Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are students more or less prepared academically than 5.10.20 and 30 years ago?

Vastly less prepared: there are really no words to describe it. The lack of curiosity on their part is what really gets me. Not only do they have less skill and less knowledge coming in, but they don't seem to desire more of either.

This makes sense. My kids go to a top private where they have been forced to learn to write well, analyze text and read countless books. However, they don't have a drive to learn/explore etc. independently like I remember having at their age. I think this is a direct result of social media. They spend their free time absorbing ridiculously stupid and basic content.

Anonymous wrote:How involved are all of you in admissions?

I know some schools have professors involved (I think Cornell)? If you are involved, can you give us a sense for the type of schools?

Anonymous wrote:This might seem like a dumb question, but when should a student go to office hours vs. going to the tutoring center? Do you wish students went for tutoring before they come to office hours? Or do you prefer assessing where they’re at and then recommending tutoring where necessary?

Before reading these posts I might have discouraged going to office hours for help, but now I’m not so sure.

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask a dumb question? Are professors no longer allowed to use class participation as part of a grade?

I took many classes where class participation was like 10% of the grade. Now, not every kid was called in every class, but it was enough of a stick that few skipped the class and most paid attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To Professors:

Can you tell which students attended private prep high schools versus those with a public high school background ?

I am familiar with private day & boarding schools throughout the nation and would be shocked if graduates lacked the skills and maturity noted above by several posters.

Not really; not consistently. If I had to draw patterns, I'd say: Private school students tend to have more familiarity with the writing expectations and higher initial skills, but the good public school students are more likely to rapidly improve from feedback. This sometimes results in more growth and more interest which is likely to make them the strongest students. I would say that private school students are more likely to be over-represented in the top quartile of my students, but likely to be slight under-represented in the top 1%. Private school students seem to be more likely to attend office hours and have more composure in that context. They are definitely not, as a group, stronger in intellectual curiosity. If I forced to generalize, I'd say they tend to have less--at least less than the good public students--but the difference isn't noticeable and I could be wrong. The most consequential difference is unsurprising: the private schools students tend not to fall in the "worst" group. So less variability, which makes my job easier.

The private school students who struggle seem tired, set free and/or above it all rather than not capable. My most aggressive, outrageous "grade-grubbing" experiences have happened to have been with private school students, but I don't blame that on their schools rather just a personal sense of entitlement and a belief that everything is negotiable. All students, wherever they went to school, seem to struggle with managing distractions now on their own, and there doesn't seem to be a difference between groups.

Anonymous wrote:To Professors:

Can you tell which students attended private prep high schools versus those with a public high school background ?

I am familiar with private day & boarding schools throughout the nation and would be shocked if graduates lacked the skills and maturity noted above by several posters.

Anonymous wrote:This might seem like a dumb question, but when should a student go to office hours vs. going to the tutoring center? Do you wish students went for tutoring before they come to office hours? Or do you prefer assessing where they’re at and then recommending tutoring where necessary?

Before reading these posts I might have discouraged going to office hours for help, but now I’m not so sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To Professors:

Can you tell which students attended private prep high schools versus those with a public high school background ?

I am familiar with private day & boarding schools throughout the nation and would be shocked if graduates lacked the skills and maturity noted above by several posters.

Not really; not consistently. If I had to draw patterns, I'd say: Private school students tend to have more familiarity with the writing expectations and higher initial skills, but the good public school students are more likely to rapidly improve from feedback. This sometimes results in more growth and more interest which is likely to make them the strongest students. I would say that private school students are more likely to be over-represented in the top quartile of my students, but likely to be slight under-represented in the top 1%. Private school students seem to be more likely to attend office hours and have more composure in that context. They are definitely not, as a group, stronger in intellectual curiosity. If I forced to generalize, I'd say they tend to have less--at least less than the good public students--but the difference isn't noticeable and I could be wrong. The most consequential difference is unsurprising: the private schools students tend not to fall in the "worst" group. So less variability, which makes my job easier.

The private school students who struggle seem tired, set free and/or above it all rather than not capable. My most aggressive, outrageous "grade-grubbing" experiences have happened to have been with private school students, but I don't blame that on their schools rather just a personal sense of entitlement and a belief that everything is negotiable. All students, wherever they went to school, seem to struggle with managing distractions now on their own, and there doesn't seem to be a difference between groups.

Yikes - I hope you are not my kids professor.

You seem to have a lot of preconceived notions about private HS kids. How can you even tell where they went to school? Or are you basing this more on social economic status than anything else? What are the outward signs of wealth you are basing this on? Type of jacket? Type of shoes?

You sound angry that several professors did not answer definitively in favor of private school kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To Professors:

Can you tell which students attended private prep high schools versus those with a public high school background ?

I am familiar with private day & boarding schools throughout the nation and would be shocked if graduates lacked the skills and maturity noted above by several posters.

Not really; not consistently. If I had to draw patterns, I'd say: Private school students tend to have more familiarity with the writing expectations and higher initial skills, but the good public school students are more likely to rapidly improve from feedback. This sometimes results in more growth and more interest which is likely to make them the strongest students. I would say that private school students are more likely to be over-represented in the top quartile of my students, but likely to be slight under-represented in the top 1%. Private school students seem to be more likely to attend office hours and have more composure in that context. They are definitely not, as a group, stronger in intellectual curiosity. If I forced to generalize, I'd say they tend to have less--at least less than the good public students--but the difference isn't noticeable and I could be wrong. The most consequential difference is unsurprising: the private schools students tend not to fall in the "worst" group. So less variability, which makes my job easier.

The private school students who struggle seem tired, set free and/or above it all rather than not capable. My most aggressive, outrageous "grade-grubbing" experiences have happened to have been with private school students, but I don't blame that on their schools rather just a personal sense of entitlement and a belief that everything is negotiable. All students, wherever they went to school, seem to struggle with managing distractions now on their own, and there doesn't seem to be a difference between groups.

Yikes - I hope you are not my kids professor.

You seem to have a lot of preconceived notions about private HS kids. How can you even tell where they went to school? Or are you basing this more on social economic status than anything else? What are the outward signs of wealth you are basing this on? Type of jacket? Type of shoes?

Anonymous wrote:How involved are all of you in admissions?

I know some schools have professors involved (I think Cornell)? If you are involved, can you give us a sense for the type of schools?

Anonymous wrote:How involved are all of you in admissions?

I know some schools have professors involved (I think Cornell)? If you are involved, can you give us a sense for the type of schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The culture is supporting a far more transactional approach to college than it used to. It is understandable given the cost for families (and I wish professors had more--or really any-- control over university budgets!) but I think it backfires both for learning, personal growth and for career preparation. My advice to families is to balance your framing about college: highlight the importance of being intellectually curious, of taking courses that just sound interesting to you, learning about yourself and your interests as equally valuable to doing the work that intentionally and purposefully builds towards a career. No one can hand either to you: students have to take the primary role in constructing their learning towards their own desired futures. The faculty and the school just try to create the optimal conditions and support for you to do this work. So much of learning and careers are non-linear and the experience of tapping intrinsic motivation and curiosity and connecting it to intellectual pursuits is essential in any academic discipline and to building a thriving professional (and personal) life.

Frame a degree as not something you "get" (or, worse, buy!), but something you earn. Think of earning a degree as being purposefully and actively involved in building the foundation for the long game of a flourishing life and a professional career.

Now being a parent of a recent college grad, I see this non-linearity firsthand. My son's work in college has led to a great start of a career, but he now thinks two of the most influential courses were outside his major and sort of taken on a whim as they were what was available to fill a distribution requirement--a Russian studies course that gave him powerful tools and context for interpreting current events and a film studies course that has launched an interest in film and improved his critical thinking on the art form. Both give him a lot of enjoyment, intellectual engagement post-college, a connection to others who find his interests/viewpoints interesting, and has even had career benefits because he was pulled into a project because of a connection he made with the lead talking about films during a company social event.

DP. Great post! I'm going to show this thread to my inbound freshman. I was a liberal arts student through and through. As I progressed through my college years, career, grad school, and more work, I was continually surprised by what courses developed my thinking the most. For example, during my MBA, I expected "Corporate Strategy" to be the most impactful, while instead it was "Advanced Cost Accounting". Eventually, in retrospect, there were many courses from which I retained little. The ones that made the biggest impact were the ones that involved a lot of analysis and discussion. English lit, history, and environmental science are high on the list though not directly related to any job I've held.