8 ms·

Why are working class kids less likely to get elite jobs? They study too hard

96 points by tokenadult 11y ago

NickHaflinger 11y ago
"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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- teambob 11y ago
  That is basically what the article said. In addition skills that would help to get those jobs independently are also taught within the family. Students from a poor background (like me back in the day) may still be better of studying because they haven't been taught the networking skills to profit from socialising more. Conversely maybe they should try. I am just lucky that at least university is heavily subsidised in Australia. Coming from a poor background puts you one step behind but at least I am one step behind, not ten steps behind.
- metaobject 11y ago
  I grew up with two blue-collar parents and was the first one in my family to go to college (while working full time for most of it). I now have a BS and MS in computer science, and along with my wife we probably make 4-5 times what my parents are currently making. We certainly aren't rich (considering cost of living, etc), but I must say that I'm glad I went to school and broke the pattern of (1) maybe graduate high school (2) find the first job you can and stay there as long as you can.
fma 11y ago
Don't study hard? So, that's how George Bush got his elite job.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      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 11y ago
        >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.
Alex3917 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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.
tbrownaw 11y ago
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?
OliverJones 11y ago
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 11y ago
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.
- d9fb698e010974b 11y ago
  I came here to say pretty much the same thing, but you beat me to it :) The fact is that these elite jobs, while demanding, don't require particularly unusual talents. Many people can perform them. The supply is far greater than demand, which you can see, for example, in the number of people who apply for entry level positions at large financial firms, where many of the elite jobs are. It's similar at the elite universities, which could all easily fill their classes with valedictorians if that's what they wanted. But yeah, it's pretty much what you said above. People like those who are like themselves and there are only so many spots available, so naturally they're going to pick people from similar backgrounds unless the candidate is lucky, charismatic, or significantly better than everyone else (which is unlikely when you're already choosing from an elite population).
- jazzyk 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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.
vixen99 11y ago
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 11y ago
  "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.
scarmig 11y ago
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.
- d9fb698e010974b 11y ago
  I think your conclusion is right for most people, but you're a bit too cynical. The system isn't rigged purposefully. It is just that the people who decide who gets the elite jobs all act a certain way and had similar backgrounds. Naturally they like people like themselves and so the jobs go to those people. Even then, there are lots of qualified people from those backgrounds who don't get those jobs. Everyone is competing for a purely positional advantage (i.e. in order to move up, someone else must move down) and the 1% is already large enough to replenish its own ranks.
vinceguidry 11y ago
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.
plg 11y ago
also they don't have elite friends and family in high places one cannot underestimate the power of these social connections
Bulkington 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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)
paradite 11y ago
-> 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.
hugh4 11y ago
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 11y ago
  Of course there is. But the goalposts will move as soon as it makes a difference.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      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 11y ago
        >>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-persson-hates-being-a-billionaire/ http://recode.net/2015/08/29/minecraft-billionaire-markus-pe... 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.
nicklaf 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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
g0v 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
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.

96 points by tokenadult 11y ago

"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 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
teambob 11y ago
That is basically what the article said. In addition skills that would help to get those jobs independently are also taught within the family. Students from a poor background (like me back in the day) may still be better of studying because they haven't been taught the networking skills to profit from socialising more. Conversely maybe they should try. I am just lucky that at least university is heavily subsidised in Australia. Coming from a poor background puts you one step behind but at least I am one step behind, not ten steps behind.
metaobject 11y ago
I grew up with two blue-collar parents and was the first one in my family to go to college (while working full time for most of it). I now have a BS and MS in computer science, and along with my wife we probably make 4-5 times what my parents are currently making. We certainly aren't rich (considering cost of living, etc), but I must say that I'm glad I went to school and broke the pattern of (1) maybe graduate high school (2) find the first job you can and stay there as long as you can.

fma 11y ago

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

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      >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.

Alex3917 11y ago

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 11y ago
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.

tbrownaw 11y ago

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?

OliverJones 11y ago

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 11y ago

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.

d9fb698e010974b 11y ago
I came here to say pretty much the same thing, but you beat me to it :) The fact is that these elite jobs, while demanding, don't require particularly unusual talents. Many people can perform them. The supply is far greater than demand, which you can see, for example, in the number of people who apply for entry level positions at large financial firms, where many of the elite jobs are. It's similar at the elite universities, which could all easily fill their classes with valedictorians if that's what they wanted. But yeah, it's pretty much what you said above. People like those who are like themselves and there are only so many spots available, so naturally they're going to pick people from similar backgrounds unless the candidate is lucky, charismatic, or significantly better than everyone else (which is unlikely when you're already choosing from an elite population).
jazzyk 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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.

vixen99 11y ago

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 11y ago
"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.

scarmig 11y ago

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.

d9fb698e010974b 11y ago
I think your conclusion is right for most people, but you're a bit too cynical. The system isn't rigged purposefully. It is just that the people who decide who gets the elite jobs all act a certain way and had similar backgrounds. Naturally they like people like themselves and so the jobs go to those people. Even then, there are lots of qualified people from those backgrounds who don't get those jobs. Everyone is competing for a purely positional advantage (i.e. in order to move up, someone else must move down) and the 1% is already large enough to replenish its own ranks.

vinceguidry 11y ago

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.

plg 11y ago

also they don't have elite friends and family in high places one cannot underestimate the power of these social connections

Bulkington 11y ago

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 11y ago
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)

paradite 11y ago

-> 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.

hugh4 11y ago

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 11y ago
Of course there is. But the goalposts will move as soon as it makes a difference.
- hugh4 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      >>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-persson-hates-being-a-billionaire/ http://recode.net/2015/08/29/minecraft-billionaire-markus-pe... 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.

nicklaf 11y ago

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 11y ago
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

g0v 11y ago

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 11y ago
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 11y ago

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.