Tertiary education at the elite level is rarely about the quality of education. The difference between Georgia Tech and Columbia or Harvard's CS program is not that stark. However, the story is completely different when it comes to alumni network, access to funding, future opportunities. Prestige and network effects compound and an argument can be made for whether we should allow academia to be the gatekeepers of social mobility at the highest level.

Certain Ivies favour grade inflation yet their students do not suffer dilution of their degree value, this is not a privilege extended to many other institutions.

The Ivy League factor plays a smaller role for CS than for other disciplines, due to less gatekeeping. Yale is about University of Minnesota level across multiple computer science ranking measures: https://drafty.cs.brown.edu/csopenrankings/

Same quality yes, but not access to the same opportunities.

You are not forced to pay attention to a Yale degree, though? If it affects government funding, OK, you can discuss it.

Building networks is also not a bad thing. It is good if people know and trust each other and know who to turn to for help. It is a stupid idea of modernism or whatever that there should be no networking.

GT’s CS program is held in higher regard within the industry.

The Ivy League has great stem programs but the most prestigious degrees come from other schools like law, business and medicine.

What are the strict "levels" of education? Why is obtaining a "Yale" level of education in and of itself a good thing, especially if we're not seeing society-wide positive change driven solely by individuals with that level of education?

The article's point is that historically, large-scale change is driven by groups rather than individuals. And the groups are not cabals of HYP grads, their compositions are wide and varied. So it's worth revisiting exactly what your comment assumes: that there is a strict hierarchy of individual capacity to drive change, and we need to segregate people according to said hierarchy in order to push society forward.

> Also what is wrong with giving people the choice to go to Yale?

99.999% of people don't have the choice to go to Yale. That would be true even if everyone in America were given "equal opportunity" from birth -- it's how scarcity works. The article answers this question for you in case you want to give it a second read.

"Why is obtaining a "Yale" level of education in and of itself a good thing, especially if we're not seeing society-wide positive change driven solely by individuals with that level of education?"

If you don't think obtaining a Yale level of education is a good thing, simply don't go there? What would be the point in abolishing it?

"The article's point is that historically, large-scale change is driven by groups rather than individuals."

That would be the a) option, people can achieve the same things without Yale.

"99.999% of people don't have the choice to go to Yale. That would be true even if everyone in America were given "equal opportunity" from birth -- it's how scarcity works. The article answers this question for you in case you want to give it a second read."

Most people just decide not to go there. That doesn't imply that they don't have the choice.

"The article answers this question for you in case you want to give it a second read."

If their argument is it should be abolished because not everybody has the choice to go there, it is a bad argument. If b) holds, you would still want people to go to Yale to achieve the things that could not be achieved otherwise. And in case of a), it seems irrelevant.

> If their argument is it should be abolished because not everybody has the choice to go there

Why don't you read the article (or my comment to you, fully) to understand what the argument actually is?

I have read it. Their argument about groups making many advances is rather weak, though. It only links to a list of 100 allegedly most important advancements in human history. If you need a good brain surgeon, a group and its advancements won't help you much. You need somebody with a very good education. I also don't assume there is a strict hierarchy of capabilities. You can still do your group advancements while Yale exists. The article simply does not make a very good argument.

Two possible cases? You can pick any arbitrary measure of Yale's value and apply the same reasoning and possibly come out with a different result.

How so? It is a bisection of the space of possibilities. It is irrelevant for the logic that you could pick another measure.

You omit the case where Yale as an institution has a net negative impact on society. In that case, Yale should be abolished.

How would that be possible, though, seeing as it only affects very few people?

The assumption that it affects very few people is unfortunately misplaced.

According to the article, only very few people can go there. That is what I was referring to.

It's not "abolish Yale and do nothing", it's "abolish Yale and use the $42B endowment for something better".

But is it not a private organisation?

I don't see a way to not quickly devolve into socialism with that line of thought? You have to reject the notion that people should be allowed to spend their money as they see fit.

If you want to convince people that their money would be better spent elsewhere, fine. But to demand they should not be allowed to spend it on a Yale education is authoritarian and socialist.

It's not a private organization, it's a charity. In exchange for not paying taxes, they've given up the right to spend the money as they see fit.

I was talking about the people giving them money, for example by paying them for their education.

If the discussion is about removing charity status from Yale, it would be a different thing. As I see it, Yale is offering a service and people voluntarily decide to pay for it, so removing that option would be authoritarian.