It’s better to be born rich than gifted
I think this article sets up the paper against two incorrect worldviews:<p>1. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your potential. My interpretation of &quot;traditional&quot; American values is more focused around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.trumanlibrary.org&#x2F;lifetimes&#x2F;farm.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.trumanlibrary.org&#x2F;lifetimes&#x2F;farm.htm</a> . I&#x27;m pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your place in society <i>is</i> the tradition of <i>somewhere</i> but I don&#x27;t think it is America: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Imperial_examination" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Imperial_examination</a> .<p>2. That going to college is not a direct product of wealth. Spending 4 years of adulthood doing something other than work could itself be used as a measurement of wealth. It feels to me like they are comparing two slightly different measurements of wealth and acting like it is something else.<p>Almost everyone in the study population would have gone to college before 1990, so their choices aren&#x27;t based on the current situation, they are based on the situation 30 years ago as well.<p>The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.