I've worked with lots of people from different backgrounds, including individuals from elite schools (hell, I guess I'm married to one), and what frustrates me isn't the wealth (although there is always that story lurking in the background among those I know--they're never wealthy themselves, but they tell stories of legacy students everywhere).

What frustrates me is the assumption that because an elite school is so selective, the inherent abilities of someone admitted there are that much greater than someone who was not. In my experience, as the admission selectivity is raised, the signals being paid attention to are that much more random, for lack of a way of putting it.

It's kind of like Japanese fruit. Is it good? Sure, but is it best? Does that perfectly round melon mean that it's better than, say, that wonderful rare heirloom melon you bought from a farmer at that farmer's market, that was a little blemished on one side?

You have to have the stars align in just the right way to have the right application, plus a bit of luck. Does that mean that person isn't talented? Definitely not--they almost certainly are.

The thing that's much more pernicious, to me, is the assumption that that person is necessarily any different from someone who, say, went to a state school and graduated with top honors.

The most talented people I've worked with were not necessarily from elite private schools; the latter were talented, but not any more so than many of the other people I've met and respected.

But I do think that they were often given the benefit of the doubt, or kind of revered or something, based on their degree, rather than what they had accomplished. It's as if the person from the state school had to work harder to gain the same respect, even though their actual accomplishments said otherwise.