[cdmcmahon]

This is the strongest argument that can be made for universal programs when it comes to designing progressive public policy. Rich people have the time and resources to aggresively take advantage of any system that tries to implement means testing or scaled benefits. The winning play is to design programs where benefits are given completely independently of time, money, access or power, even if it means some people who do not need it will get some assistance.

[chongli]

The winning play is to design programs where benefits are given completely independently of time, money, access or power, even if it means some people who do not need it will get some assistance.

But then doesn't it come down to grades, test scores, and extracurriculars etc? Rich parents are already paying for huge amounts of tutoring, coaching, and test prep, along with personally chauffeuring their kids all over the place in order to rack up the extracurricular and volunteering hours.

Sure, you can mandate an "equity score" for admissions but at some point are you going to be admitting students who can't handle the coursework? Grades are more than just an arbitrary barrier.

[cdmcmahon]

My comment, and the article posted here, are about financial assistance to pay for college, not the admissions process.

I agree admissions processes have problems, but I don't see how your comment relates to the issue at hand.

[aantix]

As long as the system has rules, those rules can be optimized for.

As long as conditions exist, someone can study or hire expertise in helping to meet those conditions.

[cdmcmahon]

The point of universal programs is that the "condition" for eligibility is existence [1] and thus there is nothing to optimize for, by definition.

[1] This is obviously a simplification because of in reality the condition is citizenship/residency, but that's a whole other issue.

[asdff]

We can start by making these rules simple enough where you don't need a j.d. or accounting degree to parse them.