DON'T SUPPORT THE IVIES.

Penn Law's Amy (blunt but not incorrect) Wax is guest contributor at The American Conservative to make the argument.  It's long by their standards, but still not as long as the collected nearly 1900 posts I've devoted to similar points.

Much of what she argues applies to the higher education enterprise generally.

The National Association of Scholars issued a recent, damning report that presents universities as dominated by a progressive social justice agenda which distorts teaching and research and presents a one-sided picture of our national problems.

Critics have also faulted the academy for a dramatic increase in elaborate bureaucracies, expensive new buildings, and unproven programs. These developments have driven up costs, which in turn has burdened many students with heavy loans that contribute to economic distress and inequality. Yet universities continue to command generous public and private support. State and federal governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on university programs, infrastructure, and subsidized student loans and grants. This money is not evenly distributed. In 2016, out of over 3,000 universities offering four-year degrees and about half as many two-year colleges nationwide, 20 institutions accounted for over 30 percent of federal spending, with 100 universities garnering 80 percent of the total. Various proposals have been floated to reduce the degree of public support for colleges and universities and thereby force higher education to be more accountable, responsive, and thrifty. These austerity arguments have so far had little effect.

That second paragraph is a jumble of points: perhaps the most straightforward case is that the federal spending (sponsored research, particularly?) is a regressive transfer by which Ivy dons live at the expense of Grabowskis everywhere. The funding argument might have more purchase understood as Big Education breaking the social contract with the public.  The donations to which she devotes much of her essay, on the other hand, might be better understood as those who benefitted by their credentials making it possible for their spawn or the kids of their neighbors also to so benefit.  Shorter form: that's not the same thing as philanthropy.

On the other hand, being more generous to less famous institutions of higher, or not-so-higher, learning, might not be wise.

Lack of money is only one, and probably not the most important, factor preventing these students from completing their degrees. Lack of interest, poor preparation, family-based constraints, and the distractions and burdens of adult responsibilities play a significant role. These factors are not easily addressed by throwing more money at the problem.

The plain truth is that many young people are insufficiently interested in pursuing an academic post-secondary degree or are unsuited to this path. This is true not just because of high dropout rates and a rising debt burden but also due to the mismatch between the demands of the labor market and the skills and expectations of young jobseekers. American businesses complain about the quality of the American workforce and the chronic shortage of workers with the requisite skills for current jobs.

Vocational and job-oriented training programs are an important alternative to academic degrees. The Manhattan Institute’s Oren Cass argues that such options have long been neglected and starved for funding. The money allocated for vocational training and preparation, including many programs offered by the existing network of community colleges, is dwarfed by the amounts spent on students pursuing academic bachelor’s degrees.

That, too, is a bundle of points.  One of these days people in higher education, including particularly those in the Ivies, will understand that you don't take disengaged young people never properly socialized and turn them into skilled tradesmen.  It doesn't help that many of the institutions somewhere down the U.S. News pecking order choose the path of least resistance, meaning game day, parties, and weak curricula.

There's a lot more in the essay, including a number of topics I'm less willing or able to address.  Taken together, it's not quite "Abolish the Ivy League," and yet it's the kind of thinking people ought to engage in, agree or disagree, when there is accumulating evidence that the sclerotic establishment is past its sell-by date.