However, I'd mostly like to address the fallacy of attributing the high international rankings of American universities to the high undergraduate tuition. At Caltech, I've heard many undergrads say that all undergrad tution is about 5% of Caltech's budget, with a lot of the rest coming from various research grants. At schools with less of a research focus and more undergrads, undergrad tuition might make 30% of the budget. I can't find the blog post at the moment, but there was a discussion a few years ago about what would happen if MIT gave a full scholarship to all attending undergrads, and the conclusion was that it would hurt (but not cripple) MIT financially, but appeared possible.
To the extent that they also teach students more and better, this is actually damaging socially because it sucks secondary educational capital into a few locations. Lower end schools could do more and better if they housed many more bright and ambitious students. But if they're all going to a handful of schools, they're not improving the social networks at Random State.
And its an interesting thought to distribute top students. Assuming a fixed quantity of "bright and ambitious" students, wouldn't sending more of them to lower end schools weaken the social networks formed at elite schools and destroy something unique about American education system?
It makes me wonder why we count campuses as separate in the rankings.
If you have a monolithic system as many universities in Europe do, you'd be penalized for it.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Univ...
That's what it looks like from outside the USA. For US students, the SAT barely matters at all. Top criteria at elite schools are 1. race (don't be Asian-American), 2. sports (especially elite sports like crew), 3. contacts, recommenders, networking, 4. high grades from a well-known high school, 5. extracurricular activities, 6. objective tests.
Try that gauntlet and you'll be pining for tests of SAT words.
I smell some ill-reasoned statistics.
Sure ya did. Here's how I read it:
Poster: "Take a look at the universities rankings[1] -- how many schools in the top ten aren't British or American?"
You: "the US is a much larger country, and therefore has many more universities"
For such a position to hold water, the US would have to be larger in population than the entire rest of the world.
Before we get all smug about our educational systems largely free of exorbitant fees, arbitrary admissions, and racists nonsense like affirmative action (well, largely), we should take a look at the results Americans are getting. It's not all corruption and waste.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_ranking... and it doesn't really matter which you choose