|
It is my greatest fear that as we are moving into a more and more competitive marketplace of the new century that more and more countries (proxy for cultures) will find themselves unable to compete, and will survive as curiosities living off the largess of others. I don't think it an accident that Singapore has a Lee, China a Deng, Zimbabwe a Mugabe, and Argentina a Peron. I hope I am wrong.
OP's original question is easy to answer if we are only willing to be honest with ourselves. These elite institutions, private and expensive, are there to serve the scions of the rich and famous. They gain their power and prestige that way and their brands will continue to be managed accordingly. You don't think Prince Charles got into Cambridge or Lee Ka-shing's children got into Stanford on "merit", do you?
The rest are there as fodder, either to improve the educational experience of the R&F or the power and prestige of the institution or both. Diversity, recruited athletes, interesting people can all be explained away easily.
Earlier there was a threat about the "ugly and corrupt side of admission". I don't think that is the case at all. The analogy with Studio 54 which I used in an old threat is still appropriate. There is nothing personal, just business.
|