Funny how people here seemed to think free college was anti-meritocratic.
If I understand correctly, the concerns expressed whether a system would be set up which may be a meritocracy in name only... perhaps considering it to be a form of merit to come from a "junky town or neighborhood", to be considered "hicks", to be "poor" urban or rural, or of a particular ethnicity... a system in which meritocracy may be a euphemism for a quota-tocracy. Concerns may arise from actual practices in play today which may go beyond outreach/inclusion to bestowing a favored status such as seeking first generation college students.
While many may agree that "admissions criteria that are higher" is equal, equitable, and accessible criteria upon which to base a meritocracy, others believe that less ought to be required of certain groups. People are individuals, not demographic statistics. Individualism, not collectivism, is the way up: in schools, individuals who master academic challenge.
Considering the whole person, it may be desirable if they also then "give back" to the culture or community in some way of their choosing... to inform, inspire, and empower others to strive...
As with other discussions on this board which contemplate/debate public policy, it may be wise to consider not only ways in which to make things better for whomever is in the top 25%... but also for the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, and neighbors who are in the bottom 75%. Particular attention may be paid to the cutoff at the 25%, especially those who "almost made it", those who "would have made it in most other academic settings" (those possibly which are less competitive), and also the manner in which some who
have made the cutoff have competed (possibly by undermining others or by academic dishonesty).
The system in place today... actually a collection of different systems... approximates a meritocracy as each entity may seek and reward various criteria. In a centralized system, there would not be options.
