The rules don't apply to the wealthy. It's their world, you're just living in it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Munger#Early_life_and_...
In most states, to pass the bar, you only need a Juris Doctor which is usually received upon graduating from law school. In some states you don't even need this, and in some others you can skip law school entirely by studying under a judge or practicing attorney[1].
Law, especially in the US, is much more like a trade that accidentally ended up being taught by the universities, instead of a trade school separate from academia. Very similar to medicine in that regard, where again, there is no need for an undergraduate degree to practice medicine.
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_Un...
OP apparently isn’t talking about the subject’s brilliance or so. I think the OP is talking specifically about the rule bending for the rich.
> … his family connections certainly helped, but …
Put few people with similar background — except the socioeconomic part of their backgrounds in the same situation and see whether they would have made it.
I doubt it. So, I’d say you can omit the “but”.
FYI, you have it backwards. The parent said Munger was deserving.
> I doubt it.
Exceptionally bright people exist. Had Munger not gone to HLS immediately or at all, I wouldn't bet against him doing exceptionally well (still top 1% of 1% of business outcomes).
In summary, the argument is to point out the difference between personal effort/discipline/work ethic/character (and everything that’s commonly named as the “reason” of success) and the huge impact of external conditions that are completely outside the realm of influence of the individual in question, such as their parent’s wealth and influence, physical build, natural attractiveness, health, location of birth, etc.
It is very, VERY common that people uphold and believe in the (comforting) myth that mostly oneself is responsible for success and that said external factors are basically negligible. The “self-made” person… You could even throw them on Mars and they’ll somehow become billionaires and own mansions!
There is not much to add, except that such thinking appears outdated (previous economic booms allowed for a bit more control of one’s fate), ignorant, and self-congratulatory - a delusion of a successful person who is neither aware nor grateful for the external circumstances that allowed them to get where they are.
FWIW I like Charlie Munger, a down-to-earth thinker who doesn’t shy away from talking about inconvenient truths. Chances are he would even agree with the above.
Book recommendation: “Outliers: The Story of Success” by Malcolm Gladwell.
Nobody would accuse Ivy League schools of being bastions of fairness. We all know nepotism & pay-for-play is a core part of their business model.
But I'm not sure you could get away with that today. You'd have to make a sizable 'donation' instead.
As long as an applicant meets the minimum/lower-end standards for admissions, Ivy League professors in grad schools (law, mba, and PhD-track… not sure about medicine)can and do make by-name requests for admissions that are best not ignored.
Ivy League schools survived for 300 years before a couple decades of the general public thinking that they need Ivy League, due to the corporate sector’s inability to screen a larger working population
Ivy League schools will survive this meme too. Academia as a whole has never adjusted to the underclass’ need to learn for the purpose of making money, they teach irrelevant theory for the sole pursuit of knowledge to this very day
They are for the wealthy to connect with each other and build rapport with each other
The rest of us are just … around
By that logic SBF should be chilling still in the Bahamas , having paid off the authorities
Munger at least has proved himself many times and has the history to show it.
Poor comparison.
To paraphrase Chris Rock, SBF was rich, but Charlie Munger is wealthy.
Alameda was over 50% of the trades and often the counterparty of the others.
It is a scam in the end, FTX will die without Alameda.
Someone else said the problem was that SBF stole from his customers. And while it’s true that this is often sufficient to bring you down, it’s often only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn so swiftly. He’s being made an example.
SBF stole nothing meaningful from anyone powerful.
Who is “them”? There is no serious power embarrassed by FTX. The seriously powerful never got close enough to be tarnished.
Powerful people are acting quickly to publicly distance themselves from him.
The point being they’re making and keeping that distance. This conspiracy theory, that SBF is facing consequences only because he sort of maybe embarrassed Ricchetti, has no legs to stand on.
> only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn so swiftly
Not:
> only when you steal from the powerful that the wheels of justice turn [at all]
And certainly not:
> SBF is facing consequences only because ...
To the degree powerful people were embarrassed by him, it was in the Bahamas. Not here. Not at all.
And that (even if only because of the negative coverage) powerful people are taking steps (like returning millions of dollars) to distance themselves from him.
And finally that, whether it's the motive or not, swift prosecution is an effective way for officials to distance themselves.
The rest is speculation, but not crazy.
He did ok.
https://inshorts.com/m/en/amp_news/warren-buffett-was-reject...
Elite schools feeding the powerful and elite companies / institutions with good ol' boys has always been quite symbiotic.