I think the place where this is most apparent in the speech is the bit about selective universities. It's interesting the way people like Graham talk about how

I think the place where this is most apparent in the speech is the bit about selective universities. It's interesting the way people like Graham talk about how universities work, because they're actually kind of the primary place where a particular sleight of hand happens. Every very wealthy person I've ever met believes wealth and intelligence to be tightly coupled. Some will even talk about these things as though they're completely equivalent. Universities kind of double down on this equivalence in some ways, as they are the de facto credentialing system for the job market, although there's some evidence that this is for the first time in quite a while becoming less true in some sectors, it's still a huge part of the reality of how social mobility is gated. So when Graham frames the role of "selective" universities in the success of various famous startups, he's totally right that they're excellent places to network. But his conception of their selectivity is pretty strange. It's pretty well-understood by now that a lot of mechanisms can get people into great schools via the wealth and influence of their parents rather than "smarts and determination". I once read someone who pointed out that bringing in a few "scholarship" kids who are less well off makes it seem like anyone could get in with the right grades and test scores, and the incentive is to have just enough of these to ambiguate who is there for what reasons. To launder the "wealthy, well-connected" with some "smart, determined" cred. It's telling therefore that he leaves out one of the most important parts of the networking value of universities: They're a great place to meet funders, and the top tier universities also have significant resources to facilitate student projects that may turn into companies, compared to other institutions