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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Point taken, and FTR I agree with you about algebra v. writing skills.

To be honest, I don't think there is a clear explanation for falling test scores. Some is probably related to the pandemic. Some might be the disastrous national move away from phonics (which we can see the US south re-embracing to wild success). Some might, indeed, be students becoming used to extra time/support/re-do opportunities. I'm not sure, but I suspect it's a lot of different things. What I don't think it is, and what I know the data don't support, is low income or first generation students, which was what I was initially reacting to.

[Anonymous]

We're heading into a second Dark Ages era. Honestly, it probably already started 30 years ago. Look at the entrance exams for high school and college from back in the 1910s and see how far we've come. Intellectually we've fallen way behind.

The reason college admissions are so selective is because intellectual curiosity and excellence have almost nothing to do with the modern desire for a college degree. College is simply an accomplishment that needs to be completed. With that mindset, all that matters is finishing in the best shape with the least effort. It's a simple math equation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with both of you.

It's good to recognize and accommodate differences. But, we also need to build resilience. We've moved towards being a lot more supportive of kids who needed extra support to flourish, but maybe not in a way that's given them intrinsic motivation skills. This all needs continued work.

I also *definitely* agree that grade inflation is part of this and that's a problem that begins well before college or high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You would have made a better point without your backhanded dig towards one kid.

The supposed dig is part of the point.

The it is stupid and childish because I am sure that your cheating comment is merely the chatter of children as opposed to anything factual. Nothing worse than disparaging and likely false rumors spread by insecure and jealous moms.

[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:

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

Most of this is denial of the obvious: they’re mostly rich, from well connected backgrounds, and people help them a lot more than other students. At DD’s lac, athletes are mostly rich white students, a few Asian, and they all came from boarding schools and the like. Their parents are in the industry, and so are their parents’ friends. The athlete only alumni network fast track hires them and gives them everything they need. One kid has a 3.0, ppe major, and has very little remarkable going for him, except daddy works at a top firm and you can guess where he’ll be this summers. They then join organizations, create blocking of narrowly defined merit, and clash against others who aren’t like them- I’ve had personal experience rig a team like this at google, who absolutely refused to hire non athletes and borderline discriminated against non white applicants.

I don’t resent athletes. I recognize their very hard work and real talent, but many are essentially spoon fed and sell lies about merit when it’s really all about wealth.

"Gompers allows that it remains unclear whether participation in athletics fosters valued human capital (is it, in economic terms, a treatment effect), or whether athletes succeed in the labor market and in sport because they already possess desirable characteristics (a selection effect). Are labor market outcomes different for athletes who participate in team versus individual sports? Because athletes enter business and finance careers at much higher rates than other students do, perhaps as a result of the influence of teammates, he also doesn’t discount altogether the possibility that their success in the workplace could be driven by ex-Ivy athletes in senior positions hiring peers or younger ex-Ivy athletes"

Possible, but it doesn’t explain the overweight acceptance rates and superior performance of college athletes in medical school does it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You would have made a better point without your backhanded dig towards one kid.

The supposed dig is part of the point.

The it is stupid and childish because I am sure that your cheating comment is merely the chatter of children as opposed to anything factual. Nothing worse than disparaging and likely false rumors spread by insecure and jealous moms.

Oh please, the kids know who’s cheating. They can watch it in realtime.

Same school, different kids were both brazenly cheating. Both headed to top schools. When another group of kids threatened to bring it to the administration, the cheaters never once denied it. The response was just “how dare you, this is our future you’re taking about!”

[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 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.

Wow, so college should run like a company, who can bring more revenue can get in. But even company don't run like that today.
Where are moral and social obligation for colleges? given the resources, how can you be sure FGLI would still be lagging academically, that's exactly top colleges are doing, giving them a chance. Do you think the guy transferred from Fordham to UPenn failed English class in high school? how come he's given a chance.

FGLI is a preference just like ALDC is a preference. The FGLI preference is largely there to counter the ALDC preference.

There is no barrier to attending college in america, why does a FGLI kid need to go to Harvard if they would not get in without a preference?

People keep telling us that our kids will be fine without harvardf so we should stop focusing on places like that meanwhile those same people are focusing on those schools.

Why does any “average excellent” i.e. academically talented but otherwise undistinguishable among many thousands of qualified kids need to go the Harvard? Answer is that they don’t. And the numbers of applicants overwhelms everything else so even if we eliminated all preferences the vast majority of kids aren’t getting in. The anger towards FGLI and ALDC is unjustified and misplaced because it is scarcity which drives the resentment and their elimination will not meaningfully impact the supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You would have made a better point without your backhanded dig towards one kid.

The supposed dig is part of the point.

The it is stupid and childish because I am sure that your cheating comment is merely the chatter of children as opposed to anything factual. Nothing worse than disparaging and likely false rumors spread by insecure and jealous moms.

Oh please, the kids know who’s cheating. They can watch it in realtime.

Same school, different kids were both brazenly cheating. Both headed to top schools. When another group of kids threatened to bring it to the administration, the cheaters never once denied it. The response was just “how dare you, this is our future you’re taking about!”

Sure mom. The insecurity and jealousy just oozes from your pores. Might want to seek help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You would have made a better point without your backhanded dig towards one kid.

The supposed dig is part of the point.

The it is stupid and childish because I am sure that your cheating comment is merely the chatter of children as opposed to anything factual. Nothing worse than disparaging and likely false rumors spread by insecure and jealous moms.

Oh please, the kids know who’s cheating. They can watch it in realtime.

Same school, different kids were both brazenly cheating. Both headed to top schools. When another group of kids threatened to bring it to the administration, the cheaters never once denied it. The response was just “how dare you, this is our future you’re taking about!”

Sure mom. The insecurity and jealousy just oozes from your pores. Might want to seek help.

My kid is going to a great school and I’m thrilled for her. She told me these stories because the kids who have put the work in are pissed to see the cheaters get equal or better results. That’s human nature. I told her to get used it. That she’ll see cheaters get ahead over and over again in life, and just to stay true to her own honor and integrity. No insecurity or jealousy here, but your defensiveness is interesting.

[Anonymous]

Severe grade inflation in high school masking academic deficiencies coupled with a growing, pervasive attention deficit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you make rural, poor, first gen, disability, the most coveted of your applicants and claim it’s all “holistic”, don’t be surprised when they can’t handle college level work or need remedial classes.

Just sayin’

+100

The HHI from UMC $300-500k unhooked kid has been shown to be the most difficult in terms of acceptances. They are usually waitlisted at the Ivies/T10s when they have the uw4.0 and tippy top test scores and lots of great ECs because these top schools take the rich and the poor/first gen and the athlete/legacies.

The student bodies are reflecting the country: middle class disappearing.

[Anonymous]

^ we have been told by AOs that the WL that end up getting accepted almost always end up being some of the top students. It makes sense because they are the unhooked, well-prepared, smart kids—-not special admits/donors, etc,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You would have made a better point without your backhanded dig towards one kid.

The supposed dig is part of the point.

The it is stupid and childish because I am sure that your cheating comment is merely the chatter of children as opposed to anything factual. Nothing worse than disparaging and likely false rumors spread by insecure and jealous moms.

Oh please, the kids know who’s cheating. They can watch it in realtime.

Same school, different kids were both brazenly cheating. Both headed to top schools. When another group of kids threatened to bring it to the administration, the cheaters never once denied it. The response was just “how dare you, this is our future you’re taking about!”

Sure mom. The insecurity and jealousy just oozes from your pores. Might want to seek help.

My kid is going to a great school and I’m thrilled for her. She told me these stories because the kids who have put the work in are pissed to see the cheaters get equal or better results. That’s human nature. I told her to get used it. That she’ll see cheaters get ahead over and over again in life, and just to stay true to her own honor and integrity. No insecurity or jealousy here, but your defensiveness is interesting.

Defensiveness; that's funny as I know absolutely nothing about you, your school, or your child. Effectively I have no skin in your game.

That said you are quickly willing to traffic in rumor and possible lies. At my kids catholic observing cheating in real time and not reporting it would be a punishable offense in their honor code. But, I guess that your school doesn't feel a need to acknowledge that doing nothing is a decision and that decisions have consequences. You say that you counsel honor and integrity to your child yet they did not demonstrate it if they let others pay the price for others cheating. You say that kids are pissed, and I am sure that yours is on of those pissed kids. Why did you overlook the problems? I am happy for your child that they got into a good school but I am skeptical that you aren't 'one of the aggrieved'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ we have been told by AOs that the WL that end up getting accepted almost always end up being some of the top students. It makes sense because they are the unhooked, well-prepared, smart kids—-not special admits/donors, etc,

Fiction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We're heading into a second Dark Ages era. Honestly, it probably already started 30 years ago. Look at the entrance exams for high school and college from back in the 1910s and see how far we've come. Intellectually we've fallen way behind.

The reason college admissions are so selective is because intellectual curiosity and excellence have almost nothing to do with the modern desire for a college degree. College is simply an accomplishment that needs to be completed. With that mindset, all that matters is finishing in the best shape with the least effort. It's a simple math equation.

The challenge of the next few decades is to decouple school from jobs. We aught to have a lot more Caltech’s and old Uchicagos around. Instead, we have a lot of schools acting like Harvard, and it’s because education is tertiary to what these universities are doing, and it’s leaked into student culture with an absolute fanaticism towards money above all. All this talk about rigor, meritocracy, and standards needs to take a backseat to the very real reality that no one knows what the purpose of these colleges even is.