But some elite colleges have focused more on being affordable to low-income families than on expanding access. The article talks about access multiple ti

But some elite colleges have focused more on being affordable to low-income families than on expanding access. The article talks about access multiple times, but never defines what that might mean. If financial commitment is removed from the table, either qualified low-income applicants aren't being accepted at the same rates (unsubstantiated here) or qualified low-income applicants simply aren't applying (supported by linked research[1]). Or colleges accept students based on qualification alone and are "blind" to economic circumstances—which may be good or bad depending on your POV. If the second, the question then becomes how to encourage those applicants. Is that "access"? Or do we need to re-think "qualification" to be more democratic (if it includes, say, international exposure that can be bought)? Are institutions obligated to change their qualification criteria to this end? Should they all? The selectivity-vs-income ("rainbow") chart is interesting and fairly linear. I wonder what a similar "qualification-vs-income" chart would look like: e.g., are top 0.1%-ers "more qualified" (e.g., more likely to get into a selective university by performance alone) than other bands? Then we're either into really dangerous territory (e.g., wealth correlated with intelligence), we're back to (re-)defining qualification criteria, or we shift the "blame" from university admissions to childhood education. [1]http://www.nber.org/papers/w18586 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18586