This essay explores the concept of “equivalence” (likvärdighet) and how it can be defined in the context of the Swedish school system. The method that is used is a critical examination of the equivalence theory formulated by Lars Lindblom. The concept of equivalence in his theory can be defined as equal opportunities for education that is designed to provide compensated resources and welfare where the most disadvantaged students, which includes the differently abled, are compensated according to the principle of difference. Further, that the social distribution domain in a fair society must both ensure that the school provides equal opportunities and compensates the disadvantaged and that the school's compensatory mission must therefore become the first priority in equality. In the essay I advance the thesis that Lindblom’s theory does neither function as a framework for allocation of resources to different categories of students or as a tool do model teaching. This is, because it does not provide any practical guidance for how the concept of equivalence should be used when distributing resources among different groups of students, except for the fact that students who receive compensatory should be prioritized. Lindblom's contribution is nevertheless valuable in that the theory provides a new and in-depth insight into the various dimensions contained within the concept of equivalence.

This paper examines common and past applications of affirmative action, including arguments for and against the application; presents John Rawls’ theory of justice, and proposes a framework using Rawls’ theory for future applications of affirmative action. The proposal relieves heavily on the principle of fair equality of opportunity, both as an indicator for when using affirmative action is appropriate as well as a tool to help identify the people that affirmative action programs should target. Using this framework, the public education system is identified as a sector of society that fails to provide fair equality of opportunity for all citizens, and an example of how the Rawlsian conception of affirmative action should be used in practice to help address the inequalities and help restore equality of opportunity within the public education system is given. Objections to affirmative action, both in general and more specifically tailored to the model proposed in this paper, are raised and responded to. This paper comes to the conclusion that affirmative action programs, when targeted towards individuals who are denied fair equality of opportunity and have low rates of social mobility, will help create a more just society.

Premier arrivé, premier servi. Que cela s’appelle un privilège ou un droit de préférence particulier, il reste inacceptable au regard des règles substantielles du droit positif français.Cette répartition des sommes saisies sacrifie, pour des raisons procédurales, une règle importante à savoir l’égalité entre les créanciers.Cette étude propose une solution intermédiaire entre le droit civil et le droit des voies d’exécution. La proposition consiste à donner à tous les créanciers, qui ont obtenu par leur vigilance des titres exécutoires avant le premier acte de saisie, la possibilité d’associer le premier saisissant dans la répartition des sommes saisies dans le cadre d’une saisie attribution.La combinaison de l’effet attributif immédiat de la saisie avec une durée de quinze jours,pendant laquelle les créanciers titulaires des titres exécutoires viennent en concours sous réserve des causes légitimes de préférences et des privilèges, aboutit à un double résultat. Le recouvrement des créances reste rapide et simple et l’égalité entre les créanciers sera respectée / Whether it is called a privilege or a private preference right, the ‘first come first served rule’remains debatable given the substantive rules of the French positive law. Primarily for procedural reasons, the norm of seizures distribution undermines a crucial principle, namely equality among creditors.This study proposes an intermediary solution between civil law and law of enforcement procedures. It advocates granting all creditors, who have obtained their enforcement orders before the first act of seizure, the possibility of associating with the first executioner the distribution of the seized money.The combined effect of immediate attribution of the seizure with duration of fifteen days,during which all creditors holding enforceable securities are subject to competition, and taking into account other legitimate preferences and privileges, leads to a double result: a simple and fast method of debt recovery without undermining the principle of equality between creditors.