> As poor people can not afford more.

Then you gotta make it affordable for them.

You can still have elite schools for the absolute best (though I would question that certain self-styled 'elite schools' are really principally selecting for that and not e.g. wealth or family connections), but that doesn't mean that you cannot raise the bar on public and affordable education (including traditional schools and universities but also via other means, e.g. self-teaching via online resources). These are two competing goals and often people only focus on the one to the exclusion of the other, but they are both important.

> certain self-styled 'elite schools' are really principally selecting for that and not e.g. wealth or family connections),

This hasn’t been true for years, decades even

A large and generous welfare state.

To create wealth, you must identify and educate the most capable students.

The only way to pay for a large and generous welfare state is to educate the most capable to the highest level of ability. The tech industry was built by highly ambitious, competitive, risk-taking individuals.

"California collected almost $1 billion in personal income tax revenue from Palo Alto’s 94301 zip code in 2016. That was the most of any zip code in the state, according to a new LA Times analysis, which found that California’s top 1 percent of filers paid nearly 46 percent of income tax for that same year. "

https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101867426/californias-top-1-p....

Well, for one, you don't just throw your hands in the air and say it's an impossible problem.

Two, you don't label it as fair, and you recognize the disadvantages that exist and start talking about solutions.

Research shows students admitted based on affirmative action have higher drop out rates due to the academic mismatch effect. Giving preferential treatment based on class may be better than based on race, but such students may still be under prepared for the rigors of an elite university's program. After all, middle class families generally choose the best schools they can afford under the assumption that it has a material effect on the human capital of their children.

I also don't see the problem with students from poor families simply going to community college for a couple years then transferring to a state school. It's far cheaper and the curriculum is largely the same for most undergraduate courses.

The major problem that progressive don't want to recognize is the role of culture and family structure, e.g. lower class Blacks and Whites who view education negatively, and who tend to be raised by single mothers. Asians generally don't have this problem and have the highest SAT scores even when you control for family income.