When you force high school kids to work days that are significantly longer than a normal adult to achieve a good GPA and get into a good college, you can expect that they are going to throttle back once they're away from home with way more free time than is normal.
From my kid's experience: she was up at 6:30am, in AP classes by 7:30am (three more to go during the day). Classes were done by 3:00, then sports practice until 5:00. Gotta have that activity on your college application, not counting other volunteering and clubs in the open spaces. Then homework after dinner until 10:00 or so, sometimes much later. Homework assigned over weekends. Homework assigned over breaks.
That's 15+ hours a day, every weekday, for an entire school year. Then you have test prep (APs and the ACT/SAT), college applications, writing essays and scholarship applications, college tours, sorting decisions, financial aid applications, etc etc etc. And now her college already has a few hours of orientation videos stacked up for her to watch before she moves in.
Personally, I don't blame her if she checks out for a few weeks. Or a semester.
> When you force high school kids to work days that are significantly longer than a normal adult to achieve a good GPA and get into a good college,
My neighborhood and social circle have a number of high school age children, some aiming for high ranking universities.
None of them have these grueling 15 hour day schedules you’re describing.
I don’t even know of a high school around me that starts at 7:30AM.
What universities are you targeting with such an extreme schedule?
There are some parallels here to the people who say that everyone in tech is working 80 hour weeks: If you get pulled into one of these bubbles you are surrounded by others doing the same thing and it starts to feel like everyone is doing it. You assume everyone, everywhere is having the same experience. The people outside the bubble are left puzzled by these descriptions.
It’s been a while, but when I was in high school, I was up at 6:30 so that I could run through the shower, get to 7AM jazz band late, be at school until 4ish, then off to my minimum-ish wage job until it was time to go to evening jazz/symphony/other bands. Home at 8 or 9; bullshit some homework for a passable grade; and then do it again (I was often doing homework during band practices). Weekends were music events.
I did not go to a top tier school, and I did not live in a top tier place. The stories I’ve heard from others indicates to me that my experience was not unique. I wasn’t even the most busy of the people I knew.
This wasn’t every single day, but it was more on days than off days. Contrarily, I had a great time in college because the pressure of classes actually felt like less than I was doing in high school.
this closely matches my experience graduating with a C average and getting accepted to a branch campus of a public university. I then crashed hard out of that school because, as you said, suddenly I actually had a lot more agency and a lot less responsibility.
> My neighborhood and social circle have a number of high school age children, some aiming for high ranking universities.
> None of them have these grueling 15 hour day schedules you’re describing.
Hate to break it to you mate but none of them are getting in. Anyone who lives in a neighborhood with a high proportion of kids making it to the Ivy league and other top schools knows exactly what this guy is talking about. If you think it's a fib just because you're not aware of it that's not exactly robust social commentary.
> Anyone who lives in a neighborhood with a high proportion of kids making it to the Ivy league and other top schools knows exactly what this guy is talking about.
The person whose view you endorse supports what many parents believe. I’ve seen how the sausage is made, and he has it (mostly) wrong.
Many people seem to think that being more above average is the key to elite school admissions. It helps, and it’s directionally correct (one needs to show academic competence), but the key is to be truly exceptional in something.
Five extracurriculars is almost the same as one or even none if there was no demonstration of exceptional performance or leadership.
Taking the max load of AP classes versus just a few is not as helpful as people seem to think. Using one’s time to do something unique and/or exceptional would be time much better spent.
I beat this drum as often as I can here and elsewhere, but the upper middle class folks in that particular rat race don’t seem interested in hearing what I’m saying.
It's worse, this is mostly just to be a shoe-in for a good state school, with a "maybe I'll get lucky and an ivy will accept anyways", unless you're really exception in at least one of these areas.
> Using one’s time to do something unique and/or exceptional would be time much better spent.
The fact is that most high schoolers are just not unique or exceptional but still want a shot to break out of currently very poor job prospects or hourly labor. I think many of these kids are capable of much more once they have some time to grow up, but the system is such that they need to show their color by roughly 17 to be "exceptional" along the traditional route.
I was in high school not that long ago, I understood the point you make then, but it didn't make me unique or exceptional. Most kids just want to be good enough, to do okay.
It's because it's risky and also requires actually being exceptional at something. So people choose the arduous brute force method because they know they can do it and it has a lower bound in terms of outcome.
In any case, this isn't unique to college admissions. The same story plays out in terms of career and all facets of life.
> The catch is that it is harder to brute force being truly exceptional in one thing. That often requires talent and predisposition.
That’s true for sports, music, and academics, but I think “grinding” exceptional leadership can be a thing. It’s very learnable, and effort often times makes the difference.
Some simple examples I’ve seen in various forms:
- starting a meaningful business or non-profit
- starting a meaningful arts or sports experience (literary magazine, regional film festival, regional sports event/tournament, etc.)
- many/most substantial Eagle Scout projects (not all are substantial enough)
The heuristic I tell people to use is this — the reader of the application will go “no kidding… I’d really like to talk to this person and learn more about this” (aka “have a beer with them” type of sentiment)
> Grinding 15 hours a day is a more realistic option for most children and parents.
See above… grind at the right thing. Full-time grinding academics is a fools errand unless the applicant can demonstrate their competence at a regional level, if not national or international level.
Still seems like a much more risky and challenging strategy with low chance of success.
What is the chance that a mediocre or talentless student can grind Regional success? What is the chance that mediocre and talentless parents can support that?
Grinding grades and academics is absolutely a path the top tier universities like Berkeley or UCLA, even if you won't get in the S tier private schools.
I've seen several ESL immigrant parents simply lock their kids up and make them study their way to Berkeley, despite having never graduated high school themselves.
> Grinding grades and academics is absolutely a path the top tier universities like Berkeley or UCLA, even if you won't get in the S tier private schools.
Yeah. We are talking about different types of schools.
For one, Cal and UCLA both admit a lot of students. It’s just not as competitive. Additionally, it’s fairly easy for a decent grinder student to go to a feeder JuCo and transfer to either of these schools (which would be a fine outcome for the “ESL immigrant parents” you gave as an example).
Second, while Cal and UCLA are top-tier public schools (along with schools like UMich, UVa, and UTexas), I don’t consider them elite in terms of undergrad programs [1]. Any resident of California who gets into Stanford or an Ivy would be able to get into either of those (excepting anomalies like unusually high departmental requirements at some UC schools like Cal).
So sure, if the goal (esp. for California residents) is to get into a UC school, going the grinder route is fine — overkill in most cases, but fine. This will be less than ideal if they are also considering elite schools like Stanford or Ivies.
[1] What makes an undergrad program elite? The short answer is drive and the ability to get things done.
If you take the top 1000 admits from Stanford and compare them to the top 1000 admits at Cal, you may not see much difference in terms of raw intellect — plenty of super smart people in both groups. But the Stanford students will be more ambitious, they will push each other much harder (and in most cases learn more), and they will achieve more than the Cal students. Note that this isn’t a knock on Cal students — it’s just a different way of approaching school and life that is quite apparent when you interact with enough folks from each group.
Stanford, an elite school, can and does select for these traits. Cal just can’t be as picky due to the large number of admits and certain state policies.
I understand the distinction, and agree the students are different.
I just don't think every student has what it takes to be a good fit at Stanford.
For this reason and the low admission, I don't think betting the farm on an academic strategy tailored for Stanford is a good idea for most students or parents.
Until recently you would not be correct; the covert way that elite schools did AA would disqualify lots of Asian applicants who DIDN'T have extraordinary test scores and coursework.
At some point, when the competition are starting nonprofits and playing Carnegie Hall at 13, you either end up getting in effortlessly or running the rat race.
> Until recently you would not be correct; the covert way that elite schools did AA would disqualify lots of Asian applicants who DIDN'T have extraordinary test scores and coursework.
Please don’t spread propaganda.
I’ve seen admissions evolve over decades. Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives.
A generous interpretation supporting your thesis is that AA spots took away spots from very marginal asian and white students. Marginal asian and white admits even at Harvard are usually not terribly impressive, such that I’m not sure that this trade is a loss for the school or the student body.
An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table. That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”).
People act like so many deserving asians and/or whites were denied spots due to AA, when the reality is that the folks who theoretically “lost” a spot were already so marginal that admission was a bit of a crapshoot anyway. They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality.
Harvard has used tests of "character" to exclude racial and religious minorities for more than 100 years. The heart of this scandal is another test of "character" that systematically disadvantaged Asian kids. Call me misinformed if you want, but I'm going to accuse you of sticking your head in the sand.
> Your take strikes me as very uninformed and shaped by certain agenda-driven media narratives.
Please actually respond to what I'm saying. I have had these opinions for a while, definitely before the current president. I think I'm pretty well-informed (at least as well-informed as you!)
> An interpretation that doesn’t support your thesis is that the admissions process at elite schools put a tremendous amount of value on community involvement for AA candidates.
I know lots of Asian kids who volunteered, founded clubs, participated in extracurriculars, had excellent test scores, and were still rejected by Harvard. I know plenty non-Asian kids who did half that and got in. I don't believe that Asian students are systemically less personable than non-Asian kids; I do believe that a sufficiently woke admissions office can hold a lot of shitty racist opinions about Asian people.
> That said, I’ve met plenty of asian and white marginal admits that did not bring much to the table (student: “woohoo, I study a lot” me: “yes, you do, and you’re bad at it”).
So that's why Asian admits need to score 150 points higher than white kids on their SAT to get in at Harvard? Because everything else about them like their personality and achievements outside of school are so "marginal?"
> The Supreme Court has ruled that the latter is discrimination. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe it is, but I don’t think I’ve ever met an AA candidate that wasn’t bringing something else quite compelling to the table.
> They would have just been warm bodies used to fill out the class with very low expectations of contributing to the school or the community. Snarky take, but that’s the reality.
The Supreme Court correctly called a spade a spade because there was obvious racial discrimination in those admissions processes. When an Asian kid needs to score 450 more points on the SAT than a black kid to get in, there is no other reasonable conclusion.
I am finding a lot of your statements to also be sort of offensive. Asian kids are just as witty, personable, community-oriented, etc. as anyone else. Harvard lost because THEY COULD NOT PROVE OTHERWISE.
Discrimination based on that stuff is legal, discrimination based on race is not - all that Harvard actually had to do was prove this stuff you're saying, and they couldn't.
> Hate to break it to you mate but none of them are getting in.
If they're not getting in, they're applying to the wrong places. Even now, I know plenty of high school kids getting into multiple universities with a very average schedule and not particularly good grades.
Not everyone has to go to a top 10, or even a top 50 school.
I want to a very average state school (not even in the top 100) for undergrad, and a top 5 school for grad school. For undergrads, the primary benefit of the top grad school was networking. The differences in curriculum were minor, and the low ranked school taught much better. Most employers really don't care that much about the ranking of the university.
If anyone is working crazy hard and only targeting the top universities, the injury is self inflicted.
The fact that everyone in your peer group does it (looking at you, people who are faking research paper contributions by high schoolers) does not mean that it is a criteria for actual college admissions.
Like, ivies and whatever are great. But overscheduling and overstessing to get into one isn't.
Many states have a guaranteed acceptance path to a state school and/or a path where you do two years at community college and can transfer into a state school to do two more and get a bachelors.
A great school on your degree can open doors at the beginning of your career, but missing out on that isn't some terrible tragedy.
I want to add that the UC schools system has (had?) something like this. I know a good number of very intelligent people who did 2 years at a Community College and ended up going to UC Berkeley, UCLA. Not Harvard but West coast ivys at the very least.
I have 6 bay area nieces and nephews that recently went to UC ( Three Berkeley, one Irvine, two Davis). Their school schedules largely resembled the long days described above Plus they had summer school every year as well.
It is basically a suffering and compliance competition to get into college. I think this is a big part of why young women now outnumber young men 2:1 in college enrollment
> It is basically a suffering and compliance competition to get into college. I think this is a big part of why young women now outnumber young men 2:1 in college enrollment
How does one follow from the other? Young men are less willing than young women to put up with this?
Yes. It is strongly documented that the sexes have different levels of conscientiousness, and this holds up accross cultures, countries, and time.
The most clear example of how female high school students have higher GPA and homework completion rate then males, but both perform similarly on standardized test or cognitive tests.
As academic success increasingly depends on grind, organization, and consistency, the young men either fall behind or quit entirely.
I agree with you. I didn't go to those schools. That doesn't mean the environments the original comment that started this chain mentioned don't exist. That was my only point. Whether they are desirable or not is another question.
But I don't think we should pretend it's one with an obvious answer for parents. Yes, you don't want to stress out your kids. But I'm not sure it's so easy to blame parents from those hypercompetitive neighborhoods. We are living in a world of self interest were increasingly everyone has a college degree, thereby devaluing the credential at a basic supply/demand level. The very best schools are in a class all their own, and (rightly or wrongly) have been largely immune to this downward pressure.
Talk about bubbles is also not really useful. Wealth is a bubble. Software engineering is a bubble. A neighborhood where everyone goes to a state school is a bubble. Poverty is a bubble. But at the macro level if people don't think the world is getting more cooperative and is just getting more competitive, doing whatever they can to keep or send their kids to the best bubble possible is at the very least defensible. I think there are also a lot of parents who don't seem to have a robust concept of the future. I assume anyone being born today is entering a far more competitive and frankly, brutal world by the time they are college age. The world is getting smaller. And not enough people seem willing to do the work required to make sure all kids do well. In such a world, pushing your kids in high school so they can get the best shot makes sense. This can be true even if it doesn't make other people morally wrong. In the same way wealth doesn't make you a better person. But let's not pretend that in a world where (in the United States at least) many people among us if they lose their job won't be able to afford healthcare, that wealth is entirely without virtue.
Suggesting that is indicative of the same sort of "they'll be fine" thinking that frankly, strikes me as the most "bubble" idea possible. From where I sit, it's simply the case that the world is not getting easier.
Surely these hyper competitive neighborhoods are full of already wealthy people? I hear about people "needing" to spend a ton of money on kids as part of this competitive scene and I just don't get it. If you're that worried about them, why not invest that money into a house (which costs the same as e.g. 4 years at Yale, but you could potentially rent it out until they're old enough, and finance it) for them so that they basically start life on barista-FIRE mode?
It's a good question I would just suggest to you a lot of the behavior around wealth doesn't really make sense if you are just doing that kind of back of the napkin math.
Like all the wealthy workaholics who just don't stop. They've so clearly made it and don't have to work anymore, but they can't even take it easy on themselves never mind their kids.
I suspect there is a lot in the psychology of an overachiever that isn't simply turned off when one hits a financial benchmark or has a child. In the latter case, this often seems to make things worse. A parents duty is to care for their child. Having your kid end up being the wealthiest barista sounds about as good a strategy as thinking someone will have good financial sense after winning the lottery. A fool and his money are easily parted. If you worry about what will happen to your kids after you die, as many parents do, simply passing down a bag of money often doesn't feel like enough, even if to others lacking such a luxury this appears indulgent.
But I agree it's a good question and also perhaps has similar implications for broader questions of public policy, such as state driven income redistribution, etc.
It's also good to remember that you never really know what is going on inside other people's homes. Wealthy neighborhoods have all sorts of wrinkles and disparities, even if on balance they are clearly privileged compared to whatever the national mean is. Perhaps the more opulent the neighborhood the more the scenario you lay out is prevalent. There are plenty of neighborhoods with overachievers who have done well that don't yet represent the sort of people you might say posess "generational wealth", where this sort of thing is basically the whole idea. But then again, it's a matter of perspective. I mean you could also probably live in a cheaper neighborhood and spend less money. Questions of work and wealth have always been tied to questions of morals and power. Top schools aren't just about earning potential. They are about access and prestige. They simply don't attract people who just want to get by.
I mean I've done very well in my life; my wife and I both moved up several classes, but I take ownership of educating my kids. My oldest started kindergarten today, but she's already a couple years ahead, and she's only really in school for social reasons. I don't think school is going to help you to avoid being duped. In fact, if these "elite" educations cost as much as a house, that is the first scam to avoid. Poor first lesson to fall for the upper middle class version of a gucci bag!
Similarly, I plan for my kids to go to university, but for social reasons (it's the best place to find a spouse IMO), and that's exactly because I can see that the rational economic choice in the face of uncertainty is not to buy (or finance!) an expensive credential, but to buy a house and not fall for materialism. Books are free if your goal is to learn. An "elite" university is therefore less important than one with strong social pressures against things like casual relationships.
Right, if you're at the level where you could afford the fanciest credentials, you don't actually need them. Then if you're upper middle class (so you don't have unlimited money, but they don't need the credentials), you need to ask why you'd send your kids to college at all. If you've raised an Ivy-calibre kid, presumably they can self-teach with the infinite resources available, so it's not about education.
So the obvious reason for a decently well off family to send their kids to university is because it is far and away the best way to find the person they will marry. Casual dating squanders that opportunity (and promiscuity is linked to higher divorce rates if they do eventually find someone), and they'll never have that chance again. No different from giving your kid a trust to live on and watching them spend it on drugs and partying.
If you're economically secure, immersion in a culture that normalizes positive values is the most important thing you can buy. In fact from that perspective, the hyper-competitive and ambitious culture (to the detriment of e.g. a fulfilling family life) of the Ivys is likely undesirable.
The issue, as I see it, is that elite credentials are overvalued, and that we live in a society which is becoming more and more unequal, and where housing prices in particular are skyrocketing.
Without solving that, the alternatives to the Ivy League (e.g. undisguised nepotism) seem to be even worse.
> The Ivy League (and top-tier) situation is out of control, and genuinely raises questions about whether institutions like this should exist.
You're posting in a discussion where a hefty share of all posters are openly stating these schools being by far their top choice. Don't you think this correlates with demand for one of the limited spots they open each year?
What do you think would happen if Ivy League schools suddenly vanished from the face of the earth?
What I think should happen is that these schools should increase their class sizes to match demand, rather than keeping them artificially low in order to game acceptance criteria. I think it’s a systematic societal failure that we’ve created the incentives for educational institutions to optimize for these metrics and exclusivity, rather than to educate people.
> I don’t even know of a high school around me that starts at 7:30AM.
Within 30 minutes in each direction this was the normal start time for practically all high schools in my area growing up. Where I live now my niece who I occasionally drive to school when weather is bad starts at 7:30. We need to leave her house by 6:45 to make it on time with traffic.
The reason for the absurd starting times was always explained that bussing schedules forced it. They did not want to start grade school so early, and the same busses ran routes for both. One or the other had to start 60-90 minutes before the other.
I’d sleep in my clothes and try to make it out the door to be at my bus stop by 6:40 every morning. Luckily I had a really great bus driver who knew where I’d live and if I was running late would stop outside my house and honk.
You spent the entire morning extremely tired and a lot of kids slept through study hall or classes. The early study hall was coveted for this reason - additional time to sleep.
This was pretty much every bog standard public or private (think catholic schools) high school in the area.
> The reason for the absurd starting times was always explained that bussing schedules forced it.
This sounds yet another problem created by urban planning, or lack thereof.
Being forced to do a 2 hour commute each day is not normal, regardless whether you are a kid going to school or a grownup going to work. It's not school that has a demanding schedule. It's requiring a 60 minute drive to attent said school that creates a demanding schedule.
Thats the amenity trap. People want all sort of amenities that smaller neighborhood schools can't provide. Therefore bigger schools are built which had large centralized facilities for sports, recreation and all. So naturally now it need more commute times.
No, it's not. In some countries, if you drive 1h in a direction you'll be in another country. Don't tell me that most western Europe doesn't have decent schools.
> I don’t even know of a high school around me that starts at 7:30AM.
Local high school runs 7:30 to 2:30. It's one of the better scoring high schools in the state, so we have some students who commute 45min-1hour to attend here (at least I had friends who did that when I went there).
When I was younger I lived in Albuquerque, and I believe that high school started at 7am, they had staggered start times of 9am for elementary, 8am for middle school, and 7am for high school.
It has to be. And I think it is same everywhere we want everyone to attend high school. Nowadays we want college and universities degree for everyone too.
For the 7.30 start, its possible its a 0 period class( class before school starts, what a blast these were) and they start earlier then the rest of the student body.
At my high school that was the normal start time for all of our classes, which were 90 minutes. Most of us had to be at the bus about 45 minutes to an hour before start because many of us came from more rural areas with acreage between roads.
Hi from Germany here I have had to for the largest part of my School life grt up at 6:15 so i could be in school at 8:00 then i often had school until 15-17 and had to do homewerk after aswell. Only in my 11th to 13th grade did it relax a bit because I changed schools and also got better due to redoing some of the basics.
And mind you in germany Extra Curriculars are not realy necessary.
I had this same schedule at a mediocre school in small town USA in the 80s. The AP science course started at 7:30am to give us time for lab work (e.g. dissection in biology). After school activities continued until 4:30, longer if it’s an away game. Homework, part-time job, one off events. It didn’t feel overwhelming at the time, but kids today are soft.
I think magnet school and/or outside school /rec-league sports can easily bring that 15h number.
Overall I think you are right it is indeed bubble and once one is in, it is difficult to see not everyone is doing that.
I have a friend in town both husband, wife work from home and extremely busy with their elementary/middle school kids school/activities that I haven't seen him in years.
Being out of their bubble I only know whats happening but don't get to be tutored in how all these activities are essential. And even rare back out once in a while can be serious digression that affects child's future.
> I don’t even know of a high school around me that starts at 7:30AM.
My high school had us in the building and starting homeroom at 7:30AM, back in ~2003-2007, and that was in upstate NY for a B+ student with nothing special going on.
I was at school from 6:45 AM to about 4:30 PM every day, and had extracurriculars and homework on top of that. This wasn't considered an extra stressful or difficult schedule, it was just what you did.
> None of them have these grueling 15 hour day schedules you’re describing.
I have contact with a lot of teens. This schedule is not unusual, although the truth IMO is that long hours and poor productivity form a vicious cycle.
> I don’t even know of a high school around me that starts at 7:30AM.
Irrelevant to the argument. NYC has 8am start times.
Notice that the hours were driven by involvement in sports, though.
> What universities are you targeting with such an extreme schedule?
Every highly selective school.
Plus they have no clue what’s really necessary so there’s a lot of “cargo culting”.
Plus, they don’t even know what they’re targeting until year 3 or 4 of high school, years after the long hours pattern starts.
> bubble
You are also universalizing your experience, no?
Frankly, looking at the map of educational achievement, most people are not going to college or not successful there, so this whole discussion of “student doesn’t want to attend their state university” is already a rarified atmosphere.
I agree that this is behavior destructive and unnecessary.
A lot of this is just inflicted by parent culture and anxiety. Unless your kid applying to an elite school, most college/university accept between 60-80% of their applicants. If they have decent GPA.
We are making the kids endure that out of fear of their college, but stats don't back up the grind they make the kids do.
Are normal adults not "working" in a similar way to your kid for 15+ hours per weekday?
Comparable adult parent things would be up at 6am, prep kids for school day, in the office by 8am, 8 hours of work plus a lunch, departing the office around 5pm, transporting kids to/from some activities, dinner, helping kids with homework, somehow fit in regular shopping needs (food, essentials, etc), maybe some volunteering or hobby things, if lucky in bed by 10pm, and we're easily at 15 hours of "work" on a weekday.
Very challenging at times, but for example I sleep with my kid hugging me, or I chat with them while in the car, or we do chores while watching tv or something like that.
And not every day is packed like that, you can tell your kids "no more than 3 times per week of activties, the other 2 days are for playdates", and that should be acceptable.
There are horrible days of the week, but it's not daily 15 hours of work. That's training for slavery.
Homework for break and homework for weekend should be STRONGLY ILLEGAL.
> Homework for break and homework for weekend should be STRONGLY ILLEGAL.
Get a grip dude. The standards for school have never been lower. In the US there's a graduation rate of 87% while a math/English proficiency rate of 22/35% respectively.
Something doesn't add up, and it's not too much homework
As you point out, a HS diploma is largely meaningless these days.
This discussion is about students trying to get into top colleges, which is a completely different population with completely different problems from those doing the bare minimum.
And my experience is based on Italy, where the children are loaded with homeworks since grade 2.
Clear memories of spending half the weekend doing homeworks instead of playing outside
That is a weird (modern?) delusion. Without children, our species disappears in <100 years. And the last of those years would be painful for those still alive.
Those who are having and raising children are the ones doing the most for the next generation.
No, I am not saying that in a negative way. I have kids and I love them deeply.
I am saying that the people who have kids now are aware of how much effort it involves, so they consider it "part of hobbies" (as in, interesting things), not as part of "chores".
Modern society requires that, otherwise people just have no kids.
And yes absolutely, the government overlooks entirely all the work that goes into parenting now. The standards have raised enormously.
Naw. Adult life is so much easier with regards to competitive pressure compared to getting into a good college. The real world is Pass/Fail, much to the chagrin of plenty of HNers.
> Adult life is so much easier with regards to competitive pressure compared to getting into a good college
You’re competing apples and oranges. Getting into a top college is similar to grinding to get into Big Tech jobs and then climb the ladder there.
Good colleges are easy. The top few colleges are very hard.
> The real world is Pass/Fail, much to the chagrin of plenty of HNers.
If by “fail” you mean lose your job in the next round of layoffs and have your career derailed, possibly.
You’re still comparing apples and oranges. The people who compete for top college spots usually continue competing for promotions and better paying jobs. The people who coast through high school look for jobs where they can coast and then get comfortable with whatever salary that provides them.
> Good colleges are easy. The top few colleges are very hard
Define "good" and "top".
Ivies, Ivy Tier privates (Stanford, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Chicago, NYU, Caltech, Georgetown, CMU), and Ivy Tier public schools (Cal, UCLA, UCSD, Mich, UIUC, UW, UT, GT, Purdue, UNC Chapel Hill, UVA) all recruit from the same student body. Thanks to the Common App, UC App, Coalition App, and ApplyTexas it's marginal effort to apply to all the colleges above in addition to the "good" tier.
The Good tier of publics (the rest of the UCs, the rest of the Big 10, UTD, SJSU, CalPoly, NCSU, William&Mary, VT, Rutgers) and privates (Claremont Colleges, Seven Sisters, Vandy, etc) end up with plenty of kids who couldn't mkae it to the top which also makes them more competitive.
Outcomes at Good and Top are the same for most cases, but both are similarly competitive. The kind of profile that gets you into CS@UCR today would have gotten you into EECS@Berkeley a decade ago.
I have several hobbies that are popular with kids (mountain biking, rock climbing, and some others).
I can assure you that there are plenty of kids with more time than I have to dedicate to these hobbies at every popular spot I go to. Many of them are ambitious, smart, and working toward top universities, too. It’s actually fun energy to be around.
The parent comment about students getting up at 6:30AM and working 15 hour days is highly unusual.
Your comment specifically compared it to the normal adult, my point is the normal adult who is a parent is very likely doing even more than your example of your kid. Even for adults who aren't in the elite high earner category, heck people who make less money are likely working even more hours per day just to make ends meet.
As adult with job and kids, I honestly don't work as much as a kid described in that comment. It is in fact way less competitive. I get a good pay, my job is reasonably interesting (ai can make it sux and probably will, but we are not there yet). There are parts that sux or where I am under pressure, but overall, it is better to be an adult then to be teenager trying to get to competitive school.
And for the record, I had to work less to get to good school back then.
How, exactly, are they working more? How many low-paying jobs offer overtime, if they are full time at all? Any clue how many jobs won't let you work a part-time job or won't work around another job? Can't exactly work for Uber if you can't afford a decent enough car. And this is assuming you have older children that don't need childcare.
The fact is that they aren't working extra, not for a job anyway. The extra work comes in the time making dried beans instead of buying canned, in repairing stuff poorly, in shopping around for a doctor that takes the state health insurance or an affordable option if you have none at all, in taking busses (if they are available), and other unpaid things. Your child will be lucky to afford the activities that gets them a 'good' education, especially if they have to work.
That is exactly OP's point: for OP, if a child's "working hours" includes university prep and resume-padding sports activities, then an adult's "working hours" includes housework, grocery shopping, dealing with insurance and taxes, and commute/family chauffeur time.
Why should we change the practice of putting people to work to build civilization when they’re at their physical and energetic peak? In his early 20s my dad helped overthrow the Pakistani government, and by his late 20s and early 30s he was helping tackle the astronomical infant and maternal mortality in the country. Why shouldn’t our young people in America work?
"It takes a ton of pressure to make a diamond". I read that in a game when I was a kid and took it as a guiding principle in my life.
Overcoming hard times absolutely made me a better person, but as I've grown I've seen many examples of the fallout you're referring to. Sometimes people just break.
Only if you make it so. Good college/university means little in many jobs. The best devs for example (and most paid correspondingly since they knew their value very well) I've ever met were either coming out of subpar schools or skipped university altogether.
I myself went through mediocre noname university in eastern Europe with OK grades and it didn't matter at all, now I get perm salary thats better than 99% of devs in whole Europe while doing just that and nothing more, while sporting 10 weeks of paid vacation yearly. Quality of life further down the line, success and happiness are extremely non-correlated with all this academic stuff.
Its just control freak helicopter parents, which, albeit with good underlying intentions, fuck up everything they touch, including mental health of their kids. So kids compete just to endlessly compete while winning less than nothing. This is how deep regrets later in life are made.
Sometimes I wonder where all these HNers work. The majority of "slightly below top companies" seem to consist of mediocre workers, which is fine. Employees are just doing their job and if they fuck up, even badly, it's not too difficult for them to get a new job. Meanwhile a student getting a few subpar grades, often for reasons beyond their control, should somehow be punished forever.
I don't get all this existential talk about college acceptance. Yes, elite schools should expect elite applicants.
Meanwhile, the state school down the road is a fraction the cost, teaches a lot of the same content, and will accept anyone with a pulse. In my state, at least. State universities are somewhat competitive to get into, but state colleges... wide open.
All of which is very real-world. Certain top firms recruit only top candidates. Everyone else works somewhere further along the spectrum.
> I don't get all this existential talk about college acceptance. Yes, elite schools should expect elite applicants.
As a non-US person who's worked for a bunch of US companies, my belief is that the Ivy League et al act as a class system, rather than a symbol of educational attainment.
I strongly disagree. I knew a number of people who were accepted into those elite schools (two at MIT, two at Harvard, one at Brown). All but one of them were lower-to-lower middle class and only able to attend due to the grants given by the school itself. The thing they all had in common was they were incredibly intelligent and hard working. The elitism definitely exists, but it's not the way you describe in my experience
I’ve known a lot of Ivy League graduates and they were all very smart. Most of them were very good people, too. A lot of them came from backgrounds that didn’t include wealth or social connections.
This goes against the stereotypes you read online, but many of them are motivated by a desire to sneer and cut down others’ achievements. Look up “tall poppy syndrome” for one phrase describing this phenomenon.
> I’ve known a lot of Ivy League graduates and they were all very smart. Most of them were very good people, too. A lot of them came from backgrounds that didn’t include wealth or social connections.
Again, the fact that entry to the class system can be meritocratic is entirely disconnected from the fact of it operating as a class system.
When I worked at Big tech I remember recruiters (US-based) talking about hiring from approved schools, which were mostly Ivy League.
Additionally, when we were hiring a candidate in Europe, our director wanted to know what school she had gone to. Fortunately, she was an Oxbridge graduate so all was well.
Again, even if all Ivy League graduates were in the top 1% of objective merit, the use of this credential in hiring/firing/other decisions is what makes it a class system.
I have worked with many Ivy League graduates and they were all super smart and mostly effective, but that doesn't change my point.
Your original argument appeared to imply that it was a system designed to separate people by class, not by merit or educational attainment.
In my experience the people who are that selective about university pedigree are either doing it out of laziness (outsourcing selection process to the university filtering mechanism) or they have a degree from that system and believe that hiring people from it will automatically grant them more allies, thereby improving their own power.
> Your original argument appeared to imply that it was a system designed to separate people by class, not by merit or educational attainment.
I guess my core point is that those people you note (and I've met loads of them too) would have been equally smart and educated if they'd gone to a less prestigious university, but conditional on their ability, they'll do better at getting higher status jobs because they went to an Ivy League.
> In my experience the people who are that selective about university pedigree are either doing it out of laziness (outsourcing selection process to the university filtering mechanism)
This was a HR level policy at a really fast growing tech company (Facebook, back in 2013). I remember it because I was so shocked that this was a thing (not being an Ivy League graduate myself).
HN is centered around venture capital, which in college terms is the subtopic of branch Finance under Business Administration. SJSU, a top business school half an hour south of YC Palo Alto, has an intensely competitive Investment program that admits very few applicants for which students directly manage an investment fund; meanwhile, their Accounting under B.A. program is admitting anyone with a GPA of 2.2 or higher. That duality can be deeply confusing to people on the glamorous side of the fence: why would SJSU cheapen itself by admitting literally everyone it possibly can into Accounting by, when being highly selective results in such a high quality Investment program? That confusion fades rapidly when considered from the other direction: Investment is where the glory is, for those who seek that, and for the rest of us, there’s Accounting and Finance.
While HN, VCs, SJSU, and Tech are obviously not composed of the same population or applying the same restrictions, it’s certainly reasonable to highlight one similarity: the potential glory of one’s role at work directly impacts how competitive it is. That we’re currently in a nightmarish layoff cycle due to the ZIRP bubble popping and due to businesses replacing costly (and glorious) creative roles with more economical PREs (prompt reliability engineers) is amplifying this effect more strongly in Tech than in other industries, because Tech — just like the Investing industry that’s underpinned it for so long — has been saturated with glory and competitiveness.
I spent my career in tech working in the roles that do not offer glory — IT, rather than Product; Cost Centers, rather than Profit Centers — but even within IT, there were a couple of roles that had more glory and were much more competitive in their selection and evaluation criteria than others. At my final IT job, we were less strict about credentials and competitiveness with directors and vice presidents than we were about the high-glory role of enterprise architect. So while I do empathize with HN’s bias, having myself once pursued glory in tech, such competitiveness is abnormal in most jobs in most fields.
All of the AI companies are what I would consider top companies and all of them have had consistent outages because of bugs. OpenAI resets Codex limits almost weekly because of a major outage. Top companies have plenty of average employees.
we wake up at 7, prep the kids to school, they walk there alone then, we have coffee together, then I drive to the office by usually 9:30. have a proper lunch break with colleagues, then in the office until 6pm or so, then drive home, have dinner, put the kids in bed by 8, then we can watch a movie/do hobbies/etc.
while I work, my wife can do the shopping and take care of other household chores if needed.
Most of the stay at home spouses I know come from lower middle class households and they’ve made their lifestyle, living location, and other spending decisions fit their desired work arrangement. Even many of the construction contractors I’ve talked to recently (which is a decent number due to some remodel work) have stay at home wives.
What most people can’t afford is to maintain their desired lifestyle and only have one parent working. It’s similar to how people earning 3-4X the median wages for an area will think they’re barely getting by, while someone earning 1/4 of what they do is raising a family with two kids.
> What most people can’t afford is to maintain their desired lifestyle
True, goes without saying. I see most of the time when lifestyle is not even considered making a choice but simply as "everyone does it".
I might turn into most odd person in some sense among friends, colleagues, family/ relatives because I just happen to say things explicitly which makes for weird conversation.
Everyone around me expects these between the lines.
I've known many families around that age (+/- 5 years) with a stay at home spouse taking care of multiple kids. It really shapes their lifestyle in a lot of ways (smaller/older house, rarely eat out, rarely big family vacations, clothes/toys often from secondhand consignment stores, fewer/cheaper vehicles, etc.), but that's what's important to them so that's how they've set their priorities. Most didn't come from extremely wealthy backgrounds so its not necessarily like other wealthy people are propping them up, although a few are like that.
It may very well be impossible in certain markets but I wouldn't say its true across every family with the parents being around 30 years old.
This discussion gets me every single time. All three of my younger sisters are stay at home moms and their husbands make less than I do, and they have kids, whereas I don't. Until you're at least a deca-millionaire, no amount of money will ever feel like enough and you'll be stressed, or at least I will be, and I'm sure my sisters are, but the material differences in our day to day lives are nil. Their houses are smaller and they live in the middle of nowhere, whereas I live downtown in a major metro, but I also barely leave the house, so what difference does it make?
Everybody who thinks they absolutely cannot do it needs to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask how it is that 7 billion or so other people manage it with even less. It's nice not ever worrying about bills or paying much attention to what anything costs, but it's not that nice. I'm not actually any happier now than when I was living with four guys in a two bed apartment in the slums of Long Beach.
In my anecdotal experience the trend seems to be the less well-off families have stay-at-home moms, while the well-off professionals both work. It largely seems that the "no one can afford kids" idea is an excuse to not give up the DINK life style or at least dual income.
Its an "easier" thing to do (not claiming its an easy thing) when you're not living in a very wealthy area. Far easier to own a home when home prices are $200k not $2M. Groceries are often cheaper in less expensive areas. The few times you do decide to eat out the restaurants are also usually cheaper in the cheaper parts of town. There's more demand for good second-hand stores so they tend to thrive more in those areas. Very rich people often vote against public transit and bike lanes, at least in many parts of the country.
If you're trying to do it on a normal-ish kind of salary in an expensive place to live, its no wonder it seems impossible.
> personal anecdote
Anecdotes can refute an absolute claim like "no one my age can afford a stay at home wife". If you claim all screwdrivers are blue and I point to a red screwdriver in my tool drawer you can't just wave it away and say that's an anecdote. In reality, more millennials are opting for a single working parent lifestyle than Gen X did, largely due to extreme childcare costs.
When the cost for childcare is essentially eating a whole normal person's salary, there's a strong question of why have that parent go to wage-earning job.
this is mostly the norm in Switzerland in my social circle for families with children - husband works in tech, mom stays home until all the kids are old that they don't need mom around so much and/or you don't need to spend a fortune on them.
school launch + supervision for the 11:30 - 13:30 period is ~42 USD per day per kid, kita (pre-kindergarten) is easily ~3100 USD/month or more per kid. (I've put the numbers here in USD as most of the audience is outside of Switzerland for easier comparability), so for a lot of families, if mom works, mom's salary is spent on these costs.
We need to normalize a gap year, or at least a gap semester. Young adults need a break after the pressure of graduation and college admissions, and whether it’s work or travel, some perspective helps ground the college experience and make it a choice instead of an obligation.
In my experience, many freshmen treated their first year as a gap year anyways, especially if they took difficult senior classes. First year classes aren’t always as rigorous as good AP classes (depending on both the high school and the university), so you can skip or cram while partying.
I wish the US had mandatory conscription. Not necessarily military conscription, but kind of like the German model where you either do military service or public service (if I remember correctly).
I sure could have used the maturity, the money, and the time when I was younger. I learned the hard way that attending college when you have no idea what you want to do only delays your graduation date (major change absolutely fucked me).
The issue is that these conscriptions are rarely for the benefit of the person and are usually for the benefit of the nation. They are usually cheap labour or just bodies to put where you need a physical presence but no real skill. If the conscription paid the appropriate wage for the role, absolutely that would be a great idea and help those who were coming out of difficult situations such as foster and poor home life too.
> The issue is that these conscriptions are rarely for the benefit of the person
Issue? That's the best part.
> They are usually cheap labour or just bodies to put where you need a physical presence but no real skill.
That rhymes with many jobs and services people perform.
> If the conscription paid the appropriate wage for the role, absolutely that would be a great idea and help those who were coming out of difficult situations such as foster and poor home life too.
That would be one contingency, yes. In my fantasy, there would also be free healthcare and public, secondary education for any and all the performed military or civil service. In fact, I would even advocate for fast-tracking immigration and citizenship in a similar manner.
My state sort of has a similar policy. Any adult 18 years or older without a secondary education degree can attend community college for free. However, some n number of hours of mandatory community service is required every semester in order to receive the benefit.
So because you personally needed extra time to mature, you want to force a nationwide measure to force everyone to do the same? No one is stopping anyone from taking a year off before applying to college.
No, I want to force a nationwide measure for conscription or civil service. The bit about my benefit was to merely illustrate why I find the idea appealing. It was never meant to serve as a sufficient argument.
The reasons I would support such a policy would be difficult to describe in a terse manner. My one-liner justification is that such a policy would be have to be transactional. Citizens serve their nation and their nation servers its citizens -- far from what we currently have.
A gap year, no grades and claiming some kind of disability (30-45% of students were noted to game the system this way in some colleges) would do marvels, I'm sure. The only part that is missing is religion. Oh wait, Catholicism is now on the rise in the relevant age groups. Oopsie Protestant America.
> sports practice until 5:00. Gotta have that activity on your college application, not counting other volunteering and clubs in the open spaces.
Still baffles me why is that even a thing that's considered at the colleges. I thought it was just a relic of Soviet past but no, apparently it exists in the US and other first world countries as well for some strange reason.
It really isn't. I've never played formalized sports in my life and had no problem getting into multiple universities (yes, a few decades ago but I doubt if society has become more sports driven; on the contrary people often say that due to the tech boom we now live in an era where if anything, unsporty nerds have too much power)
A few decades ago is a millennium in college admissions for top schools. I went to a top 20 university. My kid, who was a way better hs student than I was and state ranked in music with a ISEF engineering award couldn’t get into any of his top 10 schools. Got waitlisted as a dual legacy from my university and ultimately settled for a top 35 school.
It was during COVID, when testing didn’t happen and schools had to rely on gut feel and high school reputation, so that may have played a role too.
He’s started his career now and wondering what to do with all his free time after eight years of living on six hours of sleep or less.
> Got waitlisted as a dual legacy from my university and ultimately settled for a top 35 school.
Oh how tragic!
Went to a very average school - well below 35 - and a top grad school. Definitely benefited from not going to a top school for undergrad. Some details here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49293077
(Been planning for years to write a much more detailed blog post about this. Maybe one day...)
I have heard that it began to try to keep certain ethnic groups out of university and continued because sports bring in scholarship and (for D1 schools) sponsor money.
Not just ethnic groups. Schools mostly can't say "we only want rich people" but they definitely want to prefer students who will contribute to the donation revenue stream either themselves or through their parents. Signals like "doesn't have a job to take up their time in high school" and "parents can afford (and have the free time to enable) expensive, time-consuming activities" are really good proxies for that.
Yes, absolutely. The kids who can assemble a resume of primo extra-ciriculars and volunteer experience are the ones from wealthy and well-connected families. Even the kids who can write the best essays about their troubled upbringings are the ones with access to lots of coaching lol. If they just have to be smart and show up for their government mandated 7 hours of classes, the poor kids can keep up. They can't keep up with another 5 hours of homework and resume-sweeteners every day.
I knew someone who got into a good school on a crew (rowing) scholarship. I remember thinking "wait doesn't almost everyone who rows crew go to a wealthy private school?"
It's pretty reasonable IMO. Shows the person can commit to something, can work hard, is competitive, likely social. Sports are also very humbling because natural differences in ability are very obvious, and chances are there is someone more gifted than you.
I think participating in a fairly competitive sports league tells you more than most other activities you can do.
Only in a world where people act logically and also honestly...
The college may have an ulterior motive, as others in this discussion say: to select for scions of richer families and increase the likelihood of gaining an alumn that they can siphon some money from. If someone spends their afternoon playing polo, it is a good signal of riches to be inherited.
One thing that always surprises me during American conversations on wealth and greed is how the academic sector somehow gets a moral pass, even though it is quite obviously geared towards milking young people for every penny.
A sound mind in a sound body. Everything you do is improved if you're physically active.
I think sports are just easy to categorize when you're trying to figure out what some kid's been up to. Admissions gets to check a box instead of reading essays.
> You have 100 places on the course next year. You have 10,000 applications with straight A's. You need to put ~9,000 in the bin.
This is the situation for less than 10% of universities in the US. Likely a lot less than 5%.
I wish I could find the source (a university president), but over 70% of public universities simply set a bar, and whoever meets the bar is admitted. There's no notion of "limited seats".
I just checked 3 decent state universities near me. Admission rates are 76, 77 and 87%.
One of them has a 75th percentile SAT score of 1230. 25th percentile is in the 900's. Another's range is from mid 1100's to 1400.
I've worked in multiple top tech companies. I know plenty of alumni from these 3 universities working there - with several doing quite well (and very technically competent). Most of them did not even go to grad school, so it's not as if an advanced degree from a good name place helped them.
This idea that you need to go to a top school to get good salaries and careers is something only people who live in a bubble believe. It's true for law school, and not that true for business school, and really not true for engineering.
If I had to summarize my experience: Motivated students going to very average schools for engineering do quite well. Average students who go to top engineering schools almost always change their career path at some point because they don't grow well in a technical career. Top schools don't provide a magical recipe.
(OK, as a footnote, having gone to both a low ranked and a top 10 school, the one thing I will admit is better in a top 10 school is that networking is easier - which I'm sure does help in one's career).
Personally, I don't blame her if she checks out for a few weeks. Or a semester.
Nor would I, but I'd also accept that she did so and failed a few classes.
Just like I did in the 90s. Although in my case it wasn't burn-out, but system shock at actually having to try to get good grades (Fairfax County PS then UVA).
Did that bombed first semester probably eliminate med school or an elite graduate program? Sure. But I probably wasn't cut out for either anyway. And it was a kick in the pants and got me to pay attention and work.
Yes, same here, for me high school was easy and I failed (or effectively failed, a D counted the same as an F) a couple classes right out of the gate. It was a lesson to myself that I never learned to study in high school and had to learn that skill ASAP.
Michigan and its apologists here would rob these kids of real-world experience, reducing them to infants. And then we're all disappointed when these adults act like infants.
Robbing the students of that experience would be to hand them an inflated letter grade. If anything this encourages instructors not to be gentle in grading first semester students. Students who eke out a low C grade will get the warning and can calibrate the level of effort needed (or switch fields) without the impact on grad school admissions or intern/new grad job search.
This schedule is no different than my schedule from 30 years ago and I don't consider it problematic at all. You frame it as 15+ hour days by including all aspects of their day as "work" but no normal adult includes their workout time and their social engagements as part of their work day. Time spent in sports is fun, not work. If it is work, then quit. Time spent in gym class and lunch is not work. Remove all that bloat from your framing and it is a very reasonable workload.
Yes, if you go to a junior college or night school, you will discover what an actual busy schedule looks like and it's not sports clubs and volunteer activities taken for the sole purpose of inflating your college admissions letter.
Some of those students have 40 hour jobs, some night shift, that they can't skip or else they don't have a home or school anymore. Others have kids that can't be neglected.
Indeed. At uni, starting in my second year, I worked as a programmer (no remote work, office at 1hr commute from uni dorm) on top of my studies. It was hard, but doable. My major was applied math, so the CS part was the easier bit, but the math, especially Analysis, Numerical Methods, Linear Algebra, and Analytic Geometry they kicked my butt. We also had a really bad prof for the Math Logic class and no textbook, only lecture notes and his lectures were unstructured shit :(
The biggest problem wasn't the workload itself, but how inefficient learning was back then. It was the early days of the Internet, no coursera, no Google indexed uni sites, no LLMs, no online tutors. I only had a mediocre textbook and some notes I borrowed from friends when I couldn't attend lectures or labs. It took ages. I’d burn hours trying to parse two paragraphs in the textbook, only to ask mates who didn't understand it either.
Now, we have an incredible amount of information & tech at our fingertips: LLMs, Google NotebookLM, online tutors, dozens of textbooks, and sites like Anna's Archive packed with high-quality "free" material. With all this technology, the time it takes to understand, prepare, and master a topic is a fraction of what it used to be. It still takes work and discipline, but man... you can feed textbooks into an LLM and use targeted prompts to debug your exact knowledge gaps on the practice test you get from the LLM.
So I reckon it's easier now than before, simply because learning can be done so much more efficiently. After all these years, I still remember the hardest classes and the most stringent professors with great affection - even though I hated those bastards back then. My Group Theory prof once invalidated a definition I wrote because of a single missing word. At the time, I thought it was an injustice, but later I realized that word was crucial.
University is where young people must face hard work and reality, because it teaches them what true meritocracy is. It should be hard, it's the same way a gym workout should be hard or it’s ineffective.
It is fun when it is fun, when you can skip it or do it purely because you want to. If you go to sports club because you have to, it is work and not fun.
If you go volunteer or have to join the club for college application, they become work. They are not fun stuff.
> Time spent in gym class and lunch is not work
Gym class is work. Kids are not there voluntarily.
Absolutely. I can barely sleep when I feel pressure of what I am have to do next day, especially if it is something stressful. When somebody would be measuring performance of my sleep the idea of sleep would be stressing me out.
Sports club and volunteering are neither restorative nor relax. Sports are another competitive activity you are supposed to excel at. You dont do it to rest and relax.
You come in and do what you are told. You don't chat with friends or play around, you focus on whatever trainer told you to focus at. You dont do what you want to do, but what trainer thinks will make you more performant. And if it hurts or you are tired or just really want to do something else, you still do it.
> she was up at 6:30am, in AP classes by 7:30am (three more to go during the day). Classes were done by 3:00, then sports practice until 5:00.
In other States, high school starts later like 8:45/9am. You can take classes online and start school later if you want or do dual enrollment and skip later periods.
> Gotta have that activity on your college application, not counting other volunteering and clubs in the open spaces.
Mine worked and were in clubs. Kids are remarkably resilient. In some States, work time counts in lieu of volunteer time.
> Then you have test prep (APs and the ACT/SAT), college applications, writing essays and scholarship applications, college tours, sorting decisions, financial aid applications, etc etc etc. And now her college already has a few hours of orientation videos stacked up for her to watch before she moves in.
This sounds like a lot of undue pressure. UCF didn’t make you do that. ACT or SAT works and you have a couple years to do it. Not all at once in Senior year and you usually can composite your score across the highest tests.
7:30 is consistent with my experience in Oregon. Work does not count in lieu of volunteer time if you're writing an essay about your involvement with the community. I don't think schools NEED both ACT or SAT but you only have so many shots and may have an affinity for one or the other, so people like to take both.
Okay it sounds definitely regional/State specific. Some states are more flexible such as counting work hours towards volunteer hours and allowing ACT/SAT/alternatives.
I am still traumatizes from high school after almost 30 years. I had no extra-curricular activities but I had to travel far for the school of choice (I was an ESL student). Waking up at 5:45, 90 minute travel one way, then 8-9 periods ending at around 5PM. Get home at 7 and then do homework.
Then the never-ending pressure of midterms, finals, and regents exams.
The bar is only high for straight out of high school admissions
If you have intention and a cool life story, no crime record, and evidence of a support system, and an ability to pay, universities would love to have that on campus
So forget the grueling stuff and contrived extracurriculars and just graduate, gain some life experiences - gap year, apprenticeship, endeavor - and then apply to colleges
I'm 32. In my senior year of high school, I woke up at 5:30 AM, my first class (zero hour) was at 6:30 AM, regular school started at 7:35 AM. school let out at 2:30 PM. I had extracurriculars until 6:00 PM most days. Go home, eat dinner while studying, go to bed at 11:00 PM. I took 8 AP classes and had straight A's. 5 on every test. strong ACT.
I attended a prestigious land grant university, like Michigan, and I was totally prepared and performed very strongly right out of the gate. I was competitive with elite students who had attended the most prestigious high schools both in the United States and internationally.
Today, I'm an extremely well compensated engineer. My household income is top 1%. My career is gratifying. I have a rich social life and a loving wife and child. If your children are operating at this caliber, and they're able to sustain this level of effort, they're going to go places, no matter what they chose to do. You are rewarded for this effort.
I never studied hard in high school, had one AP, went to a mid tier university and got mostly C's and i also have a household income in the top 1%, a gratifying job and a loving family. I did what i wanted most of my life - i would rather program stuff than apply myself in school and that yielded rewards. I think the broader point is if someone's child wanted to apply themselves to be excellent, then i think that is quite alright but we start getting into trouble when parents are forcing their children or scaring them with "if you don't do this, your life is over" type advice.
At the same time, the problem is too many parents on the Internet and their kids feel like they have to do this. I'm in the top 1% of household income, have a rich life with a great wife, failed for 7 years to have a kid but we tried. I had a 3.8 in high school, took 4 AP classes, lettered in four sports and was Vice President of the art club but did no other extracurriculars, never volunteered, and began school at a perfectly normal 830 or so. I also dropped out my first semester of college, didn't go back for three years, and started back at a community college when I did start back, and lived out of my car for a while working overnight shifts detailing restrooms at a theme park. Then I ultimately joined the Army, jacked up my spine, could scarcely walk for years and was inches from suicide, not making the shift to a software career until I was your age. It still worked out in the long run.
You don't need to have a great life right out of the gate. Life is pretty long.
I’ll add the caveat that motivation matters a lot.
The kids that worked hard because they wanted to be successful? They’re all very successful, even if some didn’t go to top colleges.
The kids that worked hard because they liked the work? Happy, but financially mediocre on average. How much does a history major at Harvard make? Not much. Not a bad life though.
The kids that worked hard because they felt forced to work hard? Most likely to burn out or get into hard drugs.
For what it’s worth as a fellow member of the 1% I hope my kids end up in camp #2.
Thanks for posting this. As someone with ambitious kids that will be in HS soon, this thread and the general doom mood on this topic has been worsening my hypertension…
That blows my mind. It seems so unnecessary. It also doesn't seem to work given where the US ranks globally in education. Is the problem what the admission process? In the UK, even to get into the most prestigious universities you do the same exams as everyone else, maybe a little extra-curricular stuff, and interview with the university. The amount of studying in the evening is no different than anyone else trying to get a good grade, and there are certainly no extra classes you can take (never mind starting the schooldays before the normal time).
> It also doesn't seem to work given where the US ranks globally in education.
This is true because this isn't necessarily "the norm". Its very common to have this kind of life, but there are also a ton of kids who aren't as focused on their academics, who don't take AP classes, who aren't involved in clubs and sports. Only a little over a third of students take any AP exams, and only a bit over half of those end up taking multiple AP exams.
Just to present another reality... a lot of kids coast through high school academically. They sleep through classes or play video games on their school-provided laptops, or play on their phones all day. They know about "minimum-F" policies where submitting 0 work earns them 50%. And they don't really care about getting Ds. Then some community support program assigns them a counselor who drags them over some finish line to get them admitted to a community college.
No, this isn't every high school student. But there are more people in the group I describe than there are in the group you describe.
Here's my point: There is a lot of ground between the two extremes. And both ends of the spectrum are making it into college of some sort. So it you think your child is under too much stress from taking seven AP classes, drop four of them. If they are overwhelmed by tennis practice, ... maybe recognize that removing all friction from a person's life is not necessarily a good thing. Work together to build coping skills. But no child has to be an Olympic medalist neurosurgeon senator CEO all at the same time. Who is "forcing" that on high school students? You?
There is plenty of room for people with 3.2 GPAs and only two AP classes when they graduate. Frankly, with some family support, it is not that hard to have a 3.8 GPA for 60+% of students.
But I've seen high school valedictorians with 3.9 college GPAs graduate and struggle to find a white collar job. What is the plan for that from U Mich?
> But I've seen high school valedictorians with 3.9 college GPAs graduate and struggle to find a white collar job. What is the plan for that from U Mich?
they've optimized for a highly stratified educational environment. The real world don't work like that.
Unless you stay in academia no one cares about your GPA 2 years after you leave.
When you are contrasting a hypothetical example against an anecdotal example, it is polite to provide some sort of evidence your hypothetical example actually exists.
If the sports and clubs are stressful, your kid should find other activities.
I did everything you mentioned in the nineties and aughts (my sport was year round and coach expected us to travel on our own dime to tournaments that lasted the entire weekend at least four times in the summer, and during the school year I was out of town most Sat-Sun at tournaments, which take way more time than the couple hours a volleyball game lasts or whatever), and volunteer activities that lasted until 10pm for a few week stretches a few times a year.
I had a blast doing things I loved. Counting travel, 30+ hours a week of sports. School from 6:30 to 3:30 (because I took an extra AP physics class that happened before school officially started). I acted in community theatre. I did martial arts. I quit tennis to teach acting for the YMCA my senior year.
Why doesn't your kid love the sport she plays? Why doesn't she love the volunteer activities? Those are meant to be FUN. Like, that's why the colleges want them: to see why she's an interesting person, not a time-management robot. They can tell these things, so stop gaming the system ad find a hobby she'll be so obsessed with that she'll write a college entrance essay all about how it made her a more interesting person.
There is no adcom in the world that is trying to find a selfless 17yo who does drudgery because it's expected of them. They're trying to find people who LOVE building for Habitat, who want to be chefs and serve at a soup kitchen, who LOVE God and ran tech support during COVID for their church livestream, etc.
I'm not sure that you understand how competitive, say, youth sports are. It's not seen as purely recreation, it is seen as a necessary pillar of advancement. Parents don't spend all this time and money sending their kids on travel teams for no reason.
If we're measuring this by hours, I had to get up at 4:45 AM to get to middle school. I didn't get home until around 4:30 PM. That's 12 hours a day just to attend middle school. I didn't get any of the advantages of AP classes, sport classes, volunteering, or clubs.
Sorry if this seems naive but do students in America actually work that hard these days? Modern television and social media seem to suggest they are all on drugs and doing God knows what
This is fairly representative experience for high achieving students. When I was in high school, I was typically up at 6:30 AM to get to my 7:00 AM AP class. Classes can end anywhere from 3-4 pm, depending on your course work. After school clubs and activities ranged from commitment. But we were under the assumption that it mattered a lot for college admissions, so many of us participated in 2-3. Once you got home, you had a considerably amount of homework from each class. If you were prepping for standardized exams, you probably dedicated some time to study that as well. Overall, I felt the amount of time spent working in high school was taxing. But also it worked out for me - went to a good college and got a good job and life.
Kids shouldn’t be aiming for well-rounded at all; that’s a classic misread of what selections committees are looking for. Our PhD selections chair was explicit about wanting a well-rounded class full of students with great depth.
Frankly reading about students with six hobbies and after school activities and volunteering is exhausting. I can’t emphasize this enough: that kind of grind is wasteful, and makes you look just like everyone else.
I remember waking around 7am and leaving school around 3pm, then no more than on average ~2 hours of extracurriculars and ~2 hours of homework.
I think the quantity was reasonable, except too much busywork, I wish I could replace it with subjects I was passionate about (i.e. tech).
I also had the entire summer between senior year and college to decompress.
Nowadays I hear that most public schools are giving less work. With all due respect, I believe GP is an anomaly and/or it wasn't the school, but their own pressure.
Same with my kids. At the bus stop by 6:30am, out doing sports and extra-curriculars until 8pm, then dinner+homework until 11pm or so, rinse and repeat.
Nothing wrong. The person I responded to seemed to suggest there’s something wrong with the system when it might simply be a gap that the child has to close.
Cool story, but I also went to High School and Uni and it was not even close to that, and I also have cousins that go to Uni now and kids that will go to high school soon and it is not even close to that.
Perhaps I should disregard my own lived experience and substitute it for what this comment on the (dead and AI-generated) internet is telling me to. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> This is about gunning for the elite/upper echelons of society.
Is that what it’s about? Keep in that the University of Michigan is a public university, explicitly founded to “provide the inhabitants of this state with the means of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the various branches of literature, science, and the arts.” There’s nothing about being elite in there at all. This is an institution that serves the public.
I’m no stranger to long hours to achieve high status—I’m a professor. But I also started my journey at a public school and a public undergraduate institution. Many of my friends—all good and smart people but in many cases decidedly NOT elite-have leveraged their public education into satisfying careers. I, and my friends, would not have had our opportunities otherwise. I simply could not afford top private school.
I don’t know what to think about this change exactly, but it’s worth pointing out that MIT has had this policy for first year students since 1968. MIT! Seems like UM can make this work if they are thoughtful about it.
All universities are for the elites. I would love for that not to be the case, but the only reason admissions are this competitive is because there's competition for limited slots.
And yes, certainly a (traditional) university education should not be required for having good career opportunities.
IMO there's a need for a type of education that's vastly more scalable and still equips people with the beyond-secondary education they need to be productive in today's economy.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that all universities are competitive because that is simply untrue. Many public universities are required by state legislatures to broadly admit students from their own state. California is a good example. You can see incoming class statistics here: https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/entering-class-...
Competitive universities are competitive. Sometimes that competiton is justified and sometimes it is unjustifiably based on pedigree. The program I attended before getting my PhD at a public university was at a well-known private university. But in terms of research productivity and impact, the public university was a MUCH better place to go to school. The PhD program was exceptionally competitive but its undergrad program was not. As a result, many undergrads who wandered through our lab door got a first-class research experience.
I’m not going to pretend that pedigree doesn’t matter (to some people), but it is emphatically not the same thing as “a good preparation.” I took a couple math classes one summer at a low-tier state college. They were just as good as any math classes I took at any of the other places I went to school, public or private.
The ones that aren't competitive don't have the ultra-competitive dynamics described above. Not sure what your point is.
That still doesn't mean they're not "for the elites." Universities are for people striving for upward mobility, i.e. to get into or maintain membership in the elite tiers of society. Also there is (obviously) significant variation in the upper end of the elite and the lower end.
More than a third of the US population has a college degree. [1] When you consider the fact that 20% of the US population are children [2] that means that roughly half of the eligible US population has a college degree. If “half” is elite, then I’m not sure what “elite” means, because it’s not very exclusive.
> Not sure what your point is.
Well, you said
> All universities are for the elites.
And then I countered that, actually, many are not selective. I am asking you to reconsider your statement. In reality, many college programs confer _skills_, not _status_. This narrative that colleges are for the elites is demonstrably untrue, runs counter to the founding mission of many of them, and strikes me as sour grapes. I know because I was one of the kids who struggled to afford college, went to a public one where I learned _skills_, which I then leveraged into a satisfying career.
The costs would have to go down significantly. And I don't just mean the direct price to students – even public universities are extremely costly overall.
It costs ~$55k/year to educate a student at UMich. That's more than half of the median US family's income. And UMich is a massive success story. Excellent academic output at a relatively great price – but even there the actual cost would bankrupt a normal American family.
That's a lot of money to spend educating someone into a non-elite trajectory in life, no? Never mind the opportunity cost of 4 years where one could be acquiring direct skills in whatever job they're going into?
Isn't that need of post-secondary education "solved" by community colleges? Extremely cheap for locals, usually offering degree/certification programs especially relevant to employers in the area, extremely lax requirements, etc?
In theory yes, in practice it seems empirically like the answer is no. I'm not sure if it's just a vibes/branding problem or what. But yeah I think much larger and more capable community colleges and smaller universities is probably closer to ideal.
Let me tell you about the scam of 'honors' classes in today's high schools. They not doing anything more introspective or challenging. It's the same classwork thrown at them faster and without as much teaching support. Just more to grind out. But when you don't understand something?
You're smart, you'll figure it out.
In return you get inflated GPAs that get you into better colleges. But if you can't figure it out on the first try? More stress.
Interestingly, a lot of colleges now ignore the 'honors' weighted GPA and ask to see the unweighted score. If you have a teen entering high school, skip the honors track and help them do better in the normal track version of the class. See if your school offers dual-credit with a local community college or state university. Those transfer credits are WAY more valuable now (and cheaper!) than an AP score, with a lot less test stress.
I agree partially with your first point and almost entirely with your 2nd point:
After emerging from an ap/ib honors program in highschool (with excellent teachers) I became increasingly stressed in college when any real simple lack of comprehension occurred. I was smort. I should "get it."
However, later in life the ideas from books or concepts we read, discussed, and critiqued (Doestevsky,Shakespeare, sophocles etc) allowed me access to ideas in the humanities that far outweighed that initial college whiplash.
So it's a trade off I would certainly make again.
Knowing what I know now, I definitely would've opted for dual-credit rather than honors/AP classes, and CLEPed out of the remainder of freshman year basics.
Yeah definitely. But "can you grind" is legitimate selection criterion for making it into the upper echelons. Not an ideal one, but it's not illegitimate.
Can you teach yourself, broadly. Out of all the filters we have in education, this one might be the most legitimate because it maps pretty closely to lifelong curiosity and learning.
Working like a dog like this is necessary if you’re gunning for the elite / upper echelon of society, yes. If you’re already in that echelon of society, it’s not necessary.
Thank goodness I didn’t need to work so hard, but I can acknowledge what a shitty system it is.
Help me understand why these children or their parents are gunning in this manner and working like dogs in this manner, to join into and propagate such a shitty system?
I think it's more that if one doesn't really think one way or the other then life is very much a conveyor belt, and that belt will typically push you into college. And if you're going to go to college, why not go to the best that you can?
In the US the overwhelming majority of people aren't majoring in STEM, and the return for most non-STEM majors is likely negative relative to something like a trade. Even for traditionally well paid cognitive work, LLMs are making the future quite murky. Weird and interesting times we live in. Who knows, maybe the future will make fine arts great again? Personally, I won't be discouraging or encouraging my children to go to college. I'll explain the pros and cons in both directions and leave it up to them.
I'm all for not diluting anything but dropping first semester/year grades is unlikely to cause any major issue IMO. You can encourage lighter electives maybe and remove some elective requirements from later in the course. Already first year courses are fairly generic/light anyways. The purpose is simply to ramp up the competitiveness the same way school itself ramps up over the years. Pretending school momentum carries over to college is just stupid.
Universities at least apply some meritocratic standards. If we bypass universities, there will be some other gatekeeper, it will be worse: mostly an "old boys network" and corrupt, pay-to-play advancement.
where i come from, university admissions are determined exclusively by performance on an exam you take after high school. it's meritocratic, and the work it involves is much more sensible IMO: no leadership/well-roundedness/whatever theater, and in the ideal case, it only lasts 1 year.
also, this grind is barely meritocratic. all these extracurricular activities show is you had a solid family supporting you. it's literally impossible for a poor kid to participate in this. they can pick up a book, OTOH. yes, it'll be harder, it'll take longer, and they won't do as well as the rich kids with test prep, but they are given the opportunity to try.
Seems like the country was more competently governed before the current university system, though. If its job is to gate keep incompetence out of leadership it is failing spectacularly.
When you consider the complexification of any single industry over the last 50 to 100 years, then multiply that by every single other industry, then multiply that by the newly complex interactions between industries, then consider that the government must keep some degree of handle on all of that complexity, and consider that they must do it with a smaller headcount per capita (even before Trump) than ever before, against better-funded and more sophisticated "adversaries" (people/orgs trying to evade government management) than ever before ...
It seems very possible to me that the managers of said system are far better than ever before and still fail to produce spectacular results.
Surely if it was wasting productive time in industry, then companies would just hire people directly out of high school, no? There's a reason they don't do that.
Sad state that of affairs when comments like this appear and have affirmative replies. Shows how socially unaware and one-dimensional a Hacker News is.
Competition continues to rise for limited higher education slots. The solution is not to get rid of the measurements we use to decide who should occupy those slots, it's to add more slots (and ideally, also create viable career/life opportunities that do not require a super-expensive education to begin with).
Can you explain how that's "socially unaware" or "one-dimensional"?
> It's for students that have had their grades inflated in High school and got into the university based on their ethnic background, instead of merit/points on the SAT.
Why only students who got in based on ethnicity? What about students who only got in because their parents are wealthy or alumni? Or students who get in because of athletics but wouldn't otherwise meet academic admissions criteria? I don't know why there's all this focus (and pushback) on race based admissions when there are multiple other meritless avenues for students to get into college. That people focus on eliminating one and not the others is very telling.
It isn’t racist to acknowledge that some schools select students based on factors other than demonstrated aptitude. In the last ten years it was a fad in the US to not require SAT scores until folks realized this was dumb and reversed course.
You can select by aptitude and also not select only white people. You're saying you have to lower the bar for people that aren't white. That's the racist part. And the whole DEI culture war bullshit in politics. There's no bar lowering involved.
Is she typical or atypical of the kids having issues? My bet is the kids having issues are ones that were less academically inclined. Perhaps they were misled throughout primary education (trophies for everyone, equality of results rather than opportunity, dumbed down mathematics, skipping physics as a req., etc.)
I don’t think kids like yours are having issues but rather kids who didn’t apply themselves academically.
Basically A or even B grades cannot be an average grade. C or 2.0 would be the expected average but of course this hasn’t been close to true since GWB introduced his idiotic policy.
It’s no secret, if you let kids (or people) slack, 80 to 90% will slack off. 10 to 20% will endure out of principle or habit.
This kind of applicant is now treated as table stakes for programs like UMich, and acceptance rates for impacted majors like CS in top programs have dropped to single digits.
It is ridiculously competitive to get into top programs now. I got into an Ivy in the late 2000s to early 2010s. With my stats from back then (13 APs all 4s and 5s, a 4.5+ GPA, varsity wrestling, JV XCountry, NHS, CSF, USAPHO, USAMO, Policy and LD debate, a 2200+ SAT, 35 ACT, 8 SAT Subject test), I would have been lucky to get into CS@UC Davis today and I absolutely wouldn't have gotten into my alma mater.
I'm pretty sure you would get into Berkeley with that profile. Also you can just major in math and get a job as a software engineer anyways. I agree that the system has reached the point of absurdity though. ETH Zurich and KU Leuven have the best solution to this issue in my mind, which is to let everyone in but make the classes ridiculously hard so that 50% leave in the first year.
> I'm pretty sure you would get into Berkeley with that profile
I was rejected from EECS@Cal and CS@CMU at the time (though my alum interviewer for CMU kept in contact with me to this day, and helped open doors for me professionally) yet got into an Ivy and waitlisted at MIT ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And this was before college admissions got as competitive as it is for you guys today.
Most HNers graduated college in the 1990s and early 2000s and don't realize how competitive admissions have become across the board from 2008-09 onwards.
> Also you can just major in math and get a job as a software engineer anyways
Absolutely! Applied Math is a heavily interdisciplinary major that is very powerful.
Then why is getting into M.S programs much easier? The GRE is barely an exam and it's not like you need to go to an IIT or do any olympiads to get into columbia or a good UC. Yes in principle you have fewer applicants than bachelors, but that would be compensated by the fact that indians and chinese students also apply no?
M.S. Programs, non-thesis options, are cash cows for every university.
Most of them are not ABET accredited. Class sizes are large.
In defense of this practice, how do you handle students that finished undergraduate 5, 10, 15 years ago? If you do much gating, there are not enough students.
> Then why is getting into M.S programs much easier?
Because domestic undergrads applying to a research-oriented grad program are advised to apply directly to a PhD program.
MS/MA programs are expected to remediate deficiencies at the undergrad level, and most undergrads will take 1st year MS/MA classes as part of their senior year doing a bachelors. Alternatively, the MS/MA is awarded if a PhD candidate failed Quals.
Outside the US, the expected path is BA/BSc/BEng/BTech to MS/MA/MTech/MPhil to PhD.
In the US, the expected path is SB/AB to PhD and MS/MA if you fail quals or are looking for a professional program to remediate coursework deficiencies.
Policy/LD debate, especially if you were good, might as well be a minus these days. That just tells everyone you're going to spread "post-modern neo-marxism" / fashionable nonsense wherever you go, and/or be more slimy than the worst memes about lawyers could ever imagine.
Debate is actually dying, and for a reason. Good riddance, don't let the door kick your ass on the way out.
From my kid's experience: she was up at 6:30am, in AP classes by 7:30am (three more to go during the day). Classes were done by 3:00, then sports practice until 5:00. Gotta have that activity on your college application, not counting other volunteering and clubs in the open spaces. Then homework after dinner until 10:00 or so, sometimes much later. Homework assigned over weekends. Homework assigned over breaks.
That's 15+ hours a day, every weekday, for an entire school year. Then you have test prep (APs and the ACT/SAT), college applications, writing essays and scholarship applications, college tours, sorting decisions, financial aid applications, etc etc etc. And now her college already has a few hours of orientation videos stacked up for her to watch before she moves in.
Personally, I don't blame her if she checks out for a few weeks. Or a semester.