Tell High School Students to Stop Contacting Professors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, it’s your admissions office and every admissions office out there that makes kids think they have to be absolutely perfect to go to college, any college. Tell your admissions office to post a message on their opening page that they will not give any weight to any research or mentoring relationship a high school student may have with any professor at your school.

You are mad at the wrong people. The kids are trying to do what the colleges and the college consultants and their parents tell them they must do.

+1,000,000

Colleges are incentivizing this behavior and they have the gall to complain about these teenagers who are honestly trying to do their best.

As much as I hate Musk and Trump, one area where we do need DOGE type cleanup is college admissions process.

Like everyone before you, you can advocate for reform without pretending that magadoge has any relevance to improving anything anywhere.

[Anonymous]

It's weird that a *Business* professor, of all people, doesn't understand "cold calling".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's weird that a *Business* professor, of all people, doesn't understand "cold calling".

+1

[Anonymous]

I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you're a parent pretending to be a professor to discourage kids from trying to get ahead.

If not, you're pretty out-of-the-loop. Many kids now have had internships/research experience by the time they apply to college. Lots get it through connections, but for those who can't, cold emailing is the alternative. It's understandable that you find it irritating, but don't expect it to stop anytime soon. Lots of professors actually do write back and try to find something the student can do.

"Many kids" having research or internship experience before applying to elite colleges is a myth perpetuated by forums like those one and firms looking to make a buck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are admission services that target kids for elite schools that suggest kids write a professor at a school they want to attend and express interest in their field or work and ask for some literature to read or to assist with research.

The idea is that the admissions officer ultimately works for professors, and professors at elite schools ultimately want smart kids who are excited about their field and its possibilities. Of course, that may be true, but I’d be pis*ed if 20-30 kids contacted me every year for this brown nose effort.

But they don't. Professors report to Dean/Provost. Admissions reports to a VP/VC of Enrollment Management.

At a good college, the Faculty congress ultimately oversees academic matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

The SLAC professor was probably conserving her time for the students who contribute to her salary and for whose learning she is responsible.

The idea that faculty have a duty to respond to unsolicited junk mail is nuts. The idea that mentoring high school students would be cost effective for anyone who is doing PhD level humanities or social science research is also nuts. (I have no lab experience. Though I think the value added of a high school student to a lab would be negative, perhaps there are some low level repetitive-but-not-critical tasks that a young student could be made responsible for.)

One reason Lumiere and the other pay-to-play research experience services cost so much is that they have to pay (very junior PhD and postdoc level) people to mentor them.

No mentoring or research was asked for. Just questions about studying there to decide whether to apply ED. You can disagree on whether the SLAC professor was kind of a jerk, but it is a very bad look for SLACs trying to sell themselves on intimate interaction with students. And it is against the prof's self-interest when the department is only producing a few majors a year...and basically has almost no students "for whose learning she is responsible."

You have no idea how many junk emails a particular professor gets per week. If you're on DCUM you know that many many applicants apply for niche subjects with the plan to switch to econ freshman year.

SLACs have whole departments tasked with responding to queries from high school students. It's not the role of teaching faculty to do so.

You apparently don't know any professors in niche humanities majors at SLACs -- or seem to have much familiarity with SLACs at all.

You also have a very interesting take, namely, that a professor at a dying humanities department with 2-3 majors a year should not make an "email's worth of effort" to secure enrollment of a potential major the following year. If you are the "OP business prof," might I suggest you get to know your colleagues in marketing better?

As for the "role of teaching faculty" (a redundant phrase in discussing SLACs), it is, to be sure, not part of their job description. But that means, in the long run, they are in danger of not having jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

I have heard it directly from AOs on multiple podcasts. It shows intellectual curiosity and match to major. Those “pointy” kids have research. So common at our school, particularly the kids getting into Harvard, Yale and Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

To the school which would provide the superior undergraduate education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're a parent pretending to be a professor to discourage kids from trying to get ahead.

If not, you're pretty out-of-the-loop. Many kids now have had internships/research experience by the time they apply to college. Lots get it through connections, but for those who can't, cold emailing is the alternative. It's understandable that you find it irritating, but don't expect it to stop anytime soon. Lots of professors actually do write back and try to find something the student can do.

"Many kids" having research or internship experience before applying to elite colleges is a myth perpetuated by forums like those one and firms looking to make a buck.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

The SLAC professor was probably conserving her time for the students who contribute to her salary and for whose learning she is responsible.

The idea that faculty have a duty to respond to unsolicited junk mail is nuts. The idea that mentoring high school students would be cost effective for anyone who is doing PhD level humanities or social science research is also nuts. (I have no lab experience. Though I think the value added of a high school student to a lab would be negative, perhaps there are some low level repetitive-but-not-critical tasks that a young student could be made responsible for.)

One reason Lumiere and the other pay-to-play research experience services cost so much is that they have to pay (very junior PhD and postdoc level) people to mentor them.

No mentoring or research was asked for. Just questions about studying there to decide whether to apply ED. You can disagree on whether the SLAC professor was kind of a jerk, but it is a very bad look for SLACs trying to sell themselves on intimate interaction with students. And it is against the prof's self-interest when the department is only producing a few majors a year...and basically has almost no students "for whose learning she is responsible."

You have no idea how many junk emails a particular professor gets per week. If you're on DCUM you know that many many applicants apply for niche subjects with the plan to switch to econ freshman year.

SLACs have whole departments tasked with responding to queries from high school students. It's not the role of teaching faculty to do so.

You apparently don't know any professors in niche humanities majors at SLACs -- or seem to have much familiarity with SLACs at all.

You also have a very interesting take, namely, that a professor at a dying humanities department with 2-3 majors a year should not make an "email's worth of effort" to secure enrollment of a potential major the following year. If you are the "OP business prof," might I suggest you get to know your colleagues in marketing better?

As for the "role of teaching faculty" (a redundant phrase in discussing SLACs), it is, to be sure, not part of their job description. But that means, in the long run, they are in danger of not having jobs.

I was not the OP.

For SLACs, niche departments are service departments. Anthropology and comparative literature professors often teach, for the most part, non-majors who are fulfilling distribution requirements. Some may lament the lack of serious students committed to their discipline; others may think such students take more time and energy than the average.

A big rebound in, for example, the number of art history or German majors is highly unlikely, even if professors in those departments start responding to emails from random high school students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

I have heard it directly from AOs on multiple podcasts. It shows intellectual curiosity and match to major. Those “pointy” kids have research. So common at our school, particularly the kids getting into Harvard, Yale and Stanford.

+1. It's true that research is valued by AOs and is also a good opportunity for students to explore a field. It's frustrating that opportunities are so limited outside of pay to play or magnet schools. My DC26 applied to a competitive summer program (free) and there were thousands of applications for about 50 spots. Another program was canceled a week after being posted.

It's sad that our education system is doing such a crappy job creating opportunities for students that want to work. I get the point that professors are time-starved and don't owe these random kids anything, but I object to the language that kids that show curiosity and interest are entitled for reaching out. What are they supposed to do if they don't have connections or programs available? Why aren't adults supporting these kids more effectively?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

\What are they supposed to do if they don't have connections or programs available? Why aren't adults supporting these kids more effectively?

"Supporting these kids" requires resources. Professors are paid to teach at university level and do research. It's a separate set of skills to teach high schools -- time intensive and the opposite of productive for faculty.

Even working with PhD students, with whom we are expected to coauthor peer reviewed papers, is an incredible time suck. Working with PhDs makes sense, because they have studied the literature in the field and are at least prepared to do research. High school students, with their limited knowledge bases, are not capable of doing research that pushes the field forward in social science or the humanities. Lab science may be different, but with limited exceptions, I doubt it.

I think high school students would be much better served by learning their prospective fields before trying to push them forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

\What are they supposed to do if they don't have connections or programs available? Why aren't adults supporting these kids more effectively?

"Supporting these kids" requires resources. Professors are paid to teach at university level and do research. It's a separate set of skills to teach high schools -- time intensive and the opposite of productive for faculty.

Even working with PhD students, with whom we are expected to coauthor peer reviewed papers, is an incredible time suck. Working with PhDs makes sense, because they have studied the literature in the field and are at least prepared to do research. High school students, with their limited knowledge bases, are not capable of doing research that pushes the field forward in social science or the humanities. Lab science may be different, but with limited exceptions, I doubt it.

I think high school students would be much better served by learning their prospective fields before trying to push them forward.

Some schools require that high school students apply to specific majors/programs. How precisely do you propose that high school students should be "learning their prospective fields" if there are not programs available and universities aren't interested or set up to do so? Why aren't universities and high schools developing bridge programs highlighting what engineering or programming or ecology fields are like and building lab skills for talented kids?

Hint: the answer is that universities are more interested in pay-to-play than building a talent pipeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

I have heard it directly from AOs on multiple podcasts. It shows intellectual curiosity and match to major. Those “pointy” kids have research. So common at our school, particularly the kids getting into Harvard, Yale and Stanford.

The type of podcast where there are actual former AOs who now sell their services as admissions consultants? There is definitely one such podcast out there doing exactly that, though I can't locate it at the moment.