Zach Bleemer

reflect badly, university administrators think, because they suggest that the California population that has invested in and built UCLA is not as a whole deriving UCLA's benefits.

reflect badly, university administrators think, because they suggest that the California population that has invested in and built UCLA is not as a whole deriving UCLA's benefits.

reflect badly, university administrators think, because they suggest that the California population that has invested in and built UCLA is not as a whole deriving UCLA's benefits.

Why private universities would implement these policies is very much up to the private university. So just to pull two examples, one university you already mentioned is Northwestern, a second is Georgetown. And there's no reason for Northwestern and Georgetown to have even overlapping missions in the sense that Northwestern is sort of typical of many private universities in the U.S.

Why private universities would implement these policies is very much up to the private university. So just to pull two examples, one university you already mentioned is Northwestern, a second is Georgetown. And there's no reason for Northwestern and Georgetown to have even overlapping missions in the sense that Northwestern is sort of typical of many private universities in the U.S.

Why private universities would implement these policies is very much up to the private university. So just to pull two examples, one university you already mentioned is Northwestern, a second is Georgetown. And there's no reason for Northwestern and Georgetown to have even overlapping missions in the sense that Northwestern is sort of typical of many private universities in the U.S.

It is effectively owned and managed by alumni and donors to the university. And it's admitting whichever students it thinks best serve the private missions of that institution. Georgetown is a Jesuit university. It's owned by the church. And its mission might have nothing to do with, for example, perpetuating alumni wealth or promoting alumni activities on campus. It might.

It is effectively owned and managed by alumni and donors to the university. And it's admitting whichever students it thinks best serve the private missions of that institution. Georgetown is a Jesuit university. It's owned by the church. And its mission might have nothing to do with, for example, perpetuating alumni wealth or promoting alumni activities on campus. It might.

It is effectively owned and managed by alumni and donors to the university. And it's admitting whichever students it thinks best serve the private missions of that institution. Georgetown is a Jesuit university. It's owned by the church. And its mission might have nothing to do with, for example, perpetuating alumni wealth or promoting alumni activities on campus. It might.

It's allowed to do whatever it wants except for admit students on the basis of race.

It's allowed to do whatever it wants except for admit students on the basis of race.

It's allowed to do whatever it wants except for admit students on the basis of race.

Well, we've been talking about all of these super selective universities. Fewer than 1% of Americans go to an Ivy League school. There's been massive growth in the public sector. There's been very substantial growth in a for-profit sector. Lots of things have changed over the last 50 years about which universities which students go to. It's worth emphasizing that

Well, we've been talking about all of these super selective universities. Fewer than 1% of Americans go to an Ivy League school. There's been massive growth in the public sector. There's been very substantial growth in a for-profit sector. Lots of things have changed over the last 50 years about which universities which students go to. It's worth emphasizing that

Well, we've been talking about all of these super selective universities. Fewer than 1% of Americans go to an Ivy League school. There's been massive growth in the public sector. There's been very substantial growth in a for-profit sector. Lots of things have changed over the last 50 years about which universities which students go to. It's worth emphasizing that

While it is true that over the past 50 or 60 years, college has gotten relatively more stratified. So rich kids are getting relatively greater value from going to college and poor kids are getting relatively less value from going to college. Very little of that is about university admission. Rich kids have always had far greater access to very high quality universities.

While it is true that over the past 50 or 60 years, college has gotten relatively more stratified. So rich kids are getting relatively greater value from going to college and poor kids are getting relatively less value from going to college. Very little of that is about university admission. Rich kids have always had far greater access to very high quality universities.

While it is true that over the past 50 or 60 years, college has gotten relatively more stratified. So rich kids are getting relatively greater value from going to college and poor kids are getting relatively less value from going to college. Very little of that is about university admission. Rich kids have always had far greater access to very high quality universities.

Those universities have gotten better over time, which is to say, the US over the last 40 years has very substantially invested in its flagship public universities and not so much in local comprehensive universities that enroll the plurality of American college students.

Those universities have gotten better over time, which is to say, the US over the last 40 years has very substantially invested in its flagship public universities and not so much in local comprehensive universities that enroll the plurality of American college students.