|
|
|
|
|
|
by eel
1100 days ago
|
|
|
Having grown up in Arizona and attended ASU, ASU has always been this way. ASU has always accepted students at a high rate and has always been sure to structure degrees and classes to meet existing accreditations. "New American University" has always been more marketing rather than some radical change. There are several public universities with similar goals across the country, such as Colorado State or Indiana. It's a great model for churning out highly educated workers. We need that, and there is a place for higher educational institutions that do that well. But for all of its graduates, ASU doesn't produce many thinkers, founders, philosophers—people who are going to move the needle of our society. To see this, compare the notable alumni lists of, say, ASU and Stanford (both founded in the same year). Look at Turing Award recipients, Nobel Laureates, etc. It's not a new American university - ASU is the same as it's always been. When I look at the largest universities in the US by enrollment, I think the closest university to a true "New American University" is UIUC (no affiliation) in Illinois. Enrollment is in the top 10, similar in size to ASU. They have multiple programs ranked in the top 10 including computer science. While past success doesn't predict the future, there are some heavy hitters on the UIUC alumni list - Marc Andreessen, Steve Chen, Max Levchin. Would love if anyone happend to attend both ASU and UIUC and could compare the two. |
|
|
At least according to my quick reading of the article, ASU has a significant focus on inclusion as a core value. Overall Illinois does admit a large percentage of applicants: about 50% over recent years. (The number dropped a bit after we began participating in the Common App, which makes it easier for students to increase the number of institutions they apply to.)
However, that number hides the fact that admission to top programs like computer science is extremely selective and exclusive. Admission rates to CS have been around 7% recently. And while we've made a CS minor somewhat more accessible, we've also closed down pathways that allowed students to start at Illinois and transfer into a computer science degree. (At this point that's pretty much impossible.) We do have blended CS+X degree programs that combine core studies in computer science with other areas, and those are less selective, but they have their own limitations—specifically, having to complete a lot of coursework in some other area that may not interest you.
I think what's fooling you about Illinois is the fairly odd combination of a highly-selective department (CS) embedded in a less-selective institution. I'm sure that there are other similar pairings, but overall this is somewhat unusual. If you think about other top-tier CS departments—Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, CMU—most are a part of an equally-selective institution.
So with Illinois you're getting the cache of an exclusive department combined with the high acceptance rate of an inclusive public land-grant university. But on some level this is a mirage created by colocated entities reflecting different value systems. And, unlike places like Berkeley and Virginia, which have been trying to admit more students into computing programs, no similar efforts are underway here at Illinois. (To my dismay.)
Overall, unfortunately it's still very obvious to me that exclusivity is part of what we're selling to students as a core value of our degree program. You're special if you got in—just because a lot of other people didn't. Kudos to anyone moving away from this kind of misguided thinking.