<p>I think it is very healthy for top schools to increase class size. </p>
<p>Consider this. Many top schools like to diversify their student body when it comes to student activities - sports / clubs / etc… When entry class size is limited, they have to sacrifice top score/stat applicants for the more minority - specialized (not to be confused with in an ethnic minority context) students.</p>
<p>That means that the great piano player with excellent stats can bring a more diversifying contribution than your typical extracurricular non-genie with top notch stats/perfect scores. Or the young black women who wants to persue literature at MIT with good (not top) stats is just more attractive to the adcoms then your typical joe with perfect stats who wants into Math.</p>
<p>To recho my thesis, when limited entry and a diversifying ideal exists at top schools - healthy students are sometimes sacrificed to make the school look more well-rounded.</p>
<p>This is one of the reasons it would probably be easier for a female to get admitted into MIT than a male (given they both have similar stats/ EC’s). </p>
<p>CMU Masters in Financial Engineering has nearly doubled since it’s first introduction resulting in increased success / placement / popularity and ultimately more money and reputation for the program. </p>
<p>I think that applying this same principle to undergraduate programs will result in similar results.</p>
<p>Of course, to circumvent this problem; a student need only either 1)an all-star (top stats and great at sports) or 2) someone actively participating and winning state competitions. When you get a first or 2nd place state award for high-school biology research; you’ve proven your self worthy of bypassing the whole “well-rounded enough” adcom way of thinking. For the reasoning in my post, I’m assuming that most (at least 70% of the applicant body) have not demonstrated significant all-star / competition virtuoso’s performance.</p>