I am not sure that you completely understand how higher education works in the US. This is understandable because it can be confusing.
Sticker price doesn't really matter, because those who cannot afford it are usually given financial aid and/or scholarships. At some places, the percentage of people receiving financial aid is over 50%.
The rhetoric that college is worthless and is solely an indication of "privilege" is harmful, especially to those who are lower income. College is still one of the best ways to acquire skills and an education, and is still one of, if not the biggest, ways for people to climb themselves and their families out of poverty.
Most students work their asses off to get into a good college, even the wealthy ones, and I think you underestimate their efforts and how hard it is to buy your way into a top school.
Also, there is definitely a significant difference, on average, between the type of student that MIT/UChicago/Stanford/etc might admit, compared to the students you might find at a top 100 college. I don't think that hiring should ever come down to where someone went to college like this (I'm sure that very rarely happens), but it does make sense most times for stretched recruiters to take into account where someone was trained because it does make a difference.
Sticker price doesn't really matter, because those who cannot afford it are usually given financial aid and/or scholarships. At some places, the percentage of people receiving financial aid is over 50%.
The rhetoric that college is worthless and is solely an indication of "privilege" is harmful, especially to those who are lower income. College is still one of the best ways to acquire skills and an education, and is still one of, if not the biggest, ways for people to climb themselves and their families out of poverty.
Most students work their asses off to get into a good college, even the wealthy ones, and I think you underestimate their efforts and how hard it is to buy your way into a top school.
Also, there is definitely a significant difference, on average, between the type of student that MIT/UChicago/Stanford/etc might admit, compared to the students you might find at a top 100 college. I don't think that hiring should ever come down to where someone went to college like this (I'm sure that very rarely happens), but it does make sense most times for stretched recruiters to take into account where someone was trained because it does make a difference.