Legacies are by far the best hooks.
Legacy alone probably isn’t the biggest hook that an individual can have (relation to a giant donor is probably bigger in most cases), but it appears to be one of the more voluminous ones.
But it looks like the main argument that writer Michael Hobbes is making is that there is now a “glass floor” that keeps the mediocre scions of the wealthy at the top, crowding out opportunities for the talented scions of the non-wealthy to earn their way to the top. With increasing inequality and downward mobility generally, competition to rise to the top or stay there for those born there is also more intense than it was in past generations when widely distributed economic growth meant that almost all kids back then were likely to be upward mobile.
1 Like
I think the quote that titles this thread sums up my DD20s opinion very well and therefore explains her lack of interest in certain schools. It also helps to explain why her search for true diversity in the student body has led her to a “non-typical” list for someone with her stats. She is hoping that when she looks back in 20 years she will have been at the beginning of a tidal wave of change. This article makes it sound like that change will be difficult to achieve. I hope it is wrong.
What’s new about the idea the wealthy are a class? What even defines "downward mobility " when more lower SES kids do get a shot? Note there’s only one kid named, the son of a billionaire. No exploration of how opportunity does impact the less wealthy.
It takes more than a generation to see the effects of opportunity on lower SES groups. Groups, not individuals, as the effects trickle around. Why can’t we be proud of the attempts and that influence?
What “widely distributed economic growth” of the past?
What proof legacies don’t get in on merit? Why assume the Dell kid is stupid?
The point, @lookingforward, is that it does not matter at all whether the Dell scion is competent- no one at USC or Blackstone is concerned about his transcript, and he and many others like him will continue to have unfettered access to the best schools and jobs in perpetuity, as will their children. In a time of diminished economic opportunity, that can be problematic.
1 Like
These debates too often just have posters sticking to their sides.
There are many assumptions in the article, for me. And none of wealthy privilege, in general, is new to me. It’s gone on for generations.
But remember, the top colleges are working hard to offer opportunities more broadly. More so, perhaps, than Blackstone or some law firm. That’s what matters more, to me.
The difference is that Blackstone, like law firms, is a for-profit venture that does not receive public funds nor pretend to aspire to some higher mission in society other than making money.
Let’s not turn this further into those big bad colleges and federal funding.
No problem, I think we can all agree that plenty of dumb rich kids end up in our top colleges as the elite makes sure their kids don’t fall too far, which was the thesis of the article.
Upward mobility? Where? Other than in tech? The reason tech still offers upward mobility is because it still operates as a meritocracy. Other than Caltech and MIT, the other elite colleges don’t operate as meritocracies either.
The page linked in post #0 refers to the paper at https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/abs_mobility_paper.pdf which says that “The decline in absolute mobility is especially steep–from 95% in the 1940 cohort to 41% in the 1984 cohort –when we compare the individual earnings of sons to their fathers.”
In other words, almost all of the men born in 1940 ended up with upward mobility. But fewer than half of men born in 1984 ended up with upward mobility.
The paper then says that 29% of the decline in upward mobility is due to lower economic growth, and 71% of the decline in upward mobility is due to increasing inequality.
When most of the population is looking at downward mobility with only a few gaining upward mobility, it is not surprising that competition for upward mobility positions (in colleges and/or jobs) becomes much more intense, and political opinions become more hostile because others are seen as a source of competition or threat or “unfair advantage” who “need to be excluded”.
Regarding meritocracy, it is also not surprising that wealthy parents will deploy money to give their kids an advantage in earning actual merit, or scoring high on whatever measures of merit are used to offer meritocratic opportunity. Yes, in some areas, the kids still have to earn their merit, but those from wealthy parents at least have fewer additional barriers to jump that could block others who could have been equally meritous.
1 Like
It’s wrong, un-ethical and shameful. Yes, they accept some poor URMs to look good and justify federal funds and tax status but they actively discriminate against Asian-Americans and suburban public school graduates. They use to discriminate against Jews not so long ago. They keep high COA to limit number of middle class students. With such high endowments, they can make these colleges affordable for everyone who can secure an admission, instead of squeezing middle class dry.
I certainly agree that upward mobility has been decreasing in the last 30+ years, perhaps even longer. That has contributed to increasing inequity in societies (it isn’t a US-only phenomenon either). The lack of mobility has also made these societies more stagnant and less dynamic, reducing opportunities for the middle class.
The rich would still enjoy an advantage in a meritocracy, but that advantage is much smaller and has to be ultimately “earned”. What’s the alternative to meritocracy that’s fairer and more impartial to, but still incentivizes all those involved?
I don’t have the data to back it up, but I think throughout human history, the 1940 cohort would be the outlier. What did SES mobility look like in the 900’s?
I thought that it was interesting that this article actually did not focus so much on the top tier, like Ivies, but more on the next level, including LAC’s and state universities. The financial aid offered at some elite schools is, over the years, having some effect, though the families who cannot get need-based aid but have trouble paying, are still left out. Ditto some of the pipeline high school programs that prep disadvantaged kids.
The men I know who come from backgrounds that might be considered connected or “elite” continue to do well in life. However, the women don’t seem to benefit in the same way. That is anecdotal of course but I wonder…the article mentions boys and fathers a lot 
1 Like
Also we need to consider that the overall standard of living is better now than the early 1900s so we had farther to go in absolute upward mobility then. If we could escape the assumption that growth at the top must be endless and resume the growth of the middle, I think we would all benefit. The fear mongers feed the “there is not enough for all” rather than focusing on the great gains we have made.
Few people alive today remember the early 1900s. Many baby boomers remember the post WW2 era and the more vibrant middle class it beheld
I think you are assuming they are dumb? They still have A- averages and are top 95th+ percentile of all standardized test takers. If these kids are “dumb” what does that say about the kids with lesser scores and grades?
Elite colleges are much more diverse today than they were even 50+ years ago. IMO some progress has been made.
By the way, I know many family owned small to medium sized businesses where the kids went off to college and once they graduate come back to work in the family business. It happens at all levels of economy and is a life line not just for the extremely wealthy.
Not assuming they are dumb, just that their intelligence is irrelevant to their admission. Perhaps young Mr. Dell is brilliant. Perhaps not. For him, it truly does not matter to US colleges.
No, you said there are dumb students at elite colleges and I would argue that they are not “dumb”. The vast, vast majority of students at elite colleges are in the top decile, no matter their background, which doesn’t make them dumb by any means.