I certainly couldn’t get in with today’s requirements. My son barely squeaked in & his resume at that point in his life are me look like a back bencher.This isn't the GT I went to either. However, I think the kids there today are at a higher level coming in than we were in the late 80's/early 90's.
Part of the low retention was that 60% in-state requirement was tough to meet with the caliber of students coming through the Georgia school systems. The schools in Georgia have improved and the addition of the Zell Miller/Hope scholarships has led many of the upper-echelon kids to stay home and get a free education, so the pool of students coming into Ma Tech are better prepared and typically brighter.
yeah, but you don't know that your scores and grades wouldn't be better too if you were to go to one of the high schools today. I know the school my kids go to is much better than the one I went to, and I went to a school considered one of the top academic public high schools (open enrollment) in the US back then.I certainly couldn’t get in with today’s requirements. My son barely squeaked in & his resume at that point in his life are me look like a back bencher.
It's the USNews effect.
When I was at Tech, retention and student attitude/satisfaction were not a concern.
Sad but too true.With respect, there has been a pronounced movement in academic communities to raise retention rates and to view anything less than 100% retention as somehow the school's problem. This trend started in the northeast amongst the higher quality schools like the Ivies, where the argument was that the kids they let in are so good and so smart there simply was no reason ever for a kid to not be retained and graduate. This idea has now spread to most all universities in the country. So, where once there was pride in the difficulty of "getting through" a school, not the academicians believe everyone should get a trophy. It is what it is and doesn't really have much to do with reality one way or another.
You take any group of people no matter how smart, and a certain percentage is always lazy or unorganized or whatever. I was not near the smartest when I was at Tech (not even ckose(, but I graduated with a 3.2. The people who failed out drank all night or slept in and missed class or didn’t study or a combination of those. I see no reason to graduate those people and put those people into the marketplace with a Tech degree...unless the Administration just wants more money.
Watching my daughter just complete her Tech experience with a CS degree, some of your assumptions are no longer correct. With the acceptance rate now around 24%, almost no one lazy or unorganized is getting in.
I went over the material for the same classes that I took and my daughter took. (Calc, physics, chemistry) The material is basically the same and it is covered at the same pace. So the classes them selves are consistent. Looking at the tests they are also the same level of difficulty. The only thing I saw that was missing was the occasional trick question. The thing that was the big difference was the huge amount of help my daughter could get literally 24-7 in each of the subjects she was taking. For us if we did not get it on our own, we were screwed.
The main difference is the kids today are a bit smarter, they are all organized and not lazy and there is a huge support system to help them learn. Plus the tests from previous classes are all generally available. (No reason for WORD)
Nah, human nature hasn’t changed. Now with the click of a button you can apply to 1000 schools at once, Which inflates the acceptance rate appearanceTech is twice as big as it was not too long ago. The people I saw not doing the work right we’re 1500 SAT 4.0 valedictorians. They are still there. It is not so much how smart you are but the adjustments that come with going to college.
The average SAT score during that period also increased from 1232 to a 1375. Now it is a 1450.Here it is in pictures.
Average GPA in the 1980s: 2.5. Look at some of those by major - average GPA in Business: 2.1!
Look at the trend in graduation rates over time. Fully TWICE AS MANY students - DOUBLE! - graduated in 4 years in 2010 compared to 1996. A THIRD more students are graduating in 5 years in 2010 than they were in 1996. Its not just freshman retention rates, the entire place has gotten a lot easier to stay in and graduate from over time.