3 ms·
> Like many other institutions, we are inundated with demonstrations of continued interest and additional recommendations, mostly from well-resourced or well-ad
by forapurpose 8y ago
> Like many other institutions, we are inundated with demonstrations of continued interest and additional recommendations, mostly from well-resourced or well-advised applicants. Though we don't request any at all, students write letters of continued interest, send us more recommendations, send projects, visit our campus to make their case in person and also have anyone with any perceived influence make phone calls to lobby and advocate for them.
The above indicates very high demand for Carnegie Mellon's educational services (along with other universities like CMU). Perhaps the obvious solution is to increase supply - if so many are so willing and apparently able to study at that level (the difference between the last admitted and first rejected is, AFAIK, almost undetectable), let's give them the opportunity!
Let's start with an open mind; I know many of the 'answers' already jumping to people's fingertips, but let's challenge those assumptions and the status quo. Nothing in the universe requires that there should be N spots available at CMU-level schools. Why not 2N or 10N or 100N? My impression is that the availability of quality college education boomed in the mid-20th century, especially in the U.S. Why not now, with such high demonstrated demand? At least public universities could be expanded.
It raises many questions: What do students and parents perceive is better about CMU than the next school down their list? Is their perception accurate? Can other schools be changed to match CMU in some or all regards?
I imagine (but don't want to assume) that the faculty at CMU are better than the next best school, but is that really so? Is there a material difference, other than prestige? And how important is that - all faculty (and most PhD students) at any school know infinitely more than almost any freshman, and few undergraduates take advantage of the faculty resources until later in college. Perhaps the solution is that admission to CMU-level schools and access to their faculty shouldn't happen until a student demonstrates the ability and interest in their first year or two.
- mlevental 8y ago>Let's start with an open mind; I know many of the 'answers' already jumping to people's fingertips, but let's challenge those assumptions and the status quo. Nothing in the universe requires that there should be N spots available at CMU-level schools. Why not 2N or 10N or 100N? My impression is that the availability of quality college education boomed in the mid-20th century, especially in the U.S. Why not now, with such high demonstrated demand? At least public universities could be expanded. like i wrote elsewhere in this thread the cognitive dissonance here comes from the idea that CMU is about educating. it's not. it's about generating profits. just like porshe/rolex/debeers could easily produce more product but doesn't in order to artificially deflate supply (in order to be able to give the impression of scarcity in order to be able to charge more) every elite institution does the same. for what it actually looks like when a school is honest about the material value of its degree just take a look at the online masters in CS from GT.