For a while, I used to believe that elite colleges don’t necessarily create excellence — they select it.
They admit the top 1% of driven, intelligent, resourceful students. These students would likely succeed anyway, because of their mindset, discipline, and social capital. So when Ivy Leagues or IITs claim “our graduates are world leaders,” that’s partly because they chose world-leader material to begin with.
This creates what’s called a “selection bias” — the college’s success is entangled with who they let in, not what they do for them.
The real measure of an educational institution’s quality isn’t how their top 1% perform, but how far they can elevate their bottom 50%. If a college can take an average, uncertain, unmotivated 18-year-old and transform them into a confident, skilled, purposeful individual, that’s actual educational value.
It's unfair, and there's no actual impact created if you only take in people who are already capable to begin with and who could have anyways succeeded with or without getting in the elite educational institutions. Of course, these institutions catalyses a few things for them.
If anyone is interested in learning something and they should get access to the best resources available. That was my belief.
Following that belief. I hired someone who was interested in a particular skill. He was comparatively cheap. My consideration was, if this individual has an interest and if I provide him with the best course available, it's a win-win for both of us. He'll get access to the best resources available to learn the skill and, I will be getting my work done at comparatively cheaper cost.
I gave someone with average ability the same environment, resources, and exposure that top performers get.
The outcome? Still average. Opportunity alone doesn’t equal transformation. Most people just don’t have that internal drive, obsession, curiosity, or willingness to suffer through the learning curve that mastery demands. They’ll learn enough, but not greatness.
I realised that not everyone has high cognitive plasticity — the man ability to absorb, integrate, and refine skills quickly. Not everyone is metacognitively aware — they can’t reflect on their process and self-correct. And not everyone has emotional stamina — the patience to stay uncomfortable long enough to get good.
Top performers in any field share those traits. That’s why elite institutions cherry-pick them: it’s a better return on effort.
Turns out that the elite educational institutions aren't wrong, they’re being pragmatic. They’re optimizing for outcomes and reputation. If you have limited seats, you’d rather fill them with people statistically most likely to convert effort into achievement.
Everyone doesn't really deserve exposure and access to equal opportunities and resources. Equal access will lead to devaluation. If someone deserves it, they'll earn it. They'll have to. Not all horses can win the race. It's better to choose the winning material and not the other way around.