> IMO it's fair to refer to your success as "self made" if you exceed the median success level of your class peer group by a substantial margin. "self made" is

> IMO it's fair to refer to your success as "self made" if you exceed the median success level of your class peer group by a substantial margin. "self made" isn't a statistical or legal term. It's a term of culture and art, and it is always employed by people through a subjective lens, whether to themselves or others. Trying to impose a statistical definition on it ignores the history of its use up to the present, whether that use was justified or not. > i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for it The fact that you are willing to apply a statistical measure for "self-made success", yet despite how little you know about the article's author, you are willing to apply a term like "self-made-failure" to them based on your personal feelings of antipathy toward a particular class of people, indicates that you might not be arguing in good faith.