I’m not sure where you get the idea that all universities are competitive because that is simply untrue. Many public universities are required by state legislatures to broadly admit students from their own state. California is a good example. You can see incoming class statistics here: https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/entering-class-...
Competitive universities are competitive. Sometimes that competiton is justified and sometimes it is unjustifiably based on pedigree. The program I attended before getting my PhD at a public university was at a well-known private university. But in terms of research productivity and impact, the public university was a MUCH better place to go to school. The PhD program was exceptionally competitive but its undergrad program was not. As a result, many undergrads who wandered through our lab door got a first-class research experience.
I’m not going to pretend that pedigree doesn’t matter (to some people), but it is emphatically not the same thing as “a good preparation.” I took a couple math classes one summer at a low-tier state college. They were just as good as any math classes I took at any of the other places I went to school, public or private.
The ones that aren't competitive don't have the ultra-competitive dynamics described above. Not sure what your point is.
That still doesn't mean they're not "for the elites." Universities are for people striving for upward mobility, i.e. to get into or maintain membership in the elite tiers of society. Also there is (obviously) significant variation in the upper end of the elite and the lower end.
More than a third of the US population has a college degree. [1] When you consider the fact that 20% of the US population are children [2] that means that roughly half of the eligible US population has a college degree. If “half” is elite, then I’m not sure what “elite” means, because it’s not very exclusive.
> Not sure what your point is.
Well, you said
> All universities are for the elites.
And then I countered that, actually, many are not selective. I am asking you to reconsider your statement. In reality, many college programs confer _skills_, not _status_. This narrative that colleges are for the elites is demonstrably untrue, runs counter to the founding mission of many of them, and strikes me as sour grapes. I know because I was one of the kids who struggled to afford college, went to a public one where I learned _skills_, which I then leveraged into a satisfying career.
The costs would have to go down significantly. And I don't just mean the direct price to students – even public universities are extremely costly overall.
It costs ~$55k/year to educate a student at UMich. That's more than half of the median US family's income. And UMich is a massive success story. Excellent academic output at a relatively great price – but even there the actual cost would bankrupt a normal American family.
That's a lot of money to spend educating someone into a non-elite trajectory in life, no? Never mind the opportunity cost of 4 years where one could be acquiring direct skills in whatever job they're going into?
Competitive universities are competitive. Sometimes that competiton is justified and sometimes it is unjustifiably based on pedigree. The program I attended before getting my PhD at a public university was at a well-known private university. But in terms of research productivity and impact, the public university was a MUCH better place to go to school. The PhD program was exceptionally competitive but its undergrad program was not. As a result, many undergrads who wandered through our lab door got a first-class research experience.
I’m not going to pretend that pedigree doesn’t matter (to some people), but it is emphatically not the same thing as “a good preparation.” I took a couple math classes one summer at a low-tier state college. They were just as good as any math classes I took at any of the other places I went to school, public or private.