This year, some 68 universities admitted a total of 8,213 Star Program applicants, giving the program an acceptance rate of 41.16%. The admissions figure is the highest to date for the program, up 1,423 students from 2011’s level.

The top 10 high schools in terms of number of students accepted included two private schools and eight district high schools. While nearly every district high school has its own star students, top-tier medical schools, electrical engineering programs, and law schools have a history of ignoring them.

According to Prudence Chou, a professor in National Cheng­chi University’s Department of Education and the author of Mr. President: How Are You Going to Deal with Education in Taiwan?, the original aims of the Stars Program—helping outstanding students from rural areas and promoting social justice—imply that the program should be targeted at specific groups, not open to every high-school student in the nation.

“If even 10 or 20% of those admitted via the Stars Program are from elite high schools, we need to review the program,” says Chou.

She argues further that students whose parents have the means to send them to private schools are not “underprivileged,” even if they do live in rural areas. Chou says it’s like awarding a need-based scholarship to the child of a rich businessperson—completely ridiculous.

In 2007, the Joint Board of the College Recruitment Commission asked Chou Yu-wen, a professor with National Taiwan Normal University’s Department of Education, to study the pros and cons of the Stars Program. Chou discovered that high schools and university recruitment officials all agreed that the program helped disadvantaged students.

Chou Yu-wen says that many further recommended excluding students from Taiwan’s top high schools, such as Jian­guo and Tai­pei First Girls, from the program, or guaranteeing places for students from disadvantaged schools. But problems arise when you try to define “elite” and “disadvantaged.” Chou explains that every policy document creates labels, and while “disadvantaged” schools could well benefit from the designation, some students might be sufficiently put off to go elsewhere for their high-school educations.

Prudence Chou argues that while the Stars Program deserves credit for diversifying the ways by which students are admitted to universities, departments need to expand their selection criteria beyond grades and scores. When evaluating students from rural areas, which provide students with fewer high-quality teachers and less cultural stimulation, they need a different approach.

Commenting on the question of excluding students from elite high schools, Chu Chun-chang, a section chief with the Ministry of Education’s Department of Higher Education, says that in recent years both schools and parental organizations have recommended the creation of additional criteria barring the participation of elite high schools. But Chu counters that the Stars Program is intended to give kids from every high school an opportunity, not to give those from rural high schools greater opportunities. “The Stars Program isn’t a preferential route into university. It therefore cannot bar the participation of students from elite high schools, or make it easier for kids from rural schools.”

Prudence Chou argues that universities and the MOE are being too conservative, and we should learn from the affirmative action programs the US implemented in the 1970s. She feels all of our university admissions processes should provide guaranteed places to disadvantaged students, including those from rural areas, from low-income families, from minority groups, and with physical disabilities.

“Why are there so few stars?” asks Chou, who says that universities should reconsider the composition of their departments and student bodies, and give thought to the need to include disadvantaged students. We should, she argues, be looking beyond individual stars to entire constellations.