This is not a particularly strong article. Here's a much more data-backed one arguing similar points (though still with some bias): https://freddiedeboer.subst

This is not a particularly strong article. Here's a much more data-backed one arguing similar points (though still with some bias): https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-arent-actually-mad-at-the-sats https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-arent-actually-mad-... Issues with this particular article (addressed by above): * It's ignoring the racial gap in SAT scores (and other standardized tests) that exists even after controlling for family income. A large part of the political narrative here (including the university backing Prop 16 which would allow it to consider race) is coming from this fact, not just the income gap in itself (Note that I don't think the university ever took the position that the tests were per se discriminatory, which the author claims). * It's not really defining what "worst" school means; you need to be careful here as you might just be saying the tautological "students at schools with low-performing students on average on low performing". It's making the common claim these schools are underfunded, but on average, lower performing schools are receiving more money. (Example from LA - http://www.laalmanac.com/education/ed04m.php http://www.laalmanac.com/education/ed04m.php -- LAUSD, which some of the lowest ranking schools, is well over average funding - areas with top schools - e.g. Arcadia - get the least). Perhaps the author means "underfunded schools relative to what I think they should get", but that's a different statement. * UC admission data for 2021 is out (https://ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/content-analysis/ug-admissions/ug-pages/admissions.html https://ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/co...), so it's possible to start objectively assessing the impact of the policy.