<p>From a WSJ opinion piece by Naomi Riley:</p>
<p>"College-admissions officers go over high-school lives with a fine-tooth comb--Why didn't she play a sport junior year? Why didn't he continue in Spanish? But most employers don't scrutinize a college courseload or a college GPA. The degree is all that matters."</p>
<p>Dear Parents of students at HYP, Penn, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown, Georgetown, JHU, Carnegie Mellon, Chicago, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wesleyan, MIT, CalTech:</p>
<p>Are your sons & daughters having a "crazed social experience"? (By itself, or at the expense of content learning?) Just checking, because mine is not:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I could very well have thrown in Tufts, some of the Claremont colleges, Berkeley, the military academies & others. Yes, I'm sure they worked their buns off for 4 years because their goal was to have a crazed social experience. That was definitely it.</p>
<p>epiphany,
Count mine (who attends one of your "named" colleges) firmly in the "NO" column as to "crazed social experience." Unless you count singing in an a cappella group as "crazed."</p>
<p>The folks at National Review side with you, epiphany. Here's Anthony Paletta on the WSJ piece, who also gets in a plug for distribution requirements:</p>
<p>"While the amount of crazed social experimentation and drinking increases pretty uniformly from high school to college, in my experience, its no Rakes Progress. Those students who engaged in serious academic pursuits in high school certainly dont stop. Most solid high school students remain attentive in college its far from a four-year Bacchanal. If theyre not learning anything about civics, a surer fix would be distribution requirements. Looking to figures and courses, it's not that Duke, Brown, and Johns Hopkins students are drowning their civics knowledge in gin: It's just that many of them arent studying it in college classes at all"</p>
<p>Another NO to the crazed social experience at one of the named colleges. Nor was it a crazed social experience at Tulane, either. "So there!" to the writer of that nonsense. Clearly there are some Crazed Social Beings out there on college campuses, whether to the detriment of studies or not, but a lot of it is the usual stereotyped nonsense.</p>
<p>The author's tone is really annoying. In college, they'll stop learning??? Not my experience with my S or my step-grand S (two entirely different types of kids; one always an academic achiever, one never so prior to college). Perhaps she's the parent of one of the Crazed Social Beings?</p>
<p>Thank you, parents, for responding to my reality check. ("Journalist," indeed.)</p>
<p>Well, I have to admit that my daughter is having something of a "crazed social experience" at one of the listed schools. She is going to lots and lots of parties and to other smaller social gatherings as well-- much more and more often than she did in high school. However, looking at her course selection and how she seems to be doing on the first papers and tests, I wouldn't say that she is having this experience at the expense of content learning. . . it seems more like she having the social experience at the expense of sleep!</p>
<p>shelf-life, I think a D like yours may just have the balance right - as long as she segues into adequate sleep after a couple of months ;). I'd actually like to see my S increase the social parts of his experience, so long as it's like your D, not at the expense of learning.</p>
<p>As epiphany says, there's really no journalism in that piece, just a rant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is exactly the sort of knowledge that is often said to be in short supply among college graduates these days, and not without reason. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, conducting a survey of college students over the course of the past year, has just issued a report on college learning. One major conclusion: Four years in college classrooms don't seem to make much of a difference. When students were asked a series of questions--like what is the source of the sentence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"--seniors scored an average of 53.2 and freshmen earned a 51.7. But it's worse than that. The report concludes that "at many schools"--in U.S. history, foreign affairs and the economy--"seniors know less than freshmen."
Why? Because college increasingly offers a crazed social experience at the expense of rigorous study. But high school does better: It is often the last time that students are forced to learn something. Parents make their kids show up at school. More than a few teachers convey basic skills and knowledge. After-school life centers on burnishing a college application, not binge drinking. AP courses, where they exist, exploit these structured years for maximum learning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This author strikes me as being in bad need of a course devoted to critical thinking.
A college student can have an incredibly rigorous and demanding courseload, not drink a drop of booze or smoke a single joint, or engage in a "crazed social experience" and yet not take courses designed to answer any of the questions on the ISIS survey. Why? Because that student may not be required to take a single class that would enable him or her to correctly answer these questions. It has nothing to do with partying in college.The author confuses the issue of whether students learn anything at all in college (the crazed social scene) with what they are expected to study (core curricula, distribution requirements, major requirements).</p>
<p>When we visited Yale, the tour guide, a government major, enthused about the distribution requirements (subtle dig at Harvard's core curriculum) and in particular about her course in Chinese history, taught by Jonathan Spence. That course is said to reqularly draw hundreds of students. Spence is a captivating lecturer and a wonderful writer. I'm sure that after having taken the class, Yalies will be able to distinguish between the Legalists and the Confucians, the Taipings and the Boxers. But that class will not enable them to distinguish between Jefferson and Hamilton. And yet, they will have worked very hard in it.</p>
<p>My S has 2 problem sets per week; he is also grading 20 problem sets for another class per week. He also has weekly readings for two other classes. All this does leave him much time for a crazed social scene. Since he took APUSH in high school, I hope he will study something else for his historical studies requirements.</p>
<p>marite, I don't think she's confusing the issues at all. I think in a very roundabout way, she's saying the absence of a core curriculum allows college kids to party for four years & still get a degree. I personally don't know any kids who do that, and I'm not standing up for her premise. But it is very possible to slide through, even at elite schools. Don't you think that every single American (perhaps excluding the illiterate ones) should be able to identify Jefferson's most famous sentence? I think it's terrible that they can't. I don't know your son, but from how you describe him, I'd confidently bet my life's savings that he could. My ten year old could, and he's no wonderkid.</p>
<p>The part about h.s. records being scrutinized, but a college degree being accepted without much disection is true. At least in generalized fields, certainly not in techie-type jobs.</p>
<p>I agree with Paletta that serious h.s. students will likely remain serious in college.</p>
<p>Oh, we do.</p>
<p>Sticker Shock, from the point of view of a mom with kids in high school (and looking forward to be able to pronounce on that "college experience") I have to say that this is one strange opinion piece in defense of not getting rid of the AP program. I think I am quite safe in saying that we all have our quibbles and qualms when it comes to the AP program and testing regimen and there is plenty to argue about when it comes to debating the merits of AP, accelerated, or honors classes. But, I wonder why we are now all sighing in relief because Scarsdale High School made the bold move to end the AP rat race since "rat race kids" go to high school thanks to parents who make them get up and learn because they are forced to because 'rat race kids" only bother to learn because its on the test. As this piece points out, since it is through "the AP curricula demands that students acquire real knowledge." </p>
<p>I tell you what though, I am sighing in relief because I do not have "rat race kids". So, I guess I can relax about the college experience, too.</p>
<p>"Critics will say that "rat race" kids no longer play soccer for the joy of the game or master the violin for the beauty of the music or study history for the love of learning. Maybe. But who cares? At least something worthwhile is going on. These kids have four years of college ahead of them during which they may take as few classes as they like in subjects that require no difficult exams. They can spend their time outside the classroom drinking and "dating." They can opt out of the rat race, and they do."</p>
<p>oh, one more thing - my D does have an overloaded bookbag.</p>
<p>Stickershock:</p>
<p>I agree that all American kids ought to be able to distinguish between Hamilton and Jefferson and discuss the Constitution intelligently, etc... But that is not the point of the ISIS survey, which is to impose a course on civics on all college students, not is it the thrust of the article, which suggests that the reason college students can't answer the ISIS questions is that they're too busy partying. </p>
<p>Most American students coming into college will have taken classes in American history several times since first grade. I know my kids did. What most American students will not have done is taking classes in the history and cultures of other societies. Do the majority of college students know the difference between the Shiites and the Sunnis? Do they know when the Russian, French, Chinese Revolution happened and what they were about?</p>
<p>Of course, none of these revolutions happened on our shores, but we live in a global world where we ought to know about other societies and cultures. What happens elsewhere and why it happened matters to us as citizens and to our soldiers. </p>
<p>I would not encourage my S to take another course in American history, not because he's smart, etc... but because he has already studied American history, but not the history of other countries in any kind of depth. And that is a totally different issue from whether he parties hard or not.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>All this does leave him much time for a crazed social scene.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Oops, too late to edit. It should be "All this does NOT leave him much time for a crazed social scene."</p>
<p>And, although this might seem to be blasphemy (it almost seems so to me :) ), I am not too concerned that x% of college graduates can't identify who said "We hold these truths to be self-evident... that all men are created equal." I am concerned that we all of us, college-educated or not, have a clear sense of this founding principle of our nation. If someone thinks it was first said by Washington or Franklin or even Lincoln, how much does that really matter?</p>
<p>It's only a step away from caring about the exact date of some battle. Versus understanding the underlying conflicts involved; considering the costs and benefits to engaging in the war at all... These things concern me. Scores on a multiple-choice quiz - not so much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most American students coming into college will have taken classes in American history several times since first grade.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. So how in the world can they be unable to identify Jefferson's famous words? Half of them! They obviously weren't exposed to it. Check out the dreck that passes for history /social studies in elementary schools & you'll see why this problem exists.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure World History is taught in most high schools. My d is very aware of different cultures & societies and can discuss current events intelligently because of this foundation. I think the author is not thinking of your sons, or my d for this article's purpose. (It's not a great piece of writing. But I found it interesting.) If a kid is historically clueless, about the US or the rest of the world, how can his education mean much? How could he study literature or philosophy or art without that vital context? That's the author's point. He can't. So he builds a degree with lots of useless fluff and the college stamps "educated" on his forehead. That's the correlation the author is making. Easy fluff degrees allow for plenty of partying. </p>
<p>And if your son has taken APUSH, he's just scratched the surface. Just as his AP Physics course is just the beginning. Yet in most colleges, kids can enter as freshmen with these two credentials and never have to take a science or history course again. I'm all for focusing on your passion, but core curriculums & distribution requirements (if they require meaty courses) can ensure that a kid is actually receiving a well-rounded education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's only a step away from caring about the exact date of some battle.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's a huge step away. Equivalent to not knowing what century in which a battle occured.</p>
<p>We're talking about Thomas Jefferson. Not some obscure town clerk who made little impact on the world. And it's one of the most important documents in the world's history.</p>
<p>Quote from article:
[quote]
Once those college-admissions letters arrive, their kids will stop learning and start living on easy street.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can hardly stomach that sentence and much else this person wrote. Has she spent any time with kids who go to challenging colleges?? Easy street? They don't learn anything? Crazed social experiences??? </p>
<p>I'd love to invite her to spend one day with either of my college kids. Let me start with one who is at Brown. The courses are rigorous and demanding. She has learned a great deal so far in two years. She has taken courses at RISD and the demands there are also very heavy. There is no easy street about any of her coursework and she certainly talks about content that she surely didn't know before she arrived. On top of the countless hours spent on schoolwork, she is also on a varsity sport team and also one club team. In fall, the varsity sport is "only" two hours per day about seven times per week. In winter, twice a week it is 6 hours per day (involving being up before 6 AM), and the entire weekend every weekend out of town. Schoolwork must be fit in. Yes, she has some enjoyable social times she squeezes in, so it is not 100% and no play. But she doesn't have time to party hearty on a regular basis. Her hours are long and her commitments are heavy. The academics are not for the lazy, that's for sure. Right now, that kid is in an abroad program. Granted she just called me from the beach in Sicily on a Saturday but the entire three day weekend trip is with a professor as part of a course she is in and so most of the weekend involves site visits related to the course (every weekend is like this with trips connected to course work). The weekdays are filled with classes and on a couple days each week, she has classes from 9-6. Many LONG hours are spent on homework and in architecture studio every night. She is having a great time but again, I would not characterize it as easy street. She works hard but loves what she is doing. </p>
<p>My other kid goes to NYU/Tisch. Her program involves nine classes a semester. Yesterday was a typical day. She had classes from 9-6. Then she had rehearsal for a show she is musically directing from 6:30 PM to midnight. It also was her birthday yesterday. She only got to speak to me as she was walking from her day at school to her night at rehearsal and said she wasn't even able to receive or call back all the birthday wishes due to no time. She did celebrate with friends after midnight and went out and then returned to have my home made birthday cake that I mailed. However, she called this AM as she was walking to an all day rehearsal (it is Saturday) and said she has no time to party and be out late because she must be up and out each day early and go all day long, has committments to her ECs all night and weekend and has all the homework and preparation on top of that. In fact, she said it was a big deal that tomorrow night, due to be a Sunday night on a three day weekend, she is missing some of her rehearsal to go to a bonding night sleep over party with her a capella group and how she doesn't get to do something like party and stay up late very much and it stood out as being unusual. She talked about how she just couldn't handle late night partying when she even has to be up early on weekends and has commitments practically 24/7 seven days per week. Like her sister, she is having a great time in college but is NOT on easy street and it is VERY demanding. In seven of her classes she may not be absent. One may say this is all due to being in a rigorous BFA program but she also has other stuff like a Political Science exam the other morning and papers to write. She talks about how much she has learned so far in just one year of college. </p>
<p>By the way, my older D plans to go to graduate school, so it is not like the article about sloughing off as if nothing was at stake. Frankly, for my kids, even if NOTHING was at stake, no further admissions, etc....they would not goof off because they are motivated and goal oriented. But I can state flat out that they would not be able to SURVIVE at either of their schools if they partied all the time and did not study hard and so on. They wouldn't make it. The demands are heavy. Perhaps this person hung around some kids at some easy street school, dunno. But her characterization is NOTHING like my kids' experiences.</p>
<p>I really wish that writer shadowed some of these kids and got to see what it is REALLY like.</p>
<p>Epiphany, here's the view from one of the Claremonts: uh, no. "A crazed social experience at the expense of rigorous study" and "[t]he report concludes that 'at many schools'--in U.S. history, foreign affairs and the economy--'seniors know less than freshmen.'" Hardly. My senior is taking an econ course that requires graduate-level math, using a textbook commonly used by 2nd-year grad students. He just finished reading "The Golden Bough" for a history of religious thought class. And he's a science major. :)</p>
<p>Not for one minute have the academic demands of the last three-plus years let up enough for him to consider having a "crazed social experience," had he been so inclined, in anything other than his dreams. By comparison, high school was a cakewalk.</p>
<p>Apparently Ms. Riley also forgot about college students with a desire to apply to top grad schools, where admission is both highly competitive and strongly dependent on rigorous academic preparation.</p>
<p>But it does make for good copy, doesn't it? ;)</p>