Comment by lolwow1234
11 hours ago
This is naive. The job of admissions is to make money for the institution. Academics, being "well rounded", being a "leader" is all kayfabe.
11 hours ago
This is naive. The job of admissions is to make money for the institution. Academics, being "well rounded", being a "leader" is all kayfabe.
Colleges are a “marketplace” as much as any other marketplace. Just how Stanford disrupted the traditional Ivy League monopoly, other schools can disrupt the status quo by consistent churning out leaders, great thinkers, entrepreneurs, and the like.
What sells the colleges the most is the sense that successful people tend to be there. So while admissions profit can be a very short term goal, any admit counselor knows that the long term goal is to create admirable leaders and change makers.
This is not impossible for publicly funded schools. Berkeley has put out consistently top AI researchers and engineers, more so than Stanford in my opinion.
Stanford builds companies; Berkeley builds entire industries
Interesting take. But Wikipedia has lists of scientific achievements and also companies associated with both. Is it really the case that each university has such a strong “personality” or is it just their reputation.
3 replies →
If things were really so machiavellian they wouldn’t take broke students at all.