I believe that admission to elite schools were much more meritocratic 20 years ago versus today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:International students add diversity and expose American kids to other points of view, something which is desperately needed today. That said, I am a strong believer that public universities should prioritize in state students above all others.

Sorry about UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

Men didn’t have to compete with anyone in 1996? In 2003? What?

Yes, hon.

Lol no. Every elite U.S. school accepted women in that time period.

Accepted! WOW they were advanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:International students add diversity and expose American kids to other points of view, something which is desperately needed today. That said, I am a strong believer that public universities should prioritize in state students above all others.

Sorry about UVA.

Instate universities ought to prioritize taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

OP said 20 years ago, not 50.

What elite colleges were not accepting women 20 years ago?

Lol accepting. Is that your myopic version of how admissions works?

How many women's sports were highly recruited.
Were girls represented in AP classes like boys?
Did college target girls for marketing?

Columbia wasn't even coed in 1980, Darmouth had banner better dead than coed in 1970. You think colleges were completely integrated by 2000. Are you daft?

What about women professors, or women in admissions?

Many schools only went coed because their lost top applicants to coed schools. They didn't even go coed to get top women applicant they went coed so their top applicants had somebody to bang.

You think a professor/admission officer in 2000 that was there for 20 years treated women equally. Oh wow! You are obtuse.

Who cares?

[Anonymous]

I’m afraid OP is right. I went to a top (at the time, the top) SLAC from a public HS in a small city on almost a full ride need based scholarship. I remember my dad saying essentially that schools like that were for rich WASPs not for people like us and that they weren’t going to let me in. I think it was my outstanding SATs that caught their eye. With test optional and the dumbing down of SAT scores, I just think kids like that have no chance now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:International students add diversity and expose American kids to other points of view, something which is desperately needed today. That said, I am a strong believer that public universities should prioritize in state students above all others.

International students are usually wealthier and more sheltered than the richest American kids. Think having maids and live-in staff.

Exactly, because only a half dozen or so schools offer financial aid for international students, they tend to be very wealthy students who are there to subsidize the school, not for diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

Ok “professor”. I’m more apt to believe you’re the OP.

I’m sure Jeff can confirm I am not, but you are free to remain incredulous that you might be wrong. I am indeed a college professor and what I described is a well-established problem across universities.

What is admissions doing about it? How can they test the mettle of those possibly-inflated grades before admissions? Do these admissions years feel like a huge experiment?

Also, what do you think will happen to those kids who didn't get in, but actually had the chops? Will the baby that was tossed out with the bath water find its way home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol … college admissions was more meritocratic when men didn’t have to compete with anyone.

Oh lol that’s hilarious.

OP said 20 years ago, not 50.

What elite colleges were not accepting women 20 years ago?

Lol accepting. Is that your myopic version of how admissions works?

How many women's sports were highly recruited.
Were girls represented in AP classes like boys?
Did college target girls for marketing?

Columbia wasn't even coed in 1980, Darmouth had banner better dead than coed in 1970. You think colleges were completely integrated by 2000. Are you daft?

What about women professors, or women in admissions?

Many schools only went coed because their lost top applicants to coed schools. They didn't even go coed to get top women applicant they went coed so their top applicants had somebody to bang.

You think a professor/admission officer in 2000 that was there for 20 years treated women equally. Oh wow! You are obtuse.

I hate to rain on your misery parade, but women have made up the majority of college students since the early 1980s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

Ok “professor”. I’m more apt to believe you’re the OP.

I’m sure Jeff can confirm I am not, but you are free to remain incredulous that you might be wrong. I am indeed a college professor and what I described is a well-established problem across universities.

What is admissions doing about it? How can they test the mettle of those possibly-inflated grades before admissions? Do these admissions years feel like a huge experiment?

Also, what do you think will happen to those kids who didn't get in, but actually had the chops? Will the baby that was tossed out with the bath water find its way home?

They aren’t doing anything about a non existent problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am old enough to remember how, during the period OP describes, the same was said about the previous 20 years... not to mention the 20 before that.

I was a scholarship student at an elite New England prep school. My year around 20 students from the school went to Harvard, while now 5 would be considered a good year. Overall, across the country, the trend in the last 40 years has been to to accept increasing numbers of public school students, rather than private.

I am a university professor and agree with my colleague PP - at least in the humanities. Writing skills have especially plummeted. I don't have enough knowledge to discuss the sciences, but I will say that overall academic expectations tend to be lower. I believe that students, especially at high achieving colleges, feel pressure to be involved in many extra curriculars. Add to that time spent on phones and social media and students seem to spend less and less time on academics. I am often surprised by how comfortable students are offering extracurriculars as an excuse for later papers. Priorities have changed.

That said, I think the overall move to accept more public school students is a very good thing for too many reasons to list. Correlation not being causation, I am definitely NOT arguing for a return to more prep school acceptance. The quality of student at those schools has declined even more than at colleges.

Could you elaborate pp re: the bolded? I’m genuinely curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

+1
Medical School Professor here

[Anonymous]

Grew up in the NYC suburbs. I'm in my 40s, so was applying to colleges in the early 90s. We went to SAT prep class. I was also had what was called a "gifted & talented coach" who would probably be seen as a private college advisor in today's market. We all applied to 6-10 schools, except for the handful that applied for the state colleges and they applied to 3-4. We were stressed as hell. We were fixated on the elite colleges. Some of the parents were working every angle during the admissions process the way some to today.

The difference: no one talked about this with random people back then. There was no place where you'd be telling strangers about this stuff. My friends were going to SAT classes, too, but it's not like people outside our wealthy enclave were doing it. We went to class and saw the kids from our school and the handful of others in the area like it (wealthy, white).

You all perceive that it was "more fair" back then, but it's because you just didn't know that the same stuff was going on. Or maybe you did know, but you were in denial about it being more than just senators and celebrities taking part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

Ok “professor”. I’m more apt to believe you’re the OP.

I’m sure Jeff can confirm I am not, but you are free to remain incredulous that you might be wrong. I am indeed a college professor and what I described is a well-established problem across universities.

NP. My relative who is a tenured professor at a T10 says the same thing. She reports her colleagues have no idea how kids actually make it into her classroom these days, but they are almost all not as prepared. They all think they are prepared, though, because they all have As thanks to grade inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

College professor here. I disagree completely. I can tell you that students’ performance in recent years has plummeted and that the overall quality is far lower than in the time period to which OP referred. Grade inflation and test score inflation mask what is really going on. The quality of education in this country has declined significantly.

Ok “professor”. I’m more apt to believe you’re the OP.

I’m sure Jeff can confirm I am not, but you are free to remain incredulous that you might be wrong. I am indeed a college professor and what I described is a well-established problem across universities.

What is admissions doing about it? How can they test the mettle of those possibly-inflated grades before admissions? Do these admissions years feel like a huge experiment?

Also, what do you think will happen to those kids who didn't get in, but actually had the chops? Will the baby that was tossed out with the bath water find its way home?

I’m not that PP, but the long-term effect may be good. The top 30 will slowly weaken the perception that they have all the best students. Lower-ranked schools will produce more and more influential rock stars. The excellent students are dispersing across many different schools. This is already happening; I hear open skepticism about what a T30 degree means in a way I didn’t hear before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure the factors you list create more meritocracy but the overall level of achievement is markedly higher today than back then. Whatever grade inflation and SAT scoring you want to cite, students are taking more advanced courses sooner than ever before. They’re just smarter than we ever were.

You are conflating smarter with higher achieving.

This^^^

Not sure it's always better to be taking 10+ AP courses in HS.

I was tops in my class, 1400 SAT/4.0 UW in the 80s. I took 2 AP courses as that is all my HS offered (English in 12th and APUSH). There were not AP science courses available. 400+ in my graduating class and only 13 of us made it to Calculus in HS (12th grade)--not AP calc. Yet somehow we all went on to be successful adults, but with way less stress and mental health issues. I suspect that's partly due to us being allowed to be HSers, not college students at age 15.
I attended a T10 university and graduated with a 3.9 GPA with a double major that required me to take overload almost every semester in my 5 years in 2 difficult majors/time consuming majors.