SIX YEARS to finish college the new norm???

[Anonymous]

I work in college mental health. Another factor are greater numbers of students taking semester or yearlong leaves of absence to deal with depression or other serious mental health issues. This is becoming much more common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work in college mental health. Another factor are greater numbers of students taking semester or yearlong leaves of absence to deal with depression or other serious mental health issues. This is becoming much more common.

What is going on? This is becoming very common in high school, too. I know of three girls with major depression and anxiety. One has been hospitalized twice. Too much bubble wrap as kids, and then too many high expectations (sports, community service, honors, straight A's, gotta get in an Ivy, etc.)?

[Anonymous]

Maybe it's a result of too much mainstreaming of people who shouldn't be in school.

[Anonymous]

With college getting more and more expensive, the number of parents who can afford to send their children to college is shrinking. There are quite a number of kids whose parents make enough to diminish the loans/grants, but the parents don't make enough to fully fund the tuition. I know a number of folks who graduated from high school and immediately went to work, lived at home and worked to put money away for college. Some went to college part-time and worked part-time. Others, took 2 years off, put away money and then went to an AA college, got an AA degree, then worked for 2 more years, then went back to college and finished their BA/BS. I think the numbers are going up from those that have to pay all or part of their way through college and hence do not go full-time straight through for 4-5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am doubting the statistic. Maybe this is a national average, not an average at most schools, as the person wrote.

But I give Dartmouth HUGE credit for walking away from APs. Those for-profit curricula are incredibly distorting, leading schools to force-feed material to students rather than challenging them with engaging material calling on higher level thinking. Thats why schools are moving away from APs.

I agree to a certain extent.

I do believe that AP's force a lot of the issues you described, however I believe what D should do is let whoever scored a 4 or 5 to take the mid term and final exams of the particular class they want credit for and if they score a B+ or higher to let them get placement and/or credit for the class.

The problem is that Dartmouth didn't create the curriculum, the College Board did. And it makes perfect sense to me that they wouldn't want to outsource their education to a corporation over which they have no control.

NP here. But in PP's scheme it doesn't matter. Dartmouth doesn't have to change their curriculum at all - they're merely giving students who already know the material (via AP in this case, but you could do it from self study too) a chance to test out of the Dartmouth classes using Dartmouth tests as a benchmark.

Really there should me a mechanism like this for all sorts of pre-req type classes. If a class is teaching a specific, basic skill (a language or math), then it benefits no one for students who already know the material to have to retake it. Let them test out so that they can take more advanced material/other subjects, and so the class can be truly geared towards students who don't yet know/understand the material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's a result of too much mainstreaming of people who shouldn't be in school.

This is just ugly. Would you be happy if we just removed all people with mental illness form your life? I'm guessing that would include people who are near and dear to you.

As for the other ugly post form a parent judging the parents of kids with mental illness -- I can tell you that in my DS' case of major depression (not hospitalized, successfully treated) it is genetic because I've had major depression as well. In the supposedly good old days there were plenty of teens with depression and anxiety who just suffered with it. From appearances they might have seemed fine but they really struggled. trust me, I know. There is nothing new here except that thank God we can help teens more effectively. And I knew several kids in the 70s who were hospitalized with psychiatric illnesses so it absolutely happened. I know that in all of those cases the parents were not open about why their children were absent from school, coming up with various excuses. I knew the truth because I knew these kids. Today people would be more open because they understand its not a shameful thing (though nice of you to try to shame parents of kids facing these terrible diseases). In other words, you know more of these kids because times are better, not worse.

And I hope I don't know you because you are really mean to vulnerable people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's a result of too much mainstreaming of people who shouldn't be in school.

This is just ugly. Would you be happy if we just removed all people with mental illness form your life? I'm guessing that would include people who are near and dear to you.

As for the other ugly post form a parent judging the parents of kids with mental illness -- I can tell you that in my DS' case of major depression (not hospitalized, successfully treated) it is genetic because I've had major depression as well. In the supposedly good old days there were plenty of teens with depression and anxiety who just suffered with it. From appearances they might have seemed fine but they really struggled. trust me, I know. There is nothing new here except that thank God we can help teens more effectively. And I knew several kids in the 70s who were hospitalized with psychiatric illnesses so it absolutely happened. I know that in all of those cases the parents were not open about why their children were absent from school, coming up with various excuses. I knew the truth because I knew these kids. Today people would be more open because they understand its not a shameful thing (though nice of you to try to shame parents of kids facing these terrible diseases). In other words, you know more of these kids because times are better, not worse.

And I hope I don't know you because you are really mean to vulnerable people.

You are making the assumption that this is about mental illness. WTH? Anyway, the point is that college is for not everyone. But our educational system has shoved that down everyones' throat so everyone thinks they NEED to go. Why don't we have other avenues for people to learn a skill? Trade school or apprenticeships could do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I work in college mental health. Another factor are greater numbers of students taking semester or yearlong leaves of absence to deal with depression or other serious mental health issues. This is becoming much more common.


What is going on? This is becoming very common in high school, too. I know of three girls with major depression and anxiety. One has been hospitalized twice. Too much bubble wrap as kids, and then too many high expectations (sports, community service, honors, straight A's, gotta get in an Ivy, etc.)?

I am not unsympathetic to individuals with mental illness because there is a strong history of depression in my family. However, I do not think that our current style of parenting is preparing our children for the realities of life. By protecting them from every disappointment, fighting all of their battles for them, giving a trophy for showing up, etc. we have created a generation of young people who are ill prepared for disappointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I work in college mental health. Another factor are greater numbers of students taking semester or yearlong leaves of absence to deal with depression or other serious mental health issues. This is becoming much more common.


What is going on? This is becoming very common in high school, too. I know of three girls with major depression and anxiety. One has been hospitalized twice. Too much bubble wrap as kids, and then too many high expectations (sports, community service, honors, straight A's, gotta get in an Ivy, etc.)?

I am not unsympathetic to individuals with mental illness because there is a strong history of depression in my family. However, I do not think that our current style of parenting is preparing our children for the realities of life. By protecting them from every disappointment, fighting all of their battles for them, giving a trophy for showing up, etc. we have created a generation of young people who are ill prepared for disappointment.

I think thats too simplistic. While environment can contribute there is a biological reason why some kids will get depression and others won't. There are environmental triggers for cancer as well, and I hope you don;t blame that on people either. You are talking off the top of your head anyway. You really have no way of knowing (a) if there are truly more depressed kids now than previously -- I don;t think so, and (2) if there has ever been any studies connecting it with what you are off the top of your head guessing. And since you really don;t know these things, you opining is painful for those of us who do have children with depression. I have never fought my DS' battles for him, I have never protected him from disappointment, he has never received any trophies period, and yet he ahs struggled with depression.

But thanks for being supportive. Not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's a result of too much mainstreaming of people who shouldn't be in school.

This is just ugly. Would you be happy if we just removed all people with mental illness form your life? I'm guessing that would include people who are near and dear to you.

As for the other ugly post form a parent judging the parents of kids with mental illness -- I can tell you that in my DS' case of major depression (not hospitalized, successfully treated) it is genetic because I've had major depression as well. In the supposedly good old days there were plenty of teens with depression and anxiety who just suffered with it. From appearances they might have seemed fine but they really struggled. trust me, I know. There is nothing new here except that thank God we can help teens more effectively. And I knew several kids in the 70s who were hospitalized with psychiatric illnesses so it absolutely happened. I know that in all of those cases the parents were not open about why their children were absent from school, coming up with various excuses. I knew the truth because I knew these kids. Today people would be more open because they understand its not a shameful thing (though nice of you to try to shame parents of kids facing these terrible diseases). In other words, you know more of these kids because times are better, not worse.

And I hope I don't know you because you are really mean to vulnerable people.

You are making the assumption that this is about mental illness. WTH? Anyway, the point is that college is for not everyone. But our educational system has shoved that down everyones' throat so everyone thinks they NEED to go. Why don't we have other avenues for people to learn a skill? Trade school or apprenticeships could do this.

The three posts at the top of this page starting with 15:01 are on the issue of mental issue.

[Anonymous]

Back to what benefits the college or university. Colleges want to extend the graduation date as far as possible because it brings in big bucks. My liberal arts college is pushing the year abroad program hard. Seventy-five percent of students attending there do a year abroad. Why? As my mentor professor who is still on campus says, "It's a win-win for us - the students aren't here but we still get to charge them full freight, so we actually have five classes of students, instead of four, going at one time". Meanwhile, Jr. is at the University of Tokyo on a budget deal worked out by my college. When they return, they are behind, so need extra semesters to finish out their degrees. My college has also gone to tripling up the kids in rooms. Why? The original rooms were large. Rather than rebuilding, they are just stuffing three into a room now. My college is now has a three year residency program. (In my days, you moved off campus as quick as you could). Why? because the new president noticed that the college was losing way too much in lost room and boarding fees when students moved off campus. It's all about cash flow in.

What hasn't been mentioned is that in the large universities, often new students cannot register for the necessary classes for their major. If the courses are all taken by the time the freshmen select their courses, then, often a fifth or sixth year is needed to to work in the required courses that were unavailable when the students was a freshman or sophomore and got last choice. This is very common in all large universities.

[Anonymous]

Switching majors, transferring schools, or not realizing that although 12 hours a semester qualifies as full time, it won't get you there in 4 years.

[Anonymous]

My uni had a heavy STEM focus. To finish in four years would require some 18 hour semesters and for a number of people 6 engineering classes at once would have been too much. Also, to have a good chance at employment after graduating meant coop and internships which cannibalized summers. I think the average time to graduate at my school was five and a half years (this is going back to the early 90s).