Surely you must know that you're blowing down a straw man here. Your statements all presume, for no reason, that these people are gambling, and that if they lo

Surely you must know that you're blowing down a straw man here. Your statements all presume, for no reason, that these people are gambling, and that if they lose their gamble they will have "no reasonable future." The article is about law students. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable for shooting for the top 1%, because if they don't make it they'll just end up with a lawyer at a non-top-1% law firm. Their pay will be fine. (If they're at the bottom of their class or whatever, that's a separate issue.) In the case of actors, yeah; everyone knows being an actor is a bad economic choice. Presumably those people have a definition of "reasonable future" that accommodates trying for their dream, and then falling back on something else if they fail. In any case, discrimination is bad, even when it comes to moonshots. Surely it's productive to analyze hiring trends and discuss whether or not discrimination is, in fact, taking place.