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

[Anonymous]

Students as a whole have great “stats” due to massive grade inflation, “dumbed down” standardized tests and heavily “curated” ECs.

But in the end there is little substance behind the stats. So kids are arriving at college with far better stats that previous generations but no where near a prepared for college level work.

This is of course a broad generalization there are a few GenZ kids ready for the rigors of college but many more who had to take several retests to earn that A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You don’t sound very smart and are probably the product of this watered down education.

[Anonymous]

So many older people crap all this generation, but they’ve really been dealt a bad hand by their elders.

They’ve grown up immersed in technology, required to use it for almost everything, but the devices that we invented and bought for them are horribly addictive and bad for their attention spans.

They’re being told they must learn how to use AI to get a job, to survive, whether they think it’s a good thing or not, but also that they shouldn’t be using it for schoolwork.

They’ve watched one octogenarian after another make a complete mockery of every single one of our institutions.

Their anxious parents, caught up in the nonstop online posturing, have been using their accomplishments to fill their own endless needs for validation.

I could go on and on…

[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.

I think this PP is right. DC is at HYP and I can tell that the privileged kids from boarding/feeder schools have it much easier in college.

[Anonymous]

People here are blaming everything, so what should be the ultimate solution? completely tear down the admission system?

[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.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even at places like Harvard or Stanford, professors complain students are not prepared for college. In Purdue, which isn’t easy to get into for engineering and CS, professors complain that most of their class are using AI and not learning the material. These colleges regularly turn away straight A students, so what is going on?

The student quality may or may not be bad, but professors have always complained about students, ever since college was invented. It doesn't mean anything.

+100. This is nothing more than the older generation complaining about the younger one. An age old story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You don’t sound very smart and are probably the product of this watered down education.

And you sound like the parent of kids who couldn’t earn a respectable standardized test score without trying to game the system with re-takes, superscoring, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of the kids who have the highest GPAs have cheated their way through high school. Or their high school’s grades are inflated. Or they’re just totally burned out by the time they get to college and discover how easy it is to cheat these days.

I think it's this. There's little organic love of this societal game.

I have one kid who played and one kid that refuses to play. Equally bright. Both are surrounded by slackers and cheaters who are indeed talented and look good on paper but are wildly unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even at places like Harvard or Stanford, professors complain students are not prepared for college. In Purdue, which isn’t easy to get into for engineering and CS, professors complain that most of their class are using AI and not learning the material. These colleges regularly turn away straight A students, so what is going on?

The student quality may or may not be bad, but professors have always complained about students, ever since college was invented. It doesn't mean anything.

+100. This is nothing more than the older generation complaining about the younger one. An age old story.

As a professor, I can say that the quality of students has significantly declined in less than ten years - thanks to social media, computer distractions, AI, Covid, etc. and the lack of preparation for college. It is hardly generational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even at places like Harvard or Stanford, professors complain students are not prepared for college. In Purdue, which isn’t easy to get into for engineering and CS, professors complain that most of their class are using AI and not learning the material. These colleges regularly turn away straight A students, so what is going on?

The student quality may or may not be bad, but professors have always complained about students, ever since college was invented. It doesn't mean anything.

+100. This is nothing more than the older generation complaining about the younger one. An age old story.

As a professor, I can say that the quality of students has significantly declined in less than ten years - thanks to social media, computer distractions, AI, Covid, etc. and the lack of preparation for college. It is hardly generational.

Funny how all of this has been foisted upon us by the supposedly and brightest at elite institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even at places like Harvard or Stanford, professors complain students are not prepared for college. In Purdue, which isn’t easy to get into for engineering and CS, professors complain that most of their class are using AI and not learning the material. These colleges regularly turn away straight A students, so what is going on?

The student quality may or may not be bad, but professors have always complained about students, ever since college was invented. It doesn't mean anything.

+100. This is nothing more than the older generation complaining about the younger one. An age old story.

As a professor, I can say that the quality of students has significantly declined in less than ten years - thanks to social media, computer distractions, AI, Covid, etc. and the lack of preparation for college. It is hardly generational.

+1000
-Another professor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges admit "pointy" *achievers" who game standardized tests, not well rounded academically and intellectually inclined people.

This. The students are engineering outcomes, pursuing activities only because they look good on applications. These are the students who are learning for the sake of learning; they are instead very good at whatever is needed to get into college. They often lack critical thinking skills as a result.

[Anonymous]

There has been social media and computer distractions for more than 10 years and I think this started before AI. Was COVID the big inflection point? is it just that grade inflation has made it such that students are so focused on extra curriculars that academics became an after thought? It does seem like college admissions rewards kids to take classes seem challenging but aren't (based on figuring which teachers give easier As/less homework) and then focusing on some kind of a strong passion project.

[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.

+1

Everything has been gamified/optimized, especially by ambitious UMC families who research the best way to max out whatever metric the college uses to filter applicants, or hire a consultant to do it. It's shocking to me how common it is to hire consultants for every aspect of life now. Colleges respond by watering down the metrics, which has the perverse effect of making everything more opaque and also making it possible for kids to get in who truly cannot hack it. Meanwhile, the value placed on actual knowledge, learning, intellectual curiosity is lower than ever.