One point I had not seen discussed much driving this and a bunch of questions the topic opens-up...
First is International impact (which one could argue has also impacted athletic attendance, involvement, etc).
There are
~300K 18-year olds in Texas
~4M 18-year olds in US
Over 200M in World (fastest growing group is 12-18)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/gu...efault.stm
Rice brand is not just Texas or even US but those outside of US. That does create situation that now average smart kid in Houston is now competing against more kids from India, China, Brazil, etc. that would not have applied years ago as Rice increases Intl admittance and Rice brand spreads to places it has not been historically. Could argue there is a network effect happening overseas as Rice brand grows w/ new faces that get exposure. Thus, normal to figure that admittance requests would outpace historical averages..especially as a defined strategy of the University is to increase Intl admittance which would seem to have micro benefits to the University but not sure about the macro benefits.
Opens-up some interesting questions (without making anything political) about things like?
a) Supply and demand imbalance of top-notch University education. The 'supply' of top-notch schools has not grown despite the increased International (and to a certain degree..domestic) demand. Social engineering, financial aid, etc. questions get opened-up as International students more likely to be price inelastic than US kids requiring support from outside sources. Data on price increases would support that price increases rising much faster than inflation and other cost(s) that are non-capital projects.
b) Value of top-notch US private (and public for that matter) universities educating foreign kids to then have US govt. create high barriers to remain in US on Visa, Citizenship, etc. when most leave to then add intellectual and economic value to another foreign country. Except for US Tech Execs, Immigration debate usually framed around low-end vs. educated and one-size fits all solutions.
c) With the internet and automated application processes the barriers to entry to apply are at an all-time low. Is that good or bad to apply to 15-20 schools vs. 1-5 back-in-the-day (from University perspective, not student as obviously students want to maximize optionality for themselves)? Do you want students who view Rice as a second, third, or even 10th choice?
d) Does Rice (and others) admissions process set-up to scale? Do we still get the best 1000 kids out of 17-20K that apply based upon the low barriers to entry? Does admissions criteria need adjusting to look through a different lens than the historical admittance one? Is it as simple as throwing more admission bodies to evaluate applications to get the best student who fits with 'unconventional wisdom' or does the criteria go the opposite way b/c scale traditionally dicates more people require a more quantitative approach? (think Starbucks/McDonalds vs. local coffee/burger shop). Great interview with HR head at Google talking about how they try to manage around this 'lateral thinking' vs. 'math scores' approach when getting best people. Seems like admissions process is hard to scale to get the qualitative things that would add most value to the University vs. objective things like SAT, Class Rank, and Activities.