2 ms·
I'm sure you find your point emotionally resonant so I'll give you an opportunity to make it interesting with a loaded question - is it better for the species t
by oldmanjay 11y ago
I'm sure you find your point emotionally resonant so I'll give you an opportunity to make it interesting with a loaded question - is it better for the species to push people to grow beyond their bounds or is it better to swell in the middle?
- mc32 11y agoI'll answer that this way, you don't want to allow the middle to get too [unsustainably] thin while the ends bulge. There needs to be a balance.
- geebee 11y agoIs it really either or? (BTW, I don't find your question objectionable - I disagree, but it doesn't bother me at all that you asked it). For instance, across the bay from Stanford, there's a large state supported research university that probably has just a few more top-10 and top-5 PhD programs than Stanford (or Harvard, for that matter). It has a much higher percentage of low income students, and because it also enrolls a much larger undergraduate population, it enrolls more low income students (including more students who are the first in their families to ever attend college) than the entire ivy league combined. Why not give 300 mil to that school? You wouldn't be "swelling the middle", these are talented students, but you would be supporting more low income students.