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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sometimes they are. “Excellent Sheep” is a book-length complaint about such kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. 🙄

Yep, and that’s exactly how you end up with a student body with zero grit or creativity.

Keep telling yourself that when the public school kids take their 3rd test retake and all of Calc BC gets B+ or higher, without guardrail entry.

Interesting that you think this is solely a public school phenomenon. Excessive retakes and grade inflation are a feature of many privates, not to mention a majority of the student body having accommodations. Do you even have a kid in private?

I do, and this is not true at ours. Even if you have an accommodation, they absolutely still expect the work to be done. Most top privates can "counsel out" severe underperformers.

You may or may not know everything that is happening at your school. It is true that some privates maintain high standards, but many do not. So it is not inherently a public vs. private school issue. When I referenced accommodations, I was referring to the recent trend of students who have them not because of need but because their parents purchased a diagnosis. This is measurably more a private school problem, but can also be observed at public schools in wealthy areas.

[Anonymous]

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’m so tired of this nonsense coming from mostly wealthy privileged families.

This is so cheap for most of the colleges that engage in this practice. Fly ins are almost exclusively at need blind institutions with billions in the bank. Fly in students are mostly students from top magnet schools and boarding schools. How do I know? I was one of them and most of us knew each other already because we were already identified as top students by CBOs most here would never know about.

A majority of top colleges don’t even have summer “remedial” programs in the way you are discussing them. Many have early access research and other programs, so students are connected to faculty early and can network before your wealthy children come in and take up excessive space. Your entire point about the UK is stupid, because the UK has a nationalized curriculum and even they’ve had to start adopting practices to improve low income representation.

Our issue is people like you are in the way. Instead of advocating for improving resources, you want to dissolve pathways for low income students with no practical replacement for stupid conceptions of merit that are made to exclude. We are already moving back to test required, so I’m excited to see the new excuses this forum makes for when talented low income students are still attending these top institutions.

DP

The pathways are there. But the pathway to the top of the pyramid is exceptionally difficult as it should be. And it doesn't have to be done in one generation.

The HBCUs are huge drivers of black social mobility. Spelman, Morehouse, Howard, Xavier create more black law students and more black medical students than the entire Ivy league combined.

The Cal State Schools are responsible for way more economic mobility in the chicano community than the Ivy league

The notion that the Ivy league moves the needle on social mobility in general is arrogance. They are tiny and giving large preferences to unqualified poor and black kids in ivy league admissions just makes people question the ivy league credentials of poor and black ivy league graduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top 1% income students take 20% seats of top colleges, top 20%(-1%) income take 50+% seats. While bottom 50% is less than 14%.
Are people here mostly bottom 50%? what kind students professors complained about? only FGLI?

Top 1%, top 20% or bottom 50%, they are test optional and admitted on holistic factors.

Not enough merit.

[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. 🙄

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.

That may be but the kids will be better off. Far too many kids are unprepared because they were never encouraged to push themselves.

[Anonymous]

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.

Unfortunately, all true. An AO recently said at an in-person conference that they(an elite/ivy) are "all fighting to get the rural kids." In a post-supreme court SFFA ruling, they are finding diversity without directly seeking race. AO goals are not the same as what professors would choose. At some elites professors sit on admission committees and many will share frustrations with what the process has become.
We have two currently at two different ivies and another attended a similar elite non-ivy, and I know many students and professors across ivy/elite and UVA and others. Many are not ready at all. The unhooked kids almost always are the top part of the curves, get invited to TA, get the departmental awards. Sure, it may not matter for some career goals but GPA matters for many next steps. The unhooked students appreciate the fairly easy path to being above average. The unprepared students not only often change majors to something that gives easy A, they are a large mental health risk. Professors will tell you the top students are overall more impressive, more intelligent than a decade ago but the bottom quartile is much worse and it started before the pandemic, then got dramatically worse with TO beginning fall 2021(college grads 2025). TO is over but the high school grade inflation, the gaps from the pandemic years, the culture of re-taking tests and poor study habits in high school, exams in high school only worth 25% of the grade when they are 80-100% of the grade in college and no re-takes.

DO you have any actual evidence for this? I'll answer for you. No, you don't.

Complete blithering fiction.

I wasn't even going to weigh in, but then I saw your post. So ridiculous to blame rural or truly economically disadvantaged kids, as they are by far the smallest population at any Ivy +. If the overall standards of a school are slipping, it is down to the 80% who are not only wealthy but ultra-wealthy. What is "fracturing long-standing institutions" is the total disregard for the middle class, same as in our wider political system. This is the reason everyone has turned into a cheating slacker: the one group that isn't either too disenfranchised to work or too entitled is the group with least clout in the admissions process.

This is a story as old as time.....people are jealous when they see someone getting something that they feel that they deserve. No different than the race card being played by the republican party to lure in uneducated whites.

Maybe the best solution for all is for the top private schools (most top schools in the US are private) to go back to what they have historically been at the undergraduate level. Historically they were a training ground for Upper and almost Upper class families of wealth and other families of power and influence. The MC and lower UMC as a whole has never been actually wanted or welcome as undergraduates at these institutions. The top schools can dismiss the idea of helping the less well off in the name of 'fairness' to the MC and UMC families which covet admission but constantly cry about cost or access. Redirecting all of these kids to the public system will help everyone by providing more and better students to the public schools.

People will cry 'they have our tax dollars, they must do what we demand'! No, they need not cater to you, they are private institutions. They do not need your tax dollars to fulfill their undergraduate mission (no more poor means no more Pell money and it's not needed anyway if most are full pay). If we are stupid enough as a country to shut down graduate research grants and damage the most efficient research machine in the world (and it looks like the current administration might just be that stupid) we as a country deserve the end result.

The overwhelming majority of R1 institutions are public schools.

We don't need private R1s. If the grants all go to the public schools so will the faculty.

[Anonymous]

There are also a lot of kids who, in my experience have the skill and the talent, AND are self-directed (meaning they weren't pushed by parents), but feel like they are hitting a burnout wall by the time they reach 20-ish years old.

[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

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

Lol MATH or academic olympiads, NOT sports!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are also a lot of kids who, in my experience have the skill and the talent, AND are self-directed (meaning they weren't pushed by parents), but feel like they are hitting a burnout wall by the time they reach 20-ish years old.

And they're being coddled in this, told to engage in "self-care" by "drawing boundaries" and "ridding themselves of what doesn't serve them." Using this guidance to take stock of your life and ensure that you are directing your efforts in the most positive ways is great. Using this guidance to quit a school or a job because it's not going exactly the way you want it to 100% of the time and you're not being constantly praised is childish and foolish yet that's what is happening on an increasingly large scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

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

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

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.

They are trying to equalize the academic results of the children of highly educated immigrants with the children of highly determined immigrants.

I know everyone is in a hurry to level up but the hispanic SES glidepath is about the same as the irish or italians.

[Anonymous]

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.

It is true that many disadvantaged kids enter college academically behind those kids that have had more opportunity. (It is hard to take Calc if your school doesn't offer it.) Once admitted, however, kids from low-income first-gen backgrounds are just as likely to graduate from selective schools as their wealthier and more robustly-prepared peers.This is despite any initial skills gap. Further, lifetime outcomes for FGLI kids graduating from top schools are vastly better than those of peers who attended less-selective schools. While it is true that lifetime earnings slightly lag those of privileged grads, much of this is influenced by debt, familial obligations, and lack of generational wealth buffering or transfer.

It depends.

Based on a study of UC graduates, going to better schools helped the income of hispanics but not blacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cal States are much bigger drivers of social mobility than the UCs. Which are bigger drivers than Stanford.

[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.

So, you didn't read the article. They talk about socioeconomic factors. Guess what, the poor athletes have the same excess performance in the job market. Give your kids some golf lessons or something.

They want to believe that being on a rec league team (or a science bowl team) teaches the same life lessons as being on a national development team.

We are not the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please enlighten us...

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

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

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

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

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

The vast majority of athletes at these schools do not raise money or build school spirit to any appreciable degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The skeptical posters are also overstating what top colleges are actually doing. Schools like Harvard, Yale, or Princeton are not broadly admitting students incapable of handling the work. The admissions process still filters heavily for intellectual ability and potential. A student from a rural or low-income school who earned top grades without access to AP Physics, Olympiad coaching, private tutors, or college counselors may in fact possess exceptional underlying aptitude even if their résumé looks less polished than that of an upper-middle-class suburban applicant.

Further, the evidence from highly selective schools generally does not support the catastrophic picture being painted. Many FGLI students do graduate at high rates, often comparable to peers once institutional support is present. Elite colleges also tend to provide the strongest financial aid and highest long-term mobility returns. A low-income student attending a top private university is often less financially burdened than they would be at a mediocre state school with weaker aid.

Graduating and graduating from your intended major are two very different things. GPA differences matter as well. Housing, food and transportation are an expense people overlook as is being able to work while in college.

Show evidence they aren’t graduating in intended majors. Engineering programs at top colleges have incredibly high yield, so this is news to me.

There was a study out of Duke (I think) that showed that kids that got into the engineering program based on preferences were dramatically less likely to graduate with an engineering degree. In that case it was racial preferences but the analysis would hold true for any preference.