My point was that the article provided some substance, and gave numbers which explain why a needs blind admission policy does not, on its own, justify the exist

My point was that the article provided some substance, and gave numbers which explain why a needs blind admission policy does not, on its own, justify the existing tax policy. The question you asked was addressed in the article, in statements like "In a world where the government only provides limited resources for higher education, we’re almost certainly shoveling an outsized share of them to schools that don’t need the financial help." and "we seem to have stumbled into a system that disproportionately subsidizes the educations of a tiny few." The second page tries to address what a more equitable distribution might be. For example, "Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley caused a minor uproar in higher education circles by proposing that colleges should be forced to spend 5 percent of their endowments every year, the same way private charitable foundations are." However, the author is clear that there is no simple answer, and leaves the topic hanging with "I think we’d all like to spend a little less money sending other people’s kids to Harvard." Personally, I think it should have ended with "we'd all like to spend a little less money sending people to Harvard and more money sending more people to college." As to your last question, there is a balance of factors that make it difficult to answer. If the monetary policy is such that one person gets to attend Harvard for free or 4 people get to go to a public college for free ... which should we choose, and why? (Based on the numbers in the article, and the cost of tuition for different colleges, the actual number is probably between 1:2 and 1:6.)