[TrumpCard]

Here's the thing that has become a little befuddling for me: I've taught both undergrads and graduate students at multiple top 10 universities, and on the whole, I've been pretty unimpressed by the average student's writing, reasoning, effort, and work ethic. I've taught kids at top Ivies that I wouldn't hire to draft my Christmas letter. Do they just phone it in once they get the big envelope? Am I just too harsh? I have interacted with a ton of my parents friends in their 60s-80s who went to completely "average" schools in their day and whom I'd be infinitely more trusting to execute on something that matters to me...

College kids are . . . kids. 
A person's brain doesn't fully mature until age ~25.
Few of these *kids* have ever made their own rules until they hit college.
Plus, as I read your post, you're talking about the "average" student at elite schools.  
The average kid is not the one who attended Phillips Academy.
These days, elite schools are shooting to maximize their population of first generation college students.  
So, yeah, you're a little harsh on these kids.  
When they graduate, the top 20% will be well-suited to a grunt job in investment banking or management consulting.
Even those kids get kicked out of their firms in 2-3 years as a matter of course because they need more education before advancing.
The same scenario plays out routinely for pre-law students.  
Those kids know nothing when they graduate college, and barely anything when they graduate law school.
Many graduates from elite law schools last only a few years at a big firm, never getting out of document review or other grunt work.  
The people who succeed in these highly competitive professions have a lot going for them beyond what's necessary for college admission.
I'm assuming the same is true in the sciences, though I don't know those career tracks as well as I know the fuzzy career tracks.
All that leads me back to your comparison between your 18-25 year old students and your parents friends.
Since you went to Stanford, I'm guessing your parents are successful professionals and that their friends are too.
I'd always take a successful 60+ year old professional with 40+ years of work experience over an average student at any college.
It's a totally unfair comparison.  Give the kids 40 years, or even 10, and some of them will start to measure up.

[TrumpCard]

Here's the thing that has become a little befuddling for me: I've taught both undergrads and graduate students at multiple top 10 universities, and on the whole, I've been pretty unimpressed by the average student's writing, reasoning, effort, and work ethic. I've taught kids at top Ivies that I wouldn't hire to draft my Christmas letter. Do they just phone it in once they get the big envelope? Am I just too harsh? I have interacted with a ton of my parents friends in their 60s-80s who went to completely "average" schools in their day and whom I'd be infinitely more trusting to execute on something that matters to me...

College kids are . . . kids. 
A person's brain doesn't fully mature until age ~25.
Few of these *kids* have ever made their own rules until they hit college.
Plus, as I read your post, you're talking about the "average" student at elite schools.  
The average kid is not the one who attended Phillips Academy.
These days, elite schools are shooting to maximize their population of first generation college students.  
So, yeah, you're a little harsh on these kids.  
When they graduate, the top 20% will be well-suited to a grunt job in investment banking or management consulting.
Even those kids get kicked out of their firms in 2-3 years as a matter of course because they need more education before advancing.
The same scenario plays out routinely for pre-law students.  
Those kids know nothing when they graduate college, and barely anything when they graduate law school.
Many graduates from elite law schools last only a few years at a big firm, never getting out of document review or other grunt work.  
The people who succeed in these highly competitive professions have a lot going for them beyond what's necessary for college admission.
I'm assuming the same is true in the sciences, though I don't know those career tracks as well as I know the fuzzy career tracks.
All that leads me back to your comparison between your 18-25 year old students and your parents friends.
Since you went to Stanford, I'm guessing your parents are successful professionals and that their friends are too.
I'd always take a successful 60+ year old professional with 40+ years of work experience over an average student at any college.
It's a totally unfair comparison.  Give the kids 40 years, or even 10, and some of them will start to measure up.