<p>Partly it’s to get their name out there. But, why pursue the brightest? Complicated thing about insititutional standing (more than public rating.) -Wanting the right mix of freshman who will take on the challenges and stay for 2nd year (retention,) kids likely to graduate (4- and 6-year grad rates) and the fact that they need successful grads to contribute money back to the development campaigns. The better a kid feels he was challenged, that his peers were challenged, and the overall experience was good, the more likely he/she is to give back. And, more. It’s one reason Harvard is so phenomenally successful at fundraising and the much lesser colleges aren’t. </p>
<p>I don’t think college is about producing the best out of average and subpar kids. It can be about further inspiring- but it’s not meant to make up for issues with high schools or the prep kids got in hs. As it is, remedial support is a rising cost.</p>