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

[Anonymous]

Figure out how far you go down the list to seat 200K students, and that group of schools is the equivalent of the Canadian top 5. It’s not scarcity, unless someone’s actually getting shut out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Okay, so you think NEU Oakland is the same quality as NEU Boston. Interesting.

Yet if Harvard or MIT did it you wouldn't feel the same way. Very interesting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Okay, so you think NEU Oakland is the same quality as NEU Boston. Interesting.

Yet if Harvard or MIT did it you wouldn't feel the same way. Very interesting

This process of starting up satellite campuses works pretty well for the UC system. The new campuses aren’t highly regarded right off the bat but they gain ground. There are now 6 UC campuses in the top 35.

[Anonymous]

View from the north: The top-ranked universities in Canada enroll way many more undergrads than those in the U.S.

To fill the undergraduate seats at the five top-ranked universities in Canada with students from highly ranked U.S. institutions, you would basically need the undergrad population from the top 25 national universities in the U.S. News rankings.

There's no Oxbridge or Ivy League equivalents in Canada.

[Anonymous]

Also to be clear, Canada is more inclusive about accepting applicants but they don’t handhold and do all of the crap the DCUM helicopter parents are used to. They don’t focus on a high graduation rate as a responsibility of the university. It is completely the responsibility of the student. Their tuition is also more affordable for their nationals. In short, this forum wouldn’t exist there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Figure out how far you go down the list to seat 200K students, and that group of schools is the equivalent of the Canadian top 5. It’s not scarcity, unless someone’s actually getting shut out.

It's not even that because student choose different colleges for all kinds of reason which means there is no real list of the best.

[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.

+1

And that is at a school with 30K undergrads. They couldn't handle an extra 1K. So how would a school designed for 6K expand to 30K, even with space it would be expensive and challenging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My point was just that it is far easier for a state (or national) school to be very large and so they are. The mission is different too. Also the UK is about the size of Oregon, so actually the Apples to Apples would be to compare other national systems to a given state system, like California or Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Okay, so you think NEU Oakland is the same quality as NEU Boston. Interesting.

Yet if Harvard or MIT did it you wouldn't feel the same way. Very interesting

That is not what was said. You are looking for a fight, and you are looking for NEU hate.

[Anonymous]

Issue is that everyone thinks the "top 10" or Ivy are the "best". We need to break this mindset.

[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.

+1

And that is at a school with 30K undergrads. They couldn't handle an extra 1K. So how would a school designed for 6K expand to 30K, even with space it would be expensive and challenging.

“How would…” shut up, they’d build more buildings and hire more people, f f s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Issue is that everyone thinks the "top 10" or Ivy are the "best". We need to break this mindset.

+1
After seeing students at these schools show their disgusting true colors, I can't imagine sending my kids there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Issue is that everyone thinks the "top 10" or Ivy are the "best". We need to break this mindset.

+1
After seeing students at these schools show their disgusting true colors, I can't imagine sending my kids there.

So true.

[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.

That’s exactly the issue: these colleges are more concerned with maintaining their “experience” and cache than they are about expanding access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Issue is that everyone thinks the "top 10" or Ivy are the "best". We need to break this mindset.

+1
After seeing students at these schools show their disgusting true colors, I can't imagine sending my kids there.

? Generalize much.
Also first get an acceptance letter. Then, come back here to declare you are not sending your kid.