[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.