<p>The question is inherently flawed. </p>
<p>There are no universally best schools. There are best schools for each individual, but this is like saying, “who deserves to get the best wives/husbands”? What is best for one student is often not the best the other. Let’s take a brilliant student A. The most prestigious school he can get into may not be the best thing for him, especially if students end up being cutthroat, the number of places in his desired programme are limited and so forth. It may so end up that a state school has less prestige but yet is so hungry for brilliant students that it will end up appreciating A the most, showering him with opportunities. </p>
<p>You have to stop thinking of students “deserving” a certain school. It is simply a case of allocative efficiency: how best to allocate scarce academic resources to students, who can be conceived of as capital. [The relationship can also be conceived the other way round: allocating student resources (who are capital goods) to schools, but the schools (as firms) tend to be the ones in the position of power. [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/491616-wild-crazy-idea-student-admission-unions-students-world-unite.html]I”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/491616-wild-crazy-idea-student-admission-unions-students-world-unite.html]I</a> have thought of a preliminary way to change this.<a href=“Schools%20enjoying%20market%20power%20will%20of%20course%20contribute%20to%20economic%20inefficiency,%20so%20balancing%20the%20power%20on%20the%20students’%20side%20will%20counteract%20this.”>/url</a> ]</p>
<p>When the situation is analysed rationally and critically rather than with irrational emotion, perhaps the process may be seen with less ignorance.</p>