<p>My colleagues and I are at a top notch medical academic center, many graduates of Ivies, MIT, top med schools, residency/fellowship programs etc. We look at these kids- 2300s, zillion ECs, volunteer activities, etc- and we think “no way would I have gotten into xxx now”. Are we a more stupid generation? What’s going on??</p>
<p>The game has changed and these kids are playing by new rules.</p>
<p>We played by other rules, so we get to put an asterisk next to our stats!</p>
<p>I don’t know about “dumber”, but my friends and relatives were not as engaged and involved when we were students as kids seem to be today. Too many of the brightest kids in my classes were often zoned out on drugs - 'ludes were the favorite - and far more time was spent just hanging out than seems to be the case for many students today.</p>
<p>We were much more politically active, though ('70s, here). We had time to “hang out” and be existential (or so we thought). We participated in ECs we really liked, and did not care about building a resume for an Ivy etc.</p>
<p>According to my parents, there were quite a lot of factors at play. Test prep was a largely non-existent industry, so SAT scores were less inflated. Overall grades at most schools were less inflated…a “C” tended to be closer to the actual rather than “hypothetical” average. Weighted GPA’s were a non-issue. I can’t actually vouch for the truth of any of these claims, but my parents have offered all of them, and they seem to make good sense.</p>
<p>On top of this, I think mafool is correct: “The game has changed and these kids are playing by new rules.” I don’t think it’s an issue of being smarter or even more-motivated…we just grew up with a different idea of what was necessary and normal. The kids coming up even four and five years behind me put me to shame!</p>
<p>Now, whether this “superkid” approach will pay off in the long run, well…it’ll be interesting to see how the younger generations fare a few decades down the road.</p>
<hr>
<p>ETA: [Average</a> SAT Scores, 1972-2007; Infoplease.com](<a href=“http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html]Average”>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html)
According to this, the average SAT score has actually decreased a bit since the '70s. I wonder if there’s a bigger split, these days…more students under-performing, more students peaking, and less average? No clue. Regardless, good job parents :p</p>
<p>
Kids just weren’t put into so many activities back then. In my family at least, my parents were not at all involved with my activities. I remember visiting a high school friend, who had an older sister going through the college application process, and they were talking about taking PSATs and SATs. I went home and informed my mother that I needed to take a test called a PSAT. She had no clue- despite the fact that she and my father were Ivy graduates. It seemed to me that kids did their own thing back then and the top students went to the top schools- no resume building.</p>
<p>I was almost two years younger than my son when I graduated from high school so I figure my 4 APs compare favorably to his 9. Recentered our SAT scores aren’t that different. I had plenty of ECs more than my son, but the one big difference is that I had no opportunity to participate in award giving activities like Science Olympiad and my school did not believe in awards or ranking of any sort.</p>
<p>I think my son is smarter than I am. He got his Dad’s math gene as well as good verbals from both sides. His public schools were much better than mine, we had no AP classes and some of the teachers were just dreadful. I was a big reader, but he’s an even bigger one and he learns a lot online.</p>
<p>SAT prep involved buying a book and having the discipline to go through it. College counselors? Not that I recall. Only piece of advice my parents gave me: my father refused to allow me to apply to Dartmouth. It was the first year they had gone coed, and there was a lot of resentment (so I’d heard) about it.
And of course- trying to get a perfect application typed with a typewriter was a lot of fun too. My dog would leave the room when I hauled out the typewriter. She knew that I would soon start yelling in frustration.</p>
<p>I do prefer to think that my son is smarter, not that I an dumber. Maybe that’s putting too fine a point on it.</p>
<p>I absolutely would not be accepted at the college I graduated from, if I was applying now (with the same stats I had then). However, if I was applying now, I would probably have some AP’s (as I recall, you got into AP classes by invitation only). And hopefully some better guidance from the counselor.</p>
<p>No question, both S and D are much smarter than I am- grammatically, mathematically;they have read so much more history, literature, etc. H is smarter than me, also. </p>
<p>I think I still have them all beat on common sense and deductive reasoning, as I am the only one who can find the can opener and the tabasco sauce in the kitchen.</p>
<p>If we think these kids are smarter, than we should expect great things in the future- the “cure for cancer”, alternative fuels etc. What I can say about many of these young people- as an interviewer for med school, residency etc- the sense of entitlement is certainly there. They don’t expect or want to work as hard as we did (yes, we walked 3 miles through the snow etc).</p>
<p>I know both my kids are far smarter than me…in some areas. However, I am part of the reason they are smarter. I made sure they didn’t miss or overlook the opportunities I missed or overlooked. Life was geared around them in many ways, so they weren’t tag a long kids. Our efforts helped make them smarter than us… which then poses the question are they really smarter than us if we knew how to improve their situations so they could excell? Did we learn from our mistakes and teach our children to avoid repeating? </p>
<p>Dufay, you didn’t interview my kid for med school then, because they aren’t coming from a made family where the worry of a lower payscale for the medical profession is really a “problem”. You see, you have to grow up with alot of money to think alot of money isn’t. It’s a matter of prespective. To us, it’s a pretty good situation so their is no sense of entitlement and hard work isn’t a problem.</p>
<p>Not smarter.
I still rule in Math. H still rules in science. D1 rules in grammar, social skill and tact. D2 rules in music and sport.</p>
<p>"They don’t expect or want to work as hard as we did "</p>
<p>That’s proof the kids are smarter. :)</p>
<p>Some how my mom worked full-time, made less money, and went to school at night, but managed to expose me to more culture and opportunity than I’ve been able to expose my kids to. Then again, we lived in New York.</p>
<p>A tangentially relevant quote comes to mind (the ‘entitlement’ comment reminded me, although it’s likely that that poster meant something quite different). I sent this to my dad while he was lamenting my ‘unemployable’ (quoted because it’s not true :p) choice of degrees (Philosophy major, Math minor):</p>
<p>“We must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.”</p>
<p>– John Adams</p>
<p>What a great quote!</p>
<p>I like to think I would have had a shot even under modern conditions. I looked pretty much like the HYPS kids do now, but that’s exactly how a lot of non-HYPS kids look, too (especially the ones who, you know, look like me). But I sure would have been applying to more than two colleges (no EA or ED back then, either). As it was then, it was practically certain that each college was going to accept 3-5 kids from my school, just as they always had. As the clear #1 student in my class – not to mention a third generation legacy at one of them, my “safety” – it wasn’t conceivable that both would reject me. </p>
<p>Back then, they each got 5,000 - 6,000 applications a year, vs. 20,000+ now, and accepted the same number of kids they do now – about 2,000. They were seen as difficult to get into, of course. Hell, they accepted less than half their applicants! Maybe – maybe! – 10% of the students they accepted were nonwhite. About 25% came from public schools. But most of them came from a pretty short list of schools: Hunter, Stuy, Scarsdale, Greenwich, Boston Latin, Newton, Princeton, New Trier, Central, Pali . . . . There were eight kids from my city in my class at my college: four from my school, two who had gone to boarding schools, one from the preppiest Catholic school, and one from the most affluent public high school (she and her brother were the only kids from that school that decade, I believe). I had known all but one of them for years; three had been my best friend at different points in my life, and one was my first girlfriend’s best friend. One of them was (half) a minority; one was the child of (highly educated) immigrants.</p>
<p>It was a different world.</p>
<p>It sure was, my class of 80 (all girl’s prep school) had 6 go to Harvard, 4 to Yale and 2 to Princeton. Now they are lucky to get 1, if that. It also says about where smart girls are going to school - all the boys prep schools are now co-ed, and there are many more good choices in public high schools as well.</p>