you is required?

Definitely smarter to go with people on the internet or consultants. The consultants who haven't worked in admissions, have irrelevant info because they retired years ago, or who were part-time readers doing data entry and first looks at essays and letters of rec. Seems like a great plan.

The AOs can clearly state on their webpages that research relationships with professors at the college level will not be given any more weight in admissions than a regular job.

They bear a great deal of responsibility for not controlling this.

So on top of stating what they want, they have to anticipate every bizarre strategy cooked up by the consultant industry?

This isn't on them. It's on gullible, wealthy people who think they need to do all this stuff. Normal people don't have access to this stuff and aren't doing it.

You're mistaken.

The colleges explicitly advocate for this behavior:

https://www.propublica.org/article/college-high-school-research-peer-review-publications

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BECAUSE THERE ARE HIGH SCHOOLS WHO REQUIRE STUDENTS TO DO RESEARCH PROJECTS WITH A COLLEGE PROFESSOR.

My kid had to do that. He cold-contacted dozens of profs in different universities for a school-mandated mini research project. Only one responded, and he was really nice, and my kid was very grateful and tried to take up the least amount of his time as possible. He aced the project and thanked the professor.

You don't even need to respond to these emails, OP. All we're asking is that you stop whining about children who are required by their schools to do certain things. YOU LOOK NASTY.

This must be utter nonsense. I am a college professor. I am beholden to the students at my own institution. Why would I utilize my free time to teach a high school student? This is an asinine expectation from a high school, and so I call BS.

Not BS. The magnet program at Blair has this exact requirement, so my kid as well emailed a bunch of local profs to see if he could work on a project for the summer before his senior year.

If you don't want to help the high school kids, then just delete their emails! They are getting experience reaching out to people who work in fields they're interested in - there's literally no skin off your nose. My kid heard back from 2 of the 5 or so profs he wrote and they were very nice. He ended up doing some math research or something for the one guy, and now goes to that university, and is majoring in that department.

I think OP is kind of jerky. I'm also an academic and I call BS on the "I'm so busy I don't have time to delete emails" line.

Parents need to band together and stop this. You need to push back on HS teachers with these stupid requirements that are not realistic in today's world and put even more pressure on pressurized students. If we can get our kids out of gym (because they do varsity or specialized sports or whatever) we can get them out of a truly obnoxious and ridiculous assignment like this.

What? Magnet Parents should band together and demand that the magnet program stop providing an enriched science education?!

You can...choose to not send your kid to the magnet, if you want a regular high school education.

Also, varsity sports do not count for PE credit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It might help to consider how the professor can justify time- and resource-expenditure on a high-schooler in response to institutional incentives.

My kid did a free summer STEM program at our local research university that gave him legitimate access (no cold-calling!) to a few of the profs there because those profs had agreed to sponsor a certain number of HS kids in their labs for the summer. It was a thing they did and got credit for doing internally: they put those kids' names on their CVs and the kids' photos on the lab's website and later bragged about the kids' college admission successes. At the end of the summer, my kid had a good enough working relation with one of the grad students in the lab where he'd worked over the summer that it was natural to extend the arrangement through the school year.

But here's the key: these profs were given an institutional incentive to welcome those high-schoolers (rising seniors) into their labs.

With no such institutional incentive, it's just cruel to expect high-schoolers to cold-call professors seeking research experience. That's like expecting undergrads to recruit a future dissertation committee by asking random profs to do them a personal favor. The institutional incentives to work with grad students and undergrads can be extended to high-schoolers, but it takes some advance work that high schools and universities ought to be doing together.

So who has the power here, if not the professors? Dean's? Chancellors?

The point is that this use of professors' time needs to be recognized within the institution. For such mentoring to do any good, it can't be just responding to an email or two. Most professors are happy to do that. Beyond that, most profs would be happy to do one-off outreach at a high school. But having a high-schooler working in your lab? Serving as your informal research assistant? That's a much bigger commitment, and the prof has to be able to put it on her or his CV or otherwise get institutional acknowledgement. For that to be possible, there has to be some kind of program in place -- some way of codifying that 'this is one of the things we do.'

I'm the parent who wrote the post under discussion here, and just yesterday I talked at length with the professor my kid is working with. The prof is putting a fair bit of time in mentoring my kid, and one of the prof's grad students is putting even more time into it, and they're incentivized to do this because each can put it on their CV in terms of their participation in the XYZ Program, an 'outreach' program that everyone internally assessing that CV recognizes as an important use of institutional resources. (The prof told me that participation will count toward their upcoming tenure case -- not as much as teaching or publications, but some.)

Who set up this program? I don't know -- all I can say is 'the university' or maybe 'the university's Board of Governors.' Not individual professors, or an individual department -- though it's possible that an individual department could decide that it's going to encourage its faculty to do such 'outreach' and give credit for that internally under 'departmental service' or the like.

The point is that you can't expect professors to put tens or scores of work-day hours into something that doesn't figure as an institutionally recognized part of their jobs. It's not about whether they're 'kind' or whether they 'care' or the like. It's about the nature of jobs they do. There could be -- and are (you can look them up) -- outreach programs that enable high-schoolers to do college-level research. But cold-calling isn't a way to find them or create them.

I'm asking who has the power to make the institution recognize/reward this kind of service

"Has the power" and "make" aren't the right concepts here. Better concepts are "incentivize" and "coordinate"/"facilitate." As for what provides the ground of the incentive, all I can appeal to is the widely acknowledged value of "outreach" to the local community (which may be an entire state) and of proven worth to taxpayers. These incentives work best at public universities, obviously.

If you object "But no one would do that!" the reply is that quite a few public universities -- including some of the best ones -- actually do have these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BECAUSE THERE ARE HIGH SCHOOLS WHO REQUIRE STUDENTS TO DO RESEARCH PROJECTS WITH A COLLEGE PROFESSOR.

My kid had to do that. He cold-contacted dozens of profs in different universities for a school-mandated mini research project. Only one responded, and he was really nice, and my kid was very grateful and tried to take up the least amount of his time as possible. He aced the project and thanked the professor.

You don't even need to respond to these emails, OP. All we're asking is that you stop whining about children who are required by their schools to do certain things. YOU LOOK NASTY.

This must be utter nonsense. I am a college professor. I am beholden to the students at my own institution. Why would I utilize my free time to teach a high school student? This is an asinine expectation from a high school, and so I call BS.

Not BS. The magnet program at Blair has this exact requirement, so my kid as well emailed a bunch of local profs to see if he could work on a project for the summer before his senior year.

If you don't want to help the high school kids, then just delete their emails! They are getting experience reaching out to people who work in fields they're interested in - there's literally no skin off your nose. My kid heard back from 2 of the 5 or so profs he wrote and they were very nice. He ended up doing some math research or something for the one guy, and now goes to that university, and is majoring in that department.

I think OP is kind of jerky. I'm also an academic and I call BS on the "I'm so busy I don't have time to delete emails" line.

Parents need to band together and stop this. You need to push back on HS teachers with these stupid requirements that are not realistic in today's world and put even more pressure on pressurized students. If we can get our kids out of gym (because they do varsity or specialized sports or whatever) we can get them out of a truly obnoxious and ridiculous assignment like this.

What? Magnet Parents should band together and demand that the magnet program stop providing an enriched science education?!

You can...choose to not send your kid to the magnet, if you want a regular high school education.

Also, varsity sports do not count for PE credit.

To be clear, Blair Magnet has agreements in place with local universities, to match students for onsite summer research internships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s kinda obnoxious for HS kids to think they should get a job doing research.

The professor has a slew of graduate students at his fingertips to help with research. Why would someone think he would ask a kid in HS to help with research?Tell me why. Let me real here.

Go get a job at the mall and leave this professor alone.

And I think you haven’t bothered to read the thread. The kids are being told they need to do research. They would probably be happier spending one their last free summers lifeguarding than do research.

Blame the HSs, the AOs, the consultants and the parents.

Don't blame the AO's. I speak to AO's all of the time (athletic recruiting). I have never been asked about a kids research even at the very top schools. They ask about a lot of stuff but research never comes up.

Athletic recruits are hooked. A 4.0, good test scores, and "standard strong" ECs are more than enough. Just because athletes do not benefit much from research does not mean no one does.

Also, have your talked to Caltech or MIT AOs?

I do blame the AOs. This is in their control. All their false concern for kids’ mental/emotional well-being is just cr@p.

DCUM generally thinks AOs are liars, but you're blaming them for something they have never told you is required?

Definitely smarter to go with people on the internet or consultants. The consultants who haven't worked in admissions, have irrelevant info because they retired years ago, or who were part-time readers doing data entry and first looks at essays and letters of rec. Seems like a great plan.

The AOs can clearly state on their webpages that research relationships with professors at the college level will not be given any more weight in admissions than a regular job.

They bear a great deal of responsibility for not controlling this.

So on top of stating what they want, they have to anticipate every bizarre strategy cooked up by the consultant industry?

This isn't on them. It's on gullible, wealthy people who think they need to do all this stuff. Normal people don't have access to this stuff and aren't doing it.

You're mistaken.

The colleges explicitly advocate for this behavior:

https://www.propublica.org/article/college-high-school-research-peer-review-publications

Thanks for sharing, this is an excellent article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s kinda obnoxious for HS kids to think they should get a job doing research.

The professor has a slew of graduate students at his fingertips to help with research. Why would someone think he would ask a kid in HS to help with research?Tell me why. Let me real here.

Go get a job at the mall and leave this professor alone.

And I think you haven’t bothered to read the thread. The kids are being told they need to do research. They would probably be happier spending one their last free summers lifeguarding than do research.

Blame the HSs, the AOs, the consultants and the parents.

Don't blame the AO's. I speak to AO's all of the time (athletic recruiting). I have never been asked about a kids research even at the very top schools. They ask about a lot of stuff but research never comes up.

Athletic recruits are hooked. A 4.0, good test scores, and "standard strong" ECs are more than enough. Just because athletes do not benefit much from research does not mean no one does.

Also, have your talked to Caltech or MIT AOs?

I do blame the AOs. This is in their control. All their false concern for kids’ mental/emotional well-being is just cr@p.

DCUM generally thinks AOs are liars, but you're blaming them for something they have never told you is required?

Definitely smarter to go with people on the internet or consultants. The consultants who haven't worked in admissions, have irrelevant info because they retired years ago, or who were part-time readers doing data entry and first looks at essays and letters of rec. Seems like a great plan.

The AOs can clearly state on their webpages that research relationships with professors at the college level will not be given any more weight in admissions than a regular job.

They bear a great deal of responsibility for not controlling this.

So on top of stating what they want, they have to anticipate every bizarre strategy cooked up by the consultant industry?

This isn't on them. It's on gullible, wealthy people who think they need to do all this stuff. Normal people don't have access to this stuff and aren't doing it.

The problem is that university academia and 9-12 educators are not zooming out and understanding the dysfuntion and institutional failures in promoting fields and training young people in really important sectors our country needs. Instead, people on this thread and elsewhere are quick to snipe about specific symptoms rather than the core problems. The problems have been largely masked by favorable demographics and relatively free-flowing funding to universities, which have been on a spending spree for the past couple of decades.

There are a number of indicators to suggest that those conditions are about to change, perhaps quickly. The country is clearly entering a highly populist and cost-cutting mood. Known "enrollment cliff" demographic shifts and possibly the changes in immigration policy will likely affect undergraduate enrollment demand. Furthermore, there is a is a documented gender imbalance, as many first generation students (particularly young men) simply conclude that college isn't worth it.

What would happen if practical opportunities to learn research constrict even more? ROI will come increasingly front-and-center and students will monitor carefully how schools pivot with funding changes. I'm not going to offer specific threats because there is so much uncertainty, but I think it's fair to say that research will likely be harmed to some degree in the next decade, and this could happen even at top-tier universities. In my experience, education administrators are also not particularly strong at pivoting quickly.

What I have been trying to suggest (gently) to the professors on this thread is that you might not be so quick to snarl at enthusiastic parents and high school/undergraduate students, which I believe is the audience who has the best incentive to support your work with any loyalty. (You have the potential to develop them and shape their careers!) While you might have tenure, funding your research is likely another matter entirely.

The truth of the matter is that our educational system has been making some terrible strategic decisions in preparing young people for a long time. Let's look at how our high school curriculum and assessment is done. Nationwide, it seems that nearly every state has outsourced advanced curriculum for schools to a third party "nonprofit", the College Board. I don't know, but I'm assuming that school systems have to pay the CB for access to classroom curricula. To drive its own profits, the CB is creating new AP classes as fast as they can, including silliness like AP Precalculus.

What was originally intended to help students get a jump start on college-level work and improve affordability (primarily for seniors) has now devolved into a rigor race where freshman in high school are signing up for APs, which of course pads the CB's bottom line because they charge schools/families plenty of fees for the AP tests. Top students are often applying with 12+ AP classes and admissions offices are often using the number of APs as a screening device with AI systems on application. Academic grade inflation has exploded, particularly during and post-pandemic, leading to meaningful difficulty in differentiating student transcripts. On top of that, the College Board also has a huge role in "standardized" testing as the administrator of the SAT. Not only do the CB and ACT charge fees for the testing, they charge fees for distributing digital reports to each applicant university. Of course, they also SELL that student's data to universities for marketing. So IMO we have given extraordinary power and resources to a rather troubling nonprofit.

To improve access, promote diversity, and mitigate the looming enrollment cliff, admissions offices recently embraced "test optional" for admissions during and post-pandemic. That is somewhat unwinding starting with the 2026 class because of the transcript differentiation problems, but the test optional environment has then placed more pressure on top students securing meaningful extracurricular activities in a "holistic review". Instead of offering high-quality and affordable options to prepare students for college and explore potential fields, most universities have opted to fill their campuses with "pay-to-play" summer programs to leverage their vacant housing and pad their bottom lines. With few exceptions, Admissions Officers do not particularly respect the quality of these experiences and students enjoy them but don't develop many concrete skills. Nevertheless, plenty of anxious families plunk down thousands of dollars for them so they have *something* to report on the common app, and YES, a huge industry of $$$$ consultants are advising families to do just that.

Research is murkier because that can actually be an incredible experience, depending on the circumstances. The uber-wealthy families hiring the 6-figure and higher consultancies are figuring out ways to buy access to opportunities that either are legit or sound enough so that a 24 year old AO reader would be impressed. It absolutely works often, both in admission and in building an attractive resume for future professors. It's a free rider problem of sorts. If students are somehow able to get access to top-tier training and experience through personal connections or expensive consultants, that is less training that their future professor's lab has to do.

When there are plenty of well-trained students, professors can, as a PP noted, have a choice of "brilliant researchers". I suspect that the spigot may be less free-flowing as funding dries. And, as a PP pointed out, most kids don't have access because those pay-to-play opportunities are $$$$.

But PPs are wrong that students are just doing this because a consultant told them to do so. Competitive programs indicate having research experience as a pre-requisite for admission. Consider the Virginia STEM application for its summer Governor's School program, where a section of the application is dedicated to listing research experience. Most students who aren't able to get into the few university-based programs and who aren't able to do research at their high schools become shut out. In my experience, high school teachers are tired and most aren't interested in taking on extra projects for which they aren't paid, so that also can limit access to pursuing competitions and awards.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.doe.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/57918/638652942955530000

I'm suggesting that professors consider a pivot in attitude and in advocacy for students, and that universities consider replacing mediocre pay-to-play programs with higher quality outreach opportunities that promote realistic and valuable skill developments in research. I think universities are better positioned to do so financially than expecting high schools to step up. I understand that this has to be funded, but I suspect the smarter schools will start figuring out creative ways to fund programs like this to bring talent to schools, whether through targeted grants, campaigns to parents, etc.

Aside for the concerns for my own kids, I'm alarmed by the growth in the "flat earther" believers and the proliferation of conspiracy theories in lieu of science in America. More importantly, I'm alarmed that our nation's educators don't seem to be waking up to the threats. Change is hard and resource allocation is ever-tricky, but I urge each of you to think about ways that you can get creative in supporting our students better. Even if you can help one student, it is something.

[Anonymous]

Just press delete if don’t want to read the email like would for any other spam. Or report the kid to admissions and say don’t admit this kid in 4 years if feel so strongly, but it’s really not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just press delete if don’t want to read the email like would for any other spam. Or report the kid to admissions and say don’t admit this kid in 4 years if feel so strongly, but it’s really not a big deal.

Better the kids than the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s kinda obnoxious for HS kids to think they should get a job doing research.

The professor has a slew of graduate students at his fingertips to help with research. Why would someone think he would ask a kid in HS to help with research?Tell me why. Let me real here.

Go get a job at the mall and leave this professor alone.

And I think you haven’t bothered to read the thread. The kids are being told they need to do research. They would probably be happier spending one their last free summers lifeguarding than do research.

Blame the HSs, the AOs, the consultants and the parents.

Don't blame the AO's. I speak to AO's all of the time (athletic recruiting). I have never been asked about a kids research even at the very top schools. They ask about a lot of stuff but research never comes up.

Athletic recruits are hooked. A 4.0, good test scores, and "standard strong" ECs are more than enough. Just because athletes do not benefit much from research does not mean no one does.

Also, have your talked to Caltech or MIT AOs?

I do blame the AOs. This is in their control. All their false concern for kids’ mental/emotional well-being is just cr@p.

DCUM generally thinks AOs are liars, but you're blaming them for something they have never told you is required?

Definitely smarter to go with people on the internet or consultants. The consultants who haven't worked in admissions, have irrelevant info because they retired years ago, or who were part-time readers doing data entry and first looks at essays and letters of rec. Seems like a great plan.

The AOs can clearly state on their webpages that research relationships with professors at the college level will not be given any more weight in admissions than a regular job.

They bear a great deal of responsibility for not controlling this.

So on top of stating what they want, they have to anticipate every bizarre strategy cooked up by the consultant industry?

This isn't on them. It's on gullible, wealthy people who think they need to do all this stuff. Normal people don't have access to this stuff and aren't doing it.

The problem is that university academia and 9-12 educators are not zooming out and understanding the dysfuntion and institutional failures in promoting fields and training young people in really important sectors our country needs. Instead, people on this thread and elsewhere are quick to snipe about specific symptoms rather than the core problems. The problems have been largely masked by favorable demographics and relatively free-flowing funding to universities, which have been on a spending spree for the past couple of decades.

There are a number of indicators to suggest that those conditions are about to change, perhaps quickly. The country is clearly entering a highly populist and cost-cutting mood. Known "enrollment cliff" demographic shifts and possibly the changes in immigration policy will likely affect undergraduate enrollment demand. Furthermore, there is a is a documented gender imbalance, as many first generation students (particularly young men) simply conclude that college isn't worth it.

What would happen if practical opportunities to learn research constrict even more? ROI will come increasingly front-and-center and students will monitor carefully how schools pivot with funding changes. I'm not going to offer specific threats because there is so much uncertainty, but I think it's fair to say that research will likely be harmed to some degree in the next decade, and this could happen even at top-tier universities. In my experience, education administrators are also not particularly strong at pivoting quickly.

What I have been trying to suggest (gently) to the professors on this thread is that you might not be so quick to snarl at enthusiastic parents and high school/undergraduate students, which I believe is the audience who has the best incentive to support your work with any loyalty. (You have the potential to develop them and shape their careers!) While you might have tenure, funding your research is likely another matter entirely.

The truth of the matter is that our educational system has been making some terrible strategic decisions in preparing young people for a long time. Let's look at how our high school curriculum and assessment is done. Nationwide, it seems that nearly every state has outsourced advanced curriculum for schools to a third party "nonprofit", the College Board. I don't know, but I'm assuming that school systems have to pay the CB for access to classroom curricula. To drive its own profits, the CB is creating new AP classes as fast as they can, including silliness like AP Precalculus.

What was originally intended to help students get a jump start on college-level work and improve affordability (primarily for seniors) has now devolved into a rigor race where freshman in high school are signing up for APs, which of course pads the CB's bottom line because they charge schools/families plenty of fees for the AP tests. Top students are often applying with 12+ AP classes and admissions offices are often using the number of APs as a screening device with AI systems on application. Academic grade inflation has exploded, particularly during and post-pandemic, leading to meaningful difficulty in differentiating student transcripts. On top of that, the College Board also has a huge role in "standardized" testing as the administrator of the SAT. Not only do the CB and ACT charge fees for the testing, they charge fees for distributing digital reports to each applicant university. Of course, they also SELL that student's data to universities for marketing. So IMO we have given extraordinary power and resources to a rather troubling nonprofit.

To improve access, promote diversity, and mitigate the looming enrollment cliff, admissions offices recently embraced "test optional" for admissions during and post-pandemic. That is somewhat unwinding starting with the 2026 class because of the transcript differentiation problems, but the test optional environment has then placed more pressure on top students securing meaningful extracurricular activities in a "holistic review". Instead of offering high-quality and affordable options to prepare students for college and explore potential fields, most universities have opted to fill their campuses with "pay-to-play" summer programs to leverage their vacant housing and pad their bottom lines. With few exceptions, Admissions Officers do not particularly respect the quality of these experiences and students enjoy them but don't develop many concrete skills. Nevertheless, plenty of anxious families plunk down thousands of dollars for them so they have *something* to report on the common app, and YES, a huge industry of $$$$ consultants are advising families to do just that.

Research is murkier because that can actually be an incredible experience, depending on the circumstances. The uber-wealthy families hiring the 6-figure and higher consultancies are figuring out ways to buy access to opportunities that either are legit or sound enough so that a 24 year old AO reader would be impressed. It absolutely works often, both in admission and in building an attractive resume for future professors. It's a free rider problem of sorts. If students are somehow able to get access to top-tier training and experience through personal connections or expensive consultants, that is less training that their future professor's lab has to do.

When there are plenty of well-trained students, professors can, as a PP noted, have a choice of "brilliant researchers". I suspect that the spigot may be less free-flowing as funding dries. And, as a PP pointed out, most kids don't have access because those pay-to-play opportunities are $$$$.

But PPs are wrong that students are just doing this because a consultant told them to do so. Competitive programs indicate having research experience as a pre-requisite for admission. Consider the Virginia STEM application for its summer Governor's School program, where a section of the application is dedicated to listing research experience. Most students who aren't able to get into the few university-based programs and who aren't able to do research at their high schools become shut out. In my experience, high school teachers are tired and most aren't interested in taking on extra projects for which they aren't paid, so that also can limit access to pursuing competitions and awards.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.doe.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/57918/638652942955530000

I'm suggesting that professors consider a pivot in attitude and in advocacy for students, and that universities consider replacing mediocre pay-to-play programs with higher quality outreach opportunities that promote realistic and valuable skill developments in research. I think universities are better positioned to do so financially than expecting high schools to step up. I understand that this has to be funded, but I suspect the smarter schools will start figuring out creative ways to fund programs like this to bring talent to schools, whether through targeted grants, campaigns to parents, etc.

Aside for the concerns for my own kids, I'm alarmed by the growth in the "flat earther" believers and the proliferation of conspiracy theories in lieu of science in America. More importantly, I'm alarmed that our nation's educators don't seem to be waking up to the threats. Change is hard and resource allocation is ever-tricky, but I urge each of you to think about ways that you can get creative in supporting our students better. Even if you can help one student, it is something.

Very well said. I agree with all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s kinda obnoxious for HS kids to think they should get a job doing research.

The professor has a slew of graduate students at his fingertips to help with research. Why would someone think he would ask a kid in HS to help with research?Tell me why. Let me real here.

Go get a job at the mall and leave this professor alone.

And I think you haven’t bothered to read the thread. The kids are being told they need to do research. They would probably be happier spending one their last free summers lifeguarding than do research.

Blame the HSs, the AOs, the consultants and the parents.

Don't blame the AO's. I speak to AO's all of the time (athletic recruiting). I have never been asked about a kids research even at the very top schools. They ask about a lot of stuff but research never comes up.

Athletic recruits are hooked. A 4.0, good test scores, and "standard strong" ECs are more than enough. Just because athletes do not benefit much from research does not mean no one does.

Also, have your talked to Caltech or MIT AOs?

I do blame the AOs. This is in their control. All their false concern for kids’ mental/emotional well-being is just cr@p.

DCUM generally thinks AOs are liars, but you're blaming them for something they have never told you is required?

Definitely smarter to go with people on the internet or consultants. The consultants who haven't worked in admissions, have irrelevant info because they retired years ago, or who were part-time readers doing data entry and first looks at essays and letters of rec. Seems like a great plan.

The AOs can clearly state on their webpages that research relationships with professors at the college level will not be given any more weight in admissions than a regular job.

They bear a great deal of responsibility for not controlling this.

So on top of stating what they want, they have to anticipate every bizarre strategy cooked up by the consultant industry?

This isn't on them. It's on gullible, wealthy people who think they need to do all this stuff. Normal people don't have access to this stuff and aren't doing it.

The problem is that university academia and 9-12 educators are not zooming out and understanding the dysfuntion and institutional failures in promoting fields and training young people in really important sectors our country needs. Instead, people on this thread and elsewhere are quick to snipe about specific symptoms rather than the core problems. The problems have been largely masked by favorable demographics and relatively free-flowing funding to universities, which have been on a spending spree for the past couple of decades.

There are a number of indicators to suggest that those conditions are about to change, perhaps quickly. The country is clearly entering a highly populist and cost-cutting mood. Known "enrollment cliff" demographic shifts and possibly the changes in immigration policy will likely affect undergraduate enrollment demand. Furthermore, there is a is a documented gender imbalance, as many first generation students (particularly young men) simply conclude that college isn't worth it.

What would happen if practical opportunities to learn research constrict even more? ROI will come increasingly front-and-center and students will monitor carefully how schools pivot with funding changes. I'm not going to offer specific threats because there is so much uncertainty, but I think it's fair to say that research will likely be harmed to some degree in the next decade, and this could happen even at top-tier universities. In my experience, education administrators are also not particularly strong at pivoting quickly.

What I have been trying to suggest (gently) to the professors on this thread is that you might not be so quick to snarl at enthusiastic parents and high school/undergraduate students, which I believe is the audience who has the best incentive to support your work with any loyalty. (You have the potential to develop them and shape their careers!) While you might have tenure, funding your research is likely another matter entirely.

The truth of the matter is that our educational system has been making some terrible strategic decisions in preparing young people for a long time. Let's look at how our high school curriculum and assessment is done. Nationwide, it seems that nearly every state has outsourced advanced curriculum for schools to a third party "nonprofit", the College Board. I don't know, but I'm assuming that school systems have to pay the CB for access to classroom curricula. To drive its own profits, the CB is creating new AP classes as fast as they can, including silliness like AP Precalculus.

What was originally intended to help students get a jump start on college-level work and improve affordability (primarily for seniors) has now devolved into a rigor race where freshman in high school are signing up for APs, which of course pads the CB's bottom line because they charge schools/families plenty of fees for the AP tests. Top students are often applying with 12+ AP classes and admissions offices are often using the number of APs as a screening device with AI systems on application. Academic grade inflation has exploded, particularly during and post-pandemic, leading to meaningful difficulty in differentiating student transcripts. On top of that, the College Board also has a huge role in "standardized" testing as the administrator of the SAT. Not only do the CB and ACT charge fees for the testing, they charge fees for distributing digital reports to each applicant university. Of course, they also SELL that student's data to universities for marketing. So IMO we have given extraordinary power and resources to a rather troubling nonprofit.

To improve access, promote diversity, and mitigate the looming enrollment cliff, admissions offices recently embraced "test optional" for admissions during and post-pandemic. That is somewhat unwinding starting with the 2026 class because of the transcript differentiation problems, but the test optional environment has then placed more pressure on top students securing meaningful extracurricular activities in a "holistic review". Instead of offering high-quality and affordable options to prepare students for college and explore potential fields, most universities have opted to fill their campuses with "pay-to-play" summer programs to leverage their vacant housing and pad their bottom lines. With few exceptions, Admissions Officers do not particularly respect the quality of these experiences and students enjoy them but don't develop many concrete skills. Nevertheless, plenty of anxious families plunk down thousands of dollars for them so they have *something* to report on the common app, and YES, a huge industry of $$$$ consultants are advising families to do just that.

Research is murkier because that can actually be an incredible experience, depending on the circumstances. The uber-wealthy families hiring the 6-figure and higher consultancies are figuring out ways to buy access to opportunities that either are legit or sound enough so that a 24 year old AO reader would be impressed. It absolutely works often, both in admission and in building an attractive resume for future professors. It's a free rider problem of sorts. If students are somehow able to get access to top-tier training and experience through personal connections or expensive consultants, that is less training that their future professor's lab has to do.

When there are plenty of well-trained students, professors can, as a PP noted, have a choice of "brilliant researchers". I suspect that the spigot may be less free-flowing as funding dries. And, as a PP pointed out, most kids don't have access because those pay-to-play opportunities are $$$$.

But PPs are wrong that students are just doing this because a consultant told them to do so. Competitive programs indicate having research experience as a pre-requisite for admission. Consider the Virginia STEM application for its summer Governor's School program, where a section of the application is dedicated to listing research experience. Most students who aren't able to get into the few university-based programs and who aren't able to do research at their high schools become shut out. In my experience, high school teachers are tired and most aren't interested in taking on extra projects for which they aren't paid, so that also can limit access to pursuing competitions and awards.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.doe.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/57918/638652942955530000

I'm suggesting that professors consider a pivot in attitude and in advocacy for students, and that universities consider replacing mediocre pay-to-play programs with higher quality outreach opportunities that promote realistic and valuable skill developments in research. I think universities are better positioned to do so financially than expecting high schools to step up. I understand that this has to be funded, but I suspect the smarter schools will start figuring out creative ways to fund programs like this to bring talent to schools, whether through targeted grants, campaigns to parents, etc.

Aside for the concerns for my own kids, I'm alarmed by the growth in the "flat earther" believers and the proliferation of conspiracy theories in lieu of science in America. More importantly, I'm alarmed that our nation's educators don't seem to be waking up to the threats. Change is hard and resource allocation is ever-tricky, but I urge each of you to think about ways that you can get creative in supporting our students better. Even if you can help one student, it is something.

PP here, the one who was arguing for more 'outreach' above. That's a lot of text for the two (now bolded) 'suggestions'! I agree with both, but the 'attitude' issue is moot without a change in institutional incentive structures. So everything turns on the second suggestion. And on that point I'll say yet again: quite a few universities are already doing this. To find out which universities, you might start with non-pfp summer programs then look into how those research opportunities can be extended into the school year (which is how my kid is getting his valuable research experience). Even without that extension, such a summer program itself -- again, the opposite of pfp: subsidized! 'free'! (though with competitive admissions) -- would provide most of what people are talking about in this thread. We have some of those, but we need more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s kinda obnoxious for HS kids to think they should get a job doing research.

The professor has a slew of graduate students at his fingertips to help with research. Why would someone think he would ask a kid in HS to help with research?Tell me why. Let me real here.

Go get a job at the mall and leave this professor alone.

And I think you haven’t bothered to read the thread. The kids are being told they need to do research. They would probably be happier spending one their last free summers lifeguarding than do research.

Blame the HSs, the AOs, the consultants and the parents.

Don't blame the AO's. I speak to AO's all of the time (athletic recruiting). I have never been asked about a kids research even at the very top schools. They ask about a lot of stuff but research never comes up.

Athletic recruits are hooked. A 4.0, good test scores, and "standard strong" ECs are more than enough. Just because athletes do not benefit much from research does not mean no one does.

Also, have your talked to Caltech or MIT AOs?

I do blame the AOs. This is in their control. All their false concern for kids’ mental/emotional well-being is just cr@p.

DCUM generally thinks AOs are liars, but you're blaming them for something they have never told you is required?

Definitely smarter to go with people on the internet or consultants. The consultants who haven't worked in admissions, have irrelevant info because they retired years ago, or who were part-time readers doing data entry and first looks at essays and letters of rec. Seems like a great plan.

The AOs can clearly state on their webpages that research relationships with professors at the college level will not be given any more weight in admissions than a regular job.

They bear a great deal of responsibility for not controlling this.

So on top of stating what they want, they have to anticipate every bizarre strategy cooked up by the consultant industry?

This isn't on them. It's on gullible, wealthy people who think they need to do all this stuff. Normal people don't have access to this stuff and aren't doing it.

You're mistaken.

The colleges explicitly advocate for this behavior:

https://www.propublica.org/article/college-high-school-research-peer-review-publications

I beg you to work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. FIVE Ivy League schools mentioned. Out of the thousands of colleges. The Stanford AO mentioned in the article worked there in the 1990s.

At Harvard, “evidence of substantial scholarship” can elevate an applicant, according to a university filing in a lawsuit challenging its use of affirmative action in admissions. The University of Pennsylvania’s admissions dean, Whitney Soule, boasted last year that nearly one-third of accepted students “engaged in academic research” in high school, including some who “co-authored publications included in leading journals.” A Penn spokesperson declined to identify the journals. Yale, Columbia and Brown, among others, encourage applicants to send research.

MIT acknowledges exactly what I said, that this stuff is being done by people of means.

“Research is one of these activities that we’re very aware they’re not offered equitably,” Stuart Schmill of MIT said.

[Anonymous]

Nice suggestions, but

1) it's not the job, and likely not in the talent set, of university researchers to train high school students. Teaching well is incredibly difficult and suggesting that anyone who runs a lab will do a good job at training young/ uninformed kids is not fair to the researchers or to talented teachers, and

2) outreach requires a TON of resources, which are rather tight at the moment, given the MAGA movement.