Universities Really Are Messed Up (says Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless Yale plans to dramatically increase in size, the only way to end the “murky admissions practices” is to be open about conducting a lottery for everyone over a certain benchmark. There is no fair way to pick a mere 2% from a pool of highly-qualified 17 year olds.

The pool of truly highly qualified applicants is much smaller than the number who appear highly qualified on paper. grade inflation, test optional, superscoring, score choice, fake ECs all make it highly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, turns college admissions into a cynical game of PR and marketing.

It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that Yale and its peers have no ability to reverse grade inflation or eliminate the cynical game of PR and marketing, and their admissions offices have no ability to distinguish between the truly qualified and those who only look qualified on paper. Picking the 2% who are truly qualified from a very large pool of people who appear to be truly qualified is impossible.

Qualified for what? Yale needs to have biochem majors and math majors and history majors and drama students and hockey players on and on. You don't get that with a lottery. They can change to a lottery but it fundamentally changes lots of things about current American colleges.

And what good is freeing up science research dollars because you instituted a lottery and ending up without the students interested in pursuing the research? That makes no sense.

I see nothing in this report that indicates a lottery system is going to be used by American universities.

I could do without Hockey players.

You know what would be popular - if the ivy League together got rid of 20% of their sports. Hockey is popular, I get it. But how about moving the following from varsity/recruited sports to club sports:


Mens sailing
Women sailing
Mens skiing
Womens skiing
mens water polo
womens water polo
mens squash
womens squash
mens fencing
womens fencing
I'd also get rid of mens field hockey and women's wrestling but maybe that's too controversial

if you have sports that dont bring in 30 spectators at home, it's a club sport. treat it like one.

get rid of legacy at the same time.

get rid of the Z list.

and put in place SAT minimums.

announce it all at once.

Wouldn't it just be easier to have your kid play by the existing rules rather than trying to reshape it in your image? Get your kid into sailing, squash, water polo and fencing.

Do as much of that as you like but it has nothing to do with pursuing higher education. Makes no sense.

The school values sports. You don’t. Find a school that aliwoth your priorities.

The Yale report indicates that that ship is sailing. Has nothing to do with me. They want to get rid of things like recruiting for sailing that is angering the country. Yale probably needs research dollars more than it needs a sailing team.

People are angry about sailing?

Asians are angry about sports.

Asian here.

Lots of assumptions about asians and sports but the asians I know are not angry about sports. We have the resources to pay for sports. The poor asians don't but they probably get the FGLI preference.
We think some of these preferences are weird (giving a preference to professors kids would be considered pretty corrupt in my home country) but it doesn't bother us.
If you stack up all the preferences, the people who do NOT get a preference are native born white people who don't have the money to provide their kids an edge either through long term expensive activities or just a flat donation to institutions.

If you see an asian get really upset about testing, they probably poor or grew up poor. Testing is seen as a way to disrupt wealth and privilege in asia, here it is seen as reinforcing wealth and privilege.
Affluent asians are disproportionately alumni at some place that is worth having a legacy preference to. 5% of americans are asians, 20% of the alumni at the top schools are asian. The affluent asians might think legacy preferences are weird but we sort of like them. Stanford's recent stand against eliminating legacy preferences was met with a small sigh of relief by some families.

So nobody is actually mad about anything? Glad we cleared all that up. We’ve eliminated all the people who might have a grievance except poor whites. I don’t think they are the ones desperate to get into Yale in the first place so sounds like we’re all good here.

I can't speak for all asians. I was mad about the anti-asian discrimination, but SFFA seems to be making a difference in how people talk about being asian.
Also, it's not just poor whites gettig the shaft, its non-rich whites. A lot of the populist faction of MAGA comes from that group.

That group does not seem likely to want to send their kids off to elite private universities. They would like to destroy them as much as possible.

Middle class white families do in fact care but they have gotten so used to getting the crumbs that they pretend they are happy going to their state flagship because everyone has a preference to go to the more selective private schools, except them.

"everyone has a preference to go to the more selective private schools" This just isn't true. They mostly don't care in the way the other prestige obsessive groups care. The vast majority of college kids go to school within a couple of hour drive from their home.

A big part of this is a better understanding of the US college system by long term residents. There are some urban areas and social circles where it is important but not for the vast majority of the middle class.

Regular middle class families aren’t going to take out massive loans to pay for this. They are the donut hole families. That pp is woefully misinformed.

$200K families get free tuition, that's at the 84%ile of households. $100K families get a free ride, that's at the 57th%ile of households. The donut hole doesn't really start until at least $250K

Our MAGI is well under 200 (that's AGI plus adding retirement contributions back in) and we're full pay at Yale. they look at assets, even if you're under the 200k mark. From what I hear, we are not unusual. Maybe not full pay like us, but paying 70k+ plus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale has traditionally been a home for conservative Republicans: William Howard Taft, his son Robert Taft ("Mr. Republican"), Bush the elder and Bush the younger. William F. Buckley, Jr. the father of modern conservatism. Not sure if that is true any more.

Yale has intentionally cultivated an atmosphere with a mix of viewpoints.

No need to bootlick Yale. That’s just a vague way to state that Yale is a MAGA/GOP spawn point. Ron DeSantis, JD Vance, Bush, etc…yuck. This isn’t exclusive to Yale (HLS + Princeton + Penn are notable offenders) but I’ve never seen MAGA spawn from places like Columbia, UChicago, WASP, etc, because those schools actually force you to examine a wide range of subjects through core curriculums and the liberal arts. Interesting to see how schools that don’t care about exposing students to a wide range of academic fields end up spawning some of the most devilish creatures on earth.

Yes, those cretins who are making the US, Venezuela, Iran, & soon Cuba better places to live. As opposed to letting their cities burn like Walz & Newsom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale has traditionally been a home for conservative Republicans: William Howard Taft, his son Robert Taft ("Mr. Republican"), Bush the elder and Bush the younger. William F. Buckley, Jr. the father of modern conservatism. Not sure if that is true any more.

Yale has intentionally cultivated an atmosphere with a mix of viewpoints.

No need to bootlick Yale. That’s just a vague way to state that Yale is a MAGA/GOP spawn point. Ron DeSantis, JD Vance, Bush, etc…yuck. This isn’t exclusive to Yale (HLS + Princeton + Penn are notable offenders) but I’ve never seen MAGA spawn from places like Columbia, UChicago, WASP, etc, because those schools actually force you to examine a wide range of subjects through core curriculums and the liberal arts. Interesting to see how schools that don’t care about exposing students to a wide range of academic fields end up spawning some of the most devilish creatures on earth.

Yes, those cretins who are making the US, Venezuela, Iran, & soon Cuba better places to live. As opposed to letting their cities burn like Walz & Newsom.

They're robbing us all blind. Thanks so much, Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

They can, of course. And anyone who spends a lot of time around legacy admits knows your characterization is correct.

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to admire the quality of the graduates of the school. The schools are welcome to lean even further into their origin stories of being finishing schools for the wealthy legacies. And the rest of us are free to see the reputation of the schools be shaped accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale has traditionally been a home for conservative Republicans: William Howard Taft, his son Robert Taft ("Mr. Republican"), Bush the elder and Bush the younger. William F. Buckley, Jr. the father of modern conservatism. Not sure if that is true any more.

Yale has intentionally cultivated an atmosphere with a mix of viewpoints.

No need to bootlick Yale. That’s just a vague way to state that Yale is a MAGA/GOP spawn point. Ron DeSantis, JD Vance, Bush, etc…yuck. This isn’t exclusive to Yale (HLS + Princeton + Penn are notable offenders) but I’ve never seen MAGA spawn from places like Columbia, UChicago, WASP, etc, because those schools actually force you to examine a wide range of subjects through core curriculums and the liberal arts. Interesting to see how schools that don’t care about exposing students to a wide range of academic fields end up spawning some of the most devilish creatures on earth.

Weird take. Yale is very very far from a MAGA GOP spawn point. Clearly you know nothing about Yale (other than googling some grads) and didn't even read the report or else you would not say this. The conservatives/right/Republicans have long been in the minority at Yale, but they do have a presence. Like I said, Yale intentionally draws in a mix of viewpoints in its student body, unlike some other schools that are a total bubble of one side or the other. I think this mix is a good thing - even when there are some who are yes, yuck. Clearly you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

They can, of course. And anyone who spends a lot of time around legacy admits knows your characterization is correct.

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to admire the quality of the graduates of the school. The schools are welcome to lean even further into their origin stories of being finishing schools for the wealthy legacies. And the rest of us are free to see the reputation of the schools be shaped accordingly.

Except your characterization is not correct. Most legacies are very very far from dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

Interesting comment. Your last line is the only one that matters. Why can't they? There is no logical reason that they cannot have priorities like any other private enterprise.

Jealousy is the only answer. If I can't have it I want to break it.

They can have priorities but when those priorities conflict with the public policy, they cannot have public funding

It seems blatantly political to be honest. They go after Harvard. They don't really go after Yale. That's just the way it is now. There is corruption up down back and forth everyday with this administration. We will all be better off when they're gone regardless of your politics.

It was all political wait before this. This is just attaching consequences to being too political. Get used to the new normal. Being too woke will make you a target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless Yale plans to dramatically increase in size, the only way to end the “murky admissions practices” is to be open about conducting a lottery for everyone over a certain benchmark. There is no fair way to pick a mere 2% from a pool of highly-qualified 17 year olds.

The pool of truly highly qualified applicants is much smaller than the number who appear highly qualified on paper. grade inflation, test optional, superscoring, score choice, fake ECs all make it highly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, turns college admissions into a cynical game of PR and marketing.

It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that Yale and its peers have no ability to reverse grade inflation or eliminate the cynical game of PR and marketing, and their admissions offices have no ability to distinguish between the truly qualified and those who only look qualified on paper. Picking the 2% who are truly qualified from a very large pool of people who appear to be truly qualified is impossible.

Qualified for what? Yale needs to have biochem majors and math majors and history majors and drama students and hockey players on and on. You don't get that with a lottery. They can change to a lottery but it fundamentally changes lots of things about current American colleges.

And what good is freeing up science research dollars because you instituted a lottery and ending up without the students interested in pursuing the research? That makes no sense.

I see nothing in this report that indicates a lottery system is going to be used by American universities.

I could do without Hockey players.

You know what would be popular - if the ivy League together got rid of 20% of their sports. Hockey is popular, I get it. But how about moving the following from varsity/recruited sports to club sports:


Mens sailing
Women sailing
Mens skiing
Womens skiing
mens water polo
womens water polo
mens squash
womens squash
mens fencing
womens fencing
I'd also get rid of mens field hockey and women's wrestling but maybe that's too controversial

if you have sports that dont bring in 30 spectators at home, it's a club sport. treat it like one.

get rid of legacy at the same time.

get rid of the Z list.

and put in place SAT minimums.

announce it all at once.

Wouldn't it just be easier to have your kid play by the existing rules rather than trying to reshape it in your image? Get your kid into sailing, squash, water polo and fencing.

Do as much of that as you like but it has nothing to do with pursuing higher education. Makes no sense.

The school values sports. You don’t. Find a school that aliwoth your priorities.

The Yale report indicates that that ship is sailing. Has nothing to do with me. They want to get rid of things like recruiting for sailing that is angering the country. Yale probably needs research dollars more than it needs a sailing team.

People are angry about sailing?

Asians are angry about sports.

Asian here.

Lots of assumptions about asians and sports but the asians I know are not angry about sports. We have the resources to pay for sports. The poor asians don't but they probably get the FGLI preference.
We think some of these preferences are weird (giving a preference to professors kids would be considered pretty corrupt in my home country) but it doesn't bother us.
If you stack up all the preferences, the people who do NOT get a preference are native born white people who don't have the money to provide their kids an edge either through long term expensive activities or just a flat donation to institutions.

If you see an asian get really upset about testing, they probably poor or grew up poor. Testing is seen as a way to disrupt wealth and privilege in asia, here it is seen as reinforcing wealth and privilege.
Affluent asians are disproportionately alumni at some place that is worth having a legacy preference to. 5% of americans are asians, 20% of the alumni at the top schools are asian. The affluent asians might think legacy preferences are weird but we sort of like them. Stanford's recent stand against eliminating legacy preferences was met with a small sigh of relief by some families.

So nobody is actually mad about anything? Glad we cleared all that up. We’ve eliminated all the people who might have a grievance except poor whites. I don’t think they are the ones desperate to get into Yale in the first place so sounds like we’re all good here.

I can't speak for all asians. I was mad about the anti-asian discrimination, but SFFA seems to be making a difference in how people talk about being asian.
Also, it's not just poor whites gettig the shaft, its non-rich whites. A lot of the populist faction of MAGA comes from that group.

That group does not seem likely to want to send their kids off to elite private universities. They would like to destroy them as much as possible.

Middle class white families do in fact care but they have gotten so used to getting the crumbs that they pretend they are happy going to their state flagship because everyone has a preference to go to the more selective private schools, except them.

"everyone has a preference to go to the more selective private schools" This just isn't true. They mostly don't care in the way the other prestige obsessive groups care. The vast majority of college kids go to school within a couple of hour drive from their home.

A big part of this is a better understanding of the US college system by long term residents. There are some urban areas and social circles where it is important but not for the vast majority of the middle class.

Regular middle class families aren’t going to take out massive loans to pay for this. They are the donut hole families. That pp is woefully misinformed.

$200K families get free tuition, that's at the 84%ile of households. $100K families get a free ride, that's at the 57th%ile of households. The donut hole doesn't really start until at least $250K

Our MAGI is well under 200 (that's AGI plus adding retirement contributions back in) and we're full pay at Yale. they look at assets, even if you're under the 200k mark. From what I hear, we are not unusual. Maybe not full pay like us, but paying 70k+ plus

What kind of assets do the consider normal for that income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

They can, of course. And anyone who spends a lot of time around legacy admits knows your characterization is correct.

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to admire the quality of the graduates of the school. The schools are welcome to lean even further into their origin stories of being finishing schools for the wealthy legacies. And the rest of us are free to see the reputation of the schools be shaped accordingly.

Except your characterization is not correct. Most legacies are very very far from dumb.

I didn't know about now but they used to be dumber than the average non-athlete non-URM admit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

Interesting comment. Your last line is the only one that matters. Why can't they? There is no logical reason that they cannot have priorities like any other private enterprise.

Jealousy is the only answer. If I can't have it I want to break it.

They can have priorities but when those priorities conflict with the public policy, they cannot have public funding

It seems blatantly political to be honest. They go after Harvard. They don't really go after Yale. That's just the way it is now. There is corruption up down back and forth everyday with this administration. We will all be better off when they're gone regardless of your politics.

It was all political wait before this. This is just attaching consequences to being too political. Get used to the new normal. Being too woke will make you a target.

It’s about time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

They can, of course. And anyone who spends a lot of time around legacy admits knows your characterization is correct.

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to admire the quality of the graduates of the school. The schools are welcome to lean even further into their origin stories of being finishing schools for the wealthy legacies. And the rest of us are free to see the reputation of the schools be shaped accordingly.

Except your characterization is not correct. Most legacies are very very far from dumb.

I didn't know about now but they used to be dumber than the average non-athlete non-URM admit.

Please back this up. The studies I have seen have found that legacy admits have stats equal or higher to non legacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

They can, of course. And anyone who spends a lot of time around legacy admits knows your characterization is correct.

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to admire the quality of the graduates of the school. The schools are welcome to lean even further into their origin stories of being finishing schools for the wealthy legacies. And the rest of us are free to see the reputation of the schools be shaped accordingly.

Except your characterization is not correct. Most legacies are very very far from dumb.

I didn't know about now but they used to be dumber than the average non-athlete non-URM admit.

O they weren’t. They had slightly lower stats among a group where the real differences in ability are pretty much nil. Small differences in grades nd test scores are meaningless as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that people seem to think private universities are required to accept and educate the "smartest" kids that apply, however you define smartest (test scores, GPA, rigor, etc).

What if schools like Yale, which has been around since before the country was founded, did an analysis and decided, "It is better for the future of the nation if we teach critical thinking, morality, ethics, history and leadership skills to idiotic wealthy and powerful children (GW Bush, Don Trump Jr), because like it or not, those children will have an outsized impact on the world, rather than only teach the top .1% smartest kids, who are capable of learning on their own without us."

Why can't a school decide that dumb legacies are actually the most important people to educate?

They can, of course. And anyone who spends a lot of time around legacy admits knows your characterization is correct.

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to admire the quality of the graduates of the school. The schools are welcome to lean even further into their origin stories of being finishing schools for the wealthy legacies. And the rest of us are free to see the reputation of the schools be shaped accordingly.

Except your characterization is not correct. Most legacies are very very far from dumb.

I didn't know about now but they used to be dumber than the average non-athlete non-URM admit.

Please back this up. The studies I have seen have found that legacy admits have stats equal or higher to non legacies.

Most of their parents liked studies show higher average stats for applicants but slightly lower for admits overall. None of the differences are significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yale committee concludes that colleges and universities have completely lost the plot:

“High costs, murky admissions practices, uneven academic standards and fears about free speech on campuses, the committee said, are among the reasons for widening discontent over higher education’s worthiness.

The findings reflect misgivings that Americans have described across years of polling and interviews. But the report, from a 10-professor panel at one of the nation’s most renowned universities, amounts to a damning depiction of academia’s role in cultivating the political and cultural forces that are reshaping higher education’s place in American life.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/15/us/yale-report-colleges-unversities-trust.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bVA._ebw.-PVgolGZ4r5r&smid=url-share

The Yale committee is not wrong. $100,000 per year is ridiculous. The preference for athletes, FGLI, rich kids, faculty kids, connected kids, and soft racial preferences undermines any school's credibility. Having to be wary of whether you are for Trump or for Palestinians does undermine free speech and makes a campus stifling. And when people realize there are like three spots available at a school like Yale for a standard valedictorian from Des Moines or, alternatively, the suburbs of DC, NY, and SF, it's not surprising people are a little cynical of schools like Yale. Yet, despite abandoning any illusions of a meritocracy, the Yale grad has all sorts of opportunities that other graduates don't.

And this isn't exclusive to Yale. Anyone who has gone through the process of applying to top 20 schools knows how much BS is involved. Good for Yale for pointing it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yale committee concludes that colleges and universities have completely lost the plot:

“High costs, murky admissions practices, uneven academic standards and fears about free speech on campuses, the committee said, are among the reasons for widening discontent over higher education’s worthiness.

The findings reflect misgivings that Americans have described across years of polling and interviews. But the report, from a 10-professor panel at one of the nation’s most renowned universities, amounts to a damning depiction of academia’s role in cultivating the political and cultural forces that are reshaping higher education’s place in American life.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/15/us/yale-report-colleges-unversities-trust.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bVA._ebw.-PVgolGZ4r5r&smid=url-share

The Yale committee is not wrong. $100,000 per year is ridiculous. The preference for athletes, FGLI, rich kids, faculty kids, connected kids, and soft racial preferences undermines any school's credibility. Having to be wary of whether you are for Trump or for Palestinians does undermine free speech and makes a campus stifling. And when people realize there are like three spots available at a school like Yale for a standard valedictorian from Des Moines or, alternatively, the suburbs of DC, NY, and SF, it's not surprising people are a little cynical of schools like Yale. Yet, despite abandoning any illusions of a meritocracy, the Yale grad has all sorts of opportunities that other graduates don't.

And this isn't exclusive to Yale. Anyone who has gone through the process of applying to top 20 schools knows how much BS is involved. Good for Yale for pointing it out.

Nonsense, it never has and never will. The credibility issues were about woke gone too far, nothing else.