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.

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.

Wow. So much of this is problematic.
Contrary to popular belief, college -- and elite colleges -- is not just a pathway or tool for the upper- and upper-middle class to continue education after high school. College is one of the most reliable tools for economic mobility FOR THE LOWER CLASSES. It's baked into the ethics of the US educational system. They are not just supposed to serve as finishing schools for the elite, many of whom -- let's be honest here -- probably could get into high income jobs through connections. College is a place where the playing field can be leveled. And to suggest that first income students are only allowed to go to community college is so classist. If they can get into Harvard or UVA based on GPA and test scores -- even if the threshold for their scores is slightly lower to account for the fact that they don't have the familial advantages -- so be it. Contrary to popular belief, those schools are not just welcoming low income students into college if those students fail to admit rigerous admissions criteria. Sure, the criteria might be slightly less rigerous, but again, that's because of the role of higher ed in the US as a place to break down class barriers.

In the city where I live, the selective K-12 schools require a test for admission. They also prioritize students from low-income neighborhoods, because those students have more factors working against them (if you're from a rich area, your score required to get in will on average be higher than in a poorer area). They still have to have a high test score and a high GPA, and to be more merit-based they even fill a large chunk of the seats based on score alone without any other considerations. On paper, does that mean that a kid from a lower-income neighborhood will enter with a lower score than one from a higher income neighborhood? Typically, yes. BUT THEN the schools provide wraparound support to help those students keep up and graduate, which they ultimately do end up doing. They take the same classes, they are graded on the same rubric. And maybe their GPA still ends up lower because they had to work a job to support their family, instead of having their family provide them with tutoring support.

THAT is why colleges prioritize students from low income or first generation backgrounds. They typically have disadvantages that wealthier students typically do not have. BUT THEN it should be up to the college to provide the additional support needed to make sure those students are successful, be it through one-on-one counseling or a summer bridge program or some other supports.

I am aware none of this addresses OP's question but I just had to sound off here about the previous comments.

Ok? Then just go to the state university?

I fall into the camp that says don't lower standards for anyone at elite schools, whether first gen or black or legacy. It hurts these schools in the long run and doesn't necessarily deliver the benefits anticipated. A lot of those kids end up with a chip on their shoulders.

First gen or whatever who has the aptitude and merit to get in and perform competitively, absolutely fine. But lowering standards is only playing games with them that can backfire and hurt them more than you might think. There's already a culture of what I'd call "privileged bitterness" that is mollycoddled by admin but doesn't do anyone favors.

Anonymous wrote:Even at places like Harvard or Stanford, professors complain students are not prepared for college. In Purdue, which isn’t easy to get into for engineering and CS, professors complain that most of their class are using AI and not learning the material. These colleges regularly turn away straight A students, so what is going on?

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a professor at a top 10 school. He literally has never complained once about the quality of his students; in fact, he has said frequently that the type of work they're doing is something he would never have been able to do at that age. When a professor whines about how students these days can't do X,Y, or Z, it gets picked up in the media because they're eager to paint the picture of an entitled younger generation -- it's a tale old as time and this happened with millennials as well.

As a parent of a high-achieving kid, his ability to write is probably the place I see the greatest difference (in a negative direction) from when I was his age. His district also has zero geography education. I think writing is deemphasized in elementary school now, but that's just my own anecdata. On the other hand, he is doing algebra and he is in 5th grade. Times, standards, and requirements change and professors will always be comparing their students to what they themselves were able to do.

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a professor at a top 10 school. He literally has never complained once about the quality of his students; in fact, he has said frequently that the type of work they're doing is something he would never have been able to do at that age. When a professor whines about how students these days can't do X,Y, or Z, it gets picked up in the media because they're eager to paint the picture of an entitled younger generation -- it's a tale old as time and this happened with millennials as well.

As a parent of a high-achieving kid, his ability to write is probably the place I see the greatest difference (in a negative direction) from when I was his age. His district also has zero geography education. I think writing is deemphasized in elementary school now, but that's just my own anecdata. On the other hand, he is doing algebra and he is in 5th grade. Times, standards, and requirements change and professors will always be comparing their students to what they themselves were able to do.

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.

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.

Wow. So much of this is problematic.
Contrary to popular belief, college -- and elite colleges -- is not just a pathway or tool for the upper- and upper-middle class to continue education after high school. College is one of the most reliable tools for economic mobility FOR THE LOWER CLASSES. It's baked into the ethics of the US educational system. They are not just supposed to serve as finishing schools for the elite, many of whom -- let's be honest here -- probably could get into high income jobs through connections. College is a place where the playing field can be leveled. And to suggest that first income students are only allowed to go to community college is so classist. If they can get into Harvard or UVA based on GPA and test scores -- even if the threshold for their scores is slightly lower to account for the fact that they don't have the familial advantages -- so be it. Contrary to popular belief, those schools are not just welcoming low income students into college if those students fail to admit rigerous admissions criteria. Sure, the criteria might be slightly less rigerous, but again, that's because of the role of higher ed in the US as a place to break down class barriers.

In the city where I live, the selective K-12 schools require a test for admission. They also prioritize students from low-income neighborhoods, because those students have more factors working against them (if you're from a rich area, your score required to get in will on average be higher than in a poorer area). They still have to have a high test score and a high GPA, and to be more merit-based they even fill a large chunk of the seats based on score alone without any other considerations. On paper, does that mean that a kid from a lower-income neighborhood will enter with a lower score than one from a higher income neighborhood? Typically, yes. BUT THEN the schools provide wraparound support to help those students keep up and graduate, which they ultimately do end up doing. They take the same classes, they are graded on the same rubric. And maybe their GPA still ends up lower because they had to work a job to support their family, instead of having their family provide them with tutoring support.

THAT is why colleges prioritize students from low income or first generation backgrounds. They typically have disadvantages that wealthier students typically do not have. BUT THEN it should be up to the college to provide the additional support needed to make sure those students are successful, be it through one-on-one counseling or a summer bridge program or some other supports.

I am aware none of this addresses OP's question but I just had to sound off here about the previous comments.

Ok? Then just go to the state university?

I fall into the camp that says don't lower standards for anyone at elite schools, whether first gen or black or legacy. It hurts these schools in the long run and doesn't necessarily deliver the benefits anticipated. A lot of those kids end up with a chip on their shoulders.

First gen or whatever who has the aptitude and merit to get in and perform competitively, absolutely fine. But lowering standards is only playing games with them that can backfire and hurt them more than you might think. There's already a culture of what I'd call "privileged bitterness" that is mollycoddled by admin but doesn't do anyone favors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Once again, please read the privileged poor. You don’t know where these kids are coming from. They’re not just random low income students chosen out of a hat. Most are nowhere near inner city youth either. Please stop assuming you know everything about a population based off of a few statistics. You need to actually research into the class of poor students that are evaluated and chosen to enter Ivy League institutions and the like.

Please enlighten us...

Well for starters, many come from top magnets and boarding schools. They’re educationally privileged.

At least these kids are qualified and can do the work. It sucks for the non FGLI kid who performed better yet got rejected but this is no different than getting bumped for a donor kid.

It used to be that athletes were the only unqualified kids being admitted. There weren’t that many and many schools offered special classes for them. Most major donor kids had access to private schools and tutors. While they got in over higher IQ middle class kids, they weren’t really dragging down the classes. The unqualified FGLI kids are dragging down the quality.

Athletes were never unqualified, they just have skills that your little grinder will never have and you resent that. Some of them may not be at the top of the distribution but they are well qualified at any Ivy, Patriot, UAA, NESCAC, etc.

I don’t object to the athletes getting in at all. They raise money for the school and build school spirit, alumni stay more engaged giving the academic students more networking opportunities. They give more than they take. The FGLI students just take and provide no benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Once again, please read the privileged poor. You don’t know where these kids are coming from. They’re not just random low income students chosen out of a hat. Most are nowhere near inner city youth either. Please stop assuming you know everything about a population based off of a few statistics. You need to actually research into the class of poor students that are evaluated and chosen to enter Ivy League institutions and the like.

Please enlighten us...

Well for starters, many come from top magnets and boarding schools. They’re educationally privileged.

At least these kids are qualified and can do the work. It sucks for the non FGLI kid who performed better yet got rejected but this is no different than getting bumped for a donor kid.

It used to be that athletes were the only unqualified kids being admitted. There weren’t that many and many schools offered special classes for them. Most major donor kids had access to private schools and tutors. While they got in over higher IQ middle class kids, they weren’t really dragging down the classes. The unqualified FGLI kids are dragging down the quality.

Athletes were never unqualified, they just have skills that your little grinder will never have and you resent that. Some of them may not be at the top of the distribution but they are well qualified at any Ivy, Patriot, UAA, NESCAC, etc.

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.

Wow. So much of this is problematic.
Contrary to popular belief, college -- and elite colleges -- is not just a pathway or tool for the upper- and upper-middle class to continue education after high school. College is one of the most reliable tools for economic mobility FOR THE LOWER CLASSES. It's baked into the ethics of the US educational system. They are not just supposed to serve as finishing schools for the elite, many of whom -- let's be honest here -- probably could get into high income jobs through connections. College is a place where the playing field can be leveled. And to suggest that first income students are only allowed to go to community college is so classist. If they can get into Harvard or UVA based on GPA and test scores -- even if the threshold for their scores is slightly lower to account for the fact that they don't have the familial advantages -- so be it. Contrary to popular belief, those schools are not just welcoming low income students into college if those students fail to admit rigerous admissions criteria. Sure, the criteria might be slightly less rigerous, but again, that's because of the role of higher ed in the US as a place to break down class barriers.

In the city where I live, the selective K-12 schools require a test for admission. They also prioritize students from low-income neighborhoods, because those students have more factors working against them (if you're from a rich area, your score required to get in will on average be higher than in a poorer area). They still have to have a high test score and a high GPA, and to be more merit-based they even fill a large chunk of the seats based on score alone without any other considerations. On paper, does that mean that a kid from a lower-income neighborhood will enter with a lower score than one from a higher income neighborhood? Typically, yes. BUT THEN the schools provide wraparound support to help those students keep up and graduate, which they ultimately do end up doing. They take the same classes, they are graded on the same rubric. And maybe their GPA still ends up lower because they had to work a job to support their family, instead of having their family provide them with tutoring support.

THAT is why colleges prioritize students from low income or first generation backgrounds. They typically have disadvantages that wealthier students typically do not have. BUT THEN it should be up to the college to provide the additional support needed to make sure those students are successful, be it through one-on-one counseling or a summer bridge program or some other supports.

I am aware none of this addresses OP's question but I just had to sound off here about the previous comments.