undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthaumasiotes3y ago0 comments

The birth rate seems less important to the universities than the raw number of births. Though as with the birth rate, nothing in particular happened in 2009: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195908/number-of-births-...

0 comments

twelvechairs3y ago

US federal population projections don't foresee a big change in 18-24 year olds into the future [0]. Though generally there's a trend of a slight increase in foreign born populations over native born.

[0] see particularly table 2 https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popproj/2017-su...

lotsofpulp3y ago

I would think even more important to universities should be the raw number of high schoolers and high schoolers’ parent that are questioning the ROI of universities, especially private universities.

peanuty13y ago

The ROI of elite private universities like MIT, Harvard, and Stanford are still very high. The private universities that should be worried are the ones that don't have an elite reputation but still charge the same tuition (or higher tuition, if you account for financial aid) as the elite universities.

bee_rider3y ago

For the field as a whole I guess, the rate must matter, right? Like, if the birth rate increases, then a higher percentage of the population will be employed in teaching related jobs, because there are more kids per adult.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse