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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holistic process selects whoever fits their racial, political, economics or whatever mix. So the selectivity is not about academics.

No, this isn’t it. You sound dumb.

You sound triggered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many things can be true at once. But research has demonstrated that the internet, "smart"phones and now AI have had a pernicious effect on student learning, all of which has been compounded by covid; the fact that reading is no longer a habitual pastime for most students; and, driven by entitled snowplow parents, both rampant grade inflation and heavy regimentation of extracurriculars and time outside school. The result, as other profs already have mentioned in this thread, has been that students matriculating at college today have nowhere near the critical analytical skills with which they entered college thirty years ago and predictably are incapable of handling the workloads and meeting the academic standards that were prevalent then.

If I was a T30, I would say due to this I would want to pull from rigorous privates more and more, the ones where they know there's a track record and do all they can to keep rigor. Ours is relentless to the point where parents and kids complain, until college admit season and kids doing well...

Yes, PP. Let’s just write off the kids whose families can’t afford “rigorous privates” or who live in areas where no such schools are available. 🙄

Most private are so so, just an observation, among those top smart kids in Olympic team rosters(Math, Physics, Chem, CS..), only 15-25% are from top privates even they are mile-ahead feeder to T5, T10 comparing to top public.

That's because the Olympic kids are nearly all rich Asian immigrants doing private tutoring, also are (obviously) a tiny fraction of even most elite school admits

I guess there is misunderstanding here, kids getting into Olympic rosters aren't private tutoring can help, it's 100% talent.

[Anonymous]

Reading beyond a phone text or instgram post has become a skill fewer and fewer young people have. Its why AI seems to make such inroads.

Dumb and Dumber

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many things can be true at once. But research has demonstrated that the internet, "smart"phones and now AI have had a pernicious effect on student learning, all of which has been compounded by covid; the fact that reading is no longer a habitual pastime for most students; and, driven by entitled snowplow parents, both rampant grade inflation and heavy regimentation of extracurriculars and time outside school. The result, as other profs already have mentioned in this thread, has been that students matriculating at college today have nowhere near the critical analytical skills with which they entered college thirty years ago and predictably are incapable of handling the workloads and meeting the academic standards that were prevalent then.

If I was a T30, I would say due to this I would want to pull from rigorous privates more and more, the ones where they know there's a track record and do all they can to keep rigor. Ours is relentless to the point where parents and kids complain, until college admit season and kids doing well...

Yes, PP. Let’s just write off the kids whose families can’t afford “rigorous privates” or who live in areas where no such schools are available. 🙄

Most private are so so, just an observation, among those top smart kids in Olympic team rosters(Math, Physics, Chem, CS..), only 15-25% are from top privates even they are mile-ahead feeder to T5, T10 comparing to top public.

That's because the Olympic kids are nearly all rich Asian immigrants doing private tutoring, also are (obviously) a tiny fraction of even most elite school admits

This, a lot is spent on US Saturday cram schools or private tutors at a very young age through high school. Central and North NJ, for example, has many with summer camps for Math and other Olympiad, even science fairs. Filled with Asian only kids. Also, AoPS

Only partially true -- cram school kids don't make it to the US IMO teams. This year's team is a mix of private school, public magnet and homeschooled kids, none of them have been "coached" at cram schools. My kid is friends with a bunch of these kids from the past couple of IMO teams and knows them pretty well.

[Anonymous]

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.

The problem is their inability to see social mobility as a generational endeavor. They see a first-generation kid whose parents never went to college and didn't grow up in an environment that would have prepared them for the most challenging academic environments and want to catapult them to the top of the academic pyramid. It is an emotionally satisfying impulse but it almost assumes that if this generation doesn't go to Harvard, they will end up in squalor.

If they want some perspective from poor kids, Stuyvesant is filled with smart poor kids. But they limit how many kids they accept from that school because reasons and the poor kids from stuy end up at SUNY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these kids will have a giant wake up call at a demanding job.

Not really. It’s a generational shift. The old people at work are the ones that will have to adjust to them.

That's probably not going to happen if they are the ones deciding who gets the jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People here are blaming everything, so what should be the ultimate solution? completely tear down the admission system?

Just bring back the pre-1995 SAT and weight it more than extra curriculars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges admit "pointy" *achievers" who game standardized tests, not well rounded academically and intellectually inclined people.

Very much this!!! And not just tests but also the grade system and the fancy ECs.
It’s all about gaming the system which then spills over into professional lives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There has been social media and computer distractions for more than 10 years and I think this started before AI. Was COVID the big inflection point? is it just that grade inflation has made it such that students are so focused on extra curriculars that academics became an after thought? It does seem like college admissions rewards kids to take classes seem challenging but aren't (based on figuring which teachers give easier As/less homework) and then focusing on some kind of a strong passion project.

Probably social media. The incubation period for social medias rotted brains to reach college dorms is probably at least 5 years but no more than 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire reason standardized testing exists was to find diamonds in the rough. The test was supposed to be taken cold, one time, to find high IQ kids whose parents didn’t pay for extracurriculars, who had to work after school, who didn’t take AP classes because they weren’t offered at their school, whose parents weren’t helping with the college app process. Now with test prep, endless retakes, test optional and re-norming the tests have been rendered completely meaningless.
The process for applying to college used to be a lot harder and weeded out lazy or dumb kids. In 2003 I had to make the phone calls to schedule my SAT and mail in a check. I had to mail in all my printed out essays and applications. I had to do phone interviews with AOs. I got no help with any of this. No one read or edited my essays. No one took me to SAT prep class. None of my friends did that either and we were in a pretty wealthy area.

Today’s SAT is so watered down that it doesn’t differentiate intelligence even if you don’t prep at all. It’s like trying to differentiate math skills by asking what’s 1+1. And this watering down is done deliberately to curb the population of certain demographics.

This is today's nominee for the 'Stupidest thing I saw on DCUM award'. It is a high bar but your ignorant ass made the leap.

What makes it stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

I think this PP is right. DC is at HYP and I can tell that the privileged kids from boarding/feeder schools have it much easier in college.

Boarding school/feeder kids have long arrived at top schools better prepared than unhooked public school kids. Posters on here can make up as many stories as they like but that isn't going to change.

Thanks for the joke.

DP It is probably true. It's the entire point of boarding school and feeder schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire reason standardized testing exists was to find diamonds in the rough. The test was supposed to be taken cold, one time, to find high IQ kids whose parents didn’t pay for extracurriculars, who had to work after school, who didn’t take AP classes because they weren’t offered at their school, whose parents weren’t helping with the college app process. Now with test prep, endless retakes, test optional and re-norming the tests have been rendered completely meaningless.
The process for applying to college used to be a lot harder and weeded out lazy or dumb kids. In 2003 I had to make the phone calls to schedule my SAT and mail in a check. I had to mail in all my printed out essays and applications. I had to do phone interviews with AOs. I got no help with any of this. No one read or edited my essays. No one took me to SAT prep class. None of my friends did that either and we were in a pretty wealthy area.

Today’s SAT is so watered down that it doesn’t differentiate intelligence even if you don’t prep at all. It’s like trying to differentiate math skills by asking what’s 1+1. And this watering down is done deliberately to curb the population of certain demographics.

This is today's nominee for the 'Stupidest thing I saw on DCUM award'. It is a high bar but your ignorant ass made the leap.

Congrats on winning the ‘Most Evil Soul on Planet Earth’ award.

Really? My response to your backhanded racism is 'evil'. You've got issues mom.

DP What was the backhanded racism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many things can be true at once. But research has demonstrated that the internet, "smart"phones and now AI have had a pernicious effect on student learning, all of which has been compounded by covid; the fact that reading is no longer a habitual pastime for most students; and, driven by entitled snowplow parents, both rampant grade inflation and heavy regimentation of extracurriculars and time outside school. The result, as other profs already have mentioned in this thread, has been that students matriculating at college today have nowhere near the critical analytical skills with which they entered college thirty years ago and predictably are incapable of handling the workloads and meeting the academic standards that were prevalent then.

If I was a T30, I would say due to this I would want to pull from rigorous privates more and more, the ones where they know there's a track record and do all they can to keep rigor. Ours is relentless to the point where parents and kids complain, until college admit season and kids doing well...

Yes, PP. Let’s just write off the kids whose families can’t afford “rigorous privates” or who live in areas where no such schools are available. 🙄

Or maybe we actually start pushing the public school system to be accountable rather than easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colleges admit "pointy" *achievers" who game standardized tests, not well rounded academically and intellectually inclined people.

Professors are absolutely not referring to these kids when they complain.

Often these kids are very fragile. They have trouble coping when the cohort and environment becomes challenging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many things can be true at once. But research has demonstrated that the internet, "smart"phones and now AI have had a pernicious effect on student learning, all of which has been compounded by covid; the fact that reading is no longer a habitual pastime for most students; and, driven by entitled snowplow parents, both rampant grade inflation and heavy regimentation of extracurriculars and time outside school. The result, as other profs already have mentioned in this thread, has been that students matriculating at college today have nowhere near the critical analytical skills with which they entered college thirty years ago and predictably are incapable of handling the workloads and meeting the academic standards that were prevalent then.

If I was a T30, I would say due to this I would want to pull from rigorous privates more and more, the ones where they know there's a track record and do all they can to keep rigor. Ours is relentless to the point where parents and kids complain, until college admit season and kids doing well...

Yes, PP. Let’s just write off the kids whose families can’t afford “rigorous privates” or who live in areas where no such schools are available. 🙄

Or maybe we actually start pushing the public school system to be accountable rather than easy.

Families with means will simply exit for easy private schools. (Surely even the feeder-school advocates can acknowledge that their elite schools are remarkable, precious outliers not typical of every private school in the country.) And the elite colleges will not be able to ignore the students at pay-to-play privates, because they will make up a large percentage of families who are willing and able to pay full sticker price.