
Why are working class kids less likely to get elite jobs? They study too hard - tokenadult
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/23/why-are-working-class-kids-less-likely-to-get-elite-jobs-they-study-too-hard-at-college/
======
Alex3917
Working class kids also benefit more from studying than high-SES kids, so as
life advice this is kind of dubious. If working class kids don't study then
they're still not going to get into college based on their
grades/SATs/writing, whereas for wealthy kids they're already going to be fine
even if they don't do a ton of work.

Also, given that the school system in part exists to screen out working class
kids from elite jobs, if these kids actually started getting great grades and
captaining the crew team or whatever then colleges and companies would just
start selecting for other things.

~~~
thunga
This story was more revealing to me on another aspect. Why don't working class
kids grow quickly in a fast growing company than a elite class kid? even
though the working class kid probably knows more from a depth perspective.

------
NickHaflinger
"Why are working class kids unlikely to get elite jobs?"

Because they don't have rich dads who'll get their rich friends to give them
the jobs ..

~~~
EC1
That's really all it is. Me and a couple others were the only "outside"
students to get internships at a big bank. Rest of the interns had parents
working at the firm. They all went on cruises and to their multi million
dollar cottages every weekend. It was like some weird sick incestuous extended
corporate family.

~~~
carsongross
There is nothing weird about it, it's incentives: parents are always going to
be more interested in their specific children than in the more generalized
problem of maximizing the value of the company they work for. Particularly in
the world of high-end banking, which is extremely competitive to get into but,
at the end of the day, not particularly challenging for a reasonably smart
person, we should expect rampant nepotism.

And so we find it.

------
OliverJones
Look, this is the Washington Post reporting this story, not the San Jose
Mercury or the Boston Globe. It's written by, for, and about the self-styled
power 1%.

The only reason it has anything to do with the rest of us is that the guys on
the college beer-drinking team, including the one who barfed in the laundry
machine I was using in the cellar of the college dorm, went on to get one of
those so-called power jobs. In case there's any misunderstanding, this was
Yale.

I like my job. Software's been good to me. I just washed those clothes again.
They can schmooze each other all they want; it keeps them busy.

------
verylong
I think these kinds of articles miss the point. Colleges and employers choose
admission and hiring criteria specifically to favor the upper class. This
isn't out of malice, and for the most part I think it is unintentional. The
people at the top simple favor other people who are like them --- just as all
of us do.

If lower class kids started excelling at the sort of social activities and
extracurricular activities which help one get ahead, the criteria will wind up
changing. Again, not out of malice or spite. Its simply a function of human
nature to form groups and favor those from your group.

~~~
jazzyk
Harvard is quite public with the fact that they reserve 30% year for
"legacies". They don't even bother with the veneer of meritocracy. Just
keeping the unwashed peasants away, you know

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...

~~~
plonh
If they wanted the peasants away, they wouldn't charge zero tuition for
peasants and keep 70% of the seats open. The legacies pay tuition for the
peasants.

~~~
jazzyk
Affluent families also pay full tuition everywhere else, without getting
special preferences.

Long story short - most colleges are about quotas these days, not pure
meritocracies. But at least there is an egalitarian thought behind
minority/diversity quotas.

There is nothing egalitarian about "legacies".

------
scarmig
Chasing after elite jobs seem like something of mug's game to someone who
wasn't born into them. Entrance into the upper echelons of American society
isn't impossible, but the odds are sure as hell stacked against you.

It's illustrative to consider an example: working and middle class Asians.
It's almost a truism at this point that, while they're good at getting good
educations and jobs, they almost inevitably end up hitting a wall ("the bamboo
ceiling"). And it's almost as if it's by design. Society told Asian kids that
they have to study and get good grades to get ahead, so they did. Too well! So
the rules changed, and then they had to have extracurriculars. And they did
that too! Piano, Academic Decathlon, tutoring, tennis, violin... they aimed
for what were seemingly all the good extracurriculars and excelled in them.
But then certain gate keepers were like, "whoah, way too many Asians are
getting in. Gotta change the rules again!" And so that kid with a perfect GPA,
great test scores, even some research experience, and on top of that does
pretty well in both cross country and piano (albeit not nationally ranked)
gets kicked to the curb because he's too "cookie cutter." The new criteria are
"extracurriculars, but make sure to do something that makes you stand out and
be super unique!"

So now that's the new publicly-stated resume to optimize for. The right
activity to do, as it turns out, is "do whatever only the already-elite have
the resources to do." Elite gatekeepers have a set of signifiers for entrance
into the upper class for one and one reason only: to keep out riff-raff like
you. Any entry criteria that would change the cultural and literal complexion
of the upper class too much is, ipso facto, a bad criteria for entry.

And consider the best case scenario: you do get in. But even then, you're
still an outsider. Hell, you didn't even go to Andover or Exeter! And you
didn't even travel internationally for the first time until you went to
college? Back to the fields with you, peasant!

For most people, aiming for professional, middle-class jobs seems the most
realistic goal to aim for. Ain't a bad lifestyle at all, if you can accept
it's silly to try to win a game that's designed to make you lose.

~~~
Camillo
Yes, but test scores are not necessarily an objective measure of how good an
employee is going to be, unless their job is going to be to take tests.
They're a proxy.

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.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
I'm getting downvoted, so let me explain. The test can not distinguish between
him and student B and anyone above student Bs level. If you raised the ceiling
this would solve the problem.

Though you should note, SAT prep has a negligible effect on scores.
Intelligence, sadly, is mostly the result of genetics and non-shared
environment, with an emphases on genetics. Our inability to admit this would
be hilarious if its results weren't so tragic.

Raising the ceiling would also help with the Ivy-league's insane penchant for
passing on some of the most able students. Scott Aaronson had perfect SAT
scores at 15 - this was back when the SAT was much harder. In his words:

I admit that my views on this matter might be colored by my strange (though as
I’ve learned, not at all unique) experience, of getting rejected from almost
every “top” college in the United States, and then, ten years later, getting
recruited for faculty jobs by the very same institutions that had rejected me
as a teenager [...] I was a narrow, linear, A-to-B thinker who lacked depth
and emotional intelligence: the exact opposite of what Harvard and Princeton
were looking for in every way.

With a higher ceiling, sufficiently high scores are impressive enough on their
own. I don't care about those institutions, it's Princeton and Harvard's loss.
And Cornell's gain! But it's an insane way to do admissions and it has a real
cost on kids. I have nightmares about promising programmers and mathematicians
being forced to practice piano instead of doing what they love.

------
tbrownaw
If this is about the sort of elite jobs I'm thinking of, isn't the point to
tell people what they want to hear so they have an excuse to do what they
already wanted to do?

That would mean they have to be people worth listening to, and that this has
to be for reasons other than scientific competence.

So I'm thinking that having the "right" social background probably would be an
important factor in job performance (as would being highly paid). But only if
it's not made explicit, since political incorrectness is also important for
image.

.

Also, focusing on the very few "best" jobs seems a bit silly. Why not look at
what's in the top quarter or third, and how to make those more accessible?

------
nicklaf
The same general principle applies to organizations.

For example, employees who spend most of their time doing a good job will by
definition have less free time to promote themselves politically within the
company. If management is not of sufficient quality to resist it, the perverse
endgame for this dynamic is for the hardest working individuals to be
mismanaged by their less knowledgeable peers, who spent more time working the
system (and were thereby promoted).

~~~
gavazzy
This is true if you assume that people spend 100% of their waking time
working.

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

------
Bulkington
I realize publicizing winners keeps casinos in business, but how do B. Clinton
and B. Obama fit with this, in contrast to the Bushes? They studied hard AND
played the social game. But I guess President isn't really an elite job, since
they're beholden to the real elites who didn't have to study for inherited
power and influence. I'm not trying to make the case the game isn't rigged,
only that it can be hacked.

~~~
plonh
The President is "elite" by any reasonable definition . amd Barack Obama went
to Harvard Law, which is OPs textbook example of an elite position.

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)

------
g0v
We plebs are fully aware that the odds are stacked against us. I don't expect
it to change soon, if ever. And if anything, it just makes us harder than our
marshmallow-like upper-class counterparts.

Yeah, I want to be successful and make "fuck you" money; but that's not the
only reason I study hard.

Pleb power.

~~~
pas
Rich kids have to constantly compete with each other for status, this is very
much like water polo. It's pretty nice and eye pleasing above the surface, but
the stuff underwater, that's not so nice. Yet that's something you have to be
adept at too to win.

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.

------
Mikeb85
I think a big part of it is that the expectation is that college/university is
training you for your career. It's not. University especially, is learning for
learning's sake. Why do companies care about a degree then? They want you to
show you can learn.

In the same way, extra-curricular activities show that you care, and that
you're motivated. Same with dressing well, and learning how to interact with
people. If all you have are technical skills, you're this centuries' version
of a factory worker. You can be a cog in the wheel (maybe even a moderately
well paid one), but nothing more.

------
hugh4
I wonder if there's a market for a Pygmalion- type service to help lower
middle class kids learn the kinds of values and behaviours that will let them
fit in a bit better with those higher on the food chain.

~~~
dropit_sphere
Of course there is. But the goalposts will move as soon as it makes a
difference.

~~~
hugh4
You say that like upper class people want to exclude lower class people just
because. Instead I think they're just happier hanging around with people they
can relate to.

~~~
jazzyk
No, they want their kids to stay in the elite. Because elites, by definition,
are small, they need to keep out everyone else. The goalposts are there just
so that there is an illusion you or I can get in. And, on rare occasion we
might - you'd better be super pretty/handsome so you can marry in.

Another way to become part of the elite is through entrepreneurial success. I
am surprised noone brought it up, given it is HN.

Having said all that, why would one obsess about joining the elites. I am
perfectly fine being (upper) middle class.

~~~
smtddr
_> >Having said all that, why would one obsess about joining the elites. I am
perfectly fine being (upper) middle class._

Indeed, and Notch pretty much confirms what I already believe it to be like
way up at the top:

[http://recode.net/2015/08/29/minecraft-billionaire-markus-
pe...](http://recode.net/2015/08/29/minecraft-billionaire-markus-persson-
hates-being-a-billionaire/)

I found it really insightful, especially the part where he tried to take care
of people but they all ended up hating him regardless. Makes me wonder if a
lot of rich people actually did care at one point but were typecast as
villians no matter what they did and they eventually just give up.

~~~
jazzyk
I don't remember the exact numbers, but they got something like 300K or, so,
he got 2.5 billion. They didn't think it was fair as they put a lot of work
into it ( perfectly legal, though, he owned it)

~~~
smtddr
If I worked at a start-up that got sold and I walk away with even "just" 100K
I'd be very happy. I wouldn't worry myself about the billions someone else
got; especially when those people were part of the original founders carrying
the core risk. Fun tech jobs, six figure salaries, flexible schedules, and at
least in the San Francisco Bay Area working at a start-up is barely a risk if
you're developing skills & connections for the next job.

And then they complain they didn't get more than 300K when the company
sold..... people need to broaden their perspective.

------
paradite
-> _get jobs at top ranked law firms, banks and management consultancies_

The _elite jobs_ do not interest me at all. Maybe that's my working class
mindset.

------
vinceguidry
How elite do you want to be?

I've had three bosses in the last year. I would not have traded places with
any of them. Not for any amount of money.

There's not a sum of money you would pay me to be a professional ass-kisser.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'd take the money. I just wouldn't kiss any ass. Then
you'd fire me, and I'd consider that a fair trade.

------
vixen99
Are people gaming the system by having merit or by simulating merit? If the
latter then the hiring process needs examination (best people are not getting
the jobs). If the former then the question becomes - how can applicants
acquire those personal skills they need in the absence of an elite college
education?

~~~
notacoward
"Are people gaming the system by having merit or by simulating merit?"

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.

------
plg
also they don't have elite friends and family in high places

one cannot underestimate the power of these social connections

------
fma
Don't study hard? So, that's how George Bush got his elite job.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Bush's seemingly low culture is very much an act, one he learned in 1978 after
getting stomped at a West Texas congressional election by Kent Hance, who
successfully used rural populist rhetoric against the relatively yuppie Bush.

~~~
stephentmcm
I've heard (and believe) this too but does anyone have any decent sources for
it? I find the portrayal of Bush in the media interesting as while he played
the fool regularly, there's no way he got to POTUS without being a smart
operator.

~~~
gizmo
I read a lot of reports that people who met W Bush were surprised by how
intelligent/sharp he was. The media looks for gaffes for ratings, but gaffs
have no bearing on intelligence. Once the "Hur hur Bush is stupid!" angle gets
traction every minor mistake is seen as damning confirmation. Bush also made
many terrible decisions, but that doesn't mean he was stupid. Probably just
unprepared and blinded by ideology.

~~~
crdoconnor
>I read a lot of reports that people who met W Bush were surprised by how
intelligent/sharp he was.

So did I. They were virtually all from ideological supporters. I don't
remember an opponent ever saying it.

> The media looks for gaffes for ratings, but gaffs have no bearing on
> intelligence.

Most gaffes actually went unreported. He made them nearly constantly if he
wasn't following a script. At some point his handlers cottoned on to this and
after that you very rarely saw him speak in public without a script.

And yes, it demonstrates a very real lack of intelligence. Bush was not a
smart man.

