controversial opinions about college

[Anonymous]

As someone with lots of experience teaching intellectually capable students who have failed only because their work and family responsibilities as first-generation, low income undergraduates left them without the time and space to concentrate on their studies, I would argue that until we can support these students in making the most of their abilities, public funding shouldn't be available to intellectually incapable students (e.g. people with Down Syndrome) who because they come from middle-class homes consider it their right to attend "college" (i.e. outrageously expensive programs like this one at Vandy: https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/departments/nextsteps/)

[Anonymous]

Didn’t like because no Playa Bowl near campus

[Anonymous]

USNEWS rankings are meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That men are more inclined to want to study STEM and women are more inclined to study liberal arts, and that’s okay. I know this is controversial but I’m old and have known lots of adults and lots of children.

So, actually everyone knows this. What you are not addressing is why that is. Just because you know a lot of people, doesn't explain what the tendencies are attributed to.

I guess you're trying to say that girls just like to read! And boys like to build things! That's just what they like, yeah!

Because there is no such thing as patriarchy and historical disadvantage.

Yeah, we don't agree.

Christ. I was a woman STEM major (and the graduate school) in the late 80s/early 90s. I still work in the field. There were a ton of women in my college courses and so many my age at the NIH and in my other Fed science job.

What I hate nowadays is all the non-science/non-math people that think their kid is a genius because they like STEM. Even though most school systems have abandoned grammar/writing in order to super excel everyone in Math. My scientific job is mostly writing. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

There are two ways to fix the current college application crisis and let students really shine:

1. For each top private college, among all the applicants, have a cutoff of SAT at 1400 or something, then randomly select whatever number of students they want to admit. They can also put those students on the dean's list, donor's kids, etc in the same selection pool. I am pretty confident, that those randomly selected students will perform as well as those selected based on the current admissions standards in college as well as after college graduation.

or


2. For each top 10 private colleges, instead of admitting only 1000 students per year, admit 7,000 to 10,000 students per year.

Those 2 methods will immediately reduce the corruption in the college admission process. Kids also do not need to fake their ECs to go to colleges which reduces all those wasteful spendings in EC activities. As a result, kids can really work on things they really want to do.

Still, top colleges will lose their signaling effect a bit, however, they are still able to get the best students they can get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USNEWS rankings are meaningless.

They should be meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Revoke or phase out the tax exempt status of colleges that have a certain level of wealth per student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways to fix the current college application crisis and let students really shine:

1. For each top private college, among all the applicants, have a cutoff of SAT at 1400 or something, then randomly select whatever number of students they want to admit. They can also put those students on the dean's list, donor's kids, etc in the same selection pool. I am pretty confident, that those randomly selected students will perform as well as those selected based on the current admissions standards in college as well as after college graduation.

or


2. For each top 10 private colleges, instead of admitting only 1000 students per year, admit 7,000 to 10,000 students per year.

Those 2 methods will immediately reduce the corruption in the college admission process. Kids also do not need to fake their ECs to go to colleges which reduces all those wasteful spendings in EC activities. As a result, kids can really work on things they really want to do.

Still, top colleges will lose their signaling effect a bit, however, they are still able to get the best students they can get.

Your step 1 only moves the chaos bubble down to the next level. There are plenty of kids who would achieve 1400 eyes closed, they’d for sure be freed from the frenzy. They’d be one and done. But the kids who are at 1320 will go bonkers with tutors, test prep, takes and retakes to try to surmount the 1400 threshold, competition would rise amongst those who currently are relatively placid and outside the fray throughout the college application process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most “perfect”/stellar applicants have cheated in academics, athletics, or both. And often with the help of their parents.

I don't think cheating is any more rampant in this cohort than most others. Maybe not the low achievers who DGAF.

Cheated? How?

On tests, assignments, papers, by bringing alcohol to parties to lobby for votes for leadership roles, in sports… I mean there are tons of opportunities. Especially during Covid. Plenty of parents did their kids tests and papers. Lots of high pressure families seized the opportunity to get a leg up on competitive admissions. Now their kids are at Harvard, Yale, Duke, UVA, Michigan and the like where they’ll continue to cheat to get ahead then cheat in their careers and take advantage of others. Cycle of American life.

DP. IMHO no harm done unless the cheater comes out truly incompetent in some critical field like medicine.
But it doesn’t matter whether Joe or Jill get a fancy degree in marketing. In the overall order of things.

No harm done? How about the kids who didn't cheat and didn't get a spot. The laissez-faire attitude towards cheating by some on this board is a sad indicator for society. Who cares if my unethical behavior hurts other kids as long as mine gets ahead? This feels almost Trumpian.

Thank you. So sick of the cheat to win, me, me, me - attitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways to fix the current college application crisis and let students really shine:

1. For each top private college, among all the applicants, have a cutoff of SAT at 1400 or something, then randomly select whatever number of students they want to admit. They can also put those students on the dean's list, donor's kids, etc in the same selection pool. I am pretty confident, that those randomly selected students will perform as well as those selected based on the current admissions standards in college as well as after college graduation.

or


2. For each top 10 private colleges, instead of admitting only 1000 students per year, admit 7,000 to 10,000 students per year.

Those 2 methods will immediately reduce the corruption in the college admission process. Kids also do not need to fake their ECs to go to colleges which reduces all those wasteful spendings in EC activities. As a result, kids can really work on things they really want to do.

Still, top colleges will lose their signaling effect a bit, however, they are still able to get the best students they can get.

Your step 1 only moves the chaos bubble down to the next level. There are plenty of kids who would achieve 1400 eyes closed, they’d for sure be freed from the frenzy. They’d be one and done. But the kids who are at 1320 will go bonkers with tutors, test prep, takes and retakes to try to surmount the 1400 threshold, competition would rise amongst those who currently are relatively placid and outside the fray throughout the college application process.

Well, the most obvious reason for people to want to go to top colleges is potentially lucrative job opportunities.

In a lottery admission, a hypothetical 1400 sends the same signal to potential employers as a top college degree. After all, how can you identify students' abilities if they are selected randomly? There are far more students who have 1400 than a top college degree. Students would need to work really hard in colleges to stand out. So they are really not one and done. This would also reduce the incentives to go to top colleges and push students to work harder on their potential. Of course, students can always retake SAT and put 1400 on their resume and claim they are equal to those who graduate from top colleges.

I always doubt whether anyone can identify thousands of talents among 18 years old, especially with parents' help. It is really a crap shot. It would be far better to identify talents when they are 22. College AOs have been faking that they can identify talents at 18 years old. With wealth so much concentrated on top private colleges, they of course need to fake it, but is it good for society?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways to fix the current college application crisis and let students really shine:

1. For each top private college, among all the applicants, have a cutoff of SAT at 1400 or something, then randomly select whatever number of students they want to admit. They can also put those students on the dean's list, donor's kids, etc in the same selection pool. I am pretty confident, that those randomly selected students will perform as well as those selected based on the current admissions standards in college as well as after college graduation.

or


2. For each top 10 private colleges, instead of admitting only 1000 students per year, admit 7,000 to 10,000 students per year.

Those 2 methods will immediately reduce the corruption in the college admission process. Kids also do not need to fake their ECs to go to colleges which reduces all those wasteful spendings in EC activities. As a result, kids can really work on things they really want to do.

Still, top colleges will lose their signaling effect a bit, however, they are still able to get the best students they can get.

So your kid is a top scorer? I assume so if you think scores should play such a heavy role as in #1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most “perfect”/stellar applicants have cheated in academics, athletics, or both. And often with the help of their parents.

I don't think cheating is any more rampant in this cohort than most others. Maybe not the low achievers who DGAF.

Cheated? How?

On tests, assignments, papers, by bringing alcohol to parties to lobby for votes for leadership roles, in sports… I mean there are tons of opportunities. Especially during Covid. Plenty of parents did their kids tests and papers. Lots of high pressure families seized the opportunity to get a leg up on competitive admissions. Now their kids are at Harvard, Yale, Duke, UVA, Michigan and the like where they’ll continue to cheat to get ahead then cheat in their careers and take advantage of others. Cycle of American life.

DP. IMHO no harm done unless the cheater comes out truly incompetent in some critical field like medicine.
But it doesn’t matter whether Joe or Jill get a fancy degree in marketing. In the overall order of things.

No harm done? How about the kids who didn't cheat and didn't get a spot. The laissez-faire attitude towards cheating by some on this board is a sad indicator for society. Who cares if my unethical behavior hurts other kids as long as mine gets ahead? This feels almost Trumpian.

Thank you. So sick of the cheat to win, me, me, me - attitude.

That comes from fear. The cheaters are so afraid their kids can’t succeed. Have a little faith that you raised your kid well and they can get a good education anywhere and succeed. Maybe I am able to not get in a frenzy over “top” schools because DH and I attended mediocre schools but worked hard and scrapped our way up. We have held great positions and make a top 2% income. You don’t need “top” schools to get there, just intelligence, hard work, a good strategy, and continual growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways to fix the current college application crisis and let students really shine:

1. For each top private college, among all the applicants, have a cutoff of SAT at 1400 or something, then randomly select whatever number of students they want to admit. They can also put those students on the dean's list, donor's kids, etc in the same selection pool. I am pretty confident, that those randomly selected students will perform as well as those selected based on the current admissions standards in college as well as after college graduation.

or


2. For each top 10 private colleges, instead of admitting only 1000 students per year, admit 7,000 to 10,000 students per year.

Those 2 methods will immediately reduce the corruption in the college admission process. Kids also do not need to fake their ECs to go to colleges which reduces all those wasteful spendings in EC activities. As a result, kids can really work on things they really want to do.

Still, top colleges will lose their signaling effect a bit, however, they are still able to get the best students they can get.

So your kid is a top scorer? I assume so if you think scores should play such a heavy role as in #1

Not really. I would prefer the 2nd method, expanding the number of seats. However, we are a unique country in which top schools are private colleges and have a lot of wealth and clouts. They don't want to expand the seats.

Think about it, in 1910, the number of high school graduates is 100,000, the ivies admitted roughly the same number of students then, say 20,000 as of today which has roughly 3,000,000 high school graduates. It was 20% selectivity then vs. 0.67% now. They can't keep up with students' demands and society's demands. They basically failed their basic educational function even though they have accumulated so much wealth.

They certainly can claim their enrolled students today are much much much better than their students in 1910. But I doubt it improves from 20% to top 0.67%. After a certain threshold, say top 5%, it would be extremely difficult to predict how two 18-year olders perform against each other in the future when they are 40 or 50 years old. If they can do it, then every single US President, SCOTUS justice, and Fortune 500 CEO would be from Harvard. In reality, it does not happen. They can't differentiate once students reach a certain level. For a society, the good strategy would be to expand the seats, and let those 18 year olders compete in colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone with lots of experience teaching intellectually capable students who have failed only because their work and family responsibilities as first-generation, low income undergraduates left them without the time and space to concentrate on their studies, I would argue that until we can support these students in making the most of their abilities, public funding shouldn't be available to intellectually incapable students (e.g. people with Down Syndrome) who because they come from middle-class homes consider it their right to attend "college" (i.e. outrageously expensive programs like this one at Vandy: https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/departments/nextsteps/)

WOW. The hate speech is really flowing on this forum today.

[Anonymous]

DP - that’s just not hate speech. If you don’t have the intellectual chops to say why it’s wrong, just stay silent