Top universities have abandoned their public service mission, instead acting like luxury brands that manufacture scarcity to increase their prestige and pricing power. They could educate many more qualified students but choose not to.

Students and faculty at top universities simultaneously celebrate their institution's exclusive, meritocratic nature while espousing rhetoric about interrogating hierarchies and promoting egalitarianism. This fundamental contradiction creates internal anxiety and contributes to public perception of hypocrisy.

Elite universities with massive endowments and shrinking acceptance rates are betraying their public service mission. By failing to expand enrollment, they function more like exclusive 'hedge funds offering classes' that manufacture scarcity to protect their brand prestige, rather than educational institutions aiming to maximize societal impact.

The fierce debates over DEI and affirmative action are a symptom of artificial scarcity. Instead of fighting over who gets in, elite universities should focus on admitting more students, which would alleviate the anxiety and dissent, much like in junior colleges.

Fueled by rankings that reward selectivity, top universities operate like luxury brands (e.g., LVMH) rather than public servants. They intentionally limit freshman class sizes despite having massive endowments. This manufactured scarcity increases their prestige and rankings, creating an "upward death spiral" of exclusivity.

Higher education dramatically improves income, health, and civic outcomes. If it were a pill with these effects, hoarding it would be seen as a moral failure. Yet elite universities, by restricting admissions despite vast resources, are effectively hoarding this life-changing 'drug,' limiting social mobility.

Top universities operate like luxury brands such as LVMH by creating artificial scarcity, rejecting the vast majority of applicants. This strategy boosts their perceived value, allowing them to charge exorbitant tuition at incredibly high margins, effectively transferring wealth from middle-class families to university endowments, faculty, and administrators.

Most elite universities measure quality by their low acceptance rates. ASU's President Michael Crow flipped this model, defining success by the number of students they include and support, arguing that exclusivity is an outdated, elitist metric that ill-serves a democracy.

Despite massive endowment growth, top universities like Harvard have kept freshman class sizes static for decades. This purposefully constrains supply, transforming higher education from a public service into a luxury good, where exclusivity is a feature, not a failure.