> pursue the best and brightest Well, for Harvard (and most other top universities apart from Caltech) the "best" and the "brightest" are not necessarily synon

> pursue the best and brightest Well, for Harvard (and most other top universities apart from Caltech) the "best" and the "brightest" are not necessarily synonyms. First, from the viewpoint of prestige, it is better to accept those into the program who don't cut the mustard but have a good chance of becoming presidents/prime ministers/kings/business tycoons. And who has a good chance? Kids of senators, dictators, billionaire movers and shakers, way more so than the politically active 4.0 student from next door. Second, from the viewpoint of long term relevance, spitting out one student who will endow the university subsequently with a few millions is worth way more than spitting out twenty eminently smart professors who go on to teach in obscurity - Harvard is the best example, even if their marketing goes badly, their $30bn endowment will buy sufficiently many Nobel-prize-winning faculty and scholarships for bright students to stay relevant for centuries.