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.

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting piece in Jeff Selingo's newsletter. But I don't see US elite colleges increasing their supply, so it's a bit of a moot point.

On a day when early-decision applications are due at many selective institutions, it’s important to remember one reason why these colleges remain “highly rejective” is because they choose to keep their freshman classes small.

As Olivia Roark reports, the five top-ranked universities in the U.S. News & World Report rankings—Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and Yale—enroll about 6,400 freshmen in total each year and 32,000 undergrads in all.

In the rest of the world, including Brazil, South Africa, and Canada, the top 5 universities have 100,000+ undergrads.



What’s happening: Applications to selective colleges have jumped during the pandemic when most of the institutions dropped their testing requirements for admissions. But institutions didn’t expand their incoming classes; they just rejected more students.

—Then two events this past summer put more pressure on selective colleges to either expand or rethink who they’re admitting.

First was the Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions.

Second was the release of a report by economists showing wealthy applicants get into Ivy-plus schools at a higher rate than everyone else with the same SAT/ACT scores.
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.

—In many ways, the U.S. is more like India. The top five Indian universities on the U.S. News Best Global Universities list enroll roughly 15,000 students. The institutions in India are astoundingly small for a country of 1.4 billion people.

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.

+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.

Or you could, you know, apply to other schools. VT actually has plenty of off-campus housing. But why would they want to expand? They're doing great as is.

Anonymous wrote:They all take millions of government dollars, both directly and indirectly, so yes we get to tell them how to run their business.

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.

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.

They all take millions of government dollars, both directly and indirectly, so yes we get to tell them how to run their business.

Wrong on both counts!

Just keep saying that, eventually enough people will believe you and it will be true!

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.

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.

They all take millions of government dollars, both directly and indirectly, so yes we get to tell them how to run their business.

Wrong on both counts!

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.

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.

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.

They all take millions of government dollars, both directly and indirectly, so yes we get to tell them how to run their business.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They all take millions of government dollars, both directly and indirectly, so yes we get to tell them how to run their business.

Not how it works.

Actually it does work that way. If they want to get research dollars from the feds.

Their use of "research dollars from the feds" actually saves the govt money. Grad students are extremely cheap labor! If the universities don't do the research for "cheap" we would have to pay full price for the work to be done. So I'm just fine with them getting research dollars and remaining 5-6K of undergrads like they have been for decades.

And no, you don't get to dictate how your tax dollars are spent. I pay millions to the federal gov and my state, and beyond voting I don't get to decide where every $ of my money goes.

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.

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.

They all take millions of government dollars, both directly and indirectly, so yes we get to tell them how to run their business.

Not how it works.

Actually it does work that way. If they want to get research dollars from the feds.

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.

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.

They all take millions of government dollars, both directly and indirectly, so yes we get to tell them how to run their business.

Not how it works.

Actually it does work that way. If they want to get research dollars from the feds.

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.

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.

They all take millions of government dollars, both directly and indirectly, so yes we get to tell them how to run their business.

Not how it works.

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.

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.

They all take millions of government dollars, both directly and indirectly, so yes we get to tell them how to run their business.

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.

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.