(1) Which has no impact on student learning (what nominally is what the undergrads are there for)
(2) And where there's a lot more academic malpractice at the elites. Most people don't get to be an MIT professor without cheating at least a little bit to get that extra edge.
Quality of faculty, which IS important, is identical until you get into really lower tiers.
> the academic quality of the average student
Indeed. So the question is to you want to segregate or integrate? Would the world be better off with all the smart kids and rich kids at one institution, and everyone else at another, or with everyone together? Remember at universities, kids can take different classes, so a freshman can take grad-level courses if they're so inclined.
Elite schools give you elite brand stamps and elite networks coming out. That's their key value-add. And it's totally worth it.
> class sizes
Ummm... No. Student:faculty ratios, usually. But a 4:1 faculty ratio with a 1:1 teaching load versus an 8:1 faculty ratio with a 2:2 teaching load leads to the same class size.
For the most part, elite schools don't have the best teaching. The best teaching happens at the more teaching-focused schools, unsurprisingly (which isn't the same as "small liberal arts..." which are mostly horrible).
