In responding to Keith, I’ll first state that I agree that the American system of education leads to different results for different people, and oftentimes that occurs along class lines. However, from my own experience and the experiences of my family members, I think calling it “segregated” is a bit strong. The term “segregation” implies a forced separation (i.e. children being selected into different education paths without consideration for their actions as students and human beings). This is something that we do not see in the American education system, at most we see an edge or a head-start given to students in wealthier districts—which is hardly a guarantee of getting into an elite college. Much more important in determining a student’s college future are their actions—their grades, test scores, extracurricular activities—all of which are under their control. To be clear, I agree that this tilted playing field is a problem, however the costs of government stepping in to fix it—in my opinion—are too high to justify.

As for the point of schools serving the wealthy, this is a necessary evil. In recent years, private colleges and prep schools have increased access to financial aid. This directly helps students from low-income backgrounds, who traditionally have been underrepresented in elite schools. However, it is important to note that the increase in financial aid is paid for by full tuition attendees (roughly half of Williams students for context) and contributions from alumni and others. The same, in theory, is true of public schools. In order to increase funding for education to benefit all, towns must attract wealthier residents. Spend too much, and your taxes might be too high, leading wealthier residents to leave. Spend too little, and despite low taxes your schools will probably be crumbling.