Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fewer kids regularly read or write for pleasure, and I'd imagine that explains some of it. Independent reading lends itself to a greater range of general knowledge, better critical thinking skills, a larger vocabulary, and better language and communication skills.

I think this is it. It's a fall-off in high-end literacy. If you're pretty smart and read well, you can do pretty well on the verbal SATs. But if you're not well-read like more top kids used to be, then you won't know a lot of the canon, your writing style may be less sophisticated, etc.

Expectations are low in many high schools. My kid did poorly in Spanish 4, his first semester at college. He complained that he was graded down for faults that wouldn't have been graded down in high school (accents, etc.). I had zero sympathy for this. On the other hand, neither he nor I had control over the grading standards used in high school. So it's true that he wasn't prepared well. I had a bad feeling about the rigor of his Spanish courses all along but I wasn't prepared to rock the boat in a subject where he was actually doing fairly well.

Agree. I think same for math. Get the correct answer but you don’t have to understand why it is correct. Just use the right formula.

Anonymous wrote:Holistic admissions is the problem. Admit high stat test takers only and you won’t need remedial classes in T20 schools.

I disagree. First, test taking ability is not the only indicator of success and second, how do you distinguish between all of the 1580-1600s?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fewer kids regularly read or write for pleasure, and I'd imagine that explains some of it. Independent reading lends itself to a greater range of general knowledge, better critical thinking skills, a larger vocabulary, and better language and communication skills.

I think this is it. It's a fall-off in high-end literacy. If you're pretty smart and read well, you can do pretty well on the verbal SATs. But if you're not well-read like more top kids used to be, then you won't know a lot of the canon, your writing style may be less sophisticated, etc.

Expectations are low in many high schools. My kid did poorly in Spanish 4, his first semester at college. He complained that he was graded down for faults that wouldn't have been graded down in high school (accents, etc.). I had zero sympathy for this. On the other hand, neither he nor I had control over the grading standards used in high school. So it's true that he wasn't prepared well. I had a bad feeling about the rigor of his Spanish courses all along but I wasn't prepared to rock the boat in a subject where he was actually doing fairly well.

+1. There are a lot of reasons for this, but there’s been a lot written about the wrong-headed focus in American education on nebulous skills over content and knowledge acquisition. A subset of this is the whole science of reading/balanced literacy/Caulkins nonsense, but it goes beyond that to just much less reading and acquisition of things everyone used to know.

Holistic admissions is the problem. Admit high stat test takers only and you won’t need remedial classes in T20 schools.

Anonymous wrote:Fewer kids regularly read or write for pleasure, and I'd imagine that explains some of it. Independent reading lends itself to a greater range of general knowledge, better critical thinking skills, a larger vocabulary, and better language and communication skills.

I think this is it. It's a fall-off in high-end literacy. If you're pretty smart and read well, you can do pretty well on the verbal SATs. But if you're not well-read like more top kids used to be, then you won't know a lot of the canon, your writing style may be less sophisticated, etc.

Expectations are low in many high schools. My kid did poorly in Spanish 4, his first semester at college. He complained that he was graded down for faults that wouldn't have been graded down in high school (accents, etc.). I had zero sympathy for this. On the other hand, neither he nor I had control over the grading standards used in high school. So it's true that he wasn't prepared well. I had a bad feeling about the rigor of his Spanish courses all along but I wasn't prepared to rock the boat in a subject where he was actually doing fairly well.

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:grade inflation
test optional
vague, subjective scoring of essays and ECs
holistic admission
yield algorithms

You forgot rampant cheating and use of AI

I think among top students it’s much easier today to get a strong math education with all the dual enrollment, math tutoring, and online resources. The very top students have more resources for their education.

I’m pretty concerned about the rest of the pack. Really we just need higher standards overall in educational outcomes.

Pretty simply, rampant grade inflation, combined with test optional and you can have functional illiterates graduate with 4.4+ GPAs.

Professional help on applications and AO is judging application based on a fabricated transcript, recommendations based on student/parent supplied input and professional consultants.

Anonymous wrote:grade inflation
test optional
vague, subjective scoring of essays and ECs
holistic admission
yield algorithms

This, plus Common App and aggressive marketing. The UCs are arguably a pronounced example. In state, very high stat and EC kids that are denied out of high school can readily transfer into programs like Berkeley CS after a couple good years at other schools.

Similarly, there are articles online where Notre Dame profs are begging for the removal of test optional policies.

The things the tests are measuring are not necessarily the things that let kids do what college professors are looking for. Even Harvard has remedial algebra and kids who can’t read a book. (They can read! But they don’t read books).

The kids applying to T20 schools are mostly exceptionally good students - far stronger than their parents generation. There are exceptions. Harvard has been forced to put students in remedial algebra because they take so many hooked but weak students. But at other schools, the students are generally incredibly strong. Where professors may complain is that it's harder to get classroom participation than in the past, but that is more a generational issue. The bottom half of high school students, however, are very unprepared for college due to lots of reasons. Any college that takes average and below students will notice a big difference compared to classes from 10 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:grade inflation
test optional
vague, subjective scoring of essays and ECs
holistic admission
yield algorithms

This is the answer.

Income disparity and this year being the top of the demographic cliff. Lots of kids born into UMC households going to private or UMC HS with strong curriculums and are working flat out, and are way above where I was in terms of college prep when I got into Duke, Davidson, UNC and Wake (NC student). On the other side, lots of poor kids whose parents lack a decent social safety net, starting in cr@pay childcare and going to underfunded HSs and getting a cr@ply education and graduate lacking basic skills.

The Common Apps means the UMC haves are all fighting for the same 25 colleges (at a time when more kids are Hs seniors than ever before). While on the other hand, the MC/LMC have nots can barely read.

Add in the ongoing fallout from COVID shutdowns, when UMC parents set up desks in quiet areas and monitored progress and LMC had 5 kids with cr@pay WiFi trying to learn in the same room, all overseen by a 14 year old, while Mom (no Dad around) reported to work.

Income disparity hasn’t been this bad since Robber Barons + demographic cliff peaked this year. The second will solve itself. I think the first is a real problem for this country. A permanent underclass isn’t ultimately good for anyone but the Broligarchs.

The top schools are still looking for the top kids that year, regardless of whether there is a trend toward lower basic skills. (So for this purpose, whether student achievement is down, or up, or steady is inconsequential.)

This is a large class in terms of demographics, and students are applying to more places on average. Hence lower acceptance rates.