why do universities not admit more students?

[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.

Since you ignore or magically waive away everything but teaching and you concede that teaching is no better in top research universities than other schools, the only benefit of a "prestigious" university that is left is prestige itself and the "opportunities" you think come with a prestigious school. So, the argument that the increase in students will hurt the alums by decreasing the prestige (which is primarily associated with scarcity) is EXACTLY degrading the one benefit you care about. If they admit tons more students, the benefits of prestige, such as employment, networking, and cache when saying the name will decline over time. Sure, a couple of hundred more wouldn't kill them, but chances are ALL of the couple of hundred kids admitted to a top school would already be admitted under the current system to a different top school. These are the pool of kids who get into at least one top school. In effect, it would just provide top kids with more choices among top schools. To broaden the pool of kids granted access to the top schools, you would have to admit many more kids than just a couple of hundred (in other words, you would have to dip down below the pool of top kids to the kids whose parents think they are being unfairly denied access to the opportunities of the top schools), which would reduce the benefits of the prestige "opportunities."

So, you actually very much want elitism and exclusivity, but for your kid and not for everyone. Your "access to opportunities" argument is just a way to make you feel better about arguing that they should admit your kid and the pull up the ladder for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

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

Or they don't have the dorm space (see some of the comments on the dorm thread about overcrowding). Or the faculty and staff to take on teaching and guiding and taking care of extra students. You can't just dump 1000-5000 extra kids into a school that doesn't have the capacity for it - that's a recipe for chaos. And would definitely affect the education that you think they don't care about. Could they eventually do it? Sure, if they have the real estate and the budget.

[Anonymous]

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?

Everything would dilute and college wouldn't be as desirable any more.

[Anonymous]

Exclusivity and demand are closely related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Intelligence is innate - if you or your husband didn't graduate from a top U.S. college, don't expect that from your snowflake.

I hope you're just sarcastic otherwise just follow that advice and take your dose asap.

intelligence is associative learning, building on knowledge and connecting the dots, so not innate ... nobody is born knowledgeable

[Anonymous]

Most T25 schools are "smaller schools, less than 6-8K undergrads" Harvard would not be Harvard if it had 20K undergrads. Part of the ability to make connections and the elite experience is the smaller environment.

However, there are plenty of schools in the 2k-8K undergrad range outside of the T25 schools. It is easier at those schools to do research, build relationships with professors, etc than at your state U with 25K+. Yes you can get something similar at state U in the honors program, but it is not completely the same.

Simply put, Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Stanford, MIT, etc would not be who they are if they had 20K undergrads, so they do not want to grow. And there is no reason to. There are already plenty of good large state Universities for students who want that experience.

[Anonymous]

Not enough professors.

[Anonymous]

Northeastern does it! They keep buying new colleges.

[Anonymous]

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.

Where exactly is Harvard going to expand? What location? They are someone out of space and the neighbors and local government oppose anything they propose. Alums could care less. Better chance for their kids to get in if it is bigger.

Stanford may have space but almost no one else does. That is why BC spent over $100 million to buy the Cardinal's residence a few years back. That is across the street from one corner of their campus. Neighbors fought like hell to stop students living there and they were backed by the local government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here? Who even knows what a "Dalit" Indian is to treat them differently? If it's other Indians, shame on them, but let's not call this a "US" thing.

[Anonymous]

good documentary on the subject
https://exclusionu.com

Very enlightening. I had no idea how rich some of these schools are, all while not paying taxes and educating very few students.

[Anonymous]

I think what people here are missing is that elite universities often cannot expand because of NIMBY-ism. Affluent communities block them from constructing more dorms to grow their student bodies.

Stanford, for instance, had a plan to grow their student body by 25% so they can accept more great applicants. However, NIMBYs in the Bay Area are attempting to block it. Stanford gave up.

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/11/01/stanford-withdraws-application-for-campus-expansion

Universities in poor communities with low property values (UPenn, UChicago, USC, Yale, etc.) have all actually expanded their freshman classes. However, anywhere with high property values (Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, etc.) will have a much harder time building more dorms, dining halls, and the facilities necessary for larger freshman classes.

[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.

Are you the OP?
If not, OP what is your background and stake in this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Capacity constraints

This. The older schools like Yale, Harvard, ,UVA are at max capacity. They were built in the horse and buggy era and can't sensibly enlarge their classes (although all three have done everything possible to enlarge first year classes). There just isn't the dorm space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Capacity constraints

This. The older schools like Yale, Harvard, ,UVA are at max capacity. They were built in the horse and buggy era and can't sensibly enlarge their classes (although all three have done everything possible to enlarge first year classes). There just isn't the dorm space.