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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. This is a perfect example of the three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics.

[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.

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

So you'd send your kid to NEU Oakland/mills college if that's what they were offered? Versus attending Rochester, Wake forest, cWRU, W&M, Boston U, WPI, Tufts, etc? You would consider NEU Oakland to be equivalent to NEU Boston and just go with the flow for the "NEU Name"?

I'm not the anti-NEU booster. But I'm sure as hell smart enough to recognize the facts: they have grown too rapidly to support the students on campus and there are no real signs of change. Both my kids considered it, and one more is, so I follow what is happening. I'd feel the same way if Harvard or MIT did something similar (and my kids were interested).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. This is a perfect example of the three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics.

Statistics never lie. People might mislead using them, but the numbers are what they are.

[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, 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.

So you'd send your kid to NEU Oakland/mills college if that's what they were offered? Versus attending Rochester, Wake forest, cWRU, W&M, Boston U, WPI, Tufts, etc? You would consider NEU Oakland to be equivalent to NEU Boston and just go with the flow for the "NEU Name"?

I'm not the anti-NEU booster. But I'm sure as hell smart enough to recognize the facts: they have grown too rapidly to support the students on campus and there are no real signs of change. Both my kids considered it, and one more is, so I follow what is happening. I'd feel the same way if Harvard or MIT did something similar (and my kids were interested).

Surely you do not wish to turn this into a NEU hate thread, but my short answer is yes. Also, there are a couple schools you mentioned for which I would not do so.

[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.

Wut? They have 7,240 undergrads, and you're saying 3k more would destroy their brand? That's asinine.

I think they could do that without sinking to the lowly status of Penn (9700 undergrads) or Cornell (15k undergrads) that's how confident I am in Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baloney. They could absolutely do it and maintain their elite status. Severely restricting the number of slots is a deliberate choice.

[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, 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??

I'm not sure what you mean, but just as an example, Boston College is surrounded by houses. They've bought land from the Archdiocese across Comm Ave from campus and other colleges. They recently bought another college's property in a neighboring town (Brookline). They already house some of the freshman on a satellite campus (Newton) and people see getting assigned there as a negative.

The Oxford campus of Emory is another example. Lets them take more students, but people definitely see it as a lesser option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baloney. They could absolutely do it and maintain their elite status. Severely restricting the number of slots is a deliberate choice.

Please tell me where these people would live if 6000 freshman arrived at a campus that houses 1500. Or 30,000 showed up on a campus made for 7500.

The year that Virginia Tech overenrolled by 1000, they paid people to defer for a year and took over a hotel off campus to house the kids who came. There were long lines at dining halls, which made people late for class. People sitting in the aisles in lecture halls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baloney. They could absolutely do it and maintain their elite status. Severely restricting the number of slots is a deliberate choice.

Please tell me where these people would live if 6000 freshman arrived at a campus that houses 1500. Or 30,000 showed up on a campus made for 7500.

The year that Virginia Tech overenrolled by 1000, they paid people to defer for a year and took over a hotel off campus to house the kids who came. There were long lines at dining halls, which made people late for class. People sitting in the aisles in lecture halls.

There's this thing called "planning". I dunno, I'd expect those Harvard guys to be good at it. I'm told they're purty smart with all their book-learnin' and all.

Undoubtedly they'd ramp up they annual increase in a measured way, not just suddenly go from 6k to 15k or whatever in a single year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baloney. They could absolutely do it and maintain their elite status. Severely restricting the number of slots is a deliberate choice.

Please tell me where these people would live if 6000 freshman arrived at a campus that houses 1500. Or 30,000 showed up on a campus made for 7500.

The year that Virginia Tech overenrolled by 1000, they paid people to defer for a year and took over a hotel off campus to house the kids who came. There were long lines at dining halls, which made people late for class. People sitting in the aisles in lecture halls.

As an example, Canadian colleges are able to separate their educational mission and housing. If as an example, the University of Toronto wants to add slots they take the viewpoint that Toronto is a large city and there are plenty of housing options available. Sure, you may not be able to walk to class, but there is plenty along bus and subway lines. Also, it is pretty common in Canada for kids to just attend their "local" college and commute...the residential experience is not as highly valued/expected.

US universities could also take this approach, but it of course would be a shock to people. Harvard or BC or whomever would just indicate only freshmen get housing and everybody else is on their own.

Not saying I agree with this approach, but just making it clear how the University of Toronto has 78,000 students (yes two campuses, but they are close to each otehr)...which probably makes it the largest university in North America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Divided the number posted in the OP's chart by the total number of students CA says are enrolled in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baloney. They could absolutely do it and maintain their elite status. Severely restricting the number of slots is a deliberate choice.

Please tell me where these people would live if 6000 freshman arrived at a campus that houses 1500. Or 30,000 showed up on a campus made for 7500.

The year that Virginia Tech overenrolled by 1000, they paid people to defer for a year and took over a hotel off campus to house the kids who came. There were long lines at dining halls, which made people late for class. People sitting in the aisles in lecture halls.

As an example, Canadian colleges are able to separate their educational mission and housing. If as an example, the University of Toronto wants to add slots they take the viewpoint that Toronto is a large city and there are plenty of housing options available. Sure, you may not be able to walk to class, but there is plenty along bus and subway lines. Also, it is pretty common in Canada for kids to just attend their "local" college and commute...the residential experience is not as highly valued/expected.

US universities could also take this approach, but it of course would be a shock to people. Harvard or BC or whomever would just indicate only freshmen get housing and everybody else is on their own.

Not saying I agree with this approach, but just making it clear how the University of Toronto has 78,000 students (yes two campuses, but they are close to each otehr)...which probably makes it the largest university in North America.

And it is a national school, and in the US state schools are also much larger than private schools. Its the private schools that PPs are trying to argue must increase their size, but that's not the brand. They don't want to be as large as state schools, nor would people be as interested in them if they were. It would become a wholly different place and a wholly different education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. It just means that the top 25 or so US universities are the equivalent to top 5 in some other countries. Plenty of ambitious students already are targeting "T25" or "T30" schools not just the top 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baloney. They could absolutely do it and maintain their elite status. Severely restricting the number of slots is a deliberate choice.

Please tell me where these people would live if 6000 freshman arrived at a campus that houses 1500. Or 30,000 showed up on a campus made for 7500.

The year that Virginia Tech overenrolled by 1000, they paid people to defer for a year and took over a hotel off campus to house the kids who came. There were long lines at dining halls, which made people late for class. People sitting in the aisles in lecture halls.

There's this thing called "planning". I dunno, I'd expect those Harvard guys to be good at it. I'm told they're purty smart with all their book-learnin' and all.

Undoubtedly they'd ramp up they annual increase in a measured way, not just suddenly go from 6k to 15k or whatever in a single year.

they Are planning - for a precipitous drop off an applications sometime in the next few years. Schools are not going to want to expand – rather they’re busy recruiting students from all over the universe to attend them, so they will still be desirable destination when they reach What is being the demographic cliff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Baloney. They could absolutely do it and maintain their elite status. Severely restricting the number of slots is a deliberate choice.

Please tell me where these people would live if 6000 freshman arrived at a campus that houses 1500. Or 30,000 showed up on a campus made for 7500.

The year that Virginia Tech overenrolled by 1000, they paid people to defer for a year and took over a hotel off campus to house the kids who came. There were long lines at dining halls, which made people late for class. People sitting in the aisles in lecture halls.

As an example, Canadian colleges are able to separate their educational mission and housing. If as an example, the University of Toronto wants to add slots they take the viewpoint that Toronto is a large city and there are plenty of housing options available. Sure, you may not be able to walk to class, but there is plenty along bus and subway lines. Also, it is pretty common in Canada for kids to just attend their "local" college and commute...the residential experience is not as highly valued/expected.

US universities could also take this approach, but it of course would be a shock to people. Harvard or BC or whomever would just indicate only freshmen get housing and everybody else is on their own.

Not saying I agree with this approach, but just making it clear how the University of Toronto has 78,000 students (yes two campuses, but they are close to each otehr)...which probably makes it the largest university in North America.

And it is a national school, and in the US state schools are also much larger than private schools. Its the private schools that PPs are trying to argue must increase their size, but that's not the brand. They don't want to be as large as state schools, nor would people be as interested in them if they were. It would become a wholly different place and a wholly different education.

I understand what you mean, but in Canada these state schools are the top schools. Trying to equal apples-to-apples between the highest-ranked colleges in each country. I believe Cambridge and Oxford and honestly the entire rest-of-the world, the state schools are the top schools. There is no way to compare private schools because the US stands pretty much alone in that regard.