[birdsbirdsbirds]

Or we shouldn't.

Education gets diluted the more people are educated. Think about how much you learn in university in a short time compared to how much you learn in school.

Now imagine you would have gone to school only with the ones who finished university. How much more would you have learned during that time?

Then imagine a fully equipped university that isn't filled with rich kids but with the brightest.

Think of Katalin Karikó[1]. We don't trust the degrees because everybody can get one nowadays. That's why established figures in a field decide what is worthwhile to research instead of giving that responsibility to the ones who have proven that they can think for themselves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karik%c3%b3

[Bakary]

This already more or less exists in most countries. You have elite universities where some of the brightest tend to end up, in which the conditions to entry are quite harsh, and usually with institutionalized methods for different socio-economic classes to make it in. It's obviously not perfect, but it's an instinctive form of black swan farming that has emerged quite naturally.

[optimalsolver]

>Then imagine a fully equipped university that isn't filled with rich kids but with the brightest.

Who's gonna pay for it?

[higerordermap]

Technically, the industry should afford to.

Commoditization of education so brightest kids can get the best of it is a net benefit to the industry.

But as long as industry is filled with dumbfuck MBAs it won't happen.

[sien]

Isn't that pretty much what Caltech, IIT, the University of Tokyo or Cambridge or Oxford are?

No legacy admissions. No quotas. Large populations trying to get in through entrance exams and school performance?

(Lots of rich kids wind up at those places, but they have worked for it)

[TheOtherHobbes]

Who pays for the MBAs clogging up our economy?

[imtringued]

The students by going into debt?

[fuzzfactor]

At least one was clandestinely funded.