A few years ago I read a book called "Listen Liberal." It was a book written by liberals, for liberals. One of the criticisms it made of the Obama Administrati

A few years ago I read a book called "Listen Liberal." It was a book written by liberals, for liberals. One of the criticisms it made of the Obama Administration's cabinet was that it was far too heavy in choosing Ivy-League graduates. The book pointed out that the cabinet was racially / ethnically diverse, but because the vast majority of the cabinet was Ivy-League educated, it had all of the biases that come with an Ivy-League education. I don't think Harvard is the problem: They are an organization that exists, and the selection criteria they use is to choose people who they believe will graduate. Granted, someone could argue that they should take more risks on applicants, but that's not my argument to make. In part, the value of these institutions is that they are exclusive. Many people argue that the advantage of an Ivy League education, compared to an equivalent, less exclusive school, is the people you meet while on campus. This difference can only be maintained if the schools maintain their selection criteria. I think the bigger problem is that far too many people / organizations put too much weight on an Ivy League education. It's generally unobtainable, even if you "check the boxes," because these schools get far more applicants than they can ever accept. Which is why I don't want to argue that they should change their selection criteria: Who is to say what is the best selection criteria? Everyone will try to argue that it should be changed in a way to benefit the person making the argument. IMO: We need some new institutions to displace the Ivy League as the "best." Perhaps, if there are enough schools with differently selective admission criteria, everyone will be able to find a selective school that they can get into?