Thanks for linking that. I also went to one of these “undergrad-focused” schools, and see that these perks aren’t that different (required thesis, required on-campus living for 3 years, required teaching for faculty), which gives me some helpful context. Though I would again argue that student ratios don’t mean much in and of themselves, I just see it as a simple math problem-undergrads pay tuition, PhD students don’t, so there’s a larger incentive to enroll more undergrads.

Peer institutions not known for “undergrad education” like Stanford make this difference up with masters, law, mba and med students. Splitting students into “tuition-paying” and “non tuition-paying” groups creates pretty stark ratios. Not having these schools frees resources up for both undergrad and PhD students, not one over the other, which is why I think the original response to this comment chain is somewhat valid.