Interesting.... where you come down on this issue is directly dependent on how you personally are affected. Without the set-aside for younger players, those players trying to age-up will be out of contention for a year while they accumulate the requisite points to get direct entry, but to afford them the hand up, some of the players already in that division will be left out.
I had a problem with the method of selecting those younger players, not the policy itself. They take the top 4-6 players from the younger division first, regardless of whether they would qualify without the set-aside. In one event we played that allowed 4 players from the younger division, 3 of them had more than enough ranking to qualify for direct entry, so the players who would have actually needed the set-aside couldn't use it. In answer to my question about how this actually benefited the younger players, the USTA wrote “At the end of the day, the Committee has determined that the emphasis should be on the younger age division and so those selections are done first. One can disagree, but the decision has been made that these events can be age-up opportunities for players and thus the emphasis is on the younger age division.“ They never did clarify how giving assistance to those who didn't need it, helped those who do. Don't fret over what you cannot change. As with any bureaucracy, the USTA is like a huge ship... they don't turn quickly, and once they do, they stay on that course for a long time. By the time you change anyone's mind, your kid will have graduated college. Spend your time improving his game now and get a better ranking, then you don't have to worry.