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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or better yet, join some of us that don’t buy into the hype and skip applying.

[Anonymous]

I don't have an issue with elite colleges having few spots but I wish it weren't the case for top state schools. I feel like in VA, it's getting harder and more expensive to get into the top tier schools.

[Anonymous]

Yes- this

[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.

Colleges could actually fairly easily expand, but everyone would have to get used to a new way of looking at college. VA Tech could easily say we will take another 1,000 students tomorrow and all classes will be on average about 3% larger. Furthermore, they could say we don't see it as our mission to provide housing for everyone and truly make the room & board an independent decision to attend college (i.e., if live on campus it is X or just purchase some dining plan, or it's $0 and you figure it all out yourself). Perhaps, they could indicate they plan to build more dorms, but that won't help anyone in the next several years. Guarantee Freshman get housing, and everyone else is lottery/find your own/work as an RA or do something else that guarantees on-campus housing.

This is how international schools do it. Perhaps VA Tech could not take this approach because they are in a remote location and there probably isn't enough housing in general. However, UVA could take the approach that there is plenty of housing in Charlottesville.

[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.

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

The experience is why people go there. You can get a great education anywhere in the U.S.

[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.

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

The experience is why people go there. You can get a great education anywhere in the U.S.

Hmm, I would hope the education is better at these institutions? The experience itself doesn’t seem appealing…cut-throat and stressed-out kids ready to elbow you out of the way?

[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.

+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.

Let's look at a few of the T20 schools.

Harvard: Where exactly would they build to increase to 30K?
Columbia: Hmm....that would be an interesting task.
Northwestern: Not much space left. Perhaps they should do more lake fill and triple the campus size?
MIT: Same as Harvard...not much space

You already have the big schools like Canada(NATIONAL SCHOOLS) has---they are called your state universities.
For the last time, private schools have no responsibility to double, triple, quadruple in size. It would be far more productive for you to get over the idea that it's T10 school or bust mentality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But, you missed my point. People don't consider them "top." WHy not? Is it legit? Can we elevate them?

Also, back to the OP, this holding to 5 institutions when countries have varying numbers applying is ridiculous.

[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.

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

As they should be. Why should Harvard or MIT be concerned with expanding access? If they expanded they would loose their appeal. They are not state universities, they are private universities who get to choose how they run their business.

We don't need more "access". There are plenty of excellent schools for top kids to attend. Just look at those in the 30-75 range. Do the process right and your "top notch kid" should get into all of their targets in that range. I know my kid did, and was rejected/WL'd at all their reaches. Kid is happily attending a high target. Had 4 excellent schools to choose from.

[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.

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

The experience is why people go there. You can get a great education anywhere in the U.S.

Hmm, I would hope the education is better at these institutions? The experience itself doesn’t seem appealing…cut-throat and stressed-out kids ready to elbow you out of the way?

It isn't though.

[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.

+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.

Colleges could actually fairly easily expand, but everyone would have to get used to a new way of looking at college. VA Tech could easily say we will take another 1,000 students tomorrow and all classes will be on average about 3% larger. Furthermore, they could say we don't see it as our mission to provide housing for everyone and truly make the room & board an independent decision to attend college (i.e., if live on campus it is X or just purchase some dining plan, or it's $0 and you figure it all out yourself). Perhaps, they could indicate they plan to build more dorms, but that won't help anyone in the next several years. Guarantee Freshman get housing, and everyone else is lottery/find your own/work as an RA or do something else that guarantees on-campus housing.

This is how international schools do it. Perhaps VA Tech could not take this approach because they are in a remote location and there probably isn't enough housing in general. However, UVA could take the approach that there is plenty of housing in Charlottesville.

Most who are complaining would not like this. They actually want the "whole experience" as we know it in the USA. But you are right, in Canada at those huge schools, housing is not a guarantee, many commute. Living the college experience is not a thing up there.

[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.

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

The experience is why people go there. You can get a great education anywhere in the U.S.

Hmm, I would hope the education is better at these institutions? The experience itself doesn’t seem appealing…cut-throat and stressed-out kids ready to elbow you out of the way?

The education is "better". Most people will learn better in classes of less than 50 students where discussions can occur during class---that cannot happen with 400+ in a lecture hall. You will get to know your classmates and professors better with the small classes.
The cut-throat/stressed out aspect most would be better without, but most of those attending are driven by that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But, you missed my point. People don't consider them "top." WHy not? Is it legit? Can we elevate them?

Also, back to the OP, this holding to 5 institutions when countries have varying numbers applying is ridiculous.

Why do we need to "elevate" them? Do your research, be smart and you will realize these are excellent schools and basically the same as the T25. My kid was accepted to 4 in the 30-70 range. We toured campuses, sat in classes, etc. They really are not that much different. My kid is at one in the 30s---everyone they know was WL at several T25 schools, many got "soph transfer" for Cornell and one other (I forget which). My kid is surrounded by "t25 rejects who had the resume but didn't win the lottery", including themselves. The one benefit is the stress level is just a step lower, but it's still mostly highly academic, highly motivated kids who work hard and have huge goals to achieve. My kid is at the right fit for them and is getting just as good of education as they would be at a T25.

[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.

Straw man. No one is saying colleges need to do this tomorrow. But they don’t even show any signs of wanting to do it, of taking steps to do so in the future. What they want is to preserve the exclusivity; to have kids clamoring for what 95% cannot have.

I am quite confident the brain trust of Stanford could, if properly motivated, use a bit more of the fallow 5,000 acres of its contiguous land. If colleges like Harvard can’t accomplish this with the size of their endowments and political connections, I question either how smart they are or how motivated they are.

[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.

Straw man. No one is saying colleges need to do this tomorrow. But they don’t even show any signs of wanting to do it, of taking steps to do so in the future. What they want is to preserve the exclusivity; to have kids clamoring for what 95% cannot have.

I am quite confident the brain trust of Stanford could, if properly motivated, use a bit more of the fallow 5,000 acres of its contiguous land. If colleges like Harvard can’t accomplish this with the size of their endowments and political connections, I question either how smart they are or how motivated they are.

Private schools don't have a mission to be a "big state u" institutions. Reframe your perspective so you see the hundreds of schools that serve the needs of the majority of college students.

This is like complaining that Saks should be more like Macys. Saks caters to their clientele and isn't interested in being like Macys. Just shop at Macys if you want the cost/access of Macys instead of complaining that you can't shop at Saks.