Here on CC, we see many chance me forum posts about admission chances at “elite” schools. This kinda got me thinking, what makes a school “elite”, because “elite,” in itself, is an ambitious term. Does an “elite” school possess large endowment? or is it faculty strength? or is it rankings? What makes a school “elite”?
For me personally, I think an elite school is any school that has an endowment per student of over $250,000, and here is why. Firstly, because having a large endowment helps schools attract better faculty and also it can afford to take on more ambitious capital projects. Next, the schools with such large endowments can afford to provide good financial aid to need based students and provide some sort of effective funding for education though merit scholarships. Lastly, an large endowment signals that the school has good relations with alumni and can effectively fundraise through them, if needed. All facets of a school’s operations are signaled by this fairly simple metric and it seems to effectively, in my opinion, gauge the quality of a school.
What are your thoughts on the word “elite” and what do you think makes a school elite?
@moscott I agree, I think Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia has a lower acceptance rating then Boston College and UVa. I had a friend who was bragging that she got into Liberty’s film study program, which was more competitive than NYU’s because of the lower admissions rate. I would definitely not considered Liberty more “elite” than BC, UVa, and NYU.
To begin, perhaps your understanding of institutional endowment funds may have missed an important concept or two:
1a. Endowments (unlike annual donations) are designed to provide institutional support for CENTURIES. Generally, the endowment’s principal – and much of its accrued earnings – are never used, which is why endowments solvently endure for many generations. Normally, only about 5 percent of the fund’s value (usually, somewhat less than its annual earnings) are withdrawn from the financial corpus yearly and employed for the specific purpose(s) the endowment was established to support.
1b. In addition, most endowments are “restricted,” which means they can ONLY be utilized for the purpose delineated in the contract between the donor(s) and the university. “Unrestricted” endowments, of course, exist; however, they are far less common.
1c. It is a frequent misconception that university endowments can be employed for whatever purposes the institutional leaders deem necessary (e.g., “Wow, we have a $7.5B total endowment, let’s provide every student with a ‘full ride’ scholarship for the next fifty years”). This is plainly untrue, for the reasons cited in 1a and 1b. To illustrate, if a donor establishes an endowment to provide undergraduate scholarships to female cheerleader graduates of X high school, then the annually releasable funds – only about 5 percent of that endowment’s (principal plus earnings) value – can be utilized for that purpose alone (however, universities always will suggest to donors that the agreement be broadly, rather than narrowly, drafted).
To summarize. endowments are NOT a huge, unconstrained “checkbook” that can be applied to address any challenge(s) the university wishes.
Turning to "elite," I agree with the factors you've cited (although, possibly others could be added). Obviously however, the key, insoluble problem is there are no precise (or quantitative) definitions of elite stature. For example, my brother (a PhD from Ohio State) loves OSU and ardently believes it's an "elite" research university (and he'll cite facts including its size, the scope of its programs and majors, the research it conducts, its *U S News* ranking, its extensive service to Ohio's citizens, etc. to bolster his assertion). Others will find his claim ludicrous *(Gee, it's not even in U S News' top 50)*. This sort of disagreement simply can never be resolved.
@TopTier Thats a good point, and endowment is not a perfect metric for defining elite. But how about cost per student metric that is available [url=<a href=“http://collegemeasures.org/4-year_colleges/college-performance-rank/%5Dhere%5B/url”>http://collegemeasures.org/4-year_colleges/college-performance-rank/]here[/url]? It shows how much a college spends per student, which should somehow translate into academic quality and prestige.
Detour from that, how in the world can Yale, WashUSTL, and other schools spend so much more than their tuition? It seems crazy.
You'd think the "cost per student" metric was a good one -- and certainly the, perhaps, twenty top schools cited are generally excellent -- but I see many potential problems. As always, the "devil is in the details" -- for example:
[QUOTE=""]
Ivy university X serves unlimited grilled salmon and beef tenderloin in student cafeterias (to increase its yield in comparison to Ivies Y and Z), whereas state flagship A generally serves burgers, salads, and other standard fare. Let’s presume those are all elements of “student cost.” Do salmon and tenderloin ensure better educational/leadership results?
Similarly, SEC flagship A has drastically reduced its number of intercollegiate sports (both men’s and woman’s), concentrating on revenue (football and basketball) athletics. Obviously, that greatly reduces “cost per student.” However, it also substantially decreases the number of undergraduates who participate in intercollegiate sports, which many believe provide very valuable nonacademic educational experiences (leadership, teamwork, self-discipline, self-sacrifice, time management, etc.).
Huge public university A has many more commuter-students than its identically-sized counterpart – university B – in the adjacent state, due only to the two universities’ locations (A in a big city, B in the countryside). B necessarily spend a great deal more on dormitories, food service, etc. than does A, but do those expenses correlate to better educational/leadership outcomes?
Big Ten mega-university X has an average class size >150 undergraduates, whereas most-selective LAC Y’s average class size is <10. Y probably incurs greater faculty costs, but X requires TAs (consequentially postgraduate programs, major additional scholarship costs, and much more). How does that fit the “cost per student” metric?
These four examples are ONLY the “tip of the iceberg.” Cost per student would appear to be a good yardstick, but I’m not too sure it is practical and viable, as the foregoing examples may demonstrate.
[/QUOTE]
I'll respond to your second question using actual Duke information (my tenures on the Annual Fund Executive Committee and on the Alumni Association's Board/Executive Committee provided access to this sort of data). As expensive a Duke's tuition may seem (approximately $65K next year for undergraduates), every single student is subsidized in the $20 to $25K range annually; this is NOT grants, scholarships, and so forth, rather it is the difference between actual cost accounting-based expenses and full tuition on a per student basis. That additional funding comes from individual annual giving, from corporate donations, from philanthropic institutional charity, from endowment proceeds, from research grants, from governmental and private/commercial subsidies, and so forth. That's the answer to your second question (although you specifically cited Yale and WU/StL).
Another big thing is that the student has a lot of control over the quality of their education. I know a few people who went to elite schools, but completely floundered, along with ones who have maximized the opportunity. I know people who have gone to state flagships (or other public schools) and received incredible educations and job offers. I know people who have gone to 2nd-tier (AKA not quite elite private) schools that have also gotten fantastic educations. I also know people who floundered at those schools.
It’s not about going somewhere that has the most prestige at face value. It’s about finding a school that’s affordable and a good fit, and has resources that you’ll actually use.
If UF means University of Florida, it is not elite in my opinion. It is merely outstanding.
Elite schools are those which routinely reject brilliant students (SAT above 2300, for example). Thus, I also disagree with the idea that Boston College or NYU are elite. Both are outstanding but not elite.
Personally, I would not name more than 20 major universities as being elite, plus about the same number of liberal arts colleges. So, maybe 40 elite schools in America, total. And I would never have been admitted to any of them. :-S
The question of whether a school’s designation as "elite’ should be a relevant consideration in choosing a school is a separate question. On that, I think the answer is no, in and of itself. But I do think schools that are considered elite generally have a lot of other positive qualities that are relevant to choosing a school.
On the question of what makes a school “elite”, at least on CC I think it’s largely a function of prestige and reputation, which is also closely correlated with ranking and selectivity. There’s no universal definition, and the cutoff line will vary by individual.
I think there are only a handful of schools that would be almost universally considered elite: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, Chicago, Columbia. My guess is that most would also include the other Ivy League schools, a few top LACs like Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore, and a handful more like Duke and Berkeley.
Beyond that, you’re likely to get some debate. Is Notre Dame elite? Vanderbilt? Rice? Wellesley or Pomona? I expect some would argue yes and some would argue no. At the end of the day, does it really matter? They’re all excellent schools (as are many others) where you can get a great education.
@T26E4…yes and no. I understand you mean it to mean that what YOU might consider elite for YOU doesn’t mean others may feel the same way. However, in this instance, elite is considered that way as a consensus not individual. As an example, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky and Jerry Rice are all considered elite. Now not everyone of them may be liked or be a person’s “favorite” but even he/she would concede they are elite.
Elite, to me, means being able to pull from across the country in your admissions and being recognized for strong research or strong teaching ability.
Universities:
the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Duke, Vandy, Rice, Caltech, Northwestern, UCB, UMich, UCLA, and some that I’m sure I’m forgetting (but does that mean they’re still elite?).
LACs:
Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, the Claremonts, Wellesley, Vassar, Wesleyan, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and maybe a couple more. LACs have a much harder time than major research universities at hitting the first criterium, and perhaps a marginally easier time with the second.
I doubt people would debate that UChicago, Caltech, Duke, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Columbia, or other top-15s would not be elite. I’m sure they’d all fall into the consensus elite of those who are aware of them. I think HYPSM is distinguished in that they are more often household names than any other colleges.