I agree that US K-12 education and college admissions have big problems, but I don't understand this argument: > Compared to me at Mines, an undergraduate with

I agree that US K-12 education and college admissions have big problems, but I don't understand this argument: > Compared to me at Mines, an undergraduate with the same major at MIT will enjoy a much-improved networking profile which will probably lead to a higher-paying job. They'll also have more research opportunities, [...] But if earning these benefits equates to spending class time and free time on increasing numbers rather than learning, it all becomes very difficult to justify. OK, for the sake of argument[1], let's say that it's a choice between playing to the metrics vs. learning. And, OK, for the sake of argument, that might mean the difference between going MIT vs. going to Colorado School of Mines. With those givens, how is playing to the metrics difficult to justify? [1] FWIW, my impression is that MIT incoming undergrads tend to have done both: hit the metrics, and learned.