Discussion about this post

User's avatar
lindamc's avatar

Honestly I think it’s even worse than this because so many of them came of age at a time when it’s been hard to cultivate attention and critical thinking. This past semester I worked as an adjunct writing instructor for a graduate school class at my alma mater. It was a demanding course, with a lot of reading (including philosophical texts and legal decisions). I think most students took it only because it’s required.

While a few of the students seemed engaged, quite a few seemed unable to grasp much of the material and to lack the wherewithal to structure or even understand a complex argument. It seemed as if their prior education hadn’t prepared them well. It was a frustrating experience for me - those “students don’t or can’t read books” posts really resonated - but I feel terrible for them and worry about their prospects.

Expand full comment
Waterskiiii's avatar

For another perspective, I help with undergraduate recruiting in a white-collar role that a lot of students from top colleges fall into (banking, consulting, finance). We used to primarily hire from top schools (“targets”) but also leave the pipeline open to cold applications from other schools. The quality of cold applications was usually lower, but there were always a few standouts.

But the sheer volume of non-target applications, influenced by AI, has led us to drastically cut back non-target hiring. We literally can’t read them all. And so now we hire even more from our target schools, which means that the decision that most affects an applicants post-grad placement is whether an admissions counselor let them into Columbia or Duke at age 17. Our current state is an equilibrium, but it’s not a good or better one than what we had before.

Expand full comment
16 more comments...

No posts