Exactly this. And those whose children take two Harvard extension classes and declare it perfectly fine for kids less advantaged as a 128-credit substitute for an actual Harvard degree really need to check their privilege.
So confused. Why does it matter who gets to go to MIT? Science is likely the āflattestā profession in the US. Go to RPI, CMU, UIUC, Rutgers, Missouri M&T, Georgia Tech, a boatload of the UCās, U Arizonaā¦Nobel prize winners with undergrad degrees from U Delaware-- back when it was NOT a well funded chem school thanks to Dupont money.
Does it matter where these kids end up in grad school? Most scientists say yes, and the outcome research seems to support that. Getting a terminal masters at a non-flagship state U (because they donāt grant doctorates, and the kid didnāt get accepted with funding at the flagship) is not the power move for a scientific career. But again- UIUC outranks tons of āeliteā universities in many fields; UCSD, Wisconsin, Michiganā¦ all have top ranked departments depending on the area of interest.
1 Like
Just a FYI, this is actually fairly rare. Most terminal MS degrees are to deepen technical knowledge to practice engineering and not done with the intent of having a research career. All of the top schools offer them including Stanford and MIT. Caltech is the rare exception.
1 Like
Itās not up to me, obviously. But these schools are highly successful. Iām sure they can identify ways that leave privilege out of the equation. In fact they are already doing so. Many elite schools report record numbers of disadvantaged, minority and first-generation students have been offered admission this year.
Other than race, gender and 1st-gen status, all other admission criteria are positively correlated with wealth and privilege, should we do away with all of them?
We should do our best to level the playing field. Expanding enrollment means itās no longer a zero sum game. Your privileged child can go to Harvard and so can a less privileged child.
Curious as to what you define as āorganic growth.ā Because at the moment, growth at elite schools is artificially restricted in order to keep acceptance rates low and rankings high.
Havard canāt accommodate everyone even with an expansion. It still has to have some criteria for admissions, doesnāt it? An expanded Harvard doesnāt necessarily mean higher proportion of poor and underprivileged students, does it?
2 Likes
And thereās the rub. If they donāt have low acceptance rates they wonāt be perceived as āeliteā anymore. Thatās the major problem. People conflate popularity with quality. One is not a guarantee of the other.
The elite schools grow capacity within their long term plans ensuring the educational experiences that have placed them in the elite ranks (feel free to define elite any way you want). For instance, the undergraduate class size for Stanford has grown slowly:
1970- 6,221
2010- 6,878
2020- 6,994
But, as written by John Hennessy (Stanford Pres 200-2016) in an article discussing proposed growth of the undergraduate class, āā¦As persuasive an argument as this might make for increasing the size of the freshman class, it is important that this issue not be reduced to simply a numbers game. At its core, the Stanford experience is about the quality of the interactions in which students and faculty engage. This experienceāboth in the classroom and the research labāmust always be driven by human interactions between students and faculty. This works best in a relatively intimate setting, and Stanford must never lose its dedication to that principle.ā
So, while the number of students has grown slowly, it is done so in a way that does not diminish the value proposition or reputation that Stanford has developed over time. The growth in students, btw, has been slow, diverse and world-wide in nature.
For years, Stanford has planned to gradually increase enrollment by 100 students per year, eventually up to a couple thousand more kids (exact number has changed over time), as described at Stanford eyes undergraduate enrollment increase | News | Palo Alto Online | . However, itās my understanding that years later, Stanford still canāt seem to get the plan off the ground due to a series of local backlash problems with their expansion proposals, as described at Stanford withdraws application for campus expansion | News | Palo Alto Online | . There are more considerations than just trying be selective/elite/high ranked in USNWR; when a college does not rapidly increase student population.
1 Like
Rice plans to grow 800 students in four years. Thatās a large increase.
Will it increase access or favor the wealthy and well off?
Itās an odd topic anyway - expanding capacity or access - thatās done via the public sector - hence all the free community college in states like TN.
2 Likes
Someone mentioned this earlier but there are physical limitations on growth that many colleges need to work with. Building (anything) in Palo Alto is, well, challenging. Stanford has a long range plan, and continues to work with the local governments.
Actually, Stanford investigated building an entirely new campus in New York. " Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg proposed the competition last year to replicate the experience of Stanford or M.I.T. ā a top-notch engineering and computer science school whose graduates could seed the region with new high-tech businesses ā and with M.I.T. opting not to participate, Stanford was at first seen as the one to beat" (NYT ~2011).
Turns out that MIT early on knew that building in NY is maybe more challenging than Palo Alto 
Stanford pulled out as well when the ācost of doing business in NYā became more clearā¦ The new campus was build by Cornell I think so Iām sure that expanded elite education to many.
Of course, but it would help, and if Harvard made it a goal to identify and enroll disadvantaged kids then, yes, it would mean a higher proportion of them. Look what Brown did this year.
Itās crazy that Palo Alto really cares, beyond the impact of simply putting more people in the space. The Stanford campus is HUGE.
1 Like
Hopefully it will benefit all - Rice, the wealthy, and the not wealthy.
What did Brown do this year? Brown was one of the few āeliteā colleges that did NOT have record levels of disadvantaged kids this year, in spite of going test optional. In contrast, Harvard did have record levels of groups associated with disadvantaged groups upon going test optional. Some specific numbers are below:
Harvard Class of 2024 ā 19% Pell Eligible, 19% First Gen
Harvard Class of 2025 ā 20.4% Pell Eligible, 21% First Gen
Brown Class of 2024 ā 70% applied for FA, 18% First Gen
Brown Class of 2025 ā 63% applied for FA, 17% First Gen
.But human interactions between students and faculty could take place at satellite campuses.
If you ignore the uber wealthy, which Harvard has a larger proportion of, Brown is less socioeconomically diverse than Harvard (and most other schools in the Ivy League).
1 Like
At many residential colleges like Stanford the campus is an integral part of the experience. An entire satellite campus, much like a Harvard Extension diploma would be āless thanā and detrimental to the schoolās value proposition.