[81alum]

The standard criticism of elites like Stanford is that their students succeed because admissions selected students who already have proven they will succeed, not because of the quality of education that the University provides.  Some critics say that elites sort students rather than educate them.  That the value of a Stanford degree is imparted more by Admissions than by the faculty.

The test of whether this criticism is true or not really must be the extent to which the elite universities  help students succeed who are not already bound for glory when they are admitted.  How well do the elites help students who are genuinely talented, but whose families lack the income to take advantage of admission-getting advantages like the trips and the extracurriculars referenced earlier in this thread?

This is a healthy discussion, and yes, I think elite admissions could do better.  75% vs. 3% is an extreme difference and not one that is consistent with the American dream of social mobility.

[81alum]

The standard criticism of elites like Stanford is that their students succeed because admissions selected students who already have proven they will succeed, not because of the quality of education that the University provides.  Some critics say that elites sort students rather than educate them.  That the value of a Stanford degree is imparted more by Admissions than by the faculty.

The test of whether this criticism is true or not really must be the extent to which the elite universities  help students succeed who are not already bound for glory when they are admitted.  How well do the elites help students who are genuinely talented, but whose families lack the income to take advantage of admission-getting advantages like the trips and the extracurriculars referenced earlier in this thread?

This is a healthy discussion, and yes, I think elite admissions could do better.  75% vs. 3% is an extreme difference and not one that is consistent with the American dream of social mobility.