But I thought HYP were national universities! Why are ALL schools so regional??

Parents Forum
481

<p>“No one is “indignant.” It is an observation that flies in the face of CC wisdom. That’s all.”</p>

<p>Would you agree, however, that since there are just as good schools outside of the Ivies in other parts of the country, it doesn’t matter either way?"</p>

<p>It matters when people perpetuate mistruths, such as the belief that top schools attract generally nationally representative student bodies. It’s at least more intellectually honest to say that most all schools are highly regional. Whether that’s good or bad is for each college’s steering bodies to decide, not me. </p>

482

<p>I agree. It really is interesting. It’s the dispelling of a CC urban myth and I appreciate it.</p>

483

<p>“The point is that St Louis is not New York City, and New York City is not St. Louis. Some prefer one over the other. That’s freedom of choice, and I don’t know why anyone would try to argue against that.”</p>

<p>You’re starting to jump the shark. No one is arguing that students who don’t want to go to school in St Louis (or Western MA or Houston or NYC or wherever) should be forced at gunpoint to apply. No one is advocating taking any freedom of choice from anybody. </p>

484

<p>“It matters when people perpetuate mistruths, such as the belief that top schools attract generally nationally representative student bodies.”</p>

<p>Since top schools are majority non-Ivy (after all, there are only 8 of them) may I ask why you put the names of the top-3 Ivies in this thread title? Also, what is the downside of this mistruth being perpetuated? At worst, it gears people’s attentions to the top schools, which would be a good thing in any way, right?</p>

485

<p>I haven’t even tried to understand the chart yet. As usual I’m on a different thread. </p>

486

<p>“Your thread title is:
But I thought HYP were national universities!”</p>

<p>No, my thread title was “But I thought HYP were national universities! Why are ALL schools so regional??” Look up. </p>

487

<p>“There are a lot of schools being discussed.”</p>

<p>I understand that, and forgive me for not explaining, but 1) I spent some time looking for the data for two schools, one that exemplifies the “not national enough” old elite schools, and another that exemplifies the “more truly national” up-and-comers. So, you’ll see I posted data on Harvard and WUSTL. I’m just not interested in repeating the work for an entire basket of schools. 2) I don’t really have a problem with the idea that WUSTL is a national university. I applied there and was accepted in the 1970s, and recognized it as a rising star, then. I have no problem with the idea that schools like Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Stanford, Berkeley, U of Chicago, etc., etc., are national schools. I don’t have any problem saying that some of them are more national than many east coast LACs. But frankly, I consider many of them better schools, period, end of sentence than some of those LACs. I encouraged my own sons to look at Williams and a couple of other schools, but didn’t push it when they didn’t want to. On the other hand, I was a little more forceful that they had to apply to some schools like Northwestern and Notre Dame.</p>

<p>What I consider idiotic is the idea that because WUSTL (or whatever school you want to insert here) has more proportional regional representation (if it actually does) than Harvard (or whatever school you want to insert here), that it makes Harvard less national, or that Harvard is “failing” in its mission.</p>

<p>As I stated early, I view it the way many folks think elite schools view SAT/ACT - there is a threshold score beyond which, the precise numbers reduce in importance.</p>

<p>As well, when I look at state-by-state results, I’m struck by the fact that roughly 10% of Harvard admits are from Massachusetts. Massachusetts has more students at Harvard than New York, with three times the population. I know they gave a preference for locals, I didn’t realize how much it was. That would explain much of the regional “disproportionality.” With about 2% of the US population, little old Mass gets 11% of the admits. It also explains why half my older son’s blocking group is from Massachusetts, LOL.</p>

<p>Well, perhaps that’s because Harvard is pretty explicit that they see themselves first as a local school - local to Cambridge/Boston, local to Massachusetts. But that doesn’t mean the school isn’t national, or has failed as a national university. That’s silly. The two things - local and national - exist in tension.</p>

<p>I mean, heck, the student population of Georgia Tech is over half from Georgia. But it’s a big school! There are students from all 50 states, 114 countries. For engineering students, it’s a school with reach. Lots of reach. Are you going to tell me because it’s a state school, it’s not one of the premier engineering schools in the United States? Are you going to tell me it’s not a national university?</p>

488

<p>“You’re starting to jump the shark. No one is arguing that students who don’t want to go to school in St Louis (or Western MA or Houston or NYC or wherever) should be forced at gunpoint to apply. No one is advocating taking any freedom of choice from anybody.”</p>

<p>I was responding to the following:</p>

<p>“It gets frustrating to respond to people who won’t consider a school like WashU over, say, Penn because “WashU is so midwestern”–when in fact WashU is one of the most “national” of all elite universities–more than any Ivy.”</p>

<p>I attempted to explain why people may find WashU to be midwestern - because, after all - it is in the midwest. I also was surprised that someone may find that frustrating, as it is just someone expressing their choice. College is all about fit, and if someone is not going to be happy in the midwest (or the northeast, or the west coast, or the moon), then they most definitely shouldn’t go there. Expression of that in my opinion shouldn’t lead to any frustration on part of anyone.</p>

<p>You would agree, right?</p>

489

<p>“Also, what is the downside of this mistruth being perpetuated?” </p>

<p>“Harvard prefers blue-eyed people whose names begin with the letter J and who play the oboe.” You don’t mind if I assert that, do you? What’s the downside of this mistruths being perpetuated? </p>

<p>Isn’t there a school with the motto “veritas” – oh, forget it. </p>

490

<p>@Pizzagirl,</p>

<p>Your data labels it as being in the “southeast,” which is actually a valid regional label. But it doesn’t include Texas.</p>

491

<p>Do your own, then. Usually when a poster quibbles, they do their own math and bring it back to the thread.</p>

492

<p>"“Harvard prefers blue-eyed people whose names begin with the letter J and who play the oboe.” You don’t mind if I assert that, do you? What’s the downside of this mistruths being perpetuated?</p>

<p>Isn’t there a school with the motto “veritas” – oh, forget it."</p>

<p>Well, it is not Harvard that is prepetuating mistruth, so I don’t see the point about the motto. Also, we took this disussion in the direction of top schools but you brought it back to Harvard. Yet you claim that this is not about the Ivies, and certainly not about Harvard. Oh, forget it.</p>

<p>However, your analogy doesn’t work. You pick an example that would discourage someone from applying to Harvard. But the original point was about a mistruth that would encourage people to apply to top schools (including, but not limited to Ivies, and in that top schools have a national student body, when they really don’t). Obviously a mistruth designed to keep people out is harmful, but that has nothing to do with a mistruth that will pull people in instead. </p>

<p>So the above is a red herring.</p>

493

<p>“What I consider idiotic is the idea that because WUSTL (or whatever school you want to insert here) has more proportional regional representation (if it actually does) than Harvard (or whatever school you want to insert here), that it makes Harvard less national, or that Harvard is “failing” in its mission.”</p>

<p>Well said.</p>

494

<p>“What I consider idiotic is the idea that because WUSTL (or whatever school you want to insert here) has more proportional regional representation (if it actually does) than Harvard (or whatever school you want to insert here), that it makes Harvard less national, or that Harvard is “failing” in its mission.”</p>

<p>I didn’t say WashU thus became (or is or should be viewed as) a more important school nationally. And I said nothing about the relative quality or the absolute prestige of either school, I said that relative to the population, it attracted a more nationally representative student body than Harvard. Please don’t conflate these things. </p>

<p>And Poetgrl is the one who suggested that Harvard is “failing” its mission. Don’t put words in my mouth - I hold no such view, it surprised me that it was as regional as it is but that’s for Harvard’s steering committees to determine whether this is something they want to privilege versus other dimensions of the student body. Maybe they feel being a “Boston good neighbor” is more important. Or they value getting a threshold level of URMs and are willing to sacrifice geographical representation to do so. Or they value their relationships with the elite NE boarding schools. Or they value fielding sports which tend to be more common in the NE. Whatever. They don’t “owe” me an explanation of their institutional priorities, so long as they aren’t discriminatory. </p>

495

<p>“However, your analogy doesn’t work. You pick an example that would discourage someone from applying to Harvard. But the original point was about a mistruth that would encourage people to apply to top schools (including, but not limited to Ivies, and in that top schools have a national student body, when they really don’t). Obviously a mistruth designed to keep people out is harmful, but that has nothing to do with a mistruth that will pull people in instead.”</p>

<p>I fail to see how I’m perpetuating mistruths when my damn thread title says “ALL schools are regional” and then I go on to provide the actual data for 40 schools. I also explicitly called out NU, ND, and Stanford as top schools having similar regional patterns as the Ivies. But I dared mention WashU, which is like the third rail of CC. </p>

496

<p>“It gets frustrating to respond to people who won’t consider a school like WashU over, say, Penn because “WashU is so midwestern”–when in fact WashU is one of the most “national” of all elite universities–more than any Ivy.”</p>

<p>I agree with you that “because WashU is so midwestern” is a terrible reason. However, I don’t think that is a primary reason people choose Penn. Penn has much stronger job placement, research opportunities, and brand. Additionally specific majors at Penn are usually ranked higher than the same major at WUSTL. </p>

<p>WUSTL is getting very high scoring students who probably were not admitted to an Ivy, MIT, Stanford, Duke, or Cal Tech for various minor weaknesses. So what? That is really nothing to be frustrated about. They have a great student body and a beautiful campus. </p>

497

<p>“I fail to see how I’m perpetuating mistruths when my damn thread title says “ALL schools are regional” and then I go on to provide the actual data for 40 schools. I also explicitly called out NU, ND, and Stanford as top schools having similar regional patterns as the Ivies. But I dared mention WashU, which is like the third rail of CC.”</p>

<p>I didn’t say that you are perptuating mistruths, now did I? I did say that your analysis is flawed. But that is beside the point. I still don’t understand the downside of perpetuating a mistruth that can only attract kids to apply to top schools.</p>

498

<p>@Pizzagirl,</p>

<p>“Well, obviously in this regard, Harvard has better diversity.”</p>

<p>Harvard foots the entire bill for 20% of its undergraduates. Yale and Princeton aren’t far off from that, if I recall. I can’t find data like that concerning WUSTL, but I’ll bet you a nickel that they don’t. As well, they meet financial need in part with loans for many middle-income families. </p>

<p>How does that intersect with proportional geographical representation? I don’t know either.</p>

<p>But your thesis is pretty shallow if it doesn’t take into account these sorts of issues. Not only is some of the data just handled improperly, but there’s so much data that’s not here and thus not considered. At this point, it’s a cute statistic, but without the appropriate context, it’s not much more. It’s certainly not enough information to make judgments about which schools are truly “national” and which are not.</p>

<p>It’s getting late for me, I gotta turn in. If I stayed up, because I’d start getting loopy pretty quickly, I could think up another handful of these sorts of things that likely intersect with strict proportional geographical representation. You’re looking at a single axis and defining a national university therefrom, but to repeat, if you maximize a parameter like this, you’re going to have to give something up. Like maybe ethnic diversity, or maybe the goal of helping folks who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford a top school.</p>

499

<p>“WUSTL is getting very high scoring students who probably were not admitted to an Ivy, MIT, Stanford, Duke, or Cal Tech for various minor weaknesses. So what? That is really nothing to be frustrated about. They have a great student body and a beautiful campus.”</p>

<p>This is the provincialism at work, right here. It is completely unfathomable to some of you that there are real flesh and blood students who might want to attend WashU, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Emory, Vanderbilt, Rice, etc AS THEIR FIRST CHOICES, and not merely as “sloppy second backups” when they didn’t get into the Ivies, MIT or Stanford. </p>

<p>It’s like some of you think everyone dreams of Ivies first and these other schools second. </p>

<p>This is not a knock on the Ivies. It’s a knock on this mindset. </p>

500

<p>“I didn’t say WashU thus became (or is or should be viewed as) a more important school nationally”</p>

<p>I didn’t say “more important nationally,” I said, “more national,” which I think was your point.</p>