<p>There is, of course, a massive wave of students from the baby boom generation hitting college age, and there are the same number of spots at top schools. Thus, the competition for those spots has exploded, and students are leading their lives based on their educational goals. The real problem is the impact on these young people. I have seen many students "change" based on this pressure. The fun loving/happy person is turned into a selfish/somewhat mean person who will lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead of the next person. This cannot be healthy in the long run, but many students (and parents) see this pressure necessitated by academic competition. Where does it end? How will these people reflect on their youth? Will they have problems in their personal lives because of this? Do they value themselves based on academic achievement and not on their own character?</p>
<p>Really I personally believe that one way of fixing this crazy competition is to increase the size of these universities. I'm not saying right now but gradually. I believe Princeton is on the right track by increasing the number of undergrads and I hope that others will too. The acceptance rates year after year are dropping and soon most will be less than 10% (I'm talking about ivy and elite unis btw). Most (actually probably all) have enough money to create more spaces and hire more staff. At the rate we're going what percentage of applicants will be accepted when the next generation applies?</p>
<p>I actually think that the way of fixing this problem (albeit a gradual way) is happening naturally. As the competition gets more intense, people are going to have to acknowledge more and more schools as "elite." If the competition just keeps increasing, in time there will be so many high scorers that a whole group of elite schools will post astronomical SAT ranges and tiny acceptance rates. Even the state schools will feel a trickle-down effect so that they become much mofe attractive safeties. The flagship state U would then have to get considerably more selective, and a secondary state U's would then become a creditable place for average or somewhat above average students to wind up. </p>
<p>Making the schools larger wouldn't really fix the problem of intense competition because as long as there are elite schools, there will be kids trying to get into them, which mean maintaining the highest levels of achievement. But again, I really question those who think that this is always a bad thing. I think being a doctor or lawyer would be very stressful and require a huge amount of work. I also think that there are fields, like politics and law, that sometimes invite and almost reward unethical behavior. However, unless I know that the person has done something wrong or that he can't handle the pressure, I'm not going to suggest that a person not choose a demanding profession, or one that sometimes lends itself to ethical breaches. </p>
<p>I also question the sample size of those who are making broad claims about cheating or bad behavior among high achievers ("the fun loving/happy person is turned into a selfish/somewhat mean person?" Come on.). Do you know three kids this has happened to? How well did you know them before? Does this happen more often among high achivers than among kids suffering from normal teenage angst/rebellion? Is cheating really more rampant at elite schools than at any other?</p>
<p>Cheating is a huge problem. To deny that is to be just as uncaring/stupid/naive as the teachers that allow it to happen.</p>
<p>
Making the schools larger wouldn't really fix the problem of intense competition because as long as there are elite schools, there will be kids trying to get into them, which mean maintaining the highest levels of achievement.
</p>
<p>No they won't fix the problem but they might be able to stabalize the ever increasing competition between students. Think about the competition 10 years from now. Increasing the size of these universities (say doubling their sizes) would help decrease that competition. True some universities are now beoming more famous and 'elite' (like Carnegie Mellon) but I don't think that this will significantly decrease the competition at the elite universities rather students will just add a few extra universities to their 'reach' universities...</p>
<p>The problem with increasing the size would still be the same. Look at huge universities like A&M and UT. The class sizes are ridiculous, assistants grade your papers instead of your teachers, and nobody cares about you because you're just a number for them to get a high ranking with! Not to mention how impossible it is to get scholarships that aren't need-based.</p>
<p>Then there's the problem of having the money and space to expand to accommodate a larger number of students.</p>
<p>Yes but you forget that those two universities are public and they don't really have enough money to recruit the necessary amount of professors. What I was proposing was that the universities keep the ratios of teachers and students the same & keep the same size of classes. Remember I was talking about the elite universities (Harvard, Yale, Stanford...) who can afford increasing their size and afford to recruit more professors.</p>
<p>That still leaves the issue of space. Obviously there would be a need for more facilities.</p>
<p>Space is the main reason for larger class sizes. It would take a heck of a lot more classrooms to keep class sizes small at UT or A&M. </p>
<p>I seriously doubt that they don't have the resources to simply hire more professors.</p>
<p>Ok but really I was talking about gradually increasing the undergrad size. If I'm not mistaken Princeton is increasing thir undergrad size about 1000 students gradually and it seems it be going fine. I doubt Harvard, Stanfor, Yale... aren't able to to the same. One reason they might not want to do it however is that their acceptance rate might go up and so their rankings might go down...</p>
<p>Affluent Americans are overly competitive. The rest of the affluent world does not persistantly hold itself up for admiration. </p>
<p>I agree with jhsu, the blessed 'merit' business opened up the floodgates of righteousness. Just the tonic for America: more righteousness.</p>
<p>For example, concurrent with this thread is the thread on why kids shouldn't travel because it won't look good. On a Harvard application. Nevermind the intrinsic value of particpating in world cultures, that righteous and provincial attitude--from Harvard alum interviewers no less-- lead to some poor CC mum fretting that her brilliant volunteer daughter would be penalized for five volunteer missions abroad.</p>
<p>Crikey.</p>
<p>Yeah, a thousand wouldn't be terrible or anything. I'm just saying that they can't really grow too much.</p>
<p>Actually, the current situation is pretty anomalous. In the early part of the 20th century, Yale expanded from about 2,000 to about 2,400 undergraduates, and then expanded again in the 1920s to about 3,000. Immediately after WWII, undergraduate enrollments spiked as high as 5,500 before settling back to 4,000 in the early 50s. In 1970, Yale College ended both its ethnic quotas and its exclusion of women, and expanded to 5,200 undergraduates. So, basically, Yale grew by 260% between 1900 and 1975 with 20-30% increases roughly every generation ('00s, early '20s, late '40s-early '50s, early '70s). And then absolutely no expansion of the college in the past 35 years -- perhaps the longest such period in its history.</p>
<p>There were plans, by the way, for an additional residential college (about 500 students) in the early '70s, which were scuttled by tax disputes with New Haven. And in 2004 Yale President Levin talked about building four new residential colleges and expanding the college by 2,000 students, but nothing is definitely underway. The rationale was "we can do it, we are turning away qualified students, we can better accomplish our mission if we do."</p>