<p>NYTimes article by Joseph Berger discusses the possibility of some Ivies expanding class size in the face of record demand, while still maintaining their sense of community and without cutting legacy admissions.</p>
<p>Weighing</a> Expansion as More Top Students Clamor at Ivy Gates</p>
<p>I think they just might. Stanford is seriously considering this, and I think it's a step in the right direction. They get plenty of qualified applicants, and they know very well that many, many students that they reject could thrive at and add much to the campus. There are plenty of top students to go around -- so many, in fact, that those who don't get into the ultra-selective universities often go to state universities, etc.</p>
<p>I think that universities might follow Stanford's lead. Many of the initiatives a university takes--such as Harvard's elimination of tuition for low-income students, and more recently, a significant reduction of tuition for middle-class families--are incentives for other universities to follow suit. Hopefully, it'll happen here, too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
“If you added 20 students, you probably wouldn’t notice; but if you added 200 students, it has a different feel,” said Jeff Wachtel, senior assistant to Dr. Hennessy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find that to be absolutely ludicrous. Stanford now has 20,000 students; it's been increasing in the past few years, but not in undergraduate size -- rather, in graduate size. They see no problem increasing the # grad students by the thousands, but they're this hesitant to increase undergrad size by 200?</p>
<p>
[quote]
expanding enrollment would allow many colleges to continue to diversify but also let them keep admitting the same numbers of children of alumni
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really hope that isn't the real incentive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard and Columbia have exhausted campus space, and expanding into surrounding neighborhoods has been a treacherous political odyssey.</p>
<p>Both colleges are planning satellite campuses in Allston and Harlem, respectively, for research and graduate facilities — with Columbia winning approval for its efforts just last week — but not pointedly for undergraduate classrooms.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This makes me wonder (and perhaps this could be another thread topic): how many top universities--say, the CC top universities--have the possibility of expanding in infrastructure? Many universities sit in cities that don't allow them to grow, as Harvard is seeing. Others, like UC Merced, are in the middle of nowhere and have thousands of acres at their disposal.</p>
<p>This also makes me wonder whether universities that have the means and the land to expand should expand. Berkeley, for example, has well over 30,000 students, which is usually where the number hovers; UCLA, on the other hand, has been steadily increasing over the years, nearing 40,000, despite it having much less space than Berkeley (though still space aplenty). I think I heard that the city of Berkeley placed a limit on the # students that Berkeley can enroll at 31,000, so perhaps that's why it's not expanding. Hm...</p>
<p>Hmm. That's interesting.</p>
<p>I know Yale has already started discussion of constructing new residential colleges in order to cater to larger classes. I think it's a great idea--it's so frustrating to think that if I had applied to the same schools fifteen years earlier, I would have (probably) been accepted. Whereas now, admission has become so incredibly selective that it acceptances appear random to the applicants.</p>
<p>mhm a 13th college at Yale? Sounds feasible but cramming it.... I can certainly envision Princeton designing more beyond its Whitman. And Harvard... let's just say that there's no more space to build any more...</p>
<p>It seems Allston is Harvard's new playground.</p>
<p>Harvard</a> University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>Wow.. some interesting read.. <em>blank stare</em></p>
<p>It's not part of the area, which was what I referred to, and hasn't even begun construction. Thanks for pointing this out though. Won't happen for a few years.</p>
<p>I don't think they should increase class size. A big factor that goes into deciding a school is exactly that. It almost betrays those students already in the top schools who expected a small community and atmosphere.</p>
<p>Lest you are no longer "special". It seems you are worried that if more people are admitted it will somehow belittle and undermine your accomplishment.</p>
<p>Yes, because Harvard has such a "small community and atmosphere" with over 19,000 students? Stanford, too, with about 20,000?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think they should increase class size. A big factor that goes into deciding a school is exactly that. It almost betrays those students already in the top schools who expected a small community and atmosphere.
[/quote]
It doesn't matter if it betrays students. It's a question of populations. Our population increases, demand for schooling increases, but there isn't enough money in most state systems to greatly expand elite state universities or build up less prestigious ones.</p>
<p>These schools, first and foremost, have a responsibility to the people in the country they inhabit. If demand increases, that means the number of qualified applicants increases, which will turn the admissions process of the top 10-15 schools into even more of a crapshoot than it already is. The University of Florida has 34,000 undergraduates. Princeton has 4,900, more money and better facilities. There aren't enough teachers to go around, and the reality is that universities, even if they are private, have to step-up to the plate and deal with the fact that their student:teacher ratio will suffer.</p>
<p>I would say that public schools hold that obligation. They must meet public demand. Private colleges are an entity in enough themselves and owe nothing to the public domain.</p>
<p>No tetrishead, private schools, like corporations, have absolutely no "responsibility to the people in the country they inhabit," only to the shareholders, i.e. faculty, students, trustees, and alumni.</p>
<p>Edit: Beaten by qwilde. I type too slowly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would say that public schools hold that obligation. They must meet public demand. Private colleges are an entity in enough themselves and owe nothing to the public domain.
[/quote]
As far as I know, most of the older elite schools are a result of charters granted by states and authorization of founding from legislatures. Most universities derive a tremendous amount of their operating income from federal grants. In many instances, they're given certain tax exemptions. They exist to educate, which is why they're accredited (even though accreditation boards are independent).</p>
<p>There's two arguments here. One is whether or not schools should do it for righteous reasons, the other is if they should do it for legal reasons. For all intents and purposes the large majority of elite, private universities exist as a result of tax money funneled into grants. That doesn't give them any legal responsibility, but I'd argue there's a moral one. From a more technical legal standpoint, I'd imagine it's not impossible for a school to have a charter revoked by a state legislature. As I said, they exist to educate, and some exist to perform research, and at a basic level if they provide the most elite education but become so elite as to become arbitrarily selective then I'd imagine it's well within a states right to seize any land granted by the state (although certainly not all colleges started as a result of land donation from the state, most came from individuals), remove any tax exemptions and refuse to give the school money--essentially killing it.
[quote]
No tetrishead, private schools, like corporations, have absolutely no "responsibility to the people in the country they inhabit," only to the shareholders, i.e. faculty, students, trustees, and alumni.
[/quote]
Private schools are not the same as incorporated entities. And yes, corporations have a responsibility--it's called taxation.</p>
<p>Tetrishead:</p>
<p>Yes, but they are not provided such incentives because of the students, or the amount of students they admit. They are treated "specially" because of the tremendous breakthroughs that most of these colleges produce in fields such as science, medicine, law, etc. which are advantageous for the public.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, but they are not provided such incentives because of the students, or the amount of students they admit. They are treated "specially" because of the tremendous breakthroughs that most of these colleges produce in fields such as science, medicine, law, etc. which are advantageous for the public.
[/quote]
It's not about being advantageous for the public, it's about being advantageous for the government. The money comes from the public. The primary founding mission of almost every school is to educate. If there's 500,000 qualified kids looking to apply to college, and there's two state schools with 2.5b yearly operating incomes with room for 200,000 a piece, and there's one private with a fractional student:teacher ratio, better facilities, tax exemptions and a 3.5b yearly operating income that is derived mostly from federal grants with room for 50,000 students, the onus should be on the private university to pick up the slack.</p>
<p>Alternatively, and this is a brute force tactic, you pull funding from the private schools and divert it into public schools and what you're left with is faculty defecting to the public schools who now have the money while the privates shrivel up and die (the majority of them, anyway).</p>
<p>I suppose a school could technically get around being forced to increase enrollment size if it was the request of a township or county, but if it ascended to the state level or the federal government refused to provide funding (which is how they keep states in line) the schools would buckle, and they should. Morally, I think it's an obligation for schools to ease some of the incoming burden. As the population grows, so should they. Legally, I imagine some schools could be seriously impacted if their foundation comes from legislative authorization and a charter from the state. Pragmatically, there's no reason for these schools to not increase enrollment size.</p>
<p>"It's not about being advantageous for the public, it's about being advantageous for the government."</p>
<p>I may be a benighted foreigner, but I believed that Lincoln procalimed that the U.S. government is "of the people, by the people, for the people,"</p>
<p>And according to your logic we should stop providing churches tax breaks if they become more selective and refuse to expand.</p>
<p>Private schools are basically like any other business. If the government chose to stop providing them certain priveleges they would still manage. They would simply have less funding for research and would likely charge more for tuition (which would only hurt the students who most likely would still pay the outlandish fees anyway).</p>
<p>whatever happened to laissez-faire? These are private organizations (and in the case of the ivies) that would flourish regardless of any federal funding. As some intelligent posters point out, they have obligations only to their trustees, students, and donors. The invisible hand would subsequently serve the best needs of the society. Come on, Economics 101 people!</p>
<p>I am not arguing the contrary wharton4life.</p>
<p>And it is patronizing and self-aggrandizing to call others who support your ideas "intelligent".</p>