[rmxt]

Why is starting such a discussion "disappointing"? It seems like a fair extrapolation to make, and a conversation worth exploring. Is income inequality at particular universities not an interesting issue to explore?

The article links to the page you've linked to, and includes links to data and source information. I haven't personally vetted what NYT has done here, but it seems fair to take original research and run with it in new directions.

[syphilis2]

Well yes, income inequality at a particular university is not interesting because the paper concludes that upward mobility is a better metric to identify schools that should be expanded. I see comments below about capitalism, supply/demand, luxury cars, tuition, affirmative action, banning private/for-profit schools, and social status. Some of those are totally irrelevant, and the relevant ones ought to be in the context of how they relate to access to high mobility schools.

There are accompanying NYT articles, and I agree that it's fair to jump off from the research. I believe the discussion needs to incorporate the conclusions from the paper into that new direction.