Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok can someone please square the circle

Schools are harder to get into than ever before yet we are hearing from faculty that there is a crisis of basic competence in the student body.

What is going on?

IT's simple---those applying to T25 schools are not the same ones who are "in a crisis of basic competence"

A kid can get into Harvard, despite the fact 40% of their HS class will not graduate/barely graduate and 60% won't even go to college. One has nothing to do with the other

No, I mean specifically faculty at t20s who say that there is a crisis of competence with their undergrads these days

Not the general unwashed population

Anonymous wrote:I personally think education in public high schools is too transactional: memorize it and spit it back on an exam (often a standardized exam). There is no using and developing the knowledge to the next level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it’s unpopular but I would also say APs. They are not college level classes and students miss the concept of critical thought as they cram for tests. Students skip many foundational credits because they use AP credits. I get it, you feel your kid cannot be challenged otherwise, it saves money, etc. I just think they are doing our kids a disservice. They can have non AP branded classes that are just if not more rigorous by de-emphasizing the test.

This is why most of the elite schools do not accept most AP credits. You might get to get out of an intro or such but you need to take the college courses.

My kid attends a T40 and used AP credits and have had no issues with "not knowing the material". You can bet with a 5 on Calc AB and Calc BC, my kid was not going to retake Calculus 2 (known to be the hardest class in the calc sequence at most schools)---they knew the material and got an A in Calc 3&4 freshman year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask yourself this. Which students lack competence? The ones work perfect or near perfect academic stats? Or the ones with much weaker academic stats who are there to advance a social agenda?

These rhetorical thought experiments are worthless if they're based on faulty premises. First, show us the reliable data that (a) identifies such incompetent students at selective schools, (b) shows that they are disproportionately constituted of whatever demographic you are inferring by "social agenda" (let's be real, we all know you mean "brown people"), (c) demonstrates that those same students had "much weaker" stats than their peers (and were admitted despite SCOTUS's SFFA decision), and, finally, (d) disaggregates the data for prior generations, distinct demographics, and other material variables. Then we'll consider your MAGA reasoning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average kids have gotten worse while the top kids have gotten better. Different populations.

Not true. They are just better at standardized test taking a faking a strong resume

Anonymous wrote:Ask yourself this. Which students lack competence? The ones work perfect or near perfect academic stats? Or the ones with much weaker academic stats who are there to advance a social agenda?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a community college instructor, so I don’t usually see the sorts of students who are applying to top 20 colleges, but my colleagues & I have seen a distinct decline in students starting about 10-12 years ago.

We suspect the reasons are things like:

Obsession with mobile phones

Playing on computers in class while pretending to be listening & taking notes

Reliance on AI

High school teachers relying on multiple choice exams

High school teachers who: (1) don’t count whichever exam a student took that had lowest score, (2) allow students to re-take exams if they don’t like the grade they got, or (3) allow students to submit B.S. extra credit assignments to make up for bad exam scores. These are all safety nets that give students the idea that they don’t REALLY need to study for exams.

High school teachers who provide “study guides” for exams. These give students the wrong signal regarding paying attention to lectures, taking notes, studying, & learning.

How self-defeating. Creating my own study guide is always what helped me study for the test. In fact, I retained more from classes where we were allowed to make and use cheat sheets for some tests.

The best feeder private schools don't allow cheat sheets. Because that's, well, cheating

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s DEI, obviously. Do you see the affluent white/Asian kids who actually get accepted into elite schools? They are off the charts. Obviously not the ones getting tutored. It’s obviously the Pell Grant kids. Everyone is going through all kinds of contortions here to avoid this uncomfortable truth. Blaming cell phones lol. Now, it may be a worthwhile social goal to provide this education to them - for free- but let’s be clear-eyed about what is happening and which students are struggling.

Anonymous wrote:The average kids have gotten worse while the top kids have gotten better. Different populations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it’s unpopular but I would also say APs. They are not college level classes and students miss the concept of critical thought as they cram for tests. Students skip many foundational credits because they use AP credits. I get it, you feel your kid cannot be challenged otherwise, it saves money, etc. I just think they are doing our kids a disservice. They can have non AP branded classes that are just if not more rigorous by de-emphasizing the test.

This is why most of the elite schools do not accept most AP credits. You might get to get out of an intro or such but you need to take the college courses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:During my freshman year at Cornell in 1991, I had two professors state that the quality of students currently attending was mediocre. We were apathetic generation that had not interest in learning. Are we doing the same thing here?

The one issue I have seen with my child's cohort is that some are too reliant on their parents. There is a lack of independence as parents seem to intervene at a drop of a hat. We tried to avoid intervening unless absolutely necessary. Our child had to fight most of her own battles. I think she is stronger for it but whether it benefits her academically in college is unknown.

I graduated in 1992. We did not have smart phones or the internet back then. We had to remember everyone's phone numbers. We read for pleasure. There was not rampant grade inflation. Parents weren't ruling the teachers and coaches and snowplowing everything for their kids.

IT is possible to raise kids like this---BUT it takes so much work. Fighting against the system. Our kids were pissed to get iphones later than everyone else. We limited screen time. No phones or laptops in bedrooms overnight--plugged in downstairs. Constantly battling phone time--tracking usage. WE DID NOT HAVE PHONES IN SCHOOLS--huge distraction.

We are in the minority that our kids were self-reliant very young. They didn't need us constantly monitoring Canvas or emailing teachers, etc. By the time they entered middle school--they were 100% self-reliant for school work and I never had to check. They brought home As. They didn't have missing assignments.

With sports--there is the same political culture. We never talked to coaches or complained and taught our kids to self-advocate. Did they get screwed over time and time again by the 'kiss-@sses'--sure. Cuts hurt. They learned resilience and grit and by Senior year of HS the parent favor stopped working and actual talent had to take over. Because of all of that heartache and us not sweeping in they have toughness and grit.

Things are very different nowadays. You can't compare it to pre-iPhone/internet/litigious society/latch-key generations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Private high school: no phones allowed in schools, no study guides provided, no retakes, no dropped scores, no grade inflation, no weighted grades, no “selection from” (full books assigned), several assigned papers a year and 8-10 pages each. Average gpa is 3.7. Average SAT is over 1500.

This is why colleges still like feeders.

IMHO they don't go to them enough. It really seems that colleges are looking at GPAs as if they mean the same thing everywhere. Huge mistake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids from my DS’s (affluent) high school who are getting into T25 schools are so extraordinarily well-prepared it’s not even funny. Once there, they encounter students from other parts of the country who are on financial aid and ill-prepared.

Fixed it for you

We can quibble over word choice, but it answers the question. Colleges are choosing kids BECAUSE they come from disadvantaged backgrounds. So it should come as no surprise that there is a basic competence problem. A friend’s son at HYP is blown away by how incapable his DEIFGLI peers are. Truly struggling.

+1 These AOs prefer the poor or well connected over truly smart kids. We have seen the brilliant passed over for someone who checks an ethnic box. Sorry those kids struggle in college and finding jobs. It’s a joke who they are admitting for all the wrong reasons.

The text just above emphatically was NOT true for my E School classmate from a poor coal mining county in SW VA.

Entire high school qualified for free lunch. He got all As in the county's one high school. He did not have the chance to take any AP classes - none offered. He dis not have the chance to take any Calculus - not offered. No money for labs in Bio/Chem/Physics, so the school taught all 3 courses without any lab work. He did the best one could do with the very limited options available to him.

He worked hard from day 1, even though his starting point was academically way behind most other students. He got his engineering degree on time and got out.

He and those like him are why I think it entirely fair to handle economically poor students from poor cities/counties differently. This is quite different from an ethnic/racial bias in admissions.

Yeah, I think it's good for colleges to give a change to high-potential kids from under-resourced places. I wonder if the overall degradation of expectations, lack of books, etc. produces fewer of these students, and test-optional makes them harder to find.