> Maybe I'm just cynical, but I have a tough time believing that the preference for graduates from "top" colleges is entirely because they produce the best resu

> Maybe I'm just cynical, but I have a tough time believing that the preference for graduates from "top" colleges is entirely because they produce the best results rather than just a way to (necessarily) artificially limit access to a scarce resource. This is not really relevant. The author of this piece suggests that the path to affordable higher ed in the US is elite institutions doubling their full-rides. But that's a drop in the bucket; "everyone go to an ivy on a full ride" is not a sustainable or realistic way of decreasing the cost of college. > Just for the sake of round numbers, let's say there are enough quarter-million-dollar-a-year jobs for 1% of the population, but 10% of the population, with a bit of training, could step in and do those jobs. This is also not a problem. Most people who go to college would be perfectly happy with a stable 80k. Or even 60k. The problem is not that folks can't get 250k. The problem is the massive amount of money they have to spend to get certain jobs that pay those wages, even at lower-tier universities. And more Harvard scholarships aren't going to solve that problem.