What they do well is exclude as many people as possible while maintaining a similar level of academic standards as...UVA and Michigan and UC Berkeley, which aren't fundamentally exclusionary institutions.
I struggle to see what they're doing right.
I struggle to see what they're doing right.
A bunch, what's your point? UVA is a very good institution.
> Top institutions don't need to be dragged down to meet the average based on some arbitrary criteria
"Dragged down" tell us how you really think about the bottom 99.99%! It makes me think you really don't think of the rest of us as proper citizens - should we gate more things to university admissions? Because last time I checked, the current POTUS went to University of Delaware, an institution even less exclusionary than UVA.
> If you don't like it, don't apply.
I think their influence on society should be crushed, because it's been a net-negative since the introduction of "meritocracy" to their admissions policies.
As Morill Act institutions (except for MIT, which is an aberration) Michigan/Harvard/UVA's purpose is also to educate and not to cultivate an elite.
If Harvard reduced financial aid, meaning that more people were dissuaded from applying, and that brought the numbers up to the same - would you be happy?
Looking at acceptance rate to define what is good or bad is just weird.
However, your use of the word "exceptional" is intriguing - I want you to be very specific about what you think of "unexceptional" people - do you dislike us? Hate us? What should happen to us? Would you consider yourself to be among those exceptional people? Genuinely curious!
If you want to look up to unexceptional people, you’ve already lost.
I'm very intrigued now. Who can I look up to, and what is the bar for being exceptional? It's any Harvard admit, or does it have to be a Harvard graduate? Does Brown count? What about Duke or Rice?