Admissions Why do Colleges Want "Well Rounded" Students?

[YoshiMoshi]

It's been several years sense I've gone through the undergraduate application process. Looking back on it, one thing strikes me as very odd.

At the end of the day, a university is a business, and the product that is being sold is an education. The university in the admissions process has to review applications and select prospective students that they feel are capable of learning the material being taught. Accepting a student that is perceived to have a low probability in graduating, will lower the graduation rate, which looks bad to perspective students, or possibly slow the rate of learning by other students to answer questions that others do not have. So I understand the reason why admissions offices have to be selective in admitting students that are perceived to have a high probability of succeeding in their program, because it effects the end product that the university is being sold, the education. But why do admissions offices care about being "well rounded". Lets say a student did lots of extra curricular activities', how does saying being on the high school basketball team, have any effect on their ability to learn their chosen major?

I get that an employer wants a "well rounded" employee because it is someone they will be interacting and working with on a daily basis to create the good, product or service that they are selling, to make money. Or someone with social skills to interact with customers.

But I really don't understand why a student being "well rounded" is taken into consideration for admitting students into a university, because it would seem to have zero effect on the product that the university sells to make money, an education. It would seem to me that the only thing that would have an impact on the education being sold, is a strong academic track record.

 

[DaveE]

First, that's not true for all institutions. Granted, my experience is dated by many decades, but Caltech and MIT don't give a #$@& if you played football or were in the drama club in High School.

In the long run elite schools want their students to not just graduate, but also to succeed out in the real world. Thereby improving their brand and giving them money and prestige. Damn near every undergraduate that goes to Stanford graduates, that's kind of a given for the way they do things. They want you to then become famous and wealthy.

 

[gmax137]

There's more to 4 years of undergraduate experience than the classes you take. I know I'd rather spend that time with interesting fellow students than anonymous grinds.

 

[jtbell]

Caltech and MIT don't give a #$@& if you played football or were in the drama club in High School.

I don't know about Caltech, but MIT has a pretty decent symphony orchestra. I have a couple of their recordings on in my music collection.

 

[AndreasC]

In the long run elite schools want their students to not just graduate, but also to succeed out in the real world.

Elite schools want elite students. As if the absurd tuitions weren't enough, they also have all these other requirements that you'd never meet unless your parents are at absolute least middle class (in the US sense) and very supportive, and probably bourgeois. I had the (mis?) fortune of going to a private high school which had all these people aiming to European and American schools which is already extremely expensive for people in my country, and I can certify there is NO WAY someone from a working class background could afford all that absurd extracurricular stuff they did, except maybe in some very special case. How does someone who barely doesn't qualify for charity rack up charity work experience? Some of these requirements are so blatantly aimed at upper classes that it's just funny.

By the way, even they were mostly aiming for prestigious UK schools etc, because prestigious American schools were only for the 1% of the 1%. I do not accept that it has anything to do with being "interesting". There is nothing inherently interesting about a trust fund kid who was dragged by parents into 3 different obscure sports, was given a half assed music education and inserted into nonsense events. I'm convinced the main point of most elite schools is to serve as a place for trust fund kids to network with the minority of really competent peers that these schools sprinkle into the mix. This way the trust fund kids find potential employees for their future when they inherit dad's company, and their prestige also gets elevated by proxy. Though some departments are better than others. My general impression is that the economics, business, politics etc schools are the absolute worst, because the people who pick stuff like physics at least typically care about science a bit more. Also, not all elite schools do that to the same degree. The American "Ivy League" is probably the worst offender, notice how the two American schools that were mentioned as not caring so much about that stuff (Caltech and MIT) are NOT Ivy League. At least when I hear somebody went to, say, MIT, that means something more than "very rich" (although still of course it is overwhelmingly easier for rich people to go to these schools).

So in answer to the question, when they say "well rounded" they really just mean "bourgeois", and ascribing to bourgeois culture.

 

[gleem]

In the long run elite schools want their students to not just graduate, but also to succeed out in the real world. Thereby improving their brand and giving them money and prestige. Damn near every undergraduate that goes to Stanford graduates, that's kind of a given for the way they do things. They want you to then become famous and wealthy.

That is hitting the nail on the head. Large endowment funds mean more money to support students in financial need. More than half of applicants to Ivy League schools apply for financial aid and about 90% receive it. As to why most students come from well-to-do families may be because they have more resources to better educate their children.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Whoa! Lots of misinformation here!

1) Lots of US colleges don't care. You get a minimum GPA, a minimum test score and/or you live in-state and you're in. However, MIT and Caltech are not two of them,

2) MIT and I believe Caltech meet full financial need of all of their students. The posted tuition is not a really relevant number.

3) MIT for sure and probably many of the other selective schools evaluates applicants relative to the resources they have available. If your high school doesn't offer calculus, they aren't going to require it. If it does, and the student didn't take it, they will wonder why. They will also be more impressed by a student who had to take a couple of buses to their calculus class than one who had everything already there in the school.

4) GPA suffers from grade inflation. The SAT is not designed to make fine distictions at the high end - where a single question might make the difference between an 800 and a 780.

5) A successful well-rounded student has already learned the art of time management. This will be critical in college.

6) A successful well-rounded student has likely already learned the art of teanwork. This will be critical at MIT, and likely other colleges.

These are in addition to the points made by others about predictors of success and college being about more than classes.

 

[gwnorth]

For those institutions that do care and actively seek "well rounded students" (because not all do) the reasons are primarily two fold:

Firstly because these schools have institutional needs beyond academics. Sports teams need students to fill their rosters, orchestra's need students to fill their seats, newspapers/radio stations need students to produce content etc. and all these activities that the students engage in serve to strengthen the university brand both within the greater community and more importantly with alumni who are a major source of financial support and networking opportunities for admitted students. These activities also serve to make the universities more appealing to potential applicants. Who wants to attend a school that provides no opportunity to socialize?

Secondly because these elite institutions receive many multitudes more applications from highly qualified prospective students than they can possibly admit so that it serves as a means of reducing the potential admissions pool.

 

[AndreasC]

These activities also serve to make the universities more appealing to potential applicants. Who wants to attend a school that provides no opportunity to socialize?

I can not imagine how these criteria make for a better environment for socialization. These places are notoriously snobby and competitive, that's in part to how you get in there.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can not imagine how these criteria make for a better environment for socialization.

Really? This sounds like a failure of imagination. Which is better for socialization - a college with a good newspaper, an orchestra, sports teams, theatre, a choir, etc. or one without those things?

notoriously snobby

Every US College? Or just the ones with orchestras? Or something else? Maybe you should identify which colleges and why you think this?

 

[berkeman]

Every US College?

I don't think @AndreasC is talking about US universities. He's probably referring to universities in his country.

 

[gmax137]

I don't think so, read his post 5 where he talks about the Ivies being the "worst offender"s.

 

[berkeman]

I don't think so, read his post 5 where he talks about the Ivies being the "worst offender"s.

Well, I have superpowers, and he's not in the US...

 

[Vanadium 50]

I guess other countries have Ivies.

 

[AndreasC]

I don't think @AndreasC is talking about US universities. He's probably referring to universities in his country.

Not in my country, but it's a general thing about elite universities all over the world, and especially the US. As I said before however, I am not talking about every college.

 

[AndreasC]

Really? This sounds like a failure of imagination. Which is better for socialization - a college with a good newspaper, an orchestra, sports teams, theatre, a choir, etc. or one without those things?

Every US College? Or just the ones with orchestras? Or something else? Maybe you should identify which colleges and why you think this?

One with a lower percentage of over-competitive trust fund kids, preferably. Believe it or not someone does not have to play the oboe to be a good peer to socialize with. None of the most interesting or easy to socialize with people I've met did any of that stuff.

It's not every US college, and I am not talking specifically about US colleges, although in my opinion it is a phenomenon that is worse in prestigious US colleges. It's a phenomenon generally related to the prestige and price tag of a school, and it would happen even without the selection process but the selection process makes it significantly worse, because it is extremely discriminatory. I've heard of an example where some region in the UK had criteria like that to qualify for an academic medicine positions or something (I don't remember the details), and the students basically contacted some lawyers who successfully threatened to sue the regional government of violating a bunch of anti-discrimination laws, but apparently it's ok when universities (in the UK as well) do it.

On the other hand, almost half of the people in Harvard or Yale or whatever don't go through the normal selection process already (legacy students, parents donated money, athletes etc). My guess is they weren't screened for "interestingness".

 

[gleem]

On the other hand, almost half of the people in Harvard or Yale or whatever don't go through the normal selection process already (legacy students, parents donated money, athletes etc). My guess is they weren't screened for "interestingness".

Where do you get all your information?

 

[Vanadium 50]

You still haven;t named any actual schools. How would you respond to someone whi says you are discussing a set of measure zero?

While you are at it, please explain the distinction you are drawing between a student-athlete having their athletic activities considered as being part of being "well-rounded" and not going through the normal admissions process.

You keep talking about "trust fund kids". How many students at your soon-to-be-identified colleges have trust-funds? How many should there be? Should there be a cap? Or is this just rhetoric?

Finally, as a bonus question, the more students who pay full tuition, the more scholarships can be offered. I hope this is obvious. How badly should we screw the poor in order to screw the rich?

 

[AndreasC]

Where do you get all your information?

Apparently what I had read was about ALDC white students in Harvard specifically:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713744

43% of them are legacy, athletes, admitted because parents donated, etc. Don't know what exactly the total numbers are, you can look into the paper, I am on my phone. I guess it's a bit lower than what I said before but still really damn high.

 

[gleem]

you can look into the paper

For $30. The abstract leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[AndreasC]

having their athletic activities considered as being part of being "well-rounded" and not going through the normal admissions process.

There is essentially a separate pool of admissions for top athletes, they are held to a much lower standard. I actually don't mind that too much.

Finally, as a bonus question, the more students who pay full tuition, the more scholarships can be offered. I hope this is obvious. How badly should we screw the poor in order to screw the rich?

Don't worry, they aren't in any danger of getting screwed up, since almost none of them go to Ivy League universities, and almost none of the people who go to Ivy Leagues are poor.

 

[AndreasC]

For $30. The abstract leaves a lot to be desired.

Scihub hehehe

 

[gmax137]

43% of them

Read it carefully. Accepted is not the same as entered. I expect many of those "accepted" at Harvard are also accepted at Yale, Princeton, or any other institution they applied to. How many of the actual freshman class are ALDC? I don't know, I have not seen that figure.

The legacy thing is a hot topic now. But it is really not the issue raised by the OP -- "legacy" is not congruent with "well rounded." Neither is "athlete" or "faculty child."

 

[AndreasC]

Read it carefully. Accepted is not the same as entered. I expect many of those "accepted" at Harvard are also accepted at Yale, Princeton, or any other institution they applied to. How many of the actual freshman class are ALDC? I don't know, I have not seen that figure.

The legacy thing is a hot topic now. But it is really not the issue raised by the OP -- "legacy" is not congruent with "well rounded." Neither is "athlete" or "faculty child."

Right, I wasn't trying to imply it is the same thing as "well rounded". It was kind of a separate point. You are also correct in saying accepted is not the same as entered, but I think it's fair to say that considering these facts, the Ivy Leagues probably have a large (double digit) percentage of people admitted that way.

The legacy thing is bonkers, to me it shows the kind of mindset these places have.

 

[AndreasC]

Here is another absolutely insane statistic, 5 Ivy Leagues (and 38 US colleges in general) have more students in the top 1% of incomes than from the entire bottom 60%:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...rom-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

They clearly only admit extremely well rounded students, you have to be nearly perfectly spherical to be accepted.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is essentially a separate pool of admissions for top athlete

Where exactly? This is the third time I have asked you be specific and you keep dodging. Caltech and Georgia, to name two, have very different policies.

If 46% of the admitted students are athletes, legacies, on the "Deans interest list" or children of faculty, and 36% are legacies, we are talking about a number around 10% of athletes,, on the "Deans interest list" or children of faculty. FWIW, children of faculty make up about 2-1/2% of the admitted class. And as @gmax137 says, while legacy admissions are certainly controversial, that's not the issue brought up by the OP. It also doesn't support the position you expressed in #5.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here is another absolutely insane statistic

But Harvard is not on that list. I ask a fourth time. Name names.

Those schools are exactly who you think they would be. Expensive schools without a lot of money for financial aid. Kenyon - on their list - has 20% of the undergraduate students of Harvard, and 0.8% of the endowment.

Further, this is once again not what the OP is discussing. This may well be a topic worth discussing, but that is not the subject of this thread.

 

[Nugatory]

It's been several years sense I've gone through the undergraduate application process. Looking back on it, one thing strikes me as very odd.

It is really unusual for me to find myself quoting Ayn Rand in an unironic way, but this is the time: "Check your premises".

 

[gleem]

Getting back to the OP. Some/many, prestigious universities are located in areas that are difficult for them to expand so they are limited in the number of students that they can accept. Since their programs have become greatly sought after they must find ways to cull the applicants. So you raise the bar. Since you get the best and the brightest, high GPA, max SAT scores, excellent letters of recommendation, and outstanding letter of intent you need the tie-breakers. Now they can't use race or race-related criteria like legacy applicants, so perhaps they will even have to use a lottery which seems fair to me.

Not all employers need the cutthroat temperament of a Harvard grad. I think that the mystique of Harvard providing the best education is not necessarily the education but the general quality of the grads, although not all Harvard grads are equally successful. They may have a leg up on other university grads to start because of this mystique but considering their temperament and their previous accomplishments they probably would have been as successful graduating from a lesser-ranked university. These are smart, motivated, capable people.

 

[AndreasC]

This is the third time I have asked you be specific and you keep dodging.

Dodging? Are these supposed to be hard hitting questions? I don't understand why you want to get bogged down in the details of the policy of one school. Since you keep bringing up the original question of the op, the original question wasn't about one specific place either. The link I posted was about Harvard, so look at Harvard. Harvard is an example of a university where a double digit percentage of the acceptances happen on lower standards, and they favor rich people and people in the "cool kids club". This is not directly related to the issue of the op, and I'm not claiming that it is. But it does tell you a bit more about the students they want.

And yes, apparently Harvard, even though it is also overwhelmingly rich, it still isn't on that list (but it's not far off either), probably because they have stronger affirmative action and financial assistance programs than other places. There's also many places that don't offer assistance on that list, which makes sense. But Princeton, Yale etc also offer financial assistance and are still on that list. Isn't that interesting? How might have that happened? Maybe rich people are just inherently better rounded.

 

[PeroK]

It is really unusual for me to find myself quoting Ayn Rand in an unironic way, but this is the time: "Check your premises".

Something she should have applied to herself!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, dodging.

If you aren't talking about Harvard, maybe you should stop talking about Harvard.

If you were talking about the list with Kenyon on it, they don't need to surreptitiously sneak in a wealthy class by cleverly crafting am admissions policy to do that (a policy strikingly similar to schools not on that list). They can simply provide a good education with limited financial aid. Which is what they are doing.

If you don't like that, what should they do? Spend money they don't have? Or maybe provide a worse education. Those are the choices.

 

[russ_watters]

One with a lower percentage of over-competitive trust fund kids, preferably. Believe it or not someone does not have to play the oboe to be a good peer to socialize with. None of the most interesting or easy to socialize with people I've met did any of that stuff.

Ok, but how do they prove it to the admissions board? Playing the oboe is verifiable proof that you're capable of being a productive member of a team to achieve a common goal, in addition to working hard on an individual accomplishment (similar to a sports team).

I went to the Naval Academy, which also looks heavily at character, leadership, etc. (many of those other ultra-competitive schools do too). How did I prove I was a quality person (as best they could tell)? Volunteer work associated with Boy Scouts/Eagle Scout, church and a 3rd party award for it. And Student Leader in band.

To me, this is the same argument people make against formal education. Sure, you can learn on your own, but most people who claim to want to don't and more importantly they can't prove it (to prospective employers) without the piece of paper you get when you finish.

It's not about elitism it's about proof.

[edit] And also about filling up those activities that the school offers; band/orchestra, sports teams, etc.

 

[AndreasC]

If you aren't talking about Harvard, maybe you should stop talking about Harvard.

I think I need a list of what I am permitted to talk about if I am to continue.

 

[AndreasC]

Ok, but how do they prove it to the admissions board?

There is no need to prove anything. Just completely ignore all that nonsense in admissions. The problem will not completely go away since the real problem is the very existence of these expensive "elite" institutions, but it will at least help. If a criterion isn't selecting for what it is supposed to, but selecting for something else entirely, then you don't need it.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no need to prove anything. Just completely ignore all that nonsense in admissions. The problem will not completely go away since the real problem is the very existence of these expensive "elite" institutions, but it will at least help. If a criterion isn't selecting for what it is supposed to, but selecting for something else entirely, then you don't need it.

You're really just yelling at clouds here.

 

[AndreasC]

You're really just yelling at clouds here.

I am saying how it is and what I think of it. You are entitled to like how it is, and I am entitled to disagree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

the real problem is the very existence of these expensive "elite" institutions

First, even if this is "the real problem", it's not what the OP asked about.

Second, if the problem is that the well-off have more access to a limited resource than the less well-off it is hard to believe that the solution is to make the resource even more limited.

Finally, there have been attempts to improve equality by disposing of elite institutions and the well-off. The Khmer Rouge tried it in the 1970's in Cambodia. It did not end well.

 

[russ_watters]

I am saying how it is and what I think of it. You are entitled to like how it is, and I am entitled to disagree.

Yep. It's just... It's disjointed, illogical, pointless, and self-contradictory/self-defeating. Practically nobody actually thinks this way - that's why those institutions are so hard to get into!

 

[russ_watters]

Second, if the problem is that the well-off have more access to a limited resource than the less well-off it is hard to believe that the solution is to make the resource even more limited.

I don't think that's what they are after: they want to create more equality by damaging institutions with higher quality. The problem is, if you succeed, what have you won? If you're mad you didn't get in and you damage the institution to the point that nobody wants to go there anymore except you, do you really still want to go? As a great philosopher once said: I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

 

[AndreasC]

First, even if this is "the real problem", it's not what the OP asked about.

The Khmer Rouge isn't what the op asked for either and yet here you are coming up with bizarre non sequiturs.

Second, if the problem is that the well-off have more access to a limited resource than the less well-off it is hard to believe that the solution is to make the resource even more limited.

I can't see how that, or the Khmer Rouge, follows from any of my posts. Maybe in the sense that the Khmer Rouge could follow from Kissinger and Kissinger could follow from Harvard but I don't think that's the point you are trying to make. But like Kissinger, it's probably time for this train of thought to finally stop. If you don't like what I say, you can just say what it is specifically you disagree with instead of making weird associations or trying to muddy the waters.

 

[AndreasC]

I don't think that's what they are after: they want to create more equality by damaging institutions with higher quality. The problem is, if you succeed, what have you won? If you're mad you didn't get in and you damage the institution to the point that nobody wants to go there anymore except you, do you really still want to go? As a great philosopher once said: I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

That's not at all what I am saying. Quality and elite don't mean the same thing, and perhaps it's my fault I didn't make that clearer.

 

[russ_watters]

That's not at all what I am saying. Quality and elite don't mean the same thing, and perhaps it's my fault I didn't make that clearer.

No, that's a lot of the problem with what you are saying; they do mean the same thing (or at least one follows from the other). Wanting to get rid of the elite status without getting rid of the quality is not possible.
[edit]
Even if you declare or create artificial equality it still doesn't work:

I live in Pennsylvania. We have a pretty good state college. Part of the point of state college is that almost anyone can go (they are huge, inexpensive and have relatively low admissions standards). This particular state college has one main campus and a bunch of satellite campuses. The satellite campuses are mostly feeders into the main campus after 2 years, but there are some where you can get a degree, and all the degrees say the same thing: Penn State. So it doesn't matter if you go to the satellite campus for 2 years or 4 years (vs 4 years at the main campus).

I knew dozens of people in high school who went to Penn State, many of them to satellite campuses at least to start. Nobody wanted to go to a satellite campus (at least without a circumstantial reason like location). Why? Because the main campus is both objectively and intangibly better. Even with a declared equality of output. It's just reality.

 

[AndreasC]

No, that's a lot of the problem with what you are saying; they do mean the same thing (or at least one follows from the other). Wanting to get rid of the elite status without getting rid of the quality is not possible.
[edit]
Even if you declare or create artificial equality it still doesn't work:

I live in Pennsylvania. We have a pretty good state college. Part of the point of state college is that almost anyone can go. This particular state college has one main campus and a bunch of satellite campuses. The satellite campuses are mostly feeders into the main campus after 2 years, but there are some where you can get a degree, and all the degrees say the same thing: Penn State. So it doesn't matter if you go to the satellite campus for 2 years or 4 years (vs 4 years at the main campus).

Nobody wants to go to the satellite campuses. I knew dozens of people in high school who went to Penn State, many of them to satellite campuses at least to start. Nobody wanted to go to a satellite campus. Why? Because the main campus is both objectively and intangibly better. Even with a declared equality of output. It's just reality.

But see, you said it. Everybody wants to go to one university and not the other, because it is BETTER. Not necessarily because it is high quality, but because it is BETTER. In this case, it is also high quality. But go to smaller countries, and you'll see the top students racing to go to universities that are ranked nowhere near top 100 or even top 250 (which doesn't necessarily say everything about quality, but you get my point). Why? Because it is better than the other places that are available to them. So, one factor that makes a place very exclusive and "elite" is comparative advantage to the others. Of course, elite status is not just "better". Elite status is something very special, a very large comparative advantage to the others, or at least a perceived one.

So now one might ask why they have such a large comparative advantage, or why they are perceived that way. And it mostly comes down to funding in the end of the day. All the top researchers want to go that way, all the best infrastructure is there, all the best opportunity. So part of the fix would be figuring out how to distribute these resources to more places, rather than them being effectively hoarded up in the "elite" schools. I am not saying it would ever be feasible for all difference in quality to be erased, but it would definitely be better if it could at least be ameliorated. The "how" is a separate issue.

The perception of large comparative advantage also has to do with rankings, and the "success" of people who go there. This however also has to do with networking, and already being wealthy before going to the school or coming from a certain background, and not uniquely through the educational merits. In some sense it can be a vicious circle, elites go to elite schools because they are elite, and the fact that they go there perpetuates their elite status.

But even large comparative advantage is not all that makes them elite. It's also their culture, that they do everything in their hand to perpetuate (see the legacy admissions, or the criteria I take issue with). MIT and Princeton are both high quality. Many would say MIT is higher quality. But MIT is not as "elite" as Princeton. MIT is still generally considered elite of course, but there are also top quality institutions which generally aren't, at least not in the sense of Ivy League or Oxford or Cambridge etc.

 

[PeroK]

As a great philosopher once said: I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

Didn't Groucho Marx say that? You must be confusing him with Karl Marx.

 

[russ_watters]

Didn't Groucho Marx say that? You must be confusing him with Karl Marx.

No, I'm definitely not.

 

[gmax137]

Didn't Groucho Marx say that? You must be confusing him with Karl Marx.

I like the one where Groucho ends a long screed by saying, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."

 

[russ_watters]

But see, you said it. Everybody wants to go to one university and not the other, because it is BETTER. Not necessarily because it is high quality, but because it is BETTER. In this case, it is also high quality. But go to smaller countries, and you'll see the top students racing to go to universities that are ranked nowhere near top 100 or even top 250 (which doesn't necessarily say everything about quality, but you get my point). Why? Because it is better than the other places that are available to them. So, one factor that makes a place very exclusive and "elite" is comparative advantage to the others. Of course, elite status is not just "better".

When I say "better" I mean higher quality. Mostly education quality, but there are other qualities. What do you mean when you say it?

So now one might ask why they have such a large comparative advantage, or why they are perceived that way. And it mostly comes down to funding in the end of the day. All the top researchers want to go that way, all the best infrastructure is there, all the best opportunity. So part of the fix would be figuring out how to distribute these resources to more places, rather than them being effectively hoarded up in the "elite" schools. I am not saying it would ever be feasible for all difference in quality to be erased, but it would definitely be better if it could at least be ameliorated. The "how" is a separate issue.

The "how" is the a big part of problem. You're arguing against gravity, so the vision of equality is just a pointless fantasy (even if we were to agreed that the fantasy outcome would be a good thing).

 

[AndreasC]

The "how" is the a big part of problem. You're arguing against gravity, so the vision of equality is just a pointless fantasy (even if we were to agreed that the fantasy outcome would be a good thing).

There are a million ways to organize an educational system, hard to believe this one is "gravity".

 

[AndreasC]

When I say "better" I mean higher quality. Mostly education quality, but there are other qualities. What do you mean when you say it?

More or less the same thing, all I'm saying is that elite is not the same as better, and better is not the same as high quality. As you said, better is high-ER quality. Not high quality. Better is comparative. Elite institutions demonstrate a large gap in available resources compared to others. This is what I'm saying. The gap is the problem. Or rather, one problem. But this is not directly related to the original question. The problem I find that is related to the original question is that they use unfair criteria which are biased overwhelmingly in favor of rich people. This is related to their elite-ness, in the cultural sense.