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.
Related Insights
Pinterest's CEO reframes the DEI debate by stating it is not in conflict with meritocracy, but a requirement for it. A system that isn't inclusive inherently limits its talent pool, making it less meritorious. By focusing on inclusion, Pinterest gained an "unfair share of great talent" and outperformed competitors.
Major public universities pay fired coaches tens of millions by using separate, non-profit corporations to manage athletic departments. This legal loophole keeps massive coaching salaries and buyouts at arm's length from taxpayer funds and general university budgets, avoiding public scrutiny.
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.
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.
In niche sectors like aerospace engineering, the pool of senior, diverse talent is limited. A pragmatic strategy is to hire the best available senior specialists while intensely focusing diversity efforts on junior roles and internships. This builds a more diverse next generation of leaders from the ground up.
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.
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.
