University plans to expand undergraduate population

At his annual presentation to the Academic Council last month, President John Hennessy announced a plan to expand the undergraduate student body in an attempt to keep pace with the growth of the graduate student population and allow Stanford to serve more students, a proposal with broad implications for University admissions, facilities and faculty.

DURAN ALVAREZ/The Stanford Daily

DURAN ALVAREZ/The Stanford Daily

The large size of the graduate student population—8,871 students compared to 6,999 undergraduates—marks a sharp reversal from the enrollment trends that have dominated much of Stanford’s history.

In every decade until 1990, the undergraduate population exceeded the graduate one. The gap narrowed by 1980, when the student body was about evenly split. Since then, the graduate population has continued to grow rapidly while the number of undergraduates has remained relatively constant.

Jeffrey Wachtel ’79, senior assistant to President Hennessy, noted that Hennessy sees several benefits in attempting to expand the undergraduate population and believes the expansion can be accomplished without “sacrificing the quality of the undergraduate experience.”

“We want to retain our identity as both an undergraduate and a graduate institution,” Wachtel said. “Although the numbers are relatively small that we can add, we think it’s sort of an obligation for the University.”

Hennessy said that he would like the undergraduate population to expand soon to counteract the growth of the graduate and postdoctoral populations over the last few decades.

“If we assume that there’s going to be some continuing growth in the graduate population, perhaps at a slower rate, then we will, over the next 20 years or so, completely make it impossible to contemplate increasing the undergraduate population, because the grad population will have taken up all the space on campus,” Hennessy said.

More housing

Though the expansion could begin as early as 2014, according to Wachtel, the growth in the population would also need to be accompanied by new facilities to maintain the University’s guarantee of housing to all undergraduates. The University, fresh off a Draw that left a record number of students unassigned after the first round, already plans to build new housing at Manzanita Park and Lagunita Court.

“Since we believe strongly in a residential education system, we have to make sure there are adequate housing and facilities,” Wachtel said. “It depends on the planning of the housing and raising the money for it.”

Once housing options are adjusted, Wachtel said that the University will begin increasing the size of the undergraduate population by approximately 100 students per year, with a plan to reevaluate the rate of expansion over time.

According to Hennessy, the upper bound on the population expansion would be 25 percent, as growth that is too dramatic could alter the undergraduate experience.

“Everybody has that sense that at some size the experience would change in a qualitative way, but nobody knows what that size is. If we had 16,000 [students], it would be very different to be an undergraduate on campus,” he said. “That’s far beyond what we’re thinking—but the nice thing of doing this gradually is that you can get some sense of what’s changing.”

Role of admissions

University officials noted that it is easier to target a specific number of admits for the undergraduate population compared to graduates, as the nature of graduate admissions makes it difficult to systematically increase or decrease the number of students admitted each year.

“Admissions at the graduate level is very decentralized to departments,” said Vice Provost for Graduate Education Patricia Gumport M.A. ’82 M.A. ’86 Ph.D. ’87. “At the undergraduate level, it’s very centralized—there’s one admissions office. So that’s why the enrollment can be managed at the undergrad level.”

While undergraduate enrollment has remained fairly constant over the last three decades, the number of applications received by the Office of Undergraduate Admission has skyrocketed.

Hennessy cited this increase in applications as a key reason behind the decision to expand the undergraduate population, estimating that the number of highly qualified applicants has roughly doubled during his tenure.

“The acceptance rate has plummeted,” Hennessy said. “A general sense that the number of students who are prepared to do work at a place like Stanford has grown significantly is reflected in our application pool.”

According to Hennessy, the University had previously planned to begin offering more spots to these applicants, but the 2008 financial crisis set back the idea. The gradual recovery of the endowment has prompted a renewed focus on expansion.

“For many years, growth was accommodated by the public institutions, namely the [University of California schools], but given the state dilemma over finances I don’t think we’re going to see tremendous expansion of the state system,” Hennessy said. “So I feel there’s some obligation [on] the private institutions to step forward and see what they can do.”

More faculty, internationals

An expansion in the undergraduate population may ultimately prove beneficial for graduate programs as well, with more undergraduates necessitating the hiring of additional faculty members.

“Graduate enrollment expands keeping pace with faculty growth, because as new faculty come in, we have a certain number of doctoral students that we can anticipate,” Gumport said. “As we grow the undergraduate enrollment at whatever pace the President deems appropriate, it’s likely that there will be some faculty growth, and with faculty growth there could be some grad student growth.”

However, Hennessy noted that the faculty population would likely not grow at the same rate as the undergraduate population. He added that the University is not looking to add faculty in all areas.

“Exactly how much the faculty would grow by depends on a lot of issues,” Hennessy said. “It’s varied up and down over time. There’s been a lot more faculty growth over the last 30 years than there has been undergraduate growth.”

Approximately seven percent of undergraduates are international students, while a third of graduate students come to Stanford from abroad, a difference that Hennessy said was a factor to be considered with respect to expanding the undergraduate population. “We slowly, over time, would like to introduce more international students, depending on what happens with international student recruiting and the shift in demographics on that side,” he said.

Ultimately, the University hopes to serve more students without reducing the quality of the education provided to both undergraduates and graduates, according to Hennessy.

“I think the goal would be to do this in a way that did not interfere with or hamper the current experience,” he said. “That will obviously mean that there will be have to be some fundraising done for it. I think it’s doable.”

Nikhita Obeegadoo and Neel Thakkar contributed to this article.

  • Anonymous

    Stanford could also simply stop expanding its graduate schools as well…there’s no reason why it needs to get any bigger than it already is.

  • AnonGrad

    You obviously did not read the part of the article where the VP for Graduate Education says that graduate admissions are decentralized. Departments hire more faculty all the time, and with more faculty bringing in grant money, they can afford more grad researchers. The University is in no position to dictate what departments should do on a graduate level regarding admissions.

  • Stanfordmom

    This would be a good time to consider adding residential colleges for housing freshman and sophomores.

  • 06alum

    Please no! If you want that, go to Harvard, Princeton or Yale. Stanford’s decentralized housing and freedom to make your own living choices is wonderful.

  • james

    I agree with anonymous. There is no reason to increase the size of the graduate school. The reasons given by Hennessy to expand are all weak IMO. It would be better to focus on modernizing the housing for existing students. Stanford will never come close to accepting all the students that want to come here. There are many other good schools available to students.

  • gradstudent

    The graduate student population is highly dependent on each of the faculty members, how much funding they have, how many students they need, whether or not the student has a fellowship. Even though each department can control the number of people they accept the number of graduate students who ultimately attend is highly unpredictable as well.

  • The Intermediary

    There’s no reason to dilute the Stanford undergraduate degree by letting more people in. Just cut some graduate programs that have become obsolete (law school comes to mind rather quickly).

  • Alum

    This has nothing to do with the graduate population – that’s just an excuse to get people to agree with the expansion. Notice that the graduate population wasn’t mentioned as the impetus when this expansion was mentioned last time, before the recession – back then, it was all about low acceptance rates. People didn’t care for that rationale, so now Hennessy’s saying it has to do with the graduate population. In fact, he even explicitly stated this in a 2007 article in the Stanford Magazine: “My primary rationale for asking this question is the dramatic growth in
    the number of applicants—a significant fraction of whom are prepared
    to do Stanford-caliber study.”

    http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=32005

    If historically undergrads outnumbered grads, why aren’t we increasing the undergrad population to EXCEED the graduate population? See this: http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/growth-faculty-students

    And even with this proposed increase in undergrads, grads would still outnumber undergrads by at least several hundred. No, this has nothing to do with “balancing” the student population. And don’t forget that Stanford has many graduate disciplines that it (explicitly) wants to expand in the future – public policy, health research and policy, education, etc.

    This notion that we need to increase the undergrad population before grad students take up all the space is nonsense. Sure, with the current general use permit, there might not be room left for undergrads if we didn’t expand now, but it’s been well-known since the GUP was completed in 2000 that there are more battles on that issue on the horizon. One Stanford official speculated in 2000 that by 2012 we would be waging another full-on war with the county about the GUP. Stanford has plenty of space to expand the undergrad and grad student populations whenever it wants, though it might take some legal battles to get there. Which Stanford is poised to win anyway (as it has in the past whenever it’s had to fight about the use of its lands).

    I’ve long said that Hennessy is by far one of Stanford’s best presidents, and one of the best college presidents in the country. But recently he’s shown it’s time to step down, between the NYC campus debacle and recently his vision of the future of Stanford. He’s been president longer than 12 years now, which is the historical amount of time that Stanford presidents are at the helm. Time for someone with renewed vigor to take on the task of leading Stanford in the 21st century – someone who will think bigger.

    For the record, I’m 100% behind Stanford expanding the freshman class, and 2,000 is a nice neat number (though I’m also in favor of expanding the graduate population significantly, such that the total student population exceeds 20,000). But the university has a lot to do before even thinking about expansion, not the least of which is to expand and improve housing (Stanford has mediocre housing compared to its peers – witness Wilbur and Stern). If we’re going appeal to tradition in this (‘undergrads have traditionally outnumbered grads’ and whatnot), then why not appeal to the older tradition at Stanford of free tuition? From 1891-1920 – the first quarter of Stanford’s existence – Stanford did not charge tuition. And right now, Stanford’s wealth has grown to the point that it could revert to its tradition of not charging tuition. It hasn’t. Indeed, it increases tuition every year, including this last year, DESPITE the fact that an additional $600 million in revenue is expected to come in (a budgetary increase that any college president would kill for – hell, they’d kill for a $100 million increase).

    Why don’t we talk about that before talking about expanding the undergrad population?

  • Alum

    One last point for emphasis: by making this about equalizing the student population, Hennessy is implicitly appealing to the “politically correct” notion of undergraduate emphasis. After all, more undergrads = more undergrad focus, right? Wrong. The ratio of undergrads to grads has nothing to do with institutional focus. Witness UC Berkeley and Princeton, both of whom have an undergrad:grad ratio of about 2:1. Yet their institutional foci could not be more different. Regardless Hennessy is zeroing in on this argument because a) his last argument went over like a lead balloon with the community (now with an “admit rate lower than Harvard!!1″ there’s no way he could make that argument), and b) this new argument sounds like a virtuous one, even if it does prey on people’s ignorance of the issues.

    It is very telling that Stanford really only started being a serious competitor to Harvard et al on the undergrad level within the last 20-30 years – which is also the timeframe that Stanford’s grad population started to exceed the undergrad population. You might say this has to do with prestige (grad strength = prestige = attractive to undergrads). But Stanford has really undergone a massive though positive transformation during this time, which is precisely why Hennessy framed his recent talk about Stanford’s future based on the last 30 years. Whether despite or because of the increase in the grad population, clearly Stanford is/was not worse off as a result of the imbalance. In fact, it’s better than it ever has been.

    In short, don’t take the bait. You can want to have more undergrads – but let’s not pretend that this conversation is about the balance of undergrads and grads.

  • Alum

    There are lots of reasons actually… Stanford currently only has an interdisciplinary program, not even a department, in public policy. Whereas Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, etc. each have an entire school dedicated to it. Much of the same can be said for many important disciplines, like public health (‘health research and policy’ dept), journalism (comm dept), design (not even a dept but an institute), etc.

    Stanford’s schools of education, medicine, etc. are all much much smaller than their nearest competitors, which is probably why they don’t make it to the top (size has a lot to do with that).

    Stanford’s arts, while improving, still leave a lot to be desired. Expansion at the MFA/DFA level is essential to attracting better artists to study at Stanford.

    Stanford loves to tout that it has amazing breadth of excellence, and it certainly does. But currently, it does not have the breadth of Harvard or Berkeley. Maybe it doesn’t want their breadth, since they’re both notorious for being grad-focused, but Stanford can’t claim to have the most breadth and depth until it expands… which will require significant expansion at the graduate level.

  • Alum

    I support this, but would go even further to include juniors and seniors as well. There’s no reason that Stanford couldn’t offer an array of independent houses (Greek houses, co-ops, etc.) in addition to having a robust college system, for those students who would prefer the small houses that Stanford has now. But I think most students would agree that the housing at Harvard/Yale/Princeton is better than Stanford’s housing, like more singles and suites, more common spaces, more academic facilities, and so on.

    As it stands, the variety of housing that Stanford offers is precisely the reason behind the most common complaint that students have about housing: the Draw, namely that it’s too complicated. The reason it’s so complicated is to be equitable – so that no student gets stuck in crappy housing longer than they have to. And that’s because only some of Stanford’s housing is great (and thus highly desired), so we’ve set up a complicated system in which you draw into the best housing one year, the worst housing another year, and mediocre housing another year.

    If it built a system of colleges (or houses, or halls, or whatever you want to call them), there wouldn’t be such vast differences in quality from one to the next. So there wouldn’t be a need for a draw – except for the independent houses maintained for the benefit of those who prefer them (which would likely be a very small minority, if students had the option of a “resortified” college).

    Finally, the administration has even stated that they’d love to offer residential colleges a la Yale, and even visited Yale for that reason, but said it would be too expensive. Stanford ostensibly stresses residential education, which is clearly an expression of the desire to have residential colleges, but instead it falls back on cheap alternatives, like the recent creation of science-focused freshman programs a la SLE.

  • Alum

    Wait, how do students get to “make their own living choices” when there’s the Draw, which is random? Sure, you can pre-assign (which was not even available when you attended), but the vast majority don’t get to choose where they live. And the fact that we have a “tier 1/2/3″ system is proof that a large portion of the students are assigned to undesirable housing. And in fact, there isn’t really “tier 1″ housing for those students who don’t want to live on the Row (where singles are practically nonexistent, unless you’re a staff member, and sometimes not even then).

    Sorry, but if that’s the result of being “decentralized,” then I think most would agree that residential colleges are preferable.

  • Gilbert

    If housing in Palo Alto & Menlo Park near campus wasn’t so absurdly expensive, the grad students could live off campus affordably. Also, if the campus resident grad students hadn’t selfishly voted to cancel bulk participation in the caltrain program, it would be considerably more affordable for grad students to commute.

  • Decatur

    This is awful. New undergraduate housing has not been added in decades. Room and board is higher than ever, yet most students have no real choice where they would like to live on campus. Now they’re saying they want to bring in more students to complicate matters even more? Come on. Looks like the wind of freedom is waning.

  • RF

    For the record, lots of undergraduate housing has been added in recent times. Manzanita was a set of mobile homes in the 1990s; now there’s Kimball, Lantana, Castano, and the new dorm in construction. Also, when the Munger residences opened for law students, Crothers and Crothers Memorial were renovated and re-opened as undergrad residences.

  • Roy Nelson, ’83

    Increasing the size of Stanford’s undergraduate population would be a huge mistake. This would make the undergraduate experience more impersonal and bureaucratic. I truly hope that Hennessy’s decision on this can be reversed.

  • Jack Lantern

    When will the enrollment in the undergraduate will increase ?