Why are working class kids less likely to get elite jobs? They study too hard

Students from a poor background (like me back in the day) may still be better of studying because they haven't been taught the networking skills to profit from socialising more. Conversely maybe they should try.

I am just lucky that at least university is heavily subsidised in Australia. Coming from a poor background puts you one step behind but at least I am one step behind, not ten steps behind.

The fact is that these elite jobs, while demanding, don't require particularly unusual talents. Many people can perform them. The supply is far greater than demand, which you can see, for example, in the number of people who apply for entry level positions at large financial firms, where many of the elite jobs are. It's similar at the elite universities, which could all easily fill their classes with valedictorians if that's what they wanted.

But yeah, it's pretty much what you said above. People like those who are like themselves and there are only so many spots available, so naturally they're going to pick people from similar backgrounds unless the candidate is lucky, charismatic, or significantly better than everyone else (which is unlikely when you're already choosing from an elite population).

The Economist has had a couple of articles on how social mobility in the US is waay lower than it used to be and is now lower than in many European countries...

I'd maybe quibble about whether this falls under "malice" or not, seems to be pretty malicious to even have the fake meritocracy in the first place, never mind to continually alter it as people overcome the obstacles placed in their way.

Of course. People at the top generally aren't those who do as they're told. It can't really be any other way.

Suppose student A has talent 100, and student B has talent 90. Student A puts in a normal level of effort, and scores 100. Student B dedicates all of his time to studying, goes to cram school, etc., and also scores 100. Now they look the same, but A's higher talent of 100 is still going to give them an edge on the job. If you're trying to figure out the candidate's talent, what do you do? You have to look beyond test scores.

Basically, at some point putting too much effort into it is a way of gaming the system, since you're optimizing a proxy instead of what people are really looking for; and changing or expanding the proxy actually makes selection more accurate.

Except that seems like one is still playing the same game that enables the status quo, like you state in your example, is where most people end up anyways… who then will still worry if their large mega corp will be the next to lay off the next 40k workers…

I'm not sure they aren't just a bogey man.

If you want to get at the top of Keiretsu, Chaebol, etcc., you'll have not only a degree from a prestigious local school but a degree form _some_ north American or UK higher Ed institution.

So, Asians in America are brought up by parents who grew up in Asia instilling education above all else and that has certainly fit nicely into the ivy leave pipeline (or if you were in France the sciences Po or grandes ecoles).

That's to say, their culture of stressing education is reinforced by the American labor market.

If you were to meet any Asian exchange students in North America, you'd notice not only did they all go to cram schools after normal classes but also took music classes and English classes -all of which are expected prerequisites for jobs back home.

And, to get a lowly government job, you typically need to go to a cram school and prepare for the ministry of examination exam which is necessary to qualify for a gov't job.

(1) Start planning a real revolution, with all that entails. Good luck with that.

(2) Compete to be one of the very few who get invited to join the elite. Marrying in's the most reliable method, but that option's only available to half the population (approximately). Other than that, settle in for a brutal fight.

(3) Settle for being one of the nouveau riche. You might even be as rich as the elite in dollar terms, but you still won't really be part of the club and neither will your children. More likely you'll be in the economic tier just below the elite, which is a perfectly wonderful place to be.

Note that "change the game through legislation" and "whine about it" aren't on the list. Sorry. This is about the real world, and I'm trying to give practical advice.

But it's possible for someone to spend the working day self promoting and their nights working. This kills the social life

The key is that Obama and Clinton were selfmade, while Jeb Bush plowhorsed through life doing what he was told and riding the Bush family name train. (GWB actually worked a bit harder -- at politics -- to be the leading Bush of his generation)

So, in less metaphorical terms, rich kids learn soft power (social) skills. They are little politicians, backstabbing scummy princesses. This comes very hand for them later in life.

In every single "meritocracy" I've ever seen, more of the latter. Whatever the system is, people will game it. Most especially, people at the top will redefine the metrics to favor those they've already decided should join them. That's the way it works in these elite jobs, but we in tech are hardly any better. Big companies, big foundations, etc. all exhibit the exact same behavior.