Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this. Aren't admissions more competitive than ever? Aren't these the superhuman students who aced the hardest classes, scored extremely highly on SATs, had very time-consuming ECs....? We are told nobody has a chance at these schools, and yet, those who are actually there, can't read a book? How is this possible.

bc kids lie on the apps.

I mean columbia's app makes you list all the books you've read in the last 2 years...

I love that they still do this! When I applied it also asked what magazines we read. I’m sure they saw my list and were like “this girl has no concept of discernment” and took me on as an intellectual charity case.

I was accepted but didn’t attend until grad school, but as a kid whose mom was always telling me to put books and magazines down and do a chore or go outside, I loved the idea of institutionally-sanctioned reading.

Anonymous wrote:I wish you guys could see the students in my college classes that I teach. They lack the ability to take notes. They don’t read the textbook. They panic before a test and want a study guide defining exactly what is on the test. They do not want to study any information more than what is on the test. They will ask you questions the morning of the exam. They ask for extra credit. The quality of the student skill set has plummeted in the last 20 years. They are used to fill-in-the-blank guided notes from middle and high school. They are used to re-takes. And, they never see textbooks. It’s easy to ignore the soft copy textbook—why read that? —signed a professor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet so many studnets who actually are reading these dense books in high school, and understanding them, and writing papers about them, and translating "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" from Latin into English, are not getting into these colleges because they don't have a 4.6 GPA.

I think college ADs are asleep on the job.

Oh for sure. Many of them are barely out of college themselves and looking for quirky interesting applicants, not necessarily truthful ones.

Or The reality is the kids that are reading 50 books a year are not their best performing alum.

The article is about the school's required great books course. All of their "best performing alum" took it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dcs go to a good public high school in the south. Ds has not had to read a book since middle school. Dd has had one book to read for AP English Lit so far, that's it.

You need to rethink labeling this school “good.”

My kid goes to a suburban public school in California. He has read 5-8 novels a year in English class every year.

I’m in a suburban district in California that’s supposedly good and my middle schooler was assigned two whole books to read in three years of public middle school. And those two books were at an elementary level.

PP here. Sounds like there’s a difference between schools that are “supposedly” good and actually good. Reading is fundamental. If a school doesn’t require students to read novels then I would question its reputation.

Many schools DO require students to read novels throughout the year. Just like in the old days. If your school has discontinued this practice, you may want to push back.

Oh come on. You are coming across as precious and a bit dim now. If a school district is highly rated by all measures used to assess public schools, it is “good.” If that same school district doesn’t make middle school kids read a whole book, it’s “supposedly good.” The fact you can’t seem to understand that the same district can be both goes to your limitations more than anything.

Someone bring over a writing teacher to help this PP…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I will tell you that War and Peace is extremely interesting. I’ve read it four times.

War and Peace is excellent!