> How can that be done? For one thing, education—whose benefits are concentrated in the extravagantly trained children of rich parents—must become open and incl

> How can that be done? For one thing, education—whose benefits are concentrated in the extravagantly trained children of rich parents—must become open and inclusive. Private schools and universities should lose their tax-exempt status unless at least half of their students come from families in the bottom two-thirds of the income distribution. And public subsidies should encourage schools to meet this requirement by expanding enrollment. I wonder if people who propose such lofty ideals reason through the possible consequences (direct and 2nd and 3rd order effects) of such ideas and how it might backfire? Right off the bat, I can see two possible consequences: - the schools reject the proposal, lose tax exempt status and just charge more because many of their students' parents can afford the added cost. The second order effect of this is that a school that was once financially accessible to the top 5% maybe only becomes accessible to the top 1% because of the additional tuition required to make up the lost tax exempt status. - the schools admit 50% from the bottom two thirds and the quality of education suffers because the bar has been lowered and the school can no longer be as demanding. This is a reasonable expected outcome because the article cites strong correlations such a "children whose parents make more than $200,000 a year score about 250 points higher on the SAT than children whose parents make $40,000 to $60,000.". Assuming they keep the school as demanding even with 50% from the bottom, a second order effect of this change would be extreme anxiety for the students that aren't as capable being thrust into a system that hasn't attenuated expectations to accommodate their abilities.