unfortunately for this narrative, there are lots of smart rich people, for obvious reasons

Well then they shouldn't be affected by this changed.

sure. all i’m saying is this is not the “system” at these schools

This is a fun platitude but what does it actually mean? How does this… relationship play out?

Rich kid's tuition and endowments from their families fund the school to a high level allowing them to pay for highly talented individuals and prestigious research. They might not do as well academically, but still get to trade on the name of having gone to the school

Smart kids get in on scholarships and grants and help uphold the prestige of the university name while getting access to the highly talented professors. They are able to take advantage of this access, do well in the school, and have prestigious results in the real world, move on to be involved in that prestigious research, etc.

You also have the elbow rubbing of the moneyed elite with people that might be very well suited to take that money and help grow it to even larger levels.

That's the idea, anyway. Whether or not it's reality, I don't know. I didn't attend an Ivy League (or quasi-Ivy League in Stanford's case) school. They also of course receive significant money from the government via grants as well, so it's not entirely all coming from the pockets of the rich.

It's wild that the shorthand for "good school" is what sports division some schools in/around Massachusetts are in.

> It's wild that the shorthand for "good school" is what sports division some schools in/around Massachusetts are in.

Nice meme, but that really doesn’t do justice to the reality.

- Seven of the schools that became the Ivy League were “colonial colleges” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_colleges). William & Mary and Rutgers did not become part of the Ivy League, and Cornell (not a colonial college) did.

- They are all research universities, which makes them distinct from many colleges that seem to have similar origins.

- The schools are all in the northeast corridor, but Massachusetts is definitely on the Eastern side of the Ivy geographic area. Ivies center more around colonial era settlements than the state of Massachusetts.

> Rich kid's tuition and endowments from their families fund the school to a high level allowing them to pay for highly talented individuals and prestigious research

Are you predicting donations to Stanford and USC will crater to a level that existentially threatens either institution?

I'm predicting nothing. I replied to someone who asked for further clarification on how this theory is supposed to work.

I haven't put enough thought into it to have strong feelings one way or the other - I'm just aware of the argument being made.

God don't threaten me with a good time...

yep it pretty much works this way in practice. can confirm.

Thanks for the explanation. Ivy League prestige disenchantment has reached a new high.

It's intelligence signal laundering. Take 80% really smart people. Now pay $$$ to throw your rich kid in. Out comes 5 Harvard degrees. Your rich kid looks smart now.

> Your rich kid looks smart now.

A rich kid doesn’t need to look smart. Their family connections will be why they get access to good work, and many/most of them are aware of this.

Well, if the majority of Harvard graduates entered the workforce with little to no education, showing up to work hours late and coked out everyday doing diddly-squat, maybe at first nothing would change, but over time all those companies would be overtaken by those run by state school kids, and companies would no longer trust Ivy graduates as good hires.

> Well, if the majority of Harvard graduates entered the workforce with little to no education

Check.

The actual classroom education at Harvard isn’t that good, imho. There are some signature classes that are definitely amazing, the access to resources for self-directed learning are incredible, and the competition and collaboration with one’s peers can push people to perform at new highs, but the base classroom instruction is generally not very good.

> showing up to work hours late

Maybe

> and coked out everyday

Stereotype, but maybe.

> doing diddly-squat

This can happen with anyone anywhere, imho. That said, what you consider “diddly-squat” may have more value than you think. See below.

> maybe at first nothing would change, but over time all those companies would be overtaken by those run by state school kids

This part of your comment makes me think that you and I see the college and labor markets very differently.

1. There are “worker bees” at elite schools and at state schools. These are the folks that seem to have a tireless ability to complete discrete tasks. The top worker bees at state schools are definitely on par with Ivy worker bees in terms of potential productivity, but not as much on ambition (as a whole).

2. There are “social capital” people at elite schools and at major state schools. These are folks who will rely mostly on their social capital to find work (as an employee or as a company owner). The main differences are that elite schools graduates will more often play for higher stakes often on a national or international level, while the state school folks will more often be playing for relatively smaller stakes on a regional, state, or local level.

3. The social capital people can show up to work late, coked out, and doing what some folks think is diddly squat, as long as they use their social capital to move things forward for their organization. This can be rain making for business deals, connecting the right people for a collaboration, or assembling a team of good worker bees who can do stuff for them. Worker bees tend to see the social capital people as grifters (and some are), but they are often linchpins in certain domains and businesss. Ignore them at your own peril.

4. Last but not least, you get the folks with social capital who are also good worker bees. These folks are pure gold, and they can be found at state schools and elite schools. They are rare. Most are amazing to be around. They frequently do amazing things.

5. Your idea of “state school kids” taking over the world is pure fantasy in my opinion. State school kids simply won’t have the connections or opportunities to do things at a scale that facilitates this.

> and companies would no longer trust Ivy graduates as good hires.

I don’t think that grads of any university are guaranteed good hires, and thinking so is a recipe for disaster.

Ivy grads can be highly productive in a generic corporate context, but only if they are solid worker bees (not every Ivy grad is), and only if you give them and endless number of hoops to jump through with accompanying rewards to get them to mid-career.

Most places of employment aren’t really set up like this.

Investment Banking and Business are about relationships and trust first, then competence. They are dealing with rich clients from the same background, something they've effectively spent their entire life preparing for. I assure you, any SWE could easily digest finance topics, but there is reason they're in SWE and not IB.

They don’t need to be stunningly smart, but they need to look and sound competent enough to be put in charge. The entire system runs on plausible deniability where people can say it’s not nepotism just convincingly enough to avoid scrutiny.

That’s a great question.

Here is a good example:

A friend of mine from a humble background in Michigan decided he wanted to go to NYC and make it in finance. He eventually did.

After paying his dues in lower-ranked jobs in finance, some of his professional acquaintances were starting a hedge fund, and a key part of their strategy had to do with parts suppliers to Detroit car manufacturers.

They immediately realized that they needed a “local” to be their boots on the ground there. Northeast corridor (NEC) elites may have high social standing in the NEC, but they come across as pompous city slickers outside of the NEC. People were reluctant to share information with them due to lack of trust. My friend was able to develop that trust, so he was basically a go between for the Michigan parts suppliers and the NYC financiers.

That symbiotic/parasitic relationship netted him an 8-figure exit and an early retirement in his 40s, with a comparable bump for his NEC-born partners.

California does not have any Ivy League universities.

Stanford was setup by people who came from that tradition.

Stanford?

California does not have any Ivy League universities.

The Ivy League is a northeastern athletic conference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League

True, but that was not their point, and correcting it does not affect their point.

Why are you downvoted? California does not have any Ivy League universities.

Probably because it misses the point of the argument completely.

That’s the beauty of the system. It’s mutually beneficial.

If those were the only two kinds of people who existed, sure.

Is it? It seems like the rich kids are still playing a heads I win tails you lose game with the smart kids.

How?

Never change, HN.

The problem with this approach is that the private universities still get benefits of federal funding through student aids and research grants. If no federal money was used for the undergraduate students, I would have no problem with this. Private university can do whatever they want with their admission as long as no public money is spent on the admission process and the admitted students.

The funding and grants mostly benefit the students and researchers though.

The bigger problem is their endowments and tax exempt status. The amount of wealth going through top universities is insane, with schools like Stanford and Harvard becoming appendages to giant hedge funds.

I don't care how the money is spent as long as it is their money. But the federal funding is not; it is tax payer's money. Tax money should be allocated based on decision made by the congress, which is the will of the people in the country. but to me it looks like the tax money the private universities get is spent on their terms, not the citizen.

Well, life sucks. Here in Ohio our tax dollars fund vouchers that can be used to pay tuition at religious schools.

Meanwhile I bet those schools are exempt from standardized tests because they know the students (most) would flunk them. That’s the way it works here in Texas, there is no oversight or feedback that home schooled or private school kids actually meet any kind of standards at all. Now the governor wants the same type of vouchers and he was -heavily- “inspired” by money from charter school/religious school owning billionaires.

Home schooled children out perform government schooled children across the board. That's not even a disputed point.

The feedback is provided by the market mechanism. Private schools and charter schools that don't do a good job would fail to retain and attract students, and shut down.

For government-run schools, most of the students have little or no choice. Standardized tests (like SBAC) show poor results in California (most kids fail to meet grade level standards in the test), but parents have little ability to change how school districts are run.

Here in San Francisco:

- Our tax dollars fund government-run schools that cost an $26k per student per year. Fewer than half the students at those schools meet or exceed grade standards for Math and English.

- The median cost of a religious school is about half the cost of government-run schools: https://x.com/RahimNathwani/status/1840965145604079997

- Parents who choose to send their children to non-government-run schools get no vouchers: we pay taxes to fund government employees, and then use what's left to pay for the schools our children need.

Are those other schools half the cost because they exclude anyone with disabilities or poor upbringings and just cream off the easy students?

If so then you are enthusiastically cheering for kids to be thrown on the scrapheap to save you a few bucks. And using religion as a cover for it, which only makes it worse.

No. They're half the cost because they don't spend half their money paying for a central bureaucracy. They spend almost all their money on buildings and teachers.

I’ve seen religious schools accommodate some kids with certain disabilities, to the limited extent that they are able. Kids with serious disabilities will also often get supplemental special education provided by the public school system.

As for poor kids, the religious schools that I know about are priced lower than actual cost and they rely on donations to make up the difference. Scholarships are also available for really poor kids.

Where I live (California) there are no public vouchers or other public money for tuition at private schools.

I'm not from San Francisco, I don't have a horse in this race, I was just looking over the link that you posted and it doesn't seem to support what you're saying at all

- The link you posted doesn't talk about public schools at all, only private school tuition.

- This 2024 census.gov report[1] says that San Francisco public schools cost $23,654 per student

- According to graph on the link that you posted only 12% of private schools in San Francisco charge < $25000 annual tuition

- According to the article from the link you posted religious schools make up 48% of private schools in California, so mathematically, at least 3/4 religious schools charge more in annual tuition than a year of public school costs (according to census.gov)

- According to the article from the link you posted, religious schools offer special lower rates for families who belong to the parish, meaning the "cost per student" is even higher than tuition

[1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/public-s...

  > The link you posted doesn't talk about public schools at all, only private school tuition.

Yes, that was to show the cost of religious schools which is the type GP was talking about. I did not provide a source for the $26k cost of public schools.

  > According to graph on the link that you posted only 12%
  > of private schools in San Francisco charge < $25000
  > annual tuition

Yes, the charts on the bottom half of that graph show tuition for parochial (religious) schools, which was GP's topic. Ignore the top half (non-religious) as it's not relevant to this discussion.

The median sticker price for parochial schools in San Francisco is:

Grades K-12: $10.9k

Grade 3: $10.4k

Grade 8: $10.9k

Grade 12: $27.0k

All of the above are calculated by weighting each school equally, as I don't have access to per-school per-grade student counts. Feel free to recalculate these. They're based solely on the data the SF Chronicle intern collected.

  > This 2024 census.gov report[1] says that San Francisco
  > public schools cost $23,654 per student

Well, that 2024 report is based on old data from 2022. That's two years old! Let's look at more recent data.

SFUSD's operating budget for 2024-2025 is $1.3 billion (https://www.sfusd.edu/about-sfusd/sfusd-news/press-releases/...).

It has 48,000 students (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/sfusd-closures-b...).

That's $27k per student per year, which is more than it was the last time I looked!

  > According to the article from the link you posted,
  > religious schools offer special lower rates for families
  > who belong to the parish, meaning the "cost per student"
  > is even higher than tuition

I don't have extensive data to back this up, but from anecdotes I've heard it's swings and roundabouts. Some families pay more than sticker price, and others pay less.

Yeah you're right, sorry for making you write that all out, I should have stopped after "I'm not from San Francisco and don't have a horse in this race"

No worries. You took the time to think and dig a little, so I don't mind being more specific. Anyway, whatever questions/doubts you had/have, I'm sure you aren't/weren't alone :)

1). You can lead a horse to books, but you cant make it think.

2). This statistic is meaningless unless without data about the inputs and outputs. I assume that that student populations are vastly different.

3). That's your choice. In Ohio, I get to fund religious education, which I am vehemently opposed to doing.

Have you considered that, perhaps if you and like-minded parents didn't remove their students from the public education system, perhaps the test scores would be higher?

  Have you considered that, perhaps if you and like-minded parents didn't remove their students from the public education system, perhaps the test scores would be higher?

I didn't 'remove' my child from the public education system.

Government schools in my area are not an attractive option. I spoke with the principal of one of the top 3 most popular elementary government schools (measured by ratio of applicants to kindergarten spots). She made it clear that, if my son were to attend that school:

- my son would never be allowed to skip a grade

- under no circumstances would a teacher in grade X teach material normally covered in grade X+1

My son is in 3rd grade, doing math with the 4th grade class, and studying 5th grade math at home.

If he were at a government-run school, he would be in 2nd grade, and spend math lessons at school covering material he mastered 2 years ago.

  In Ohio, I get to fund religious education, which I am vehemently opposed to doing.

In San Francisco, I get to fund an inefficient bureaucracy set up to benefit adult employees, which I am vehemently opposed to doing.

SFUSD has 1 adult employee for every 3.5 students. A minority of those adults are classroom teachers. Average class sizes are not 3.5, or 7, or even 14.

To add, a lot of universities will reimburse education/administrative/maintenance fees on top of research contracts, so about 30% of the money they get for research actually doesn’t go towards research. While this is old, there was a 1988 event where a Stanford administrator bought a yacht from research funds.

> The funding and grants mostly benefit the students and researchers though.

The question is, which students and researchers should benefit from it? It's not like that money wouldn't be used for education; it would just go to more meritocratic institutions, and their students and researchers.

Why would you want to leverage federal programs that were set aside for certain purposes like research and student assistance to also manipulate college programs?

It is sort of like you want to place colleges on similar to a terrorist list where no funding can reach them unless they get in line with the western world.

The word "manipulate" is dysphemism for "audit" in my opinion. As I commented below, I don't care how the money is spent as long as it is THEIR money. The federal funding is tax payer's money, and it should be spent according to the will of the people in this country. If the tax money was spent to favor your family members because you are an alumni, I am sure other people would have problems with it.

Alumni aren't taxpayers or people?

I don't think it is fair to accept Alumni as a sole recipient of lots of tax money for unfair admission.

Alumni are not recipients of tax money. They are funding the university with their own tuition expenses.

On average I guess alumni contribute more through donation than they receive through the financial aids. I don't know the numbers on this topic, so please pardon my ignorance.

Alumni of the university contribute in more than one way. But most importantly, they are considered an important network factor in getting the student adjusted and proud of where the student goes. Universities market their name as a good place to study. And children of alumni are the prime markets for them to get prospective students from.

If you want colleges to behave in a certain manner, the word manipulate is correct.

Federal funding goes to institutions that uphold the federal Govt, not those that oppose it. The federal govt works in the interest of what its representatives seek. Those representatives are enforced by a variety of constituents including corporations, NGOs, non profits, and individuals.

You believe that taxpayers should say where the money goes. In such cases, it only goes back into the taxpayers pockets.

I am not sure where the line lies. If you fund a program that is not run by the government, say 100 billion dollars, should the government not "manipulate" how the program runs? I believe there should be some sort of accountability. To my knowledge the government spends over 7 billion dollars on Pell grants, and if the government has little to no say in whom it should be awarded to, it makes no sense to me. If the University decides to accept less qualified students through legacy admission and give the money to them, it should be challenged I believe.

add: come to think of it, I guess private university can just not accept financial aids from the government and keep their own admission policy if they have enough money to subsidize students who need financial aids. Whether you like it or not, federal money comes with (or should come with) strings attached (or manipulation in your words)

Manipulation and accountability are two different words. Manipulation is when you take an existing program, provide the students who go there with an aid package, and then condition the program to change because you are providing its students with a benefit. That’s not accountability.

Pell grants are not given to universities. They are given to students, who choose the university. The student has a say where the student goes and where the pell grant goes. Pell grants are responsibilities of the student.

The only workaround is to blacklist the university to ever be chosen by the student, because the govt will not allow the student to get aid. That’s akin to a terrorist list.

Pell grants are given to the students, but in order to become a student you first have to be accepted to a University. If no universities accepted you because of unfair admission policy, effectively the universities transferred the money from you to someone who got in unfairly (maybe you can argue that there is going to be at least one university that will accept you, but that is a different story). I am just simply advocating fair admission policy that is in agreement with the spirit of the citizens who are effectively providing such funds. Tuition money, a huge part of it, comes from the government (I reject the semantic argument that university gets student money, not the government money if the money was not directly given to them, such as "Pell grants are not given to universities"), and we have a say in how it should be given. We can definitely contest the legacy admission or even affirmative action if the university accepts government money one way or the other. Pell grants ( tell me if I am wrong ) already has other restrictions on how it could be spent and whom it should be given to. We can definitely add one more restriction (i.e., give it to students who got in fairly).

To me, you are advocating (tell me if I am mistaken) that university can have any admission policy (including unfair policy) they want (free from requests of the government) even if federal money is provided to them (indirectly of course) as a result of such admission policy. I disagree with this. If you're advocating to grant total freedom to university with regards to admission policy and get rid of federal support for all schools, then I am in agreement with you.

Universities have forever been able to selectively choose students. Private universities choose students based on the criteria their board members and trustees create or accept. And that is a right of a university (if it is responsible for their successful graduation and if it is responsible for their success after their career is in motion) that they only accept candidates who have a chance of graduating and succeeding in career.

The student applies to a university. The university accepts the student and sends a tuition bill. The bill is financed by the student via assistance from the federal government. At no point does the University have a direct connection to the federal government in this scenario. The federal govt can only force the student (not the university) to choose where the student attends.

> I reject the semantic argument that university gets student money, not the government money if the money was not directly given to them

This is the reality of the trade agreement. No way to force a rule down anyone's throat without another agreement for a trade in place. You are only rejecting how legal frameworks are. You are not rejecting an argument.

Pell grant restrictions and eligibilities are placed on the student. Not the university.

This might be due to my lack of comprehension, but your argument seems less focused and sometimes veers into broader concerns about government interference and semantic or technical arguments, making it somewhat less compelling in the specific context of legacy admissions and funding oversight for me. I don't think I can gain some new insights from further discussion, but if I ask this one last time (you do not have to answer), what is your stance on legacy admission ( I don't think you expressed your opinions on this ) with regards to government funding the students who attend schools with such admission policy? I can only assume your position, and for that let me quote my previous comments: "To me, you are advocating (tell me if I am mistaken) that university can have any admission policy (including unfair policy) they want (free from government oversight) even if federal money is provided to them (indirectly of course) as a result of such admission policy. I disagree with this. If you're advocating to grant total freedom to university with regards to admission policy and get rid of federal support for all schools, then I am in agreement with you."

BTW Pell grants have restrictions on school as well (many vocational institutions do not adhere to such restrictions, so they are not qualified to accept Pell grant money). The below are examples of such requirements:

Accreditation - Schools must be accredited by a recognized accrediting agency.

Compliance with Federal Guidelines - Schools must comply with federal regulations concerning how they manage and disburse student aid, including ensuring that funds are used properly and that students maintain satisfactory academic progress.

Non-discrimination - Schools must adhere to federal anti-discrimination laws <= this might be further strengthened to incorporate legacy admission as well.

Reporting Requirements - Schools must regularly report data to the Department of Education about their students, including Pell Grant recipients, and meet financial responsibility standards.

Misuse of Funds - Schools found to be misusing federal funds or engaging in fraudulent practices can lose eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs.

If a school does not adhere to such requirements, students cannot even find the school on FAFSA application to select. I remember one instance where school was delisted from FAFSA application (University of Phoenix I believe because they did not comply with federal regulations).

You make a good case about using federal laws that compel schools to act a certain way. I did not verify any of this but I assume you are right.

Crazy idea: stop with the federal funding.

Every time federal loan guarantees and grants increase, so do higher education prices. Drastically cutting back on those loan guarantees and grants should lead to a drastic cut to higher education costs.

> Private university can do whatever they want with their admission as long as no public money...

We must distinguish "student loan guarantees" (or vouchers) from direct funding, otherwise there will never be such a thing as a "private school", only public schools masquerading as private.

I would very much like to get rid of federal funding for schools, and allow private student loan with the possibility of purging the borrowed money through bankruptcy procedures. I am not sure if such proposal is realistic.

That'd be nice.

Nearly every student will graduate owing vastly more than their personal assets.

Declaring bankruptcy at that moment would be the optimal financial strategy if it wiped out the student debt.

Solution, don't lend money. Sell education in exchange for a promise to pay x% of salary for y years. Students won't go unemployed just to avoid paying it back and it aligns incentives. If colleges want to make lots of money, they will have to make sure their students get good jobs upon graduation.

crazier idea: stop profiting off of education

That's silly. Why profit off anything? Without a profit motive, why do anything?

Luckily, one of the greatest movies of the 21st century is about this very dynamic. It's called The Social Network. It has very little to do with the real historical personage of Mark Zuckerberg but it totally captures the toxic parasitic relationship between the upwardly mobile regular rich kids and the aristocracy at an institution like Harvard. It doesn't end well for anybody.

It ended spectacularly well for all of the people who got Facebook equity.

I don't understand, wouldn't the narrative of that move be somewhat of a negative example, or a kind of "exception proves the rule" kind of thing?

Namely, the relationship importantly (to the story) does not go well, and Zuck's redemption is being able to overcome the fraught relationship with his old-money investors.

As somebody who went to Harvard told me, the Finals Clubs are not cool. They are exclusive, but you would have to be deeply self-hating to not be a Boston Brahmin and want to get into one because you're so ambitious that it has erased every other facet of your personality so you can be an automaton whose only programmed purpose is to amass power and wealth.

In the world of the movie (which again, is not real life), the cost is that Mark Zuckerberg will never be happy. I'll admit, it's convenient to believe that the billionaire seems to have achieved what he wanted but at the cost of everything that actually matters to living a meaningful human life. And yet it may have a grain of truth.

Part of the movie's point is that Mark wanted to be accepted and "cool" so badly, that he was willing to do whatever it took in his own way to achieve that. Even at the expense of things most others wouldn't give for it, as you mentioned.

To many others, that social status is achievable in different ways -- athletics, personality, appearance, or is even inherited (name, money, etc.). So many, dare I say most, people joining the Finals Clubs don't have to make the kind of sacrifices Mark did because they just naturally fit in. And as a result, membership of those clubs is less of a "big deal" because they didn't have the mountain to climb to get in it.

In Mark's case, he didn't have any of the above to achieve that. But he found out he did have a really unique and "cool" way to socialize -- the social network. The popularity and notoriety from the things he did contributed to his "cool" status on campus. And as we all know, the money and power he got from it cemented his status as a "cool" kid with status.

The thing is, Harvard has "cool" institutions (at least relatively) and the Finals Clubs just are not in that category. Maybe they were 60 years ago, but they had become relics. The only thing cool about them was that they were maximally exclusive, and represented a previous model of American aristocracy that was already moribund. That's why the Winklevoss Twins are such comic figures. They are entirely out of touch.

What's wrong with Mark Zuckerberg (the character) is that he doesn't want to be cool, he wants to win. He resents Eduardo for "beating" him by getting into the Phoenix. What matters is winning, and to be fair to him, that's what Harvard is all about. It's about having things that other people don't. And while most Harvard students who I know, once they got there, accepted that they were going to be the middle of the class within the top of the class, some people have something wrong with them and they can't stop.

Also, the presence of multigenerational participants in an institution help it to develop unique traditions and culture that improve it in ways that are hard to articulate and measure, which I will artlessly describe as the opposite of the feeling you get from going to the DMV to renew your driver's license.

Do you have any examples? I look see cultural artifacts resulting from multiple generations attending an institution as a negative.

I want educational institutions to be merit based, but when I read this comment I just think of family names being thrown around.

If you think your society is better than average, you want to continue its culture.

If you shred cultural continuity mechanisms, eg legacy admissions forming a persistent community, you erode the very thing that made your society better than average.

Tautologically, each student at a university who is a blood relative of a graduate of said university has a social network that shares a node with the university's formal network.

"Social capital" is a term of art in sociology meaning "the network of relationships within a particular society", in this case a university. Robert Putnam has written extensively about the empirical benefits of high social capital, which include efficient allocation of resources, lower stress, and prosocial behavior.

A newly admitted student whose social network shares 0 nodes with the university's formal network makes no initial contribution to the university's social connectedness within the universe of people formally affiliated with the university. Whereas the legacy student is already socially connected at the moment of admission.

Legacy kids are pretty smart. The median SAT score for legacy Princeton admissions is between 1525-1585 (the average is 1535 for Princeton overall). GPA is similarly very high.

https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2023/07/princeton-...

Yep. It's a cliche that the token scholarship students are paid to do the homework of and take the tests for the rich kids.

Large public research universities (in STEM) skew to far more rigorous than Ivies because they're always clamoring for prestige and ranking because of their inherent insecurities about not being said Ivy. Little/no grade inflation and less homework and test trafficking. TLDR: Generally, people who put in the work and get things done went to state schools; while people who earn MBAs and found companies like Theranos and FTX go to big name private schools.