i think the point the article was trying to make is that good enough is a much more quantifiable metric and randomization after that is better at minimizing bias from those who select who is "special." I think of it more like, everyone with a 1500 sat go into a hat, and we pick 20 randomly, rather than lets put everyone with a sat score of 1000 in a hat because that is "good enough."

It's not obvious that the current process does better than chance at detecting genius, though - at the margin, the formal and informal tests used for admissions are far better predictors of your parents' tax bracket than of your own inherent ability.

I upvoted you, but it is true that for most graduates, a degree is just a ticket to the upper middle class where they will mostly do meetings, email, and office documents.

Sadly, this is true for a lot of engineering jobs too.

Whether they learn anything is irrelevant.

That's true. But, bluntly, and speaking as a member, we don't matter anywhere near as much as the absolute best.

The members of the "upper middle class ticket" group might as well be selected by ballot from the intellectually qualified.

But I'd never suggest that if it in any way imperiled the idenfitifcation and support of the very best and brightest. Which, AFAICT, is exactly what this proposal would do.