[tomcat27]

The US population increased 100 times since 1800s from 5M to 500M. Harvard enrollment increased 4 times since 1800s from 1.5K to 20K.

The number of universities in the US did grew greatly during these 200 years, but the funding distribution to these universities is as skewed as the income inequality in the US. For instance, 60% of NIH funds go to <10 institutes in the country.

The scholarly work at these elite universities might not appear deserving of the preferential treatment from the funding agencies, if we start poking around reproducibility crisis, data hacking etc.

It seems fair to assume doubling elite universities would not be catastrophic to elitism.

[mlyle]

> Harvard enrollment increased 4 times since 1800s from 1.5K to 20K.

?

You might mean 4 "doublings", but then the other number doesn't make sense. Or 14 times?

> It seems fair to assume doubling elite universities would not be catastrophic to elitism.

How do you double elite universities? It's more like we have an eliteness gradient (T10, T20, etc...) and the masses together decide what's "elite enough". Is WUSTL elite? Is Cornell? Is UCLA?

[tomcat27]

> You might mean 4 "doublings"

Rate of change: Enrollment increased by 4 times. Population increased by 100 times.

> How do you double elite universities?

Doubling elite universities: I mean more outreach from let's say T10 with next 10-20. This doesn't happen.

Ex: Top 5 won't cite papers written by someone in the middle. It happens but that's quite rare.

Ex: Faculty recruitment does not propagates from bottom ranking institution to top ranking institution. It's super rare.

Ex: Research collaborations are very clubby.

> It's more like we have an eliteness gradient (T10, T20, etc...) and the masses together decide what's "elite enough".

Masses opinion doesn't count. Eliteness is determined by elite. Consider an elite club exists at the beginning. Every 5 years new members are inducted into the elite club. Their opinion matters way more than everyone's simply because they are elite.

In most departments, the state of the art is a qualitative measurement. Something is great because a bunch of great people think it's great. There isn't a better approach anyway. But that comes with bad biases.

Ex: It's rare to have a Supreme Court justice coming from outside Harvard and Yale.

Ex: Some departments in Harvard would never hire someone as faculty just because they aren't from Harvard, Yale or a couple of other places.

[mlyle]

> Rate of change: Enrollment increased by 4 times. Population increased by 100 times.

But 20,000 / 1,500 is 13x.

[tomcat27]

Not sure how that slipped. Sorry.