It is no consequence to be in a large town while you are reading. I read at New Salem, which never had three hundred people in it. The books and your capacity for understanding them are just the same in all places. Levi Woodbury , the 30th US Supreme Court Justice appointed , was the first to attend any kind of formal law school. James Byrnes , the 81st Supreme Court Justice appointed , was the last not to attend law school.
- In college admissions game, not all the rules are clear | The Daily Gazette.
- How to Get Into the Ivy League: Brief Overview.
- Magic and witchcraft;
The ease of entering these professions helps explain why there was no oversupply of Harvard applicants. We tend to imagine that of course you need strict medical school admissions, because some kind of unspecified catastrophe would happen if any qualified person who wanted could become a doctor. Did these open-door policies create a glut of professionals? There were fewer doctors and lawyers per capita than there are now. This seems to match successful modern lawyers, and probably exceed average modern lawyers.
This may because unskilled laborers now earn a minimum wage and teachers have unions, but in any case the 19th-century premium to a law degree seems to have been at least as high and probably higher.
The same seems true of doctor salaries. I conclude that letting any qualified person become a doctor or a lawyer, without gatekeeping, did not result in a glut of doctors and lawyers, and did not drive down salaries for those professions beyond levels we would find reasonable today. Since rural children were expected to work on the farm, there was no protracted period of educational unproductivity. That meant that paying to send your child to Boston or wherever, and to support him in a big-city lifestyle for four years, was actually a much bigger deal than the tuition itself.
Another limiting factor may have been that there was ample opportunity outside of college and the professions, in almost every area. Twelve US presidents , including George Washington, did not go to college. Of the ten richest people in American history mostly 19th-century industrialists , as far as I can tell only two of them went to college. Here is a graph of Harvard admission rates over time, based mostly on these data :. During the early part of the s, Harvard was still in the 19th-century equilibrium of admitting most qualified non-Jewish applicants.
Most sources I read attribute this to the GI Bill, a well-intentioned piece of legislation that encouraged returning WWII veterans to get a college education. So many vets took the government up on the offer that Harvard was overwhelmed for the first time in its history. The GI Bill is visible on this graph — around , there is a spike in attendance for men but not women, which is the pattern we would predict from GIs.
And after the GI Bill, the college graduation rate starts dropping again — as we would expect of a one-time shock from a one-time war. The big spike in college attendance rates — and a corresponding dip in Harvard admission percentage — takes place in the to birth cohort. Why are all these people suddenly going to college?
A big part of the increase in college admissions was people taking advantage of the college loophole to escape getting sent to Vietnam. Again, this is a one-time shock, and mostly applies to men. So how come we see a quadrupling of college graduation during this period affecting men and women alike? A standard narrative says that work has gotten more difficult over the past century, and so workers need more education.
In other countries, students still go to medical school and law school without a separate college degree first. And in many of the jobs that do require college education, the education is irrelevant to their work. Both of my adult jobs — as an English teacher and as a doctor — required me to have a college degree in order to apply.
Once the number of people in college reached a certain level, it led to a well-known social expectation that intelligent and conscientious men would have college degrees, which made college a sign of intelligence and, conversely, not having been to college a sign of stupidity.
This cycle meant that after the shocks of the mids, there was a strong expectation of a degree in the knowledge professions, which forced women and later generations of men to continue going to college to keep up. Family businesses whose owners could hire based on hunches were giving way to large corporations where interviewers would have to justify their hiring decisions to higher-ups.
Increasing concern about racism was raising awareness that hunch-based hiring tended to discriminate against minorities, and the advent of the discrimination lawsuit encouraged hiring based on objective criteria so you could prove you rejected someone for reasons other than race. The Supreme Court decision Griggs v.
Duke may or may not have played a role by making it legally risky for corporations to give prospective hires aptitude tests. The rise of the college degree as a signal for intelligence, and the increased sorting of people by college selectivity, fit into this space perfectly. Once society established that knowledge-worker jobs needed college degrees, the simultaneous rises in automation , globalization, and inequality made knowledge-worker jobs increasingly necessary to earn a living, completed the process.
College attendance in the UK supposedly remained very low until a act designed to encourage it, but it looks like part of that is just them reclassifying some other schools as colleges. Through the rest of the world, college attendance lagged North America by a long time, but the continent-wide categories probably combine countries at different levels of economic development. Moving on: the graphs in the Introduction show that college attendance has been stable since about Why did the rise stop? These articles point out a few relevant trends.
First, the economy is usually to blame for this kind of thing. There was a slight increase in attendance during the recession, and a slight decrease during the recent boom.
Increasingly Competitive College Admissions: Much More Than You Wanted To Know | Slate Star Codex
Second, birth rates are decreasing, which means fewer college-aged kids. Third, the price of college keeps going up. Fourth, for-profit colleges are falling apart. In some cases, the government has shut them down for being outright scams. In other cases, potential students have wised up, realized they are outright scams, and stopped being interested in attending them.
These are all potentially relevant, but they seem kind of weak to me: the sort of thing that explains the year-to-year trend, but not why the great secular movement in favor of more college has stopped.
Seventy percent of high school graduates are now going to college. To review: over the past ten years, the number of US students applying to college has gone down the number applying to four-year private colleges has stayed about the same. Also, across all US colleges international student enrollments seem to be dropping , not increasing. Some of this may have to do with strict Trump administration visa policies, or with international perceptions of increasing US hostility to foreigners.
Might top colleges be intensifying affirmative action and their preference for minorities and the poor, thus making things harder for the sort of upper-class white people who write news articles about the state of college admissions?
Conversely, might colleges by relaxing their restrictions on high-achieving Asians, with the same result? Harvard obsessively chronicles the race of its student body, and the class of and class of have the same racial composition. The New York Times finds that whites are actually better represented at colleges compared to their percent of the US population than they were 35 years ago, although Asians are the real winners. It may be due to weakening affirmative action, including bans by several states.
Or it may be because of a large influx of uneducated Mexican immigrants who will need a few more generations of assimilation before their families attend college at the same rate as whites or previous generations of Latinos. What about Asians? There was a large increase in Asian admissions, but it was mostly before this period. The Ivy League probably has some kind of unofficial Asian quota which has been pretty stable over the past decade.
Although the Asian population continues to grow, and their academic achievement continues to increase, this probably just increases intra-Asian competition rather than affecting people of other races. How can this be? I am not Harvard material. But when I was looking at colleges, my mother pressured me to apply to Harvard. And who knows? They might accept you!
Harvard did not accept me. Part of this might be genuine egalitarianism. Maybe something has gone very right, and the average American really does believe he or she has a shot at the Ivy League.
- Regional Economic Outlook, May 2011: Europe - Strengthening the Recovery.
- La nuit des politiques (Tapage) (French Edition).
- Inferno: La Commedia del Potere (Italian Edition).
- Early programs not created equal.
- Shut Up About Harvard | FiveThirtyEight!
- Toddler Books: Who Is Hiding On The Farm? (Hidden Picture Books For Children).
- SSFC cuts budget for Student Leadership Program, MEChA requests funding;
But part of it may also be a cynical ploy by colleges to improve their rankings in US News and other similar college guides. But increased application volume is mostly driven by an increasingly streamlined college admissions process, including the Common Application. It was like paying taxes, except with essay questions. From the Times again:.
Six college applications once seemed like a lot. Submitting eight was a mark of great ambition.https://nsurabfissurdve.cf
Talking Elite Fitness
For a growing number of increasingly anxious high school seniors, figures like that now sound like just a starting point…. For members of the class of who are looking at more competitive colleges, their overtaxed counselors say, 10 applications is now commonplace; 20 is taking on a familiar ring; even 30 is not beyond imagining.
And why stop there? To find it, she applied to 56 colleges. Last year the record was 86, she said.
Does this mean increasing competitiveness is entirely an illusion? Suppose in the old days, each top student would apply to either Harvard or Yale. Now each top student applies to both Harvard and Yale, meaning that both colleges get twice as many applicants. Since each of them can only admit the same number of students, it looks like their application rate has been cut in half.
But neither one has really become more competitive!