A big function that universities play is circumventing some arguably bad interpretations of labor law. In the United States, it is essentially illegal to hire b

A big function that universities play is circumventing some arguably bad interpretations of labor law. In the United States, it is essentially illegal to hire based on the results of an intelligence test. This is the result of various cases interpreting and applying the disparate impact doctrine. But no one bats an eye when you send your recruiters to only the "elite" universities or when your company is overwhelmingly staffed with top-20-university graduates and won't even consider the applications of people from "lesser" schools. That's despite the fact that which university you attend is largely a function of your SAT score (and to a lesser degree, your grades), an intelligence test. No one looks at Harvard on your resume and thinks "they must have learned so much at Harvard". The thought is laughably absurd. It's not that someone can't learn something at Harvard, it's that everyone knows Harvard academic rigor is a joke and you can just as easily party your way through 4 years and graduate with a B+ average. They think "they got into Harvard, so they must be smart". The most important department at Harvard is the admissions department. This strange power is then abused for the sake of funding the institution, pursuing its political goals, etc. Donor's children get preference. Politically-favored groups get preference. Applicants who signal that they share certain views get preference. I'm sure the motives are often quite noble, but it is corrupting nonetheless I think. They are just counting on the fact that it's still worth treating a Harvard degree as a proxy of intelligence despite the fudging they do at the edges.