Even if you’re not applying, this thought experiment gives a glimpse into how the world is about to be rewired.
The top 10 most selective colleges in the US admit about 5% of those who apply. They’re not selling education as much as a label, a rare chance for someone to slot themselves into a category in our economic and cultural hierarchy.
If all the famous schools wanted to do was be elite, they could use a formula–grades plus SAT plus something–and algorithmically draw a line and pick everyone over that line.
But it’s more complicated than that.
First, they want to find some sort of balance, to create a reasonably diverse group of backgrounds that coalesce into a community. They don’t want 100 kids from the same high school…
Second, they have special cases, many of which they don’t want to talk about in public, involving alumni, outgroup dominance considerations, and sports, which in many cases can count for as much as 50% of the incoming body.
Third, they use variable pricing, with many students ultimately paying different tuition. Few can afford to be fully need-blind in selection.
The end result is complicated, onerous and mostly a charade. 50,000 applicants coming into each institution cannot possibly be reviewed coherently or consistently. And uncertainty takes a toll, not just on the students, but the schools and their teams as well.
It’s expensive and time-consuming, and fraught with worry. The typical fancy college applicant applies to nearly ten schools. Some kids get into a few schools, some to none at all. And essays in the age of AI are now officially meaningless.
[I’ve written earlier that they should have two sorts of rejection letters. Half the people should get one saying that they simply didn’t get in. The other half should receive a letter saying that they were good enough to get in, but didn’t get lucky.]
This is what you’d invent if it were 1952.
If we rethink it, it might be more like this:
Each applicant ranks the schools they apply to. That’s a forced ranking, and binding.
The application is online and interactive. It shifts in real time based on the answers applicants give. I’d prefer we get rid of standardized testing, but I’d imagine some sort of asynchronous vetted skills testing can be referred to by the applicant.
Sit down at 10 am on the day of your choosing, and all your applications will be done by 3 pm. Chaperones, video, and real-time snippets make it likely that the real applicant actually is the one engaging with the application.
It’s easy to imagine that this is simply a digital form of the existing application, but it’s not. It works with the student, finding their strengths, asking follow-up questions, presenting them in the best light for their skill set. Get some math questions right and it will ask you some more. Talk about your work at the Fuller Center and it will dive deeper. It’s not adversarial; instead, it’s a scout and a coach.
Even better, it’s not just one session–it’s a series of conversations, over time. And as a coach, the process can advise the student on their forced rankings, helping them reconsider preferences based on their interactions.
The schools have to be very clear to the system about the balances they seek, the trade-offs they’re making and what’s important to them. This won’t be easy at first, because naming it is uncomfortable. In fact, this is the hardest part of the transition.
[Hard indeed: Lawsuits will be an inevitable outcome. Discovery in the SFFA case against Harvard put the previously unrevealed rules into the record—the admission rates by legacy status and athletic skill. Naming the trade-off is what turns it into a lawsuit.]
Then, on selection day, the AI system, which has read every single application, applies game theory and ranking to create the best possible allocation of seats, aid and students. The Gale-Shapley stable-matching algorithm is already used in medical residency placement. It leads to its own game theory implications, of course.
This shift saves money, reduces anxiety, is probably more fair. It’s auditable and improvable and uses far less time as well. It used to be impossible. Now that it’s not just possible but easy, the pressure falls on the constituents who’d prefer to avoid it.
Is it better to believe that you got into a famous college because of a mysterious, perhaps human, definitely flawed, and easily gamed system, or would we prefer a different sort of black box, one that puts data to work in a coordinated and prioritized way?
Systems change is difficult and unpredictable, and I’m not holding my breath. Just imagine, though, how many processes we live with now that will be rebuilt on top of widespread coordination.
Any gathering of more than two people involves compromise.
Embracing this fact actually increases the utility of the event. It’s a trap to commit to making it perfect for everyone–we end up sacrificing what the event could be and creating mediocrity instead.
A surprise party might be designed to make the host feel good, or perhaps to create a memorable moment for the guest of honor. The wedding might exist to cement the status and relationships of the bride. The quarterly management meeting is probably organized to increase the security and power of the boss.
There’s a reason that they don’t serve “wedding food” at restaurants. The food is a compromise, not the sort of thing people seek out.
When planning any event, the first two questions are the most important, and they need to be repeated, again and again:
Who’s it for?
What’s it for?
If we can be clear about that, we can make progress in making it happen.
It took me thirty years to populate the bookshelf that’s behind me in most of my videos. Most of us don’t have the time or patience to do that.
At the same time, the wonky computer-generated background many people use on Zoom calls undermines the impact and authority you might be seeking. I just discovered these grey backgrounds and using one creates an instant upgrade for many users. $55 well spent. Sample down below.
As I was writing this, I saw the announcement from ElevenLabs that they are now supporting dubbing in dozens of languages. It’s not perfect, but it’s sort of a miracle.
It’s possible you use social media to grow your business. Or to enhance your career. Or maybe it’s to find delight and joy.
When you add up all the tikking, tokking, tweeting and clicking, what’s the return on that investment? Is your vacation more fun when you spend it taking photos for your Instagram followers? Are you feeding Linkedin or is it feeding you?
Labor is work that we get paid for. It’s work we wouldn’t do for free. And for most people on social media, it’s unpaid labor on behalf of the platforms.
If it’s paying off for you, keep going!
If it’s not, it might be worth reconsidering.
The simple test: when you do it more, do things get better?
Instead: If you were willing to be on the hook for the responsibility (if it works out) and the disappointment (if it doesn’t), which one do you actually want?
Moore’s Law was stated 60 years ago, but it only became a law once its predictions came true.
The reason that your laptop doesn’t cost as much as your house is that computer chips get relentlessly cheaper and more powerful. Just as Gordon Moore predicted.
But perhaps it wasn’t a prediction. Perhaps he wasn’t imagining what would happen. It might be that it was a prescription. That computer chips get faster on his schedule precisely because he said they would. We build fabs and new business models in anticipation of the drop in prices, and that causes the drops to happen.
We’ve seen this happen with economic forecasts, bank runs and even, with Joe Namath at the helm, football teams.
Eric Ries has a new book, Incorruptible. It’s based on the clear truth that our economic system is filled with incentives that cause well-meaning people (especially bosses) to make short-term, selfish and toxic decisions. It also describes a different way forward.
It’s easy to point to the power of selfish extractive capitalism and imagine that there’s nothing to be done about it. But perhaps we’ve been waiting for a map, one that can be a scripture and a Baedeker to people seeking coordinated change.
Systemic change requires systemic action. And the prescription is often a good place to begin.
To quote the great Steve Wozniak, “Actual Intelligence.” The kind we’re born with and can develop if we choose. It’s worth more now than ever before. Alas, it’s rarely taught in school.
The difficult work of making choices.
The act of curation.
The responsibility of putting your name on it.
The judgment to ask the right questions and skip the other ones.
The imperative to ship useful work.
The pursuit of good taste.
The patience to sit with the right problem rather than solving the wrong one.
The generosity to create for someone specific.
Seeking justice.
Offering dignity.
Knowing when to stop.
Investing in deep empathy, not a shallow substitute.
Taking initiative and doing the reading.
Being patient, or impatient, depending on what’s needed.
Ignoring the noise.
Making something that matters.
Caring.
May 24, 2026
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
