Originally Posted by
Phredd3
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. As I understood it, your point was that Duke undergrads are "less diverse", which you defined as tending to all look the same, not in appearance, but in ambition. The "cookie cutter" or "Little Boxes" theory. But I'm not seeing how you get from "fewer Duke grads are applying to med school" to "Duke is getting less diverse". I'm just don't see how a tend away from Duke graduates going to med school gets you to that result - at least not without a whole lot more data than you've shown. And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that you're a data maven. I just haven't yet seen the connection from the data you've pointed to back to the conclusion you've drawn. Help me out.
Hammering on that specific data point just a bit, I don't think it is the least bit surprising that fewer Duke students are majoring in biology, versus computer science, engineering, and economics. Educational costs have skyrocketed. The latter majors tend to lead to higher paying job outcomes as compared to biology, which you appear to be using as a loose stand-in for "pre-med". Setting aside the usefulness of that stand-in, biology certainly doesn't guarantee that one will be accepted to medical school, and if you aren't going to med school, the income you can expect to derive from that degree is pretty limited. On the other hand, graduating with an undergraduate degree in computer science (or engineering or economics) gives you a relatively solid floor for an income stream that can handle educational debt, even without the extra three years of schooling and two years of residency at below-market salary that med school would entail if our biology major got that far. That's just economic reality. If I were entering school today, I would have to think hard about majoring in biology, simply because it's economically risky. I don't think that's a problem that can be solved by simply broadening admissions.
In short, I think your lament breaks down to economic pressures that simply didn't exist, or at least were less extreme, than those pressures are today. I know that when I went to college, a public school four-year undergraduate degree was the economic equivalent of a compact car. Today, four years of in-state tuition at that exact some public school is nearly the economic equivalent of a (very) small house. Or, if you prefer to stick to wheeled vehicles, it's the equivalent of a 24' motor home. Or it's a compact car every year, rather than over the course of the whole degree. That's a quantum leap in economic risk for a young adult.
And if you think that need-based financial aid solves the problem, think again. I can assure you that the FAFSA calculation for how much the parents "should" be able to contribute to college was well above my economic comfort level, and we didn't even qualify for need-based aid. Thank goodness we have other sources we can access.
So if I understand you correctly, you prefer not to have "elite" institutions? At least, that's the syllogism I'm working out here. To paraphrase, "Elite institutions must have top academic talent that primarily derives from elite institutions, or they must redefine what it means to be 'elite'. I prefer that elite institutions do not have top academic talent that primarily derives from elite institutions. Therefore, I prefer not having 'elite' institutions as that term is currently defined."
Is that correct? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say, and if my syllogism is correct, what your solution would be.