<p>While dcircle I truly do want to agree with you, you make it difficult when you use false examples. I agree, Dartmouth will grow either way. Its only natural over the next 200 years it will have too. </p>
<p>Where I disagree is that I don't beleive "making a contribution to the academy" is all that necessary. Dartmouth exists to do what it wants, and to bring back a word from my earlier post, chooses to: educate. I see little need, from the undergraduate level, for it to produce high level research. I can see that growing the graduate programs wouldn't necessarily detract from the undergraduate educational experience, but I don't see how it would add to it. Also to suggest that columbia has the same close-knit, intimate experience as dartmouth is quite ludacris. The very fact that columbia has more than a 2-1 grad-undergrad student ratio is enough to dismiss that claim. I could easily cite the exact number, or you could go visit yourself, but there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 16000 grad students. (just a few more quick corrections: princeton has more undergrad students than dartmouth by approximately 500. also, princeton has approximately 400 more grad students than dartmouth. while I'm not picky enough to say whether brown has more grad students than dartmouth, they are roughly the same). </p>
<p>I suppose where we should go next with this discussion is the definition of "surviving." If you believe that to "survive" means to stay high on the rankings that are produced, then sure the answer to that problem is to grow the grad schools, because that is ultimately what brings fame to a school. But if to 'survive' means to continue providing the experience that it does, then I would suggest it continue to grow naturally (as you suggested, and which I agree is inevitable) but maintain the level of commitment to both undergrad and grad or at least maintain the ratio of undergrad to grad students (which in the end would really mean the amount of funding directed at each division).</p>