I don't understand. How do rich children get a leg up when applying for college?
I don't agree with the premise that the rich people's ability to advertise and influence public opinion takes away anyone else's. And if anything there is a bias against the rich. Mainstream media outlets cater to their customers of whom "the rich" are a minority and we have the internet in which anyone can publish any opinion. At any rate you have right to free speech, not that others must listen or agree with you.
Rich kids not only likely have legacy or other connections due to their parents' wealth and standing, but they also have access to better tutors, SAT courses etc. It's been shown that SAT scores correlate with parental income. Like I've stated before, the advantages are only limited by the imagination of the parent, not their scope of wealth. You name it, their kids go to school safe and secure, with the best supplies, with kids of similar socioeconomic backgrounds who serve as connections in the future. See, most kids from the projects don't have parents who know deans and regents. Kids in richer areas have parents who are wealthy and can pull strings. (e.g. call in a favor with another friend, get his kid an internship to spice up his college applications) And since these kids generally do not grow up to be poor (as they inherit not only their parents' wealth but also all the capital (e.g. training, education) that their parents invest in), they'll form another generation of wealth, of privilege, of pulling strings for advantages. When a kid from a wealthy area can hire tutors and gain a leg up in the application process, a valuable slot is lost. Admissions to schools are zero-sum. This also has a long-term cost to everyone, because it corrupts the entire system which is supposed to be meritocratic. A spot lost to a smarter but poorer applicant denies such labor from the means of production. You really want to tell me George Bush got into Yale because of his academics, not because of his father's connections and wealth? Guess what, he took a seat from a poorer kid who could, for all we know, become a world-renowned economist or an honest, capable politician. Anyway you cut it, wealth corrupts meritocracy. And, as even the staunchest capitalist will agree, meritocracy is the best system for progressing society, of developing technologies, of bettering the individual and society. Now, taxing the rich in a higher bracket, trying to give even poor kids a stable school environment, providing welfare so that they don't go to school hungry, and a multitude of other objectives helps to even the odds a bit. The playing field is not as skewed as if we had the laissez-faire, barebones government many seem to argue for. Hell, I agree that implementations needs a lot of work. But please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
.
