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.

Institutions like Yale style themselves as private but receive over a billion dollars annually in federal funds. This dynamic creates a social contract where universities owe the public a return on investment—a bargain many feel is being broken, leading to declining trust.

Top universities with billion-dollar endowments should lose their tax-free status if they fail to grow enrollment. By artificially limiting admissions, they behave like exclusive luxury brands (e.g., "Birkin bags") that cater to the wealthy, rather than fulfilling their mission as engines of social mobility and public service.

The true value of public education isn't just fostering elites, but providing pathways for average students. The speaker contrasts his admission to UCLA when the acceptance rate was 76% with today's 9%, arguing that accessible public systems designed to give 'unremarkable kids remarkable opportunities' are the real engine of upward mobility.

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.