[mlsu]

I mean, is the goal of an elite college to educate? Or is the benefit to sift through the population and pluck out its masters?

I don't really care that UC has a lower "reputation" than Harvard or Stanford. The fact is, the UC system has produced more fundamental research and more actual value for the population and the world at large than Harvard or Stanford. Even if a UC degree is not quite the "golden ticket" that an Stanford degree is.

Concentrating individuals into a smaller and smaller elite benefits them and only them. The U.S. has done this with capital allocation in its economy and it has and will continue to be a century long arc bending toward utter disaster.

What do we actually care about here? Education?

[raddan]

I totally agree. Folks here seem to be under some misapprehension that elite = better education. Based on my experience earning my PhD at a public R1 and then working as faculty at a selective private institution, this is not the case. For starters, just consider the incentives for grade inflation at a private vs a public institution. Harvard has famously out of control grade inflation.

My public alma mater was a tremendous force multiplier for upward mobility. Many of my peers were first generation college students. They’re now scientists, doctors, and engineers. Few of them will become famous—they mostly just make the world tick.

My current private institution concentrates already wealthy people. These folks mostly go out and become consultants. They’re consumed with the idea of becoming “thought leaders.”

Which one really provides more value? I have strong opinions.