4 ms·
Because there are lots of opportunities to get an education that aren’t nearly as selective. The number of total slots has increased considerably. I think they
by rejectedandsad 5y ago
Because there are lots of opportunities to get an education that aren’t nearly as selective. The number of total slots has increased considerably.
I think they should build more UCs and more UTs and A&Ms etc but to a great extent they already have and increased the class sizes to boot.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoTrue. But we weren't talking about getting an education. The article is about Ivy League, and the immediate antecedent was about Harvard. Sure, you can get an education anywhere. But Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League are all about prestige and social connections. You aren't going to get that at A&M.
- rejectedandsad 5y agoThat’s the ultimate problem and why these schools are harmful. Letting in another thousand cognitive elites isn’t going to change anything.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoAh. You're not wanting to change to multiple Harvards, you're wanting to change to zero Harvards. And I kind of sympathize with that position. Education is helpful for society as a whole. Letting "elites" network so that they can position themselves to have outsized impact? Maybe not so much.
- rejectedandsad 5y agoCorrect. Even making UTAustin guaranteed acceptance to the top 14% of the class instead of 7% would be better than adding another Harvard in Texas. The non linearity of the rewards is the problem. I’m orders of magnitude worse off than my valedictorian, who went to an Ivy, because I didn’t get into any good schools. Abolish all of the top schools.