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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

I think colleges have always sought rural applicants (I was the beneficiary of that preferences several decades ago), but the bolded is new. My random generic public high school in a small town was a decent enough preparation for an elite college. It doesn't feel like even good public high schools are anymore.

[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.

How will they be able to do the work if they can't even write? Everything is AI generated slop?

[Anonymous]

Mike Judge covered all this in Idiocracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How will they be able to do the work if they can't even write? Everything is AI generated slop?

Yes, AI will fill in a lot of the gaps. And the standards overall will shift. Everything is constantly in flux. You do not represent the apex of human culture and understanding.

[Anonymous]

Because only about 10% of top school admits are based on merit. So duh.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

The widespread practice of applicants taking the SAT and/or ACT test multiple times to assemble a frankenstein’d superstore AND elite institutions playing along as if a superscored 1540 is effectively just as good as a one-and-done 1600 is much more of a problem than test blind or test optional admissions, which are themselves major issues.

Require standardized testing and limit it to one test, one administration, and watch college preparedness soar.

[Anonymous]

Because they took all of these fegli/first gen kids and kids from grade inflated publics. Many are still test optional and have kids who cheated their way to As or were allowed to have multiple re-takes and re-dos and late assignment credit.

Fk ‘em!!! They get what they deserve. My firstborn got off an Ivy WL and is just steamrolling through—winning awards, top of his class (and full pay to boot)…they could have had a second one just like him but we were directly told it was a “holistic” admissions this year as they had to meet the poor quota.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Racial preference is illegal.
Political preference is bs, conservatives are telling their students not to go to college and on average, are dumber.
Economic status doesn’t really mean much when they’re discussing noticeable declines across all students, including the prep school types.

Segregation was illegal after Brown v Board but continued for decades anyway.
Political preference exists in admissions. What a silly notion you have.
The FGLI types are not raising the averages.

[Anonymous]

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.

It’s so watered down that finding the one-and-done applicant is like finding a unicorn these days?

If it’s so easy, why are most kids having to take it two or more times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because they took all of these fegli/first gen kids and kids from grade inflated publics. Many are still test optional and have kids who cheated their way to As or were allowed to have multiple re-takes and re-dos and late assignment credit.

Fk ‘em!!! They get what they deserve. My firstborn got off an Ivy WL and is just steamrolling through—winning awards, top of his class (and full pay to boot)…they could have had a second one just like him but we were directly told it was a “holistic” admissions this year as they had to meet the poor quota.

Oh no, whatever will this rich and brilliant younger sibling do? Clearly, that was their only path to success.

[Anonymous]

Sure, some first gen students were top of their class at truly subpar high schools and are not prepared for a academically demanding environment.

But there are also upper-class kids who were guided through everything, had parents and tutors and great teachers to help them and push them whenever they stumbled or slowed. In many cases, even if they come into freshman year well prepared, they won't do as well as smart, driven poor kids who are used to working their asses off and figuring out how to achieve with little support from parents and teachers.

For an extreme example of this, read Tara Westover's book Educated.