> As I’ve gotten older, I haven’t become more conservative. But I’ve realized that the left side of the spectrum is a lot sicker than I realized when I was younger, and to not automatically discount everything that goes on in the right, wince-worthy as it may often be.

Changing perception is usually exactly how one would become more political.

Asian countries developed much later. That is why some countries also have mobile payments instead of credit cards. Because credit cards never became the incumbent in the first place. Many western countries have a relatively unbroken history from early industrialism to post-WWII development to home computers in the 80s to early Internet startups. Japan, which developed earlier than India or China, doesn't have a high percentage of women in STEM. The US used to have a higher percentage of women in computer science in the 80s when it was a less popular field. If you instead look at gender distribution in something older like politics or the military western countries often do a lot better than the rest of the world.

> Oxford and Cambridge are undeniably very good universities

Looking at Instagram there are undeniably many physically fit Americans. In reality their physical fitness is notable because it is relatively rare.

Elite universities are sustainable in an industrial society where scarcity of resources means there are only so many high positions.

In a post-industrial society knowledge is the resource. Elite universities then instead mean you have a lack of resources.

> In a post-industrial society knowledge is the resource.

Err, no.

Don't get me wrong, the Oxbridge system accepts, fosters and matriculates some very bright, very smart people.

But that is not at all what the core of the "Elite University" system is about, it's about connections and maintaining a single degree of freedom between the families that collectively hold > 90% of the wealth, resources, and influence within UK society.

I think we are mostly on the same page. Elite universities are fine in an industrial society because you are more limited by physical resources. South Korea does relatively well being run by relatively few rich families. Because it only takes so many executive, managers or engineers to run factories refining natural resource. An elite university can produce the people necessary to fill those slots.

In a post-industrial society, or beyond that, you aren't tied to physical resource in the same way. Instead you are limited by the amount of people with relevant knowledge. The existence of elite universities in such a society is really more saying that you can't produce enough people and opportunities.

Arriving at a village finding there is only one person with a car you don't say "wow, this guy is successful" you say "ouch, this is a poor village" even if that is the most successful person in the village. Because these days we expect cars and if everyone had cars he wouldn't stand out as successful.

NB, in current UK English "matriculation" describes the process whereby the student is formally enrolled by the university. It is a formality and happens after they arrive at the university but before they are taught anything. A matriculation photo is taken by the college at the beginning of the first term. That is all there is to it.

It makes more sense to call it the Eton system. Oxbridge is accessible for many smart young people, but in itself that does not invite you to the political elite. It's Eton and a couple of other schools.

Pretty much any male politician whose official actions could be described as inhuman or sociopathic has been through boarding school trauma.

As long as there are people much smarter than other people, there will be universities much more prestigious than other universities.