Or are people who likely to be successful more likely to go there, because of their need for status. Perhaps the school has little explanatory power compared with the explanatory value of individual traits.
there was another article i saw that showed that your sat score increases as the household income you come from increases. money = competitive advantage.
The majority of your success in life is determined by the wealth of your parents. There is a few outliers here and there, but the biggest factor (if you’re American) is most certainly your parent’s incomes.
Its factually demonstrated. Not a socialist view. I didn’t say that everyone should be paid equally or anything like that, did I? There are certainly advantages to capitalist allocations of wealth. I certainly don’t believe that inequality is a bad thing. Folks with more valued skills should make more. And to itera’s comment: you should know that selecting a handful of outliers is not statistically significant. The fact there are some rags to riches (and riches to rags) stories just reflect luck more than systemic trends.
I recently read a story about Bill Ackman who graduated from Harvard. He went to work for his father but didn’t like it so he started a Hedge Fund with 3 million in start up capital. Not many get that type of head start.
^ That’s a lower or middle class upbringing by Itera standards. Hell, everyone gets a good dose of seed money and an Ivy education, right? Obviously nearly all Americans are self made.