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.

Related Insights

Extreme wealth creates a dangerous societal rift not just through inequality, but by allowing the ultra-rich to opt out of public systems. They have their own concierge healthcare, private transportation, and elite schools, making them immune to and ignorant of the struggles faced by the other 99.9%, which fuels populist anger.

Despite average test scores on a consistent exam dropping by 10 points over 20 years, 60% of all grades at Harvard are now A's, up from 25%. This trend suggests a significant devaluation of academic credentials, where grades no longer accurately reflect student mastery.

To fix the student debt crisis, universities should be financially on the hook for the first portion of any loan default (e.g., $20,000). This "first loss" position would compel them to underwrite the economic viability of their own degrees, creating a powerful market check against pushing students into overpriced and low-value programs.

Palantir is challenging elite academia with its Fall Fellowship, which pays 18-year-olds instead of charging tuition. The program recruits top students who would otherwise attend Harvard or Yale, offering performance reviews instead of grades and real-world national security projects instead of classes, representing a direct corporate alternative to university education.

ASU President Michael Crow argues that Ivy League schools are based on the colonial British model—small, elite, and fundamentally unscalable. This structure is insufficient for a large, modern democracy, which demands new university designs built for scale, speed, and broad accessibility.

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flipped this model, defining success by the number of students they include and support, arguing that exclusivity is an outdated, elitist metric that ill-serves a democracy.

The frenzy around elite college admissions is a systemic 'collective action trap.' Even parents and students who understand the limited value of prestige are forced to compete due to intense social pressure and status anxiety, amplified by social media. Opting out individually carries too high a social cost.

There is a significant hypocrisy in elite university admissions. While affirmative action for historically disadvantaged groups is highly controversial, these same institutions give equal or larger admissions breaks to athletes in niche, wealthy sports like fencing and rowing, a practice that receives far less public scrutiny.

The massive investment gap in education ($75k/year at elite private schools vs. $15k at average public schools) creates an insurmountable advantage for the wealthy. This financial disparity, which translates to a 370-point SAT gap, is a more powerful determinant of future success than individual character or talent.

Instead of trying to climb the traditional university rankings ladder—a game viewed as unwinnable and misguided—ASU President Michael Crow opted out. He created a new competitive framework for ASU focused on scale, speed, innovation, and societal impact, effectively inventing a different game to play.