<p>Page 9 of UCLAs current Common Data Set provides the SAT breakdown for the fall 2006 entering freshman.</p>
<p>Sure, UCLA certainly admitted more 700+ SAT students. But, they chose to enroll elsewhere (like Stanford) -- a pretty good indication of "consumer demand".</p>
<p>OK Thanks.</p>
<p>Interesting that you chose the verbal score. </p>
<p>How many students at Stanford scored over 700 on the math portion?</p>
<p>OK I found it. 1710 students at UCLA scored over 700 on the math score vs. 1174 for Stanford. </p>
<p>I wonder if people read USNWR, the "revealed preference" surveys, and stats about subsidies if people would understand that there are more bright students at UCLA than Stanford and Amherst. More people apply to UCLA than the other schools too.</p>
<p>I know UCLA has an advantage because it is a much larger school. </p>
<p>Of course, Amherst has an advantage in the subsidy per student department because it as a much smaller school.</p>
<p>"The fact is that the niche I described consists almost entirely of affluent consumers."</p>
<p>Yup. Good ol' Veblen again. (That is also the problem with studies of "revealed preference" - they only make sense for customers who have the capacity of going anywhere they want...although they couldn't get into Berea.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interesting that you chose the verbal score.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The reward for spending the time to look up the stats is getting to select the stats that best support the argument!</p>
<p>
[quote]
How many students at Stanford scored over 700 on the math portion?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>67%</p>
<p>"The reward for spending the time to look up the stats is getting to select the stats that best support the argument!"</p>
<p>Agree with you 100%. :)</p>
<p><a href="That%20is%20also%20the%20problem%20with%20studies%20of%20%22revealed%20preference%22%20-%20they%20only%20make%20sense%20for%20customers%20who%20have%20the%20capacity%20of%20going%20anywhere%20they%20want...although%20they%20couldn't%20get%20into%20Berea.">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep. But, we already know that the entire question of college selectivity and demand is concentrated among a narrow slice of affluent consumers and "rich kid" schools. The vast majority of colleges and universities in the country accept virtually anyone who walks in off the street and are struggling to fill their freshman classes.</p>
<p>I actually think the bigger problem with the revealed preferences survey is that the sample is totally flawed by including only a handful of private prep and affluent suburban feeder schools concentrated in the northeast. A revealed preferences survey that used a truly representative national sample would be interesting reading. The current flawed attempt at a revealed preferences is kind of a "well, duh" exercise. We already know the preferences of Exeter, Newton North, Scarsdale, and Short Hills kids. They all use the same xerox'd college application lists.</p>
<p>"It's not a free lunch. The lunch is paid for by the investment return from a huge endowment. It's not a hard concept to understand."</p>
<p>interesteddad - I buy the Washington Post every day for a quarter. How much is the Washington Post subsidizing my reading habit? I know the thing cost more than a quarter to print let alone deliver, and the news contents cost even more to generate and cleverly distort.</p>
<p>The answer is of course they are not subsidizing my reading habit at all. I am actually subsidizing their distribution costs because they are in the advertising business. This is apparently a hard concept to understand - at least for you.</p>
<p>The "schools" major revenue stream is from investing, but that stream and its favourable tax treatment would not exist without the students who contribute an additional revenue stream. The students education is no more subsidized by the college than my reading addiction is subsidized by the Washington Post. In these business models allocation of costs to a business segment are pretty arbitrary but the name on the institution distracts you so you don't see the gorrilla walking across the court (thank you dstark). If instead of Swarthmore College, Amherst College, or Williams College they were call Acme Investment, Amalgamated Trust and Bank, or Enteron you could focus more clearly on what these institutions are really about. Of course they don't really want you to do that.</p>
<p>"although they couldn't get into Berea.)"</p>
<p>and probably have no interest in four years of indentured servitude -- at least not at Berea</p>
<p>higherlead:</p>
<p>I understand the argument you are making and may agree with it in some cases. For example, given that Emory's hospital chain and drug patent R&D divisions generate more operating revenues than all of their schools combined, I question what Emory's core business really is.</p>
<p>However, I think you are being a bit unfair. To be sure, the Boards at these schools have a fidicuary duty to preserve the endowments, it's not like anyone is pocketing the investment income. Quite the contrary, all of these schools are spending more than they have to. For example, Swarthmore didn't have to fund new Arabic and Japanese departments if their goal were simply to maximize the endowment. Heck, they could cut spending by $30,000 per student per year and grow the endowment like wildfire. The vast majority of colleges are struggling to keep from spending down their endowments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and probably have no interest in four years of indentured servitude -- at least not at Berea
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Boy is that an unfortune choice of metaphor for Berea. Its first year enrollment, in 1866, had 91 white students and 96 African American students. The school was founded by strong anti-slavery advocates.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.berea.edu/about/history.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.berea.edu/about/history.asp</a></p>
<p>"Boy is that an unfortune choice of metaphor for Berea"</p>
<p>It's not a metaphor -- it's a fact. Berea calls it the "Student Labor Program," in which all are required to participate.</p>
<p>onemoremom,</p>
<p>Have you ever visited Berea? You need to go and ask the students how they feel about their education and the terms under which the receive it.</p>
<p>"Swarthmore didn't have to fund new Arabic and Japanese departments if their goal were simply to maximize the endowment. Heck, they could cut spending by $30,000 per student per year and grow the endowment like wildfire. The vast majority of colleges are struggling to keep from spending down their endowments."</p>
<p>Actually I believe charitable trusts are required to spend 5% of their income under IRS regulations. Also if I am ot mistaken the president of Swarthmore sits on the board of managers so you sort of have the fox guarding the hen house.</p>
<p>One of the reasons the wealthy stay wealthy is because of the wonderful institution of the charitable trust. It lets you take all of the wealth you accumulate and stash it away where the IRS can't touch it but you still effectively control it and reap the benefits. Small wonder the very wealthy and the very poor both belong disproportionately to the same political party. They both share an interest in taxing the other guy. True the poor have nothing to tax and the wealthy probably have a little conscience problem but both their problems can be solved by screwing the middle class.</p>
<p>"Students and families are expected to pay towards room, board and fees if possible. While room and board costs are $5,230 and fees are $520 for the year, most students receive aid and pay $1,700 per year on average. </p>
<p>Financial Aid Statistics
Full-time freshman enrollment: 388
Number who applied for need-based aid: 388
Number who were judged to have need: 388
Number who were offered aid: 388
Number who had full need met: 32
Average percent of need met: 94%
Average financial aid package: $28,683
Average need-based loan: $800
Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $28,601
Average indebtedness at graduation: $7,638</p>
<p>Very important admission factors:
Class Rank
Geographical Residence [primarily for students from Appalachia]
Rigor of secondary school record
Standardized Test Scores
Academic GPA </p>
<p>Percent applicants admitted: 29%
Percent of students who return for sophomore year: 82%</p>
<p>Test Scores
Middle 50% of First-Year Students<br>
SAT Critical Reading: 500 - 630<br>
SAT Math: 530 - 613
ACT Composite: 21 - 25</p>
<p>1st-year students:
46% In-state students
54% Out-of-state students
57% Women
43% Men
<1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
1% Asian/Pacific Islander
19% Black/Non-Hispanic
1% Hispanic
69% White/Non-Hispanic
8% Non-Resident Alien
1% Race/ethnicity unreported</p>
<p>27% in top 10th of graduating class
67% in top quarter of graduating class
94% in top half of graduating class
35% had h.s. GPA of 3.75 and higher
22% had h.s. GPA between 3.5 and 3.74
20% had h.s. GPA between 3.25 and 3.49
16% had h.s. GPA between 3.0 and 3.24
7% had h.s. GPA between 2.5 and 2.99" </p>
<p>I'm certain that most who attend are very grateful for the education Berea offers.</p>
<p>"and probably have no interest in four years of indentured servitude -- at least not at Berea"</p>
<p>It's why the world needs more Bereas (and likely fewer Williams', though I'm not sure that matters).</p>
<p>"(and likely fewer Williams', though I'm not sure that matters)"</p>
<p>Since there's only one Williams, this statement makes no sense.</p>
<p>What the world needs is to tap into some of those bulging ever growing endowments of these very wealthy schools so it can spend and invest that money on higher education. If Williams were a public corporation some corporate raider would have done that already. In the absence of such a mechanism for private corporations the government ought to do it. Start taxing these endowments and spend the money on education.</p>
<p>When an institutions investment income is bigger than all their other revenue streams combined then something is amiss.</p>
<p>It is a a nice thing when Amherst or Swat or Williams can make a gold plated Amherst or Williams or Swar education available to a few poor but honest lads and lassies but the fact is the impact of that money spent could be doubled or tripled or quadrupled if it were spent on what is still a first rate education for those poor by honest young folks at a good state university.</p>
<p>Lost in all this arguementation about this small sliver of higher education is that what the country really needs right now is more first rate vocational education, community colleges, and job training. Right now in America we grant more PhD's in physical anthropology every year than there are jobs. If every physical anthropologist in every college, university, museum, etc were to retire this year all the PhD's graduating this year still couldn't get a job.</p>
<p>Frankly it is time we throw some of these rich kids out of school and tell them to go get jobs. All this excessive education exists in part to keep them out of the labor market and off the unemployment rolls for a few more years. What we need are a few more diesel mechanics and a few less experts in Mayan pottery.</p>
<p>higherlead,</p>
<p>I actually want my mechanics to be able to add fluently (preferably in their head, when I ask for a rough estimate of the anticipated work). And certainly I prefer them to UNDERSTAND the primary language & be able to speak it intelligibly, so that they can communicate with me effectively.</p>
<p>Further, I want my mechanics and plumbers & train operators to be fluent enough that they are motivated to learn about their immediate physical & political environment, so that they can make intelligent voting choices & are motivated to vote. Right now, the highschoolers I meet are not headed in that direction, if they started vocational school tomorrow. Not literate, not fluent, not aware of even local issues, let alone grander ones. </p>
<p>No, it isn't the college's role to provide that basic functional literacy. (Although in my area, this is the role that community colleges are increasingly playing -- remediation). But even community college courses broaden & deepen a student's interest in & functioning in, the modern world. Some of those graduates may be inspired to seek higher education & higher office someday. I actually want a maximally educated public (not everyone with Ph.D's, but everyone literate & with a civic sense), but I know I'm biased, because this is my business. It's not necessary to apply one's education always in a direct way, on the job. It's the indirect benefits that are often the most important.</p>