In the end it’s the non wealthy students that make or break a schools reputation which is why schools give out scholarships etc. It’s a pure transaction your future achievements aid us and our reputation and resources aid you.
Schools also specialize so Harvard doesn’t have nearly the reputation in say animation as CalArts etc.
and who are also completely lacking empathy for the financially challenged at best, disregard and look down upon the less privileged at worst. Both may lead to social isolation of persons with different socioeconomic background attending said schools.
If you even want to get into such games, having the money isn't enough. You need the aura that it's small stakes to you. Multiple cash game hustlers have written about this phenomenon.
source?
source please
My experience:
- people from less privileged background didn't need empathy. By being there, they were bound to have a successful career
- students tend to get along better with people from similar background/interest but there were enough diversity so that nobody felt they didn't belong, and nobody was looked down.
That being said, we don't have as much inequalities as in the US and also no quota/positive discrimination. Everybody who was there passed the same selective anonymous exams, which I think is very important. I can see why US students who benefited from favorable admissions criteria are looked down or suffer from imposter syndrome.
> Everybody who was there passed the same selective anonymous exams
My comment was targeted to the US university system where getting born in the “right”family is all you need to have access to elite education.
> It’s a lazy, unintelligent critique
I think this is what a subset of people belonging to lower socioeconomic classes tell themselves, and sometimes have heard it from their “superiors”, to better cope with their financial struggle. The poor people are just lazy is the motto of the privileged and is also a safe assumption to make for a rich person to have.
What percentage of millionaires inherited their wealth? Go Google it. Now tell me if it’s ok to judge any group of people based on that percentage.
It may be incomplete but your next sentence about inheritance is actually what's poor judgement on your part.
I didn't mention direct inheritance in my previous comment, however it's really hard to make any distinction between this and the fact that being born in the 'right' family means access to professional/educational opportunities due to specific connections almost never easily attainable by the ordinary mortals. And yes, this often means, especially in professional settings, getting away with doing the bare minimum and staying on the job just because the boss was in high school with your shipowner dad.
> What percentage of millionaires inherited their wealth?
This is a really problematic way to address the effect of inheritance has on one's wealth since such percentages are relied on self-reports, which means that effectively all will identify as self-made. I find it entertaining, but also telling about the brainwashing the financially desperate have suffered, people like Elon Musk being cited as self-made when they always happen to come from financially privileged families.
Part of it is logistics: wealthy had money for weekend ski trips, cars, didn’t have to work student jobs so had more free time.
Maybe it’s changed? I was there over a decade ago.
Instead they will be forced to go to another private school which will receive their endowments, and soon grow to the point they can compete with elite schools. Harvard, et all will still be good schools but not the "best" schools that people die to get into.
https://www.naicu.edu/docLib/20150803_Antitrust_legislation....
- POC
- child of alum
- athlete
- famous person or child of famous person
The list goes on.
Not hating, just observing.