6 ms·

What would happen if Harvard were required to accept 40 percent of all applicants as before? I think it would be pretty amusing if they got 50000 applicants, a

What would happen if Harvard were required to accept 40 percent of all applicants as before? I think it would be pretty amusing if they got 50000 applicants, admitted 20000, and then said "guess what Cambridge, we're building 200 new dormitories, here, there, and everywhere."

graeme 5y ago
Either it would have to expand its undergrad programs, or student quality (as Harvard measures it) would decline. Joseph Heath has a very interesting article comparing US elite schools (tiny undergrad program) and Canadian elite schools (massive undergrad programs, bigger than Ivy League) http://induecourse.ca/the-bottleneck-in-u-s-higher-education/ http://induecourse.ca/the-bottleneck-in-u-s-higher-education...
- tedunangst 5y ago
  I've seen this before, and I think it's ridiculous to assume that there's some arbitrary cutoff about top 10 colleges. Why is not percentile based? For reference, there's 12 Houses at Harvard. With a bit of paperwork, they could each be a separate college, pushing Dartmouth all the way down completely out of the top 20. But would the education at Dartmouth have gotten worse in any way? Rephrased, what if we instead classify the Ivy League as a single college with eight campuses? What's the difference?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    That’s in the same article where they compare the value of an endowment (measured in dollars) against the GDP of three random countries (measured in a different unit: dollars per year [per country]). Analytic rigor is not high.
    - gowld 5y ago
      It's interesting to note that Harvard could fund an entire country for a year.
      - tedunangst 5y ago
        You know GDP and budget aren't the same, right?
    - asciident 5y ago
      I've seen this comparison in a few articles. It makes no sense at all. It's like if I said Microsoft's market cap ($1.942T) is larger than the GDP of Russian ($1.7T), or Apple's Market Cap ($2.125T) is double the combined endowments of every single US university altogether (about $1T). Complete nonsense comparisons.
  - graeme 5y ago
    It’s because for cultural reasons US people ascribe elite status to precisely those ten colleges. Or T14 in some cases. If the US ascribed sainted elite status to the top 100 colleges to the top 100 colleges, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. By contrast in Canada if you went to UBC, McGill or UBC people assume you are smart.
    - tedunangst 5y ago
      Tough break for the Berkeley grads widely assumed to be dumb idiots.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  But...we already have elite large undergrad programs, they’re called the UCs and the UT systems and the rest of the systems that support public ivies (both flagship and secondary campuses). UToronto, Waterloo, and UBC are all public. Our public ivies are big and produce equivalent talent while being accessible to nearly everyone through CC transfer agreements. I don’t think there’s a bottleneck here. The real bottleneck is that people who don’t go to top schools are considered to be inherently inferior and objective failures like myself.
  - catgary 5y ago
    I don’t think school really figures into people’s thought process in Canada. UofT and UBC are massive, and as long as you check the boxes you get in. People in the Saskatchewan may prefer URegina because it’s closer to home, someone from Newfoundland may go to Memorial. Faculty positions are so competitive that I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the quality of the younger professors, just the bigger schools will have more profs and bigger research groups.
    - rejectedandsad 5y ago
      This is the case for 90% of applicants to college (in general) in the states too, including my undergrad (which happened to exist in the city I was born and grew up in). I hardly went to a prestigious undergrad but I had several brilliant professors that had significant pedigrees, educationally speaking.
      - catgary 5y ago
        I think the unique thing about Canada is that students “fall into” prestigious institutions by virtue of being good students who grew up in the area. Basically every student in Toronto with a 90% average in high school can go to UofT. This is very achievable for anyone from a stable middle class family whose parents care about education.
fighterpilot 5y ago
It could easily do that, but its status and signaling value would be negatively impacted.
poopypoopington 5y ago
Or why do they have to be in Cambridge? Why not expand in Las Vegas or Houston or something?
- wombatpm 5y ago
  You can’t row crew in Las Vegas and the sun it too hot for lacrosse.
- tedunangst 5y ago
  What if we built a Harvard campus in NC and called it Duke?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
LatteLazy 5y ago
Were harvard required to accept 40% of applicants at some point? (Google fails me) I was part of an experiment where the physics department at my uni admitted everyone who applied. Even those without the required prerequisites. Most of the "extras" dropped out or transfered or failed etc. But about 20% graduated. I think in one way this proved the normal application system was mostly effective. But it also gave people chances they never would have had. I was insulted (I'd got my grades!) initially but it taught me something about opportunity. Maybe we'd be better doing this everywhere?
- tedunangst 5y ago
  Not required, but the clear implication of the article is that things were more "fair" when the admit rate was 40%, and thus I'm asking what if we mandated that Harvard accept a "fair" portion of applicants.

graeme 5y ago

Either it would have to expand its undergrad programs, or student quality (as Harvard measures it) would decline. Joseph Heath has a very interesting article comparing US elite schools (tiny undergrad program) and Canadian elite schools (massive undergrad programs, bigger than Ivy League) http://induecourse.ca/the-bottleneck-in-u-s-higher-education/ http://induecourse.ca/the-bottleneck-in-u-s-higher-education...

tedunangst 5y ago
I've seen this before, and I think it's ridiculous to assume that there's some arbitrary cutoff about top 10 colleges. Why is not percentile based? For reference, there's 12 Houses at Harvard. With a bit of paperwork, they could each be a separate college, pushing Dartmouth all the way down completely out of the top 20. But would the education at Dartmouth have gotten worse in any way? Rephrased, what if we instead classify the Ivy League as a single college with eight campuses? What's the difference?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  That’s in the same article where they compare the value of an endowment (measured in dollars) against the GDP of three random countries (measured in a different unit: dollars per year [per country]). Analytic rigor is not high.
  - gowld 5y ago
    It's interesting to note that Harvard could fund an entire country for a year.
    - tedunangst 5y ago
      You know GDP and budget aren't the same, right?
  - asciident 5y ago
    I've seen this comparison in a few articles. It makes no sense at all. It's like if I said Microsoft's market cap ($1.942T) is larger than the GDP of Russian ($1.7T), or Apple's Market Cap ($2.125T) is double the combined endowments of every single US university altogether (about $1T). Complete nonsense comparisons.
- graeme 5y ago
  It’s because for cultural reasons US people ascribe elite status to precisely those ten colleges. Or T14 in some cases. If the US ascribed sainted elite status to the top 100 colleges to the top 100 colleges, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. By contrast in Canada if you went to UBC, McGill or UBC people assume you are smart.
  - tedunangst 5y ago
    Tough break for the Berkeley grads widely assumed to be dumb idiots.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
rejectedandsad 5y ago
But...we already have elite large undergrad programs, they’re called the UCs and the UT systems and the rest of the systems that support public ivies (both flagship and secondary campuses). UToronto, Waterloo, and UBC are all public. Our public ivies are big and produce equivalent talent while being accessible to nearly everyone through CC transfer agreements. I don’t think there’s a bottleneck here. The real bottleneck is that people who don’t go to top schools are considered to be inherently inferior and objective failures like myself.
- catgary 5y ago
  I don’t think school really figures into people’s thought process in Canada. UofT and UBC are massive, and as long as you check the boxes you get in. People in the Saskatchewan may prefer URegina because it’s closer to home, someone from Newfoundland may go to Memorial. Faculty positions are so competitive that I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the quality of the younger professors, just the bigger schools will have more profs and bigger research groups.
  - rejectedandsad 5y ago
    This is the case for 90% of applicants to college (in general) in the states too, including my undergrad (which happened to exist in the city I was born and grew up in). I hardly went to a prestigious undergrad but I had several brilliant professors that had significant pedigrees, educationally speaking.
    - catgary 5y ago
      I think the unique thing about Canada is that students “fall into” prestigious institutions by virtue of being good students who grew up in the area. Basically every student in Toronto with a 90% average in high school can go to UofT. This is very achievable for anyone from a stable middle class family whose parents care about education.

fighterpilot 5y ago

It could easily do that, but its status and signaling value would be negatively impacted.

poopypoopington 5y ago

Or why do they have to be in Cambridge? Why not expand in Las Vegas or Houston or something?

wombatpm 5y ago
You can’t row crew in Las Vegas and the sun it too hot for lacrosse.
tedunangst 5y ago
What if we built a Harvard campus in NC and called it Duke?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

LatteLazy 5y ago

Were harvard required to accept 40% of applicants at some point? (Google fails me) I was part of an experiment where the physics department at my uni admitted everyone who applied. Even those without the required prerequisites. Most of the "extras" dropped out or transfered or failed etc. But about 20% graduated. I think in one way this proved the normal application system was mostly effective. But it also gave people chances they never would have had. I was insulted (I'd got my grades!) initially but it taught me something about opportunity. Maybe we'd be better doing this everywhere?

tedunangst 5y ago
Not required, but the clear implication of the article is that things were more "fair" when the admit rate was 40%, and thus I'm asking what if we mandated that Harvard accept a "fair" portion of applicants.