<p>
</p>
<p>It seems to me that your argument rests on the principal that it is legitimate for colleges to act as socioeconomic levelers. I’m not sure I accept this, but if we follow this principal to its logical conclusion, then elite schools could and should reject applications from children of the very wealthy and/or powerful. For example, suppose Stanford had rejected Chelsea Clinton in favor of Joe Middle Class. Arguably, as the daughter of a president and/or senator, Chelsea is still better off after she graduates from State U. than is Joe Middle Class with a Stanford degree.</p>
<p>Not only do elite colleges not do this, I understand that they actually relax their standards of admission for the children of the very wealthy and powerful. </p>
<p>So it looks to me like the “socioeconomic leveling” argument is more of a rationalization than anything else.</p>
<p>In any event, a policy can still be unfair and dishonest even if one wouldn’t necessarily trade places with the beneficiaries of that policy. What if Harvard flat out refused to admit anyone from a family whose income was above $25k and less than $200k? Most people would agree this is unfair, but most middle class people still wouldn’t trade places with the lower income folks.</p>
<p>Just my humble opinion, of course.</p>