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

[Anonymous]

Top 1% income students take 20% seats of top colleges, top 20%(-1%) income take 50+% seats. While bottom 50% is less than 14%.
Are people here mostly bottom 50%? what kind students professors complained about? only FGLI?

[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’m so tired of this nonsense coming from mostly wealthy privileged families.

This is so cheap for most of the colleges that engage in this practice. Fly ins are almost exclusively at need blind institutions with billions in the bank. Fly in students are mostly students from top magnet schools and boarding schools. How do I know? I was one of them and most of us knew each other already because we were already identified as top students by CBOs most here would never know about.

A majority of top colleges don’t even have summer “remedial” programs in the way you are discussing them. Many have early access research and other programs, so students are connected to faculty early and can network before your wealthy children come in and take up excessive space. Your entire point about the UK is stupid, because the UK has a nationalized curriculum and even they’ve had to start adopting practices to improve low income representation.

Our issue is people like you are in the way. Instead of advocating for improving resources, you want to dissolve pathways for low income students with no practical replacement for stupid conceptions of merit that are made to exclude. We are already moving back to test required, so I’m excited to see the new excuses this forum makes for when talented low income students are still attending these top institutions.

Which CBOs, other than questbridge? How did being identified by these CBOs lead to you getting to know other similar students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top 1% income students take 20% seats of top colleges, top 20%(-1%) income take 50+% seats. While bottom 50% is less than 14%.
Are people here mostly bottom 50%? what kind students professors complained about? only FGLI?

That plus test optional.

[Anonymous]

Lazy, entitled, tech-obsessed, money-fixated, rude, inconsiderate, skip class a lot, always have an excuse, demand “study aids.”

[Anonymous]

It's really tough for kids to have intellectual curiosity when they are required to take so many AP classes and do so many activities to be competitive.

My kids really are so intellectually curious but I find it sort of fizzled out after 9rh grade bc there was no time to just learn. And nobody wants you to just spend time reading what you are interested in you are expected to be publishing and winning a competition or something. And then that isn't as fun anymore bc it is now another task.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Man...you people have nothing better to do be whine about people. Kids are dumb, professors are dumb, it's everyone else's fault.

Happy Hump Day!

Let me add one more to this list: Parents are dumb. Now I think we've covered all the bases!

[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.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

[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.

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.

I wasn't even going to weigh in, but then I saw your post. So ridiculous to blame rural or truly economically disadvantaged kids, as they are by far the smallest population at any Ivy +. If the overall standards of a school are slipping, it is down to the 80% who are not only wealthy but ultra-wealthy. What is "fracturing long-standing institutions" is the total disregard for the middle class, same as in our wider political system. This is the reason everyone has turned into a cheating slacker: the one group that isn't either too disenfranchised to work or too entitled is the group with least clout in the admissions process.

[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’m so tired of this nonsense coming from mostly wealthy privileged families.

This is so cheap for most of the colleges that engage in this practice. Fly ins are almost exclusively at need blind institutions with billions in the bank. Fly in students are mostly students from top magnet schools and boarding schools. How do I know? I was one of them and most of us knew each other already because we were already identified as top students by CBOs most here would never know about.

A majority of top colleges don’t even have summer “remedial” programs in the way you are discussing them. Many have early access research and other programs, so students are connected to faculty early and can network before your wealthy children come in and take up excessive space. Your entire point about the UK is stupid, because the UK has a nationalized curriculum and even they’ve had to start adopting practices to improve low income representation.

Our issue is people like you are in the way. Instead of advocating for improving resources, you want to dissolve pathways for low income students with no practical replacement for stupid conceptions of merit that are made to exclude. We are already moving back to test required, so I’m excited to see the new excuses this forum makes for when talented low income students are still attending these top institutions.

Which CBOs, other than questbridge? How did being identified by these CBOs lead to you getting to know other similar students?

Look up thrive scholars. It’s a cohort of about 300 students every year and it starts your junior year of high school. About 50% of that cohort at one point was going on to Ivies or t20. LEDA is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's really tough for kids to have intellectual curiosity when they are required to take so many AP classes and do so many activities to be competitive.

My kids really are so intellectually curious but I find it sort of fizzled out after 9rh grade bc there was no time to just learn. And nobody wants you to just spend time reading what you are interested in you are expected to be publishing and winning a competition or something. And then that isn't as fun anymore bc it is now another task.

So right! Learning can be fun and interesting, but a lot of canned curricula are not.

[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.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Low income students have less options for college, and most colleges are not as cheap as the top colleges will be for them. They also typically can’t take on steep loans, because their parents’ credit is poor. State schools can actually put many into a decent amount of debt compared to going to a top college. There’s also no evidence they are less prepared, that’s just dcum classist nonsense. Please read the privileged poor.

[Anonymous]

Yeesh a lot of private school parents with mediocre kids that can’t handle someone poorer being smarter than them.

[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.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Curious why you think admitted FGLI students have more impact than their peers who are hothouse flowers. Many could never have made it to any selective school without a truly mind-boggling support system (including but not limited to actual accommodations at an aggregate level that is statistically inconsistent with the incidence of relevant disorders in the general population.)

[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.

FGLI encapsulates the issue.

First Generation - Why would you give a preference to less prepared kids whose parents did not go to college? If they have the initiative to apply to college at all, there is a college somewhere that will take them. Community college if nowhere else. And then the next generation after them will reach a little higher on the ladder and the generation higher still until they become UMC parents that start worrying about downward social mobility. Why does all the social mobility have to happen in one generation? Why do they need to be represented beyond their ability warrants at the most selective colleges and universities in America?

Low income - I understand that low income students need money to attend college but once again, but why do they have to attend colleges that are more selective than their abilities would warrant? Why can't this happen over several generations? Make colleges more affordable, sure, have lower standards based on income? Why? Sure it is harder for people with fewer resources to achieve the same level of mastery but they have in fact only achieved their actual level of academic mastery.

Low income students have less options for college, and most colleges are not as cheap as the top colleges will be for them. They also typically can’t take on steep loans, because their parents’ credit is poor. State schools can actually put many into a decent amount of debt compared to going to a top college. There’s also no evidence they are less prepared, that’s just dcum classist nonsense. Please read the privileged poor.

DP here. There’s lots of evidence that they aren’t prepared. State testing scores, math and reading levels, placement test results and performance once they are in college. Kids from low performing schools with uneducated parents as a whole don’t catch up once they go to college. The gap in missing skills is too big.

People forget that the path to immigration for Asian immigrants has been graduate school, H1B or E something. This doesn’t mean that all Asians are more intelligent because of their race, far from it! It does mean that the population of Asian Americans in the US has a far higher IQ range than Hispanic Americans whose path was different. If the pathway to the US from Latin American countries was highly educated professional skills rather than manual labor it would be different. This can change over generations but not as fast as the education system is falsely portraying.

[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.

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.

I wasn't even going to weigh in, but then I saw your post. So ridiculous to blame rural or truly economically disadvantaged kids, as they are by far the smallest population at any Ivy +. If the overall standards of a school are slipping, it is down to the 80% who are not only wealthy but ultra-wealthy. What is "fracturing long-standing institutions" is the total disregard for the middle class, same as in our wider political system. This is the reason everyone has turned into a cheating slacker: the one group that isn't either too disenfranchised to work or too entitled is the group with least clout in the admissions process.

This is a story as old as time.....people are jealous when they see someone getting something that they feel that they deserve. No different than the race card being played by the republican party to lure in uneducated whites.

Maybe the best solution for all is for the top private schools (most top schools in the US are private) to go back to what they have historically been at the undergraduate level. Historically they were a training ground for Upper and almost Upper class families of wealth and other families of power and influence. The MC and lower UMC as a whole has never been actually wanted or welcome as undergraduates at these institutions. The top schools can dismiss the idea of helping the less well off in the name of 'fairness' to the MC and UMC families which covet admission but constantly cry about cost or access. Redirecting all of these kids to the public system will help everyone by providing more and better students to the public schools.

People will cry 'they have our tax dollars, they must do what we demand'! No, they need not cater to you, they are private institutions. They do not need your tax dollars to fulfill their undergraduate mission (no more poor means no more Pell money and it's not needed anyway if most are full pay). If we are stupid enough as a country to shut down graduate research grants and damage the most efficient research machine in the world (and it looks like the current administration might just be that stupid) we as a country deserve the end result.