What do you mean? I wrote "there are black sheep everywhere" as in "yes, it happens that there will be people who will try to exploit the system". That does not justify not striving to support those who would benefit from it, which most probably are the bigger group.
> If you make taxes factually optional by simplifying the form [...] people will lie.
As the people who understand how to game the system already do?
> how much money to pay that person.
Money is not the only thing people can be provided with. Supporting children from underprivileged groups can also mean supporting single mothers with child care, providing more accessible health care or providing mentors and tutoring.
> Means tested social security programs are individual. You make less than X, you're eligible for rent support
> It's not individual, it's based on some arbitrary group identity
You contradict yourself here. Your first example based on income is also grouping of individuals, exactly what you criticize in the second part. To add to your point: one could even say that the income base lines for eligibility in social programs can be seen as arbitrary as well. Do you think the Mindestlohn is based on an objective, most fair judgement of what people need? It's already an absurd system when you just look at the regional differences of cost of living throughout Germany.
Ignore the trigger words ("gender x, ethnicity y or subculture z") and you'll see that we don't diverge much. The point I'm trying to make is not to find out, how $skincolor_x can be pushed to represent a greater share of graduates. It is to find out how we can lift everyone to have the same chances at the beginning, taking structural and unconscious factors into account.