Reply to Tell High School Students to Stop Contacting Professors

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Tell High School Students to Stop Contacting Professors"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think it’s kinda obnoxious for HS kids to think they should get a job doing research.

The professor has a slew of graduate students at his fingertips to help with research. Why would someone think he would ask a kid in HS to help with research?Tell me why.  Let me real here.

Go get a job at the mall and leave this professor alone. [/quote]

And I think you haven’t bothered to read the thread. The kids are being told they need to do research. They would probably be happier spending one their last free summers lifeguarding than do research.

Blame the HSs, the AOs, the consultants and the parents. [/quote]

Don't blame the AO's. I speak to AO's all of the time (athletic recruiting). I have never been asked about a kids research even at the very top schools. They ask about a lot of stuff but research never comes up.[/quote] Athletic recruits are hooked. A 4.0, good test scores, and "standard strong" ECs are more than enough. Just because athletes do not benefit much from research does not mean no one does.

Also, have your talked to Caltech or MIT AOs?[/quote]

I do blame the AOs. This is in their control. All their false concern for kids’ mental/emotional well-being is just cr@p. 
[/quote]
DCUM generally thinks AOs are liars, but you're blaming them for something they have never told you is required?

Definitely smarter to go with people on the internet or consultants. The consultants who haven't worked in admissions, have irrelevant info because they retired years ago, or who were part-time readers doing data entry and first looks at essays and letters of rec. Seems like a great plan.

[/quote]

The AOs can clearly state on their webpages that research relationships with professors at the college level will not be given any more weight in admissions than a regular job.

They bear a great deal of responsibility for not controlling this.

[/quote]So on top of stating what they want, they have to anticipate every bizarre strategy cooked up by the consultant industry?

This isn't on them. It's on gullible, wealthy people who think they need to do all this stuff. Normal people don't have access to this stuff and aren't doing it. [/quote]

The problem is that university academia and 9-12 educators are not zooming out and understanding the dysfuntion and institutional failures in promoting fields and training young people in really important sectors our country needs. Instead, people on this thread and elsewhere are quick to snipe about specific symptoms rather than the core problems. The problems have been largely masked by favorable demographics and relatively free-flowing funding to universities, which have been on a spending spree for the past couple of decades.

There are a number of indicators to suggest that those conditions are about to change, perhaps quickly. The country is clearly entering a highly populist and cost-cutting mood. Known "enrollment cliff" demographic shifts and possibly the changes in immigration policy will likely affect undergraduate enrollment demand. Furthermore, there is a is a documented gender imbalance, as many first generation students (particularly young men) simply conclude that college isn't worth it.

What would happen if practical opportunities to learn research constrict even more? ROI will come increasingly front-and-center and students will monitor carefully how schools pivot with funding changes. I'm not going to offer specific threats because there is so much uncertainty, but I think it's fair to say that research will likely be harmed to some degree in the next decade, and this could happen even at top-tier universities. In my experience, education administrators are also not particularly strong at pivoting quickly.

What I have been trying to suggest (gently) to the professors on this thread is that you might not be so quick to snarl at enthusiastic parents and high school/undergraduate students, which I believe is the audience who has the best incentive to support your work with any loyalty. (You have the potential to develop them and shape their careers!) While you might have tenure, funding your research is likely another matter entirely.

The truth of the matter is that our educational system has been making some terrible strategic decisions in preparing young people for a long time. Let's look at how our high school curriculum and assessment is done. Nationwide, it seems that nearly every state has outsourced advanced curriculum for schools to a third party "nonprofit", the College Board.  I don't know, but I'm assuming that school systems have to pay the CB for access to classroom curricula. To drive its own profits, the CB is creating new AP classes as fast as they can, including silliness like AP Precalculus.

What was originally intended to help students get a jump start on college-level work and improve affordability (primarily for seniors) has now devolved into a rigor race where freshman in high school are signing up for APs, which of course pads the CB's bottom line because they charge schools/families plenty of fees for the AP tests. Top students are often applying with 12+ AP classes and admissions offices are often using the number of APs as a screening device with AI systems on application. Academic grade inflation has exploded, particularly during and post-pandemic, leading to meaningful difficulty in differentiating student transcripts. On top of that, the College Board also has a huge role in "standardized" testing as the administrator of the SAT. Not only do the CB and ACT charge fees for the testing, they charge fees for distributing digital reports to each applicant university. Of course, they also SELL that student's data to universities for marketing.  So IMO we have given extraordinary power and resources to a rather troubling nonprofit.

To improve access, promote diversity, and mitigate the looming enrollment cliff, admissions offices recently embraced "test optional" for admissions during and post-pandemic. That is somewhat unwinding starting with the 2026 class because of the transcript differentiation problems, but the test optional environment has then placed more pressure on top students securing meaningful extracurricular activities in a "holistic review". Instead of offering high-quality and affordable options to prepare students for college and explore potential fields, most universities have opted to fill their campuses with "pay-to-play" summer programs to leverage their vacant housing and pad their bottom lines. With few exceptions, Admissions Officers do not particularly respect the quality of these experiences and students enjoy them but don't develop many concrete skills. Nevertheless, plenty of anxious families plunk down thousands of dollars for them so they have *something* to report on the common app, and YES, a huge industry of $$$$ consultants are advising families to do just that.

Research is murkier because that can actually be an incredible experience, depending on the circumstances. The uber-wealthy families hiring the 6-figure and higher consultancies are figuring out ways to buy access to opportunities that either are legit or sound enough so that a 24 year old AO reader would be impressed. It absolutely works often, both in admission and in building an attractive resume for future professors. It's a free rider problem of sorts. If students are somehow able to get access to top-tier training and experience through personal connections or expensive consultants, that is less training that their future professor's lab has to do.

When there are plenty of well-trained students, professors can, as a PP noted, have a choice of "brilliant researchers".  I suspect that the spigot may be less free-flowing as funding dries. And, as a PP pointed out, most kids don't have access because those pay-to-play opportunities are $$$$.

But PPs are wrong that students are just doing this because a consultant told them to do so. Competitive programs indicate having research experience as a pre-requisite for admission. Consider the Virginia STEM application for its summer Governor's School program, where a section of the application is dedicated to listing research experience.  Most students who aren't able to get into the few university-based programs and who aren't able to do research at their high schools become shut out.  In my experience, high school teachers are tired and most aren't interested in taking on extra projects for which they aren't paid, so that also can limit access to pursuing competitions and awards.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.doe.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/57918/638652942955530000

[b]I'm suggesting that professors consider a pivot in attitude and in advocacy for students, and that universities consider replacing mediocre pay-to-play programs with higher quality outreach opportunities that promote realistic and valuable skill developments in research.[/b] I think universities are better positioned to do so financially than expecting high schools to step up. I understand that this has to be funded, but I suspect the smarter schools will start figuring out creative ways to fund programs like this to bring talent to schools, whether through targeted grants, campaigns to parents, etc.

Aside for the concerns for my own kids, I'm alarmed by the growth in the "flat earther" believers and the proliferation of conspiracy theories in lieu of science in America. More importantly, I'm alarmed that our nation's educators don't seem to be waking up to the threats.  Change is hard and resource allocation is ever-tricky, but I urge each of you to think about ways that you can get creative in supporting our students better. Even if you can help one student, it is something.[/quote]

PP here, the one who was arguing for more 'outreach' above. That's a lot of text for the two (now bolded) 'suggestions'!  I agree with both, but the 'attitude' issue is moot without a change in institutional incentive structures.  So everything turns on the second suggestion.  And on that point I'll say yet again: quite a few universities are already doing this.  To find out which universities, you might start with non-pfp summer programs then look into how those research opportunities can be extended into the school year (which is how my kid is getting his valuable research experience).  Even without that extension, such a summer program itself -- again, the opposite of pfp: subsidized! 'free'! (though with competitive admissions) -- would provide most of what people are talking about in this thread.  We have some of those, but we need more.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics