>So we get an array of problems: we are all, in a way, paying for the party: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz... https://jakeseliger

>So we get an array of problems: we are all, in a way, paying for the party: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz... https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-eliz.... Already prestigious schools like Hopkins compete primarily to raise their own prestige, rather than improve access. Why do most such schools admit fewer students per capita than they did in 1950? Why are they so interested in discriminatory children-of-alumni admissions? Thanks for raising these issues, as a well-evidenced contrast to the "usual" complaint that our society provides too much access to higher education. I largely agree with your analysis. The question isn't too much or too little. It's: who gets how much of what? If some students are deprived of vocational opportunities while others are stuck in understaffed, lower-tier institutions than their abilities warrant, society is leaving productivity and human well-being on the table in both cases.