Scarcity of "elite college" slots in US relative to other countries

[Anonymous]

I like the fact that they are smaller classes, but I would like us to expand our definition of the "top" and have more excellent mid sized options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other countries have fewer universities than we do so the top 5 is very different grouping. They have much more developed systems of further education colleges/tech training.

This. Top five is ridiculous measurement. The number of high-quality institutions in the US is much larger than that chart would indicate.

[Anonymous]

PS, for the UK, I bet they’re counting Oxford and Cambridge as one place each in the “top five” when in fact, they are conglomerations of many different colleges. It’s honestly like counting the “Ivy League” as one college.

[Anonymous]

Quality is spread around the country, not concentrated in 5 schools. There are way more than 5 top notch colleges in the US so it isn't a useful comparison.

Canada -- 22% of its students are in the top 5 universities; translate that to the US and you would need 3.3 million students in the top 5 schools, or 660,000 each.

UK -- 5% of its students are in the top 5 universities; translate that to the US and you would need 750,000 in the top 5 or 150,000 each.

For reference, the largest US campus, Texas A&M has 75,000 students.

[Anonymous]

The U.S. is a huge country. Kind of hilarious that there are more students on campus at Texas A&M than there are at the top 5 UK universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"They choose to keep their freshman classes small."

Yet when a college with a finite campus expands with satellite options (Northeastern), we lose our minds.

Some top schools could expand if they tossed up new dorms and made classes bigger, but the experience wouldn't be the same.

If more people expanded the idea of what "elite" was, they might include more of the big state universities that definitely have room for their kid.

Yes that is what I meant by it is a social construct.

Also, to expand means to find more professors. I think that is also a barrier.

There is a vast oversupply of PhDs who want to be professors. The top schools certainly have the money to pay them. Not really a barrier.

Just because you say this as fact does not make it so

If you think Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and Yale lack money to pay professors, you're too stupid to be in this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"They choose to keep their freshman classes small."

Yet when a college with a finite campus expands with satellite options (Northeastern), we lose our minds.

Some top schools could expand if they tossed up new dorms and made classes bigger, but the experience wouldn't be the same.

If more people expanded the idea of what "elite" was, they might include more of the big state universities that definitely have room for their kid.

Yes, the experience would not/is not the same. NEU is a good school, but most applying have no interest in attending NEU Oakland/Mills college for 4 years. Most have much better options for them and take it. And NEU just grows without putting infrastructure in place.
Harvard would not be Harvard if they had 10K undergrads and they do not need to become that. There are plenty of great schools in the USA if you stop being obsessed with attending a "T25" school. Apply, hope you get into one, but if not have several backups to choose from, because you will likely be attending one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quality is spread around the country, not concentrated in 5 schools. There are way more than 5 top notch colleges in the US so it isn't a useful comparison.

Canada -- 22% of its students are in the top 5 universities; translate that to the US and you would need 3.3 million students in the top 5 schools, or 660,000 each.

UK -- 5% of its students are in the top 5 universities; translate that to the US and you would need 750,000 in the top 5 or 150,000 each.

For reference, the largest US campus, Texas A&M has 75,000 students.

Curious, where did you find that 22% figure? In any event, Canadian policy is that if a school admission rate gets below a certain threshold, they view that as a negative. As a result, they instruct the university to find a way to accept more kids. It is far more common for students to not live on-campus, so housing is not considered an issue.

The other huge difference is the top Canadian colleges are all public universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you want everyone to get in and nobody to have to pay full price, correct?

Nah. Those schools could increase their supply 5x, keep their acceptance rates at 5%, and still get plenty of takers for "full pay".

If T20 schools went from 1500 freshman/6K undergrads to 7500 freshman/30K undergrads, they would not be nearly as attractive. There is not space to build more dorm, or at least not enough dorms, no room for classes or space for professor offices. Harvard would just be a UMichigan but one without any infrastructure in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the fact that they are smaller classes, but I would like us to expand our definition of the "top" and have more excellent mid sized options.

It already exists. Plenty of 5-10K schools in the Top 100 ranked schools. Much of the 30-70 ranked schools are filled with "T25 Rejects"---those highly qualified but didn't get a spot or who didn't even apply because they need merit and T25 don't give merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you want everyone to get in and nobody to have to pay full price, correct?

Lol.

Pretty dense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"They choose to keep their freshman classes small."

Yet when a college with a finite campus expands with satellite options (Northeastern), we lose our minds.

Some top schools could expand if they tossed up new dorms and made classes bigger, but the experience wouldn't be the same.

If more people expanded the idea of what "elite" was, they might include more of the big state universities that definitely have room for their kid.

Yes, the experience would not/is not the same. NEU is a good school, but most applying have no interest in attending NEU Oakland/Mills college for 4 years. Most have much better options for them and take it. And NEU just grows without putting infrastructure in place.
Harvard would not be Harvard if they had 10K undergrads and they do not need to become that. There are plenty of great schools in the USA if you stop being obsessed with attending a "T25" school. Apply, hope you get into one, but if not have several backups to choose from, because you will likely be attending one.

DCUM loves to hate on certain schools- doesn’t make DCUM accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They can barely fit the freshmen in dorms as it is.

Why should the goal be to emulate others? Those places in the US seem to be doing fine using their current model.

It is the striving to be "elite" which is the problem.

The goal of college should be to obtain an education, not status.

“The problem is that American 17 year olds are too ambitious! If they would just accept that the American dream is dead, everything would be fine.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"They choose to keep their freshman classes small."

Yet when a college with a finite campus expands with satellite options (Northeastern), we lose our minds.

Some top schools could expand if they tossed up new dorms and made classes bigger, but the experience wouldn't be the same.

If more people expanded the idea of what "elite" was, they might include more of the big state universities that definitely have room for their kid.

Yes, the experience would not/is not the same. NEU is a good school, but most applying have no interest in attending NEU Oakland/Mills college for 4 years. Most have much better options for them and take it. And NEU just grows without putting infrastructure in place.
Harvard would not be Harvard if they had 10K undergrads and they do not need to become that. There are plenty of great schools in the USA if you stop being obsessed with attending a "T25" school. Apply, hope you get into one, but if not have several backups to choose from, because you will likely be attending one.

Exactly. People here often vilify schools that don't grow bigger without thinking about how the experience as a student would be different. Bigger classes, more crowded dorms/dining halls/gyms/etc. It's especially funny with schools that are in areas with neighborhoods around them. They can't even absorb an extra 100 students, let alone the thousands it would take to get their acceptance rates out of the single digits.

We need to change our preception of "elite" and maybe just cross those off the list if they aren't realistically going to be an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"They choose to keep their freshman classes small."

Yet when a college with a finite campus expands with satellite options (Northeastern), we lose our minds.

Some top schools could expand if they tossed up new dorms and made classes bigger, but the experience wouldn't be the same.

If more people expanded the idea of what "elite" was, they might include more of the big state universities that definitely have room for their kid.

Yes, the experience would not/is not the same. NEU is a good school, but most applying have no interest in attending NEU Oakland/Mills college for 4 years. Most have much better options for them and take it. And NEU just grows without putting infrastructure in place.
Harvard would not be Harvard if they had 10K undergrads and they do not need to become that. There are plenty of great schools in the USA if you stop being obsessed with attending a "T25" school. Apply, hope you get into one, but if not have several backups to choose from, because you will likely be attending one.

Exactly. People here often vilify schools that don't grow bigger without thinking about how the experience as a student would be different. Bigger classes, more crowded dorms/dining halls/gyms/etc. It's especially funny with schools that are in areas with neighborhoods around them. They can't even absorb an extra 100 students, let alone the thousands it would take to get their acceptance rates out of the single digits.

We need to change our preception of "elite" and maybe just cross those off the list if they aren't realistically going to be an option.

What neighborhoods??