Worth noting that elite universities aren't elite because they impart special knowledge that you couldn't reasonably get elsewhere. They're elite because they get the pick of the litter from each graduating class. And top students want to attend, because the schools are considered elite (by parents, employers, other students, whatever), creating a virtuous/vicious cycle. Your degree signals your elevated status & improves your career prospects -- you were always intelligent but lacked the pedigree that would open the right doors.
So any competing "elite" university gets hobbled from the start simply by being "competing." Because a university degree is more social signaling and branding than a mere education. It's a really powerful bit of marketing: people will read this & generally agree (I hope). But then send their kids to elite schools anyway, which is the point.
A lot of people will point to Lambda School or equivalents as competitors of elite universities. The thinking goes that the Lambda School model (income share agreements + teaching practical knowledge, like knowing how to code) will replace universities. That is -- and I say this respectfully -- a brain dead take. I don't doubt that LS and others will be somewhat successful, but they won't even come close to threatening the value of an elite degree.
It's like thinking that people won't buy Apple products because they're too expensive and not really innovative. True in the facts (maybe, I don't really have strong opinions on Apple), but totally wrong in the conclusion. People miss the importance of perceived value.
A useful thought exercise (not mine). You're stuck on an island with a lot of raw materials. Would you rather have (1) a degree in boat-building from Princeton without the actual knowledge or (2) no degree, but full knowledge of how to build a boat? Most people, without thinking, choose (2).
Would you rather have (1) a degree in chemical engineering from Princeton, with none of the knowledge, or (2) all of that knowledge, but no degree? The fact that most people even hesitate to choose is pretty strong proof that the degree's primary value is marketing. Hypothetically, if you had (1), you could parlay that into a lucrative non-chemical-engineering field to hide your lack of knowledge. After all, you did go to Princeton :)
I'm talking about the US of course, no (informed) idea of how it is in other countries.
If the argument is that such an Asian University is not going to be elite enough, I think there are very simple ways around it.
For example, let's say the current and former CEOs of IBM, MS, Google, Adobe, Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, Marvel... got together, and created such a University and hired top Asian faculty from MIT, Stanford, Cal, Caltech.... with a small founding student body that is of above average calibre. I think that such a University would be elite enough.
So any competing "elite" university gets hobbled from the start simply by being "competing." Because a university degree is more social signaling and branding than a mere education. It's a really powerful bit of marketing: people will read this & generally agree (I hope). But then send their kids to elite schools anyway, which is the point.
A lot of people will point to Lambda School or equivalents as competitors of elite universities. The thinking goes that the Lambda School model (income share agreements + teaching practical knowledge, like knowing how to code) will replace universities. That is -- and I say this respectfully -- a brain dead take. I don't doubt that LS and others will be somewhat successful, but they won't even come close to threatening the value of an elite degree.
It's like thinking that people won't buy Apple products because they're too expensive and not really innovative. True in the facts (maybe, I don't really have strong opinions on Apple), but totally wrong in the conclusion. People miss the importance of perceived value.
A useful thought exercise (not mine). You're stuck on an island with a lot of raw materials. Would you rather have (1) a degree in boat-building from Princeton without the actual knowledge or (2) no degree, but full knowledge of how to build a boat? Most people, without thinking, choose (2).
Would you rather have (1) a degree in chemical engineering from Princeton, with none of the knowledge, or (2) all of that knowledge, but no degree? The fact that most people even hesitate to choose is pretty strong proof that the degree's primary value is marketing. Hypothetically, if you had (1), you could parlay that into a lucrative non-chemical-engineering field to hide your lack of knowledge. After all, you did go to Princeton :)
I'm talking about the US of course, no (informed) idea of how it is in other countries.