[Ed. – There is so much wrong with this argument, one scarcely knows where to begin, but let’s give it the old college try. Could it be that the children of the highest wage earners tend to be brighter and therefore score better on admissions tests — an example of the adage about the apple falling not far from the tree?
As for carping about the ‘curiously slanted allocation of talented teachers,’ it appears what the author is really railing out at is capitalism. Private schools pay better salaries, thereby acquiring the best teachers. If we ‘redistribute wealth and power,’ as she suggests in the full article, everyone gets unmotivated (read lousy) teachers.]
Affirmative action is a consistent hobbyhorse on the right because it combines real anxieties with compelling falsehoods. …
What is essential to understand is that it’s not a vast crowd of black or brown people keeping white Americans out of the colleges of their choice, especially not the working-class white Americans among whom Trump finds his base of support. In fact, income tips the scale much more than race: At 38 top colleges in the United States, more students come from the top 1 percent of income earners than from the bottom 60 percent. Really leveling the admissions playing field, assuming the Trump administration actually cares about doing so, would involve much broader efforts to redistribute wealth and power. A focus on fringe campaigns against affirmative action suggests it does not.
Addressing inequalities in K-12 education, for instance, could help at-risk students of all races increase their chances of attending a top college — or any college at all. Policies such as property-tax-based funding for schools and the curiously slanted allocation of talented teachers … give a tremendous boost in college admissions to children from high-income families, often at the expense of their lower-income peers.