Well the top 1% in the US will look decent I think. The US had, at some point, decided they wanted the school system to be unequal when they associated funding with property taxes from each region, thereby ensuring rich neighborhoods have well funded school, and poor neighborhoods poor schools. This enshines inequality into the system, so the top will have comparatively more resources.
And you're far too optimistic about the basic income. It's far from a certainty, especially in the US.
Funding doesn't help enough by itself, and the poor school districts get supplemental funds from federal and state governments bringing their total funding on par or higher than richer school districts. I went through poor public schools and richer public schools. Resources were not very different. If anything less competition at poor schools gave me an extra edge.
"the poor school districts get supplemental funds from federal and state governments bringing their total funding on par or higher than richer school districts"
Citation needed.
Just a casual web search for your claim seems to be yielding the opposite conclusion.
My anecdotal experience from moving around a lot (over half a dozen public schools from kindergarten to 12th grade) also contradicts your claim. Competition at richer schools has definitely given me an extra edge. The phrase "competition at poor schools" is also oxymoronic. What competition? Competition in classmates ignoring teachers and fights constantly erupting?
The gulf between poor schools and rich schools is ridiculous. Some schools offer several Advanced Placement courses, several International Baccalaureate courses, and partnerships with multiple nearby colleges for college courses. Students at poorer schools don't even know what AP and IB courses are. You don't know competition until the top 10% of your graduating class are either all going to Ivy League and prestigious colleges or all already have credit for college courses before even applying to college.
And I was just talking about the insane competition from fellow students. School resources and personnel are another matter. State-of-the-art SMART Boards. Laptops. Tablets. Multiple fields for multiple sports. Paid field trips. Study abroad. A robust student exchange program. Multiple year foreign language programs in around half a dozen languages. Teachers with multiple/advanced degrees. Several guidance counselors. Multiple vice/assistant principals. Multiple coaches.
I am genuinely curious what edge you think a poor school gave you.
Obviously OP meant it is easier to get higher class rank/valedictorian at poor noncompetitive schools than at rich competitive schools. Many colleges use class rank when deciding admittance.
The wonders of the US education system never cease to amaze me.
Are tests not standardized that class rank matters? When I first entered university here, grade average was all that mattered. Certain grades even guarantee university acceptance...
I would suggest two things. First, you have seriously underestimated the variation among secondary educational institutions in USA, a mistake that no USA college admissions process would make. Second, even in the context of the fortunate realm in which you attend university, a "good grades guarantee acceptance" policy probably somewhat underestimates the variation among secondary educational institutions there.
Probably because the country I live in has much less variation in the quality of secondary education.
The fact the US hasn't figured out how to offer a consistent level of K-12 education is, quite frankly, mind-boggling (along with the lack of health care, and many other things we take for granted in the rest of the 'western' world).
And you're far too optimistic about the basic income. It's far from a certainty, especially in the US.