8 ms·
Because there is potentially merit in having institutions that are concentrated with the most talented. Not that it necessarily works out that way in practice,
by MiroF 7y ago
Because there is potentially merit in having institutions that are concentrated with the most talented. Not that it necessarily works out that way in practice, but 10x would entail lowering admission standards.
- littleweep 7y agoOr allowing people who are equally as qualified get in? My understanding is the issue is capacity and not quality.
- MiroF 7y agoQualification is a continuum, there is no such thing as "equally as qualified." Regardless, if Harvard accepted 50% of applicants rather than 5%, the student body would not be equally as qualified.
- gog-ma-gog 7y agoThe number of people “qualified” to go to Harvard is probably more than 10x the current capacity of Harvard, though. Maintaining scarcity/exclusivity in the brand is more valuable than servicing the number of people technically qualified to go there, from Harvard’s perspective.
- MiroF 7y agoYes, but many of those people choose to go to other prestigious schools. If Harvard admitted 50% of applicants, I don't see how you can claim quality wouldn't suffer.
- gog-ma-gog 7y agoI claimed no such thing :D
- MiroF 7y agoYou said that they should admit 10x. Presumably that would mean 50% rather than 5%. I think quality would go down, you said it wouldn't. Seems clear cut to me.