why do universities not admit more students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is entitled but everyone should be honest. With the endowments and prestige of working at a top tier school, capacity and faculty shortage constraints are not real barriers
.
It's about keeping them elite and exclusive.

But just imagine if MIT had a student body of 6000 rather than 4. That's 2000 more innovative and intelligent and excellent students who could be out there changing the world with the resources available at MIT.

But nope. Exclusivity and elitism rule.

If you truly believe that the kids MIT would admit if they had more space are failing somewhere else and will amount to nothing, you just aren't very observant. Innovative and intelligent and excellent students are out there changing the world with the resources available at many universities.

+1

OP doesn't seem smart enough for U.S. colleges, frankly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is entitled but everyone should be honest. With the endowments and prestige of working at a top tier school, capacity and faculty shortage constraints are not real barriers
.
It's about keeping them elite and exclusive.

But just imagine if MIT had a student body of 6000 rather than 4. That's 2000 more innovative and intelligent and excellent students who could be out there changing the world with the resources available at MIT.

But nope. Exclusivity and elitism rule.

If you truly believe that the kids MIT would admit if they had more space are failing somewhere else and will amount to nothing, you just aren't very observant. Innovative and intelligent and excellent students are out there changing the world with the resources available at many universities.

Adding: https://research.com/scientists-rankings/best-scientists -- Did they all go to MIT for undergrad? No.

https://qz.com/498534/these-25-schools-are-responsible-for-the-greatest-advances-in-science MIT isn't even #1 on this list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capacity constraints

Mostly artificial ones though. Who gripes most about increasing the student population of elite private universities? Alumni. That’s who. Protecting their exclusive club. Harvard and Yale etc have more than enough endowment to acquire and build on more space. Stanford has more than 8,000 acres, for about 7,000 undergrads. Whatever capacity constraints they claim to have ring pretty hollow to me.

You are not realistic and/or you know nothing about U.S. schools and even less about endowments. That is simply not how it works, not do the colleges owe anyone more seats. Anyone. In the U.S., we do not cover every square inch of acreage with humans. It is not sanitary, healthy, productive, or desirable. We do not aspire to have a two class society.

No matter how much you insist, or pitch a tantrum.

First of all, I never said anything about people being entitled or compelling universities to do anything. Nor does your statement about a 2 class society exist. I don’t want elite colleges and then a bunch of lousy ones.

Frankly, I happen to believe what you do at colleges matter a lot more than where you go. That aside, you cannot deny the demand for the top colleges has grown exponentially compared to the number of seats available (which has grown modestly if at all). A lot of this comes from parents and certain achievement-oriented cohorts that place a premium on being with what they perceive as “the best of the best”.

All I was saying before your vitriolic spew was that IF elite colleges had the will to expand access, the vast majority of them COULD do so, at least some. Might it come with some growing pains and challenges? Sure. Most worthwhile things take some ingenuity and problem solving.

[Anonymous]

OP has a very valid point. There is overall benefit if enrollment #’s increase.

but school administrators incentives are not aligned with that of the overall student body and prospective employer's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capacity constraints

Mostly artificial ones though. Who gripes most about increasing the student population of elite private universities? Alumni. That’s who. Protecting their exclusive club. Harvard and Yale etc have more than enough endowment to acquire and build on more space. Stanford has more than 8,000 acres, for about 7,000 undergrads. Whatever capacity constraints they claim to have ring pretty hollow to me.

You are not realistic and/or you know nothing about U.S. schools and even less about endowments. That is simply not how it works, not do the colleges owe anyone more seats. Anyone. In the U.S., we do not cover every square inch of acreage with humans. It is not sanitary, healthy, productive, or desirable. We do not aspire to have a two class society.

No matter how much you insist, or pitch a tantrum.

First of all, I never said anything about people being entitled or compelling universities to do anything. Nor does your statement about a 2 class society exist. I don’t want elite colleges and then a bunch of lousy ones.

Frankly, I happen to believe what you do at colleges matter a lot more than where you go. That aside, you cannot deny the demand for the top colleges has grown exponentially compared to the number of seats available (which has grown modestly if at all). A lot of this comes from parents and certain achievement-oriented cohorts that place a premium on being with what they perceive as “the best of the best”.

All I was saying before your vitriolic spew was that IF elite colleges had the will to expand access, the vast majority of them COULD do so, at least some. Might it come with some growing pains and challenges? Sure. Most worthwhile things take some ingenuity and problem solving.

"Best of the best" is parents who over tutored their snowflakes, and now expect Harvard. It doesn't work that way. Intelligence is innate - if you or your husband didn't graduate from a top U.S. college, don't expect that from your snowflake.

[Anonymous]

There is a paupers cot in a filthy corner of Kashgar holding yet another innately intelligent child - losing brain cells with every breath.

Tell us more about how their innate ability makes them special

[Anonymous]

Because some of these schools care more about their reputation and endowments that educating students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capacity constraints

Mostly artificial ones though. Who gripes most about increasing the student population of elite private universities? Alumni. That’s who. Protecting their exclusive club. Harvard and Yale etc have more than enough endowment to acquire and build on more space. Stanford has more than 8,000 acres, for about 7,000 undergrads. Whatever capacity constraints they claim to have ring pretty hollow to me.

You are not realistic and/or you know nothing about U.S. schools and even less about endowments. That is simply not how it works, not do the colleges owe anyone more seats. Anyone. In the U.S., we do not cover every square inch of acreage with humans. It is not sanitary, healthy, productive, or desirable. We do not aspire to have a two class society.

No matter how much you insist, or pitch a tantrum.

First of all, I never said anything about people being entitled or compelling universities to do anything. Nor does your statement about a 2 class society exist. I don’t want elite colleges and then a bunch of lousy ones.

Frankly, I happen to believe what you do at colleges matter a lot more than where you go. That aside, you cannot deny the demand for the top colleges has grown exponentially compared to the number of seats available (which has grown modestly if at all). A lot of this comes from parents and certain achievement-oriented cohorts that place a premium on being with what they perceive as “the best of the best”.

All I was saying before your vitriolic spew was that IF elite colleges had the will to expand access, the vast majority of them COULD do so, at least some. Might it come with some growing pains and challenges? Sure. Most worthwhile things take some ingenuity and problem solving.

"Best of the best" is parents who over tutored their snowflakes, and now expect Harvard. It doesn't work that way. Intelligence is innate - if you or your husband didn't graduate from a top U.S. college, don't expect that from your snowflake.

You’re an idiot. I’m the first generation of any my relatives to go to college (from rural south), and I went to top 15 undergrad and T14 law school. Magna at both.

[Anonymous]

Even if expanding school size did nothing to diminish a school's prestige, some of the benefits of a school that people are chasing would go away if they admitted too many students.

Employers don't want to hire too many of their new students from the same school, so the hiring percentage from the school at plum jobs would drop

Student opportunities to do research would be limited because an expansion of school size wouldn't necessarily increase the amount of research grants and projects at the school

Students would have a more difficult time taking classes with the most popular faculty members and the new faculty may not be able to establish their research reputations if they have to pick up more classes (plus, they may not be as good teachers for awhile)

The benefits of networking would be weakened because the alumni in top positions would not be able to help as high a percentage of the students

There might be a fight for space on campus because there would be a lag before more buildings could be built due to financial/development/environmental restrictions or because certain historic buildings could not be expanded due to conservation restrictions

Services provided to students might suffer because it is difficult to hire new staff in that area or location.

Alumni might be hurt in their second job searches (or grad program applications) because the market would be flooded with more graduates from the school

In other words, you're assuming a static system when the change you're suggesting produces will effect the system and potentially make it less desirable.

Could some of these issues be solved with more money? Maybe (although there would be a time lag where your kid might be the one to live in a triple meant to be a double, have trouble getting the classes they want with the top professor or need for their major, get shut out in career services because of the high demand and not be able to get recs from top faculty, have trouble finding study space or gym space), but there's really no incentive other than altruism for a private school to hurt its product voluntarily and existing and graduated students would fight against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if expanding school size did nothing to diminish a school's prestige, some of the benefits of a school that people are chasing would go away if they admitted too many students.

Employers don't want to hire too many of their new students from the same school, so the hiring percentage from the school at plum jobs would drop

Student opportunities to do research would be limited because an expansion of school size wouldn't necessarily increase the amount of research grants and projects at the school

Students would have a more difficult time taking classes with the most popular faculty members and the new faculty may not be able to establish their research reputations if they have to pick up more classes (plus, they may not be as good teachers for awhile)

The benefits of networking would be weakened because the alumni in top positions would not be able to help as high a percentage of the students

There might be a fight for space on campus because there would be a lag before more buildings could be built due to financial/development/environmental restrictions or because certain historic buildings could not be expanded due to conservation restrictions

Services provided to students might suffer because it is difficult to hire new staff in that area or location.

Alumni might be hurt in their second job searches (or grad program applications) because the market would be flooded with more graduates from the school

In other words, you're assuming a static system when the change you're suggesting produces will effect the system and potentially make it less desirable.

Could some of these issues be solved with more money? Maybe (although there would be a time lag where your kid might be the one to live in a triple meant to be a double, have trouble getting the classes they want with the top professor or need for their major, get shut out in career services because of the high demand and not be able to get recs from top faculty, have trouble finding study space or gym space), but there's really no incentive other than altruism for a private school to hurt its product voluntarily and existing and graduated students would fight against it.

So basically the alumni of elite universities want to preserve the exclusivity of their degree and current students, who overwhelmingly come from privileged backgrounds, want to be able to hoard ever more opportunities. Right. Gotcha. Those are the “constraints”. Well, that much we agree on.



I feel quite confident that if Stamford wanted to increase its class size from 1750 to 2000, it could do so easily and would have probably no noticeable impact on “the student experience”. Yes, they’ll need more dorms and professors. As for “teaching not being as good”, I don’t have any evidence that the teaching at the research universities is good across the board as it is. In fact, lots of these great research professors don’t like teaching and aren’t very good at it.

[Anonymous]

I highly doubt the elite colleges want to change anything.

I think more parents ought to realize that plenty of very good schools wind up slightly underenrolled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:clearly the demand for top 50 colleges is there. why not admit more in fields like STEM?

colleges would get oos tuition $$ and kids an opportunity that they might have just missed?

Because we are not China.

Why not?

China is not something everyplace aspires to be, OP, including the U.S. If you don't know this, I do not know what to tell you. China is a third world country (or whatever the PC expression might be today), and there is growing disparity in classes, such that there will soon be only two classes in the U.S., very soon.

There is also no caste system in the U.S. (unlike many Middle Eastern countries), and we prefer that.

If you like China so much, and they are so great at what they do (hint: they are not) why stay in the U.S.?

There is definitely a caste system. The Dalit Indians here would disagree with you.

Plus black / white is a caste system. Read CASTE, the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capacity constraints

Mostly artificial ones though. Who gripes most about increasing the student population of elite private universities? Alumni. That’s who. Protecting their exclusive club. Harvard and Yale etc have more than enough endowment to acquire and build on more space. Stanford has more than 8,000 acres, for about 7,000 undergrads. Whatever capacity constraints they claim to have ring pretty hollow to me.

You are not realistic and/or you know nothing about U.S. schools and even less about endowments. That is simply not how it works, not do the colleges owe anyone more seats. Anyone. In the U.S., we do not cover every square inch of acreage with humans. It is not sanitary, healthy, productive, or desirable. We do not aspire to have a two class society.

No matter how much you insist, or pitch a tantrum.

First of all, I never said anything about people being entitled or compelling universities to do anything. Nor does your statement about a 2 class society exist. I don’t want elite colleges and then a bunch of lousy ones.

Frankly, I happen to believe what you do at colleges matter a lot more than where you go. That aside, you cannot deny the demand for the top colleges has grown exponentially compared to the number of seats available (which has grown modestly if at all). A lot of this comes from parents and certain achievement-oriented cohorts that place a premium on being with what they perceive as “the best of the best”.

All I was saying before your vitriolic spew was that IF elite colleges had the will to expand access, the vast majority of them COULD do so, at least some. Might it come with some growing pains and challenges? Sure. Most worthwhile things take some ingenuity and problem solving.

"Best of the best" is parents who over tutored their snowflakes, and now expect Harvard. It doesn't work that way. Intelligence is innate - if you or your husband didn't graduate from a top U.S. college, don't expect that from your snowflake.

You’re an idiot. I’m the first generation of any my relatives to go to college (from rural south), and I went to top 15 undergrad and T14 law school. Magna at both.

Same here, but OP sounds insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if expanding school size did nothing to diminish a school's prestige, some of the benefits of a school that people are chasing would go away if they admitted too many students.

Employers don't want to hire too many of their new students from the same school, so the hiring percentage from the school at plum jobs would drop

Student opportunities to do research would be limited because an expansion of school size wouldn't necessarily increase the amount of research grants and projects at the school

Students would have a more difficult time taking classes with the most popular faculty members and the new faculty may not be able to establish their research reputations if they have to pick up more classes (plus, they may not be as good teachers for awhile)

The benefits of networking would be weakened because the alumni in top positions would not be able to help as high a percentage of the students

There might be a fight for space on campus because there would be a lag before more buildings could be built due to financial/development/environmental restrictions or because certain historic buildings could not be expanded due to conservation restrictions

Services provided to students might suffer because it is difficult to hire new staff in that area or location.

Alumni might be hurt in their second job searches (or grad program applications) because the market would be flooded with more graduates from the school

In other words, you're assuming a static system when the change you're suggesting produces will effect the system and potentially make it less desirable.

Could some of these issues be solved with more money? Maybe (although there would be a time lag where your kid might be the one to live in a triple meant to be a double, have trouble getting the classes they want with the top professor or need for their major, get shut out in career services because of the high demand and not be able to get recs from top faculty, have trouble finding study space or gym space), but there's really no incentive other than altruism for a private school to hurt its product voluntarily and existing and graduated students would fight against it.

So basically the alumni of elite universities want to preserve the exclusivity of their degree and current students, who overwhelmingly come from privileged backgrounds, want to be able to hoard ever more opportunities. Right. Gotcha. Those are the “constraints”. Well, that much we agree on.



I feel quite confident that if Stamford wanted to increase its class size from 1750 to 2000, it could do so easily and would have probably no noticeable impact on “the student experience”. Yes, they’ll need more dorms and professors. As for “teaching not being as good”, I don’t have any evidence that the teaching at the research universities is good across the board as it is. In fact, lots of these great research professors don’t like teaching and aren’t very good at it.

In Connecticut??

Now I'm confused.

OP won't be happy until every Ivy League School accepts her over tutored snowflake - regardless of lack of qualifications.

Keep holding your breath, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capacity constraints

Mostly artificial ones though. Who gripes most about increasing the student population of elite private universities? Alumni. That’s who. Protecting their exclusive club. Harvard and Yale etc have more than enough endowment to acquire and build on more space. Stanford has more than 8,000 acres, for about 7,000 undergrads. Whatever capacity constraints they claim to have ring pretty hollow to me.

You are not realistic and/or you know nothing about U.S. schools and even less about endowments. That is simply not how it works, not do the colleges owe anyone more seats. Anyone. In the U.S., we do not cover every square inch of acreage with humans. It is not sanitary, healthy, productive, or desirable. We do not aspire to have a two class society.

No matter how much you insist, or pitch a tantrum.

First of all, I never said anything about people being entitled or compelling universities to do anything. Nor does your statement about a 2 class society exist. I don’t want elite colleges and then a bunch of lousy ones.

Frankly, I happen to believe what you do at colleges matter a lot more than where you go. That aside, you cannot deny the demand for the top colleges has grown exponentially compared to the number of seats available (which has grown modestly if at all). A lot of this comes from parents and certain achievement-oriented cohorts that place a premium on being with what they perceive as “the best of the best”.

All I was saying before your vitriolic spew was that IF elite colleges had the will to expand access, the vast majority of them COULD do so, at least some. Might it come with some growing pains and challenges? Sure. Most worthwhile things take some ingenuity and problem solving.

"Best of the best" is parents who over tutored their snowflakes, and now expect Harvard. It doesn't work that way. Intelligence is innate - if you or your husband didn't graduate from a top U.S. college, don't expect that from your snowflake.

You’re an idiot. I’m the first generation of any my relatives to go to college (from rural south), and I went to top 15 undergrad and T14 law school. Magna at both.

Same here, but OP sounds insufferable.

(and paranoid).