I recommend Steve Sailer's latest VDare column on Harvard.
But there is one part I'm going to disagree with:
Nonetheless, there may be one thing Harvard can't afford: to be honest about what it is really selling. Summers, with his talk of IQ bell curves, came perilously close to spilling the beans, So he had to go.
What students are actually buying from Harvard is not so much a Harvard education as Harvard's certification that, as high school seniors, they were among the country's best and brightest. (A Harvard degree doesn't add much distinction over just getting in, because 96 percent of Harvard freshmen graduate.)
There are, however, potentially much quicker and cheaper ways to certify such things than to spend four years and $185,000 at Harvard—for example, IQ tests.
No, Harvard is not selling IQ certification, Harvard is selling its prestige. How could Harvard be selling something that hardly anyone believes in? Blog readers who hang out in the "Sailersphere" can get the mistaken impression that IQ is commonly understood to be important. But this is not true. The vast majority of people in the overclass, if asked, will adamantly insist that IQ is meaningless, or even worse, sinisterly racist. And for the most part, they believe it too, although there are a few, like Larry Summers (before he accidentally spilled the beans), who keep their beliefs to themselves, like a Jew pretending to be a goyish Nazi. But I think they are a pretty small number of people.
Harvard and other elite universities are looking for future leaders, and while too low of an IQ is a bar to high level leadership, it's possible that too high of an IQ is an equal bar. George Bush, leader of the free world, is widely ridiculed for being dumb, yet he scored higher on his SATs than a lot of other high level politicans.
Part of being a future leader is having the right familiy connections, so Yale and Harvard gladly accept applicants, such as George W Bush, who are sons and daughters of importnant people, while nerdy super-high IQ applicants are rejected.
Some people in the Sailersphere make the argument that court cases prevent employers from using their own IQ tests and thus they are forced to rely on prestigious degrees, but I don't buy this at all. If there were a big mass desire on the part of companies to use IQ they'd figure out how to do it. Google (one of the most successful companies of the decade), for example, relies heavily on IQ. Companies (a limited subset of companies such as investment banks) prefer graduates from top schools for reasons of prestige and tradition and not a scientific analysis of why they are better employees.