I certainly did not come out of anything approaching a Ragged Dick background, but I assume I would have been considered a striver. Similarly, I assume that my son would be hard-pressed under a strivers regime to ever distinguish himself. Let's leave aside questions raised by the specifics of the moribund plan, such as whether the strivers formula would have told colleges anything that wasn't already evident from other application materials, or whether it's good to nudge students into schools at which they're more likely to perform marginally. Let's even ignore that ETS' response to persistent score disparities on its own exam is to rerig the test, rather than to call for educational reforms. It's the deeper logic of the plan that was seriously misguided.
Supporters assume the United States approaches a caste system.
For instance, author Nicholas Lemann, a critic of the SAT in general because he feels it unfairly perpetuates wealth and advantage, nonetheless approved the new initiative. The people at the top of society have always been good at figuring out how to endow their children with whatever is the prevailing criterion of human worth. Lemann is correct that the relatively wealthy try to maintain their position. Economic mobility is the rule and not the exception in the United States. The desire to give your children more than you yourself had remains a major motivating factor in American society.