<p>
[quote]
In contrast, consider the growth rate of Harvard, the world’s richest university. The number of undergraduates in its class of 1986 was 1,722. After a quarter of a century, during which the US population grew by 75 million, Harvard’s class of 2011 was 1,726: an increase of four.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The endowments of the elite universities have grown tremendously, and therefore so have their tax breaks (exemption from capital gains and dividend taxes, and tax-deductible contributions). They ought to be serving more people.</p>
<p>Yale is. The problem is they are doing it through an extraordinarily expensive way with the country’s most expensive college buildings.</p>
<p>Under pressure from the state, UVa has agreed to some phased increases in undergrad enrollment, provided the state comes up with additional funds to cover the costs. The population of Virginia increased by almost one million people in the last decade, so there is much more in-state demand.</p>
<p>A private school, like any business (even a not-for-profit) has the right to run the way it wants. There’s no reason why they “should” enroll more than 1700 students a year. That particular model seems to be serving them very well.</p>
<p>State schools, on the other hand, probably need to grow with the population of the state, although “growth” can be handled a number of ways, opening satellite campuses, for example, rather than expanding the flagship campus.</p>
<p>I would contend that the elite colleges and universities are expanding to serve more people. Harvard itself may not be expanding, but as the volume of the overflow from HYPMS et al. grows, the number of universities that really are “elite” expands.</p>
<p>The college landscape looks very different from the way it did in 1986. Many colleges and universities that were once kind of second-rate (not third- or fourth-, but not quite the tippy-top either) are now unquestionably first-rate, and many colleges and universities that were downright lackluster a couple of generations ago are now exciting and respectable places to get an education.</p>
<p>No, I don’t have quantifiable data. No, I don’t want to go try to find quantifiable data. But, yes, I am quite convinced this is happening.</p>
<p>This issue seems like a complaint in search of a problem. Access to college education has never been greater -at a wide variety of colleges, both large and small. The complaint is apparently that some schools that theoretically could grow for one reason or another don’t.</p>
<p>Let’s consider Harvard. Since all freshman live on campus in Harvard Yard and upperclassmen are guaranteed a spot in one of the on-campus Houses, the size of the incoming class at Harvard is limited in size by the number of beds in its freshman dorms and also its upperclassmen Houses. </p>
<p>I suppose it could build a big new campus some place else where the land is cheaper and not already occupied, say out toward westerm Massachusetts somewhere. And with this shiny new campus they could build mega-classrooms and lecture halls, and enroll ten or twelve thousand freshmen every year. But then it wouldn’t really be Harvard any more, would it? It would be more like say Ohio State or Arizona State.</p>
<p>Why should Harvard be required to imitate the huge state schools? For students who want or need that sort of college experience that market is already very well served.</p>
<p>coureur nails it. Harvard feels strongly that having all the freshman in the Yard (and a few aren’t quite in the Yard) contributes to the class loyalty. That loyalty continues to be nurtured as those students get moved out to the Houses. To expand Harvard you would have to find land for a new House. That’s room for a few hundred students, a bunch of grad students and housing for the Master. It’s not happening - Cambridge is built out. There was enough brouhaha when they tried to expand some of the university into Allston.</p>
<p>What makes a school like Dartmouth unique, for example, is its small size. If it grew a lot, it would not be the same.</p>
<p>btw: D has the money, but not the space to build new dorms. They’d either have to buy up all the nearby residences to build dorms (which would never receive zoning approval), or move the dorms out to the farm land and bus the kids in. Lose-lose.</p>
<p>Yes, perhaps Stanford could expand – but I’m guessing much of its land has been designated green space by those same folks who bought into Paul Ehrlich’s drivel – but that is just one example of one premier, private college that has lotsa land. Most do not.</p>
<p>Perhaps members of today’s SES elite are dismayed that their children face much stiffer competition than they did (despite legacy preferences and the like) to enter the ranks of those with educationally elite diplomas, from which entering the SES elite (through investment banking and management consulting) is easier than through other routes. So they may prefer that the elite universities expand enough to let their children in, but not so much that they lose their educational elite status and place in recruiting for the traditional jobs leading to SES eliteness.</p>
<p>This is groundless speculation. In any case, expanding the classes of elite schools would increase the competition within those schools to get Wall Street jobs, cancelling out the effect of less competition to get into elite schools.</p>
<p>The palaces of the kind Yale is building are too expensive and Harvard wants to build other palaces with their money which don’t service undergrads. :D</p>
<p>“Traditional jobs leading to SES eliteness”? This is the typical CC party line whereby people seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that there are numerous ways of getting to SES eliteness, of which IB/MC are merely two, not the be-all-end-all. </p>
<p>Anyway, the SES elite don’t NEED to worry about their children becoming i-bankers or management consultants. The whole POINT of being an SES elite – or a cultural elite in general, though those aren’t the same thing – is so that you don’t HAVE to sweat whether your kid goes to Harvard or not, or whether your kid trots off to a Wall Street job – your kid can go to a sweet little LAC and major in art history or anthropology if he wants, or take off a few years and be a ski bum in Aspen, or spend a few years building a medical clinic in Rwanda or Botswana and making pennies, or working for Teach for America, and so forth. Indeed, in a sense those things are even more elite than trotting off to Goldman Sachs. “Paths not taken by everybody” are by definition more elite.</p>
<p>I refer you to the NYTimes wedding section for further proof, LOL.</p>
<p>Thanks! The elite colleges do what THEY want to do with their money and expansion plans; it’s preposterous to think that they are running scared of their alums - and even more preposterous to think that their alums are “pressuring them not to expand” because OMG-won’t-you-think-of-the-Goldman-Sachs-entering-class.</p>
<p>Harvard spent years working on its expansion plans in Allston. Yale has unveiled (and is still expanding and constructing) its brand new campus on the other side of New Haven for life sciences research. Neither plans involve dorm space for Freshman. </p>
<p>Private U’s get to develop their own masterplans, subject to local and regional approval.</p>
<p>I don’t think they are running scared of their alums, but I do think they wouldn’t want to do something that 90% of the alums think is crazy. Additionally, I personally am a fan of the the 3000-5000 undergrad school - I didn’t want bigger or smaller, and both my kids ended up at similar sized schools.</p>