There is and there should be. Affirmative action has already been help up by the US supreme court.
> Does a donation to the school that helps improve the quality of the school and the research need to come without strings attached?
Yes.
> Should the rich be required to have such purity of intention? Or should they only donate to private schools where they can legally have influence?
A donation should not be used as a way to get one's child into a university. That's not a donation. That's an entrance fee.
> On the other side, does the education have the most impact on the person who was denied entrance (bottom of the applicant pool), assuming they would get through to graduation.
That seems reasonably true, though I have no source to back this up.
There is and there should be. Affirmative action has already been help up by the US supreme court.
> Does a donation to the school that helps improve the quality of the school and the research need to come without strings attached?
Yes.
> Should the rich be required to have such purity of intention? Or should they only donate to private schools where they can legally have influence?
A donation should not be used as a way to get one's child into a university. That's not a donation. That's an entrance fee.
> On the other side, does the education have the most impact on the person who was denied entrance (bottom of the applicant pool), assuming they would get through to graduation.
That seems reasonably true, though I have no source to back this up.