I believe that admission to elite schools were much more meritocratic 20 years ago versus today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

Men didn’t have to compete with anyone in 1996? In 2003? What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

Disagree. The “advanced” classes are easier than the “regular” classes of yesteryear. Heck, in many schools, particularly open-enrollment public high schools, there are no “regular” classes, every class is somehow “honors” or higher. Lots of kids taking AP exams and failing them. That is unfortunate as I think it’s better to take one AP exam, study really well for it, and get a 5 than take four AP exams in one month and get 3’s on all of them. Quality over quantity is not in vogue.

I don’t the AP pass/fail rate has changed much in the last fifty years. What has changed is that the students who take them are comparatively younger. They take BC calc in 10th or 11th grade rather than 12th. APUSH as early as 9th.

I mean if you want to crap on students today (although i suspect what your actual agenda is to crap on public schools) go ahead, but it’s like claiming the peak of athletic achievement was in the 1980s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

Men didn’t have to compete with anyone in 1996? In 2003? What?

The pool of candidates was smaller and less widely dispersed. The pool from which you drew applicants was just smaller for a host of reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

Ok “professor”. I’m more apt to believe you’re the OP.

I’m sure Jeff can confirm I am not, but you are free to remain incredulous that you might be wrong. I am indeed a college professor and what I described is a well-established problem across universities.

Oh, Jeff can confirm that you are not? That statement makes me even less likely to believe you.

[Anonymous]

Tell everyone you’re white without telling everyone you’re white.

You did it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

Ok “professor”. I’m more apt to believe you’re the OP.

I’m sure Jeff can confirm I am not, but you are free to remain incredulous that you might be wrong. I am indeed a college professor and what I described is a well-established problem across universities.

Oh, Jeff can confirm that you are not? That statement makes me even less likely to believe you.

You sound unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

Ok “professor”. I’m more apt to believe you’re the OP.

I’m sure Jeff can confirm I am not, but you are free to remain incredulous that you might be wrong. I am indeed a college professor and what I described is a well-established problem across universities.

Oh, Jeff can confirm that you are not? That statement makes me even less likely to believe you.

You sound unhinged.

I’m not the one cosplaying a college professor. Oh wait, I’m the Pope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

Men didn’t have to compete with anyone in 1996? In 2003? What?

The pool of candidates was smaller and less widely dispersed. The pool from which you drew applicants was just smaller for a host of reasons.

And that was a good thing. No, it wasn’t discriminatory at that point. The kids who applied were serious students who carefully curated their application lists.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, OP. Tests and courses are much easier than they used to be and many factors besides academic qualifications now take precedence.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the days when the HoS could call a contact in admissions and put in a word where much more meritocratic

[Anonymous]

I agree with you. Gen X, HS class of 94, literally no one even took SAT prep classes at my school. I had an F in Algebra and had to retake it and was waitlisted at UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

This is true. My sophomore is covering more advance concepts in AP bio than I did in my 10th grade biology class. Now, I didn’t take AP Bio but only seniors who skipped 9th grade science or wanted to double up on a science were allowed to take AP science course and that was a small percentage at my high school in the late 80s. My parents - both college professors - discouraged APs bc they said a class taken in high school could never compete with a class on a college level. Back then, AP was about college credit and less about taking the most rigorous courses possible to demonstrate work ethic to admission counselors. Anyway, I guess my point is the world was entirely different back then and some concepts kids are taking now are certainly more advance than what we covered back then. While in other areas there seems to be less rigor (writing skills / English is what I’ve noticed). And AI is going to change this up once again I am sure. So, more of a meritocracy back then? Maybe just fewer applicants so easier to use a grade or SAT threshold as the standard instead of having to look at other factors. With so many more kids taking 5+ APs and getting As what else can a college do other than look at extracurriculars? What’s the solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you. Gen X, HS class of 94, literally no one even took SAT prep classes at my school. I had an F in Algebra and had to retake it and was waitlisted at UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the days when the HoS could call a contact in admissions and put in a word where much more meritocratic

That happens even more now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

Men didn’t have to compete with anyone in 1996? In 2003? What?

The pool of candidates was smaller and less widely dispersed. The pool from which you drew applicants was just smaller for a host of reasons.

And that was a good thing. No, it wasn’t discriminatory at that point. The kids who applied were serious students who carefully curated their application lists.

None of those statements are logically connected. You’re assuming your argument and there is no evidence the kids who applied were serious students.