RM> MS>Many colleges are so hard up for students they will take anyone, 
RM> and 
RM> MS>they simply cannot realistically be expected to voluntarily go 
RM> broke 
RM> MS>(faster) by getting tough on admissions to help public schools 
RM> "motivate"
RM> MS>kids.
RM> 
RM> Then they have zero right to complain about the level of
RM> competence of the kids.  They're contributing to the problem.
    We agree.
RM> MS>The government, though, contributes greatly to this problem by 
RM> giving
RM> MS>the same financial aid regardless of high school class rank or SAT
RM> MS>score.
RM> 
RM> I'll buy this... to a point.  While it would reward 
RM> accomplishment, it would also be putting more money into
RM> the hands of many who need it least.  A lot like your
RM> position on affluent retirees.  Well-to-do, 2-parent,
RM> educated families with homes in the suburbs will have an
RM> advantage going in, will do better proportionately
    Well-to-do kids have an advantage _anyway_ on student aid now.
    Since they are more likely to get admitted to selective colleges, they 
are more likely to get financial aid.  Since their parents are the ones 
hiring consultants to look "poorer" on financial-aid forms, they already get 
advantages.  Since they disproportionately attend more expensive colleges, 
they qualify for more aid money.
    What I'm proposing would reduce the amount of aid going to rich kids, 
since many attend expensive private colleges that are open admission.  Many 
such students wouldn't get much (if any!) aid with what I'm suggesting.
--- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS])
---------------