Your point about the Ivy League is, sadly, waay too true. The Ivy League is way too weak on socioeconomic diversity. I think a classic, and rather accurate cr

Your point about the Ivy League is, sadly, waay too true. The Ivy League is way too weak on socioeconomic diversity. I think a classic, and rather accurate criticism of efforts to increase diversity is the notion of what "diversity" actually means. How many students does Harvard have who grew up in trailer parks in Appalachia? Certainly these students, culturally, would be more different, and therefore increase "diversity" more than a black student raised by a wealthy family in a New England suburb. What about an Asian student who is from a poor Hmong family in Minnesota? It seems current admission policies would lump her in with all of the other Asian students which the Ivy League has used a defacto cap to limit. What has always been weird to me is the widespread observation (and most certainly accurate) that organizations with huge gender imbalances are more prone to weird groupthink type issues (Wall Street's excessive risk taking, hospital nurse/elementary school infighting), and a constant notion of "we need more women here." But when companies try to talk about solutions, there is suddenly a requirement to view women as exactly the same as men. If the effect of having more women in an organization will change the organization (for the better, according to research), it is very likely that women have some inherent attributes which make them differ from men.