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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This.

My kid went to an Ivy and was shocked by the rampant cheating. Came from a HS with a zero tolerance policy so very different culture.

It’s everywhere. Even HYP

Nothing special about HYP or the kids there. They just won a lottery ticket that 50,000 other equally qualified kids did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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…

I agree with this. This generation has been dealt a bad hand. All the technology we've been feeding them in their formative years - whether chromebooks or phones - has killed natural attention spans. We tell them AI is terrible, but every employer now requires you know how to use AI - for efficiency. So basically for Gen Z, we've been telling them they are idiots because of their use of tech, social media, and AI. And they'd be much smarter if they didn't use it. But on the other hand, every company demands expertise in AI and social media and tech for new hires.

Gen Z is screwed no matter how you look at it. The Jane Austen and Thomas Pynchon reading kids aren't getting hired. And the AI and social media butterflies have the attention span of a gnat and can't do serious work on their own. And meanwhile, the future looks very difficult for most 20 year olds in America.

It's a tough position for most of Gen Z. Millennials, Gen X, and boomers have no clue what young people are dealing with to even get their foot in the door. The world is changing very fast. And I'm not surprised at all that former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was getting booed and jeered when he did a commencement speech. Silicon Valley is wrecking life for Gen Z.

[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.

DO you have any actual evidence for this? I'll answer for you. No, you don't.

Complete blithering fiction.

[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.

This is today's nominee for the 'Stupidest thing I saw on DCUM award'. It is a high bar but your ignorant ass made the leap.

[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.

Happy fiction day!

[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.

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.

Boarding school/feeder kids have long arrived at top schools better prepared than unhooked public school kids. Posters on here can make up as many stories as they like but that isn't going to change.

[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.

This I believe. It's not uniform but it's real for many groups, especially kids coming out of public schools where there are fewer guardrails.

[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.

+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.

Way to spin it. It’s actually the opposite. Hiring help is the consequence of college watering down to achieve forced diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Boarding school/feeder kids have long arrived at top schools better prepared than unhooked public school kids. Posters on here can make up as many stories as they like but that isn't going to change.

Thanks for the joke.

[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.

This is today's nominee for the 'Stupidest thing I saw on DCUM award'. It is a high bar but your ignorant ass made the leap.

Congrats on winning the ‘Most Evil Soul on Planet Earth’ award.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This I believe. It's not uniform but it's real for many groups, especially kids coming out of public schools where there are fewer guardrails.

Yeah, it’s obviously the public schools’ faults and not the tech bros who have made billions on our kids’ attention spans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This I believe. It's not uniform but it's real for many groups, especially kids coming out of public schools where there are fewer guardrails.

Yeah, it’s obviously the public schools’ faults and not the tech bros who have made billions on our kids’ attention spans.

At my kids catholic school use of a phone on campus during school hours led to detention and then suspension if repeated. Just sayin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This I believe. It's not uniform but it's real for many groups, especially kids coming out of public schools where there are fewer guardrails.

Yeah, it’s obviously the public schools’ faults and not the tech bros who have made billions on our kids’ attention spans.

At my kids catholic school use of a phone on campus during school hours led to detention and then suspension if repeated. Just sayin.

DP. And even if it's ultimately the fault of tech bros, it's a problem that is worse at public schools. We're a public school family, and I'll admit that one of the downsides of that is that my kid is more harmed by exposure to technology than would happen at a lot of private schools. That's just the truth.

[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.

This is today's nominee for the 'Stupidest thing I saw on DCUM award'. It is a high bar but your ignorant ass made the leap.

Congrats on winning the ‘Most Evil Soul on Planet Earth’ award.

Really? My response to your backhanded racism is 'evil'. You've got issues mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Boarding school/feeder kids have long arrived at top schools better prepared than unhooked public school kids. Posters on here can make up as many stories as they like but that isn't going to change.

Thanks for the joke.

Truth hurts eh? Always been thgat way and always will. The kids generally catch up after a year but it's a rough arrival for many.