I don't disgree with you at all that students use prestige, legacy, networks, etc. in their school selection choice and neither am I saying that just because Harvard Extension's degree is a Harvard degree that it carries the prestige that Harvard College does. The analogy wasn't good because you utilized materially different objects (Toyota and Ferrari) to represent the situation between materially similar objects (Harvard degrees) as a take-off point for the social construct. If you had used, among many possible examples for instance, the Camry vs the Tercel (both factually Toyota cars) in light of the Harvard College vs Harvard Extension (both factually Harvard degrees), the resulting social construct (the former being more prestigious than the latter) would have been consistent and the take-off point for arguing would have been clearer and much more pronounced. At this point, the analogy is not congruent, and no amount of philosophical fussing changes that.