6 ms·

The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools, while the alumni of Baltimo

by xyzzyz 2mo ago

The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools, while the alumni of Baltimore public school would not become Rotschilds and Rockefellers and Zuckerbergs had they gone to Pillips Exeter.

pasquinelli 2mo ago
> The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools sure, because of their names.
DrewADesign 2mo ago
That doesn’t mean their schools aren’t better. Money isn’t the only reason having a thoughtful, rigorous and well-constructed education is important.
- cindyllm 2mo ago
  [dead]
- close04 2mo ago
  Education is essential in general. But as far as the classic definition of "success" is concerned (usually revolving around wealth of some kind), education is like luck. It could make the difference between 2 people in otherwise identical situations and status. But education alone sadly has a vanishingly small chance of competing with "old money" and generations of accumulated wealth and influence.
  - DrewADesign 2mo ago
    You’re essentially just repeating the point I was responding to.
- somenameforme 2mo ago
  In many things with regards to education you're not paying/applying for a better quality system in and of itself, but for better quality peers. A public school with a e.g. Exeter quality class would have phenomenal results. By contrast an average public high school class at Exeter is going to have mediocre results. We even tested this. Around COVID many top universities rolled back their testing requirements for admittance under an equity based argument. Those universities are now mostly rolling back those decisions because they found that being less selective in enrollment resulted in significantly worse outcomes. Not exactly a surprise, well at least it shouldn't be.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
    I don't know how the US works, but in the UK public (private...) schools have incredible facilities for sports, the arts, personal lessons and tutoring, and so on. Meanwhile the state sector has a lot of crumbling buildings and hand-me-down textbooks. Public school kids still manage to screw up but they're more likely to land on their feet. Access to the upper levels in careers like law and finance is very much about "polish" (cultural identity) although working class kids sometimes gain entry, often as charity cases. At the same time public schools used to be notorious for brutal bullying. So survivors are often emotionally traumatised and have had empathy beaten out of them.
    - somenameforme 2mo ago
      In the US public (US terminology) schools are quite well funded, contrary to what many think. We recently hit a record of just under $18k per student per year for high schools. [1] I went to school in some quite low income areas, and the facilities were great. The big issue is that much of the student body was not. So the facilities, textbooks, and so on were regularly vandalized, stolen, or simply destroyed. But nonetheless we had a nice gym, auditorium, track/field, and so on. We even had things like laser disc players back when that was pretty bleeding edge. In modern times I'd expect to see various luxuries like 3d printers and stuff like that even at low income schools in the US, at least if they haven't been stolen or [intentionally] broken. If I had to choose for my children between Exeter peers at a US public school, or US public school peers at Exeter, it wouldn't be even remotely close. [1] - https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026/school-system-finances.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026/school-s...
calepayson 2mo ago
Ah, cause they inherited a ton of cash ya?
TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
There is absolutely no evidence this is true. There are always a few first generation talents who build empires from dirt and nothing (for values of nothing that usually include war, grift, and slavery). But once an empire is established it becomes largely self-sustaining, and the inheritors get a huge head start over everyone else in their cohort.
- zozbot234 2mo ago
  Inherited wealth is not self-sustaining at all: if you spend it down, it disappears. Most inheritors of large windfalls will not manage to pass down that wealth in turn; it takes a rare ingrained cultural attitude to make it genuinely "self-sustaining", and even then that really means leaving the wealth as it is and managing it well - not using it to pursue any immediate "head start" in living standards over your peers.
RandomLensman 2mo ago
JD Rockefeller actually went to a public school (in the US, not UK meaning).

by xyzzyz 2mo ago

pasquinelli 2mo ago

> The Rotchschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Du Ponts would have done very well in life just as well had they went to public schools sure, because of their names.

DrewADesign 2mo ago

That doesn’t mean their schools aren’t better. Money isn’t the only reason having a thoughtful, rigorous and well-constructed education is important.

cindyllm 2mo ago
[dead]
close04 2mo ago
Education is essential in general. But as far as the classic definition of "success" is concerned (usually revolving around wealth of some kind), education is like luck. It could make the difference between 2 people in otherwise identical situations and status. But education alone sadly has a vanishingly small chance of competing with "old money" and generations of accumulated wealth and influence.
- DrewADesign 2mo ago
  You’re essentially just repeating the point I was responding to.
somenameforme 2mo ago
In many things with regards to education you're not paying/applying for a better quality system in and of itself, but for better quality peers. A public school with a e.g. Exeter quality class would have phenomenal results. By contrast an average public high school class at Exeter is going to have mediocre results. We even tested this. Around COVID many top universities rolled back their testing requirements for admittance under an equity based argument. Those universities are now mostly rolling back those decisions because they found that being less selective in enrollment resulted in significantly worse outcomes. Not exactly a surprise, well at least it shouldn't be.
- TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
  I don't know how the US works, but in the UK public (private...) schools have incredible facilities for sports, the arts, personal lessons and tutoring, and so on. Meanwhile the state sector has a lot of crumbling buildings and hand-me-down textbooks. Public school kids still manage to screw up but they're more likely to land on their feet. Access to the upper levels in careers like law and finance is very much about "polish" (cultural identity) although working class kids sometimes gain entry, often as charity cases. At the same time public schools used to be notorious for brutal bullying. So survivors are often emotionally traumatised and have had empathy beaten out of them.
  - somenameforme 2mo ago
    In the US public (US terminology) schools are quite well funded, contrary to what many think. We recently hit a record of just under $18k per student per year for high schools. [1] I went to school in some quite low income areas, and the facilities were great. The big issue is that much of the student body was not. So the facilities, textbooks, and so on were regularly vandalized, stolen, or simply destroyed. But nonetheless we had a nice gym, auditorium, track/field, and so on. We even had things like laser disc players back when that was pretty bleeding edge. In modern times I'd expect to see various luxuries like 3d printers and stuff like that even at low income schools in the US, at least if they haven't been stolen or [intentionally] broken. If I had to choose for my children between Exeter peers at a US public school, or US public school peers at Exeter, it wouldn't be even remotely close. [1] - https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026/school-system-finances.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026/school-s...

calepayson 2mo ago

Ah, cause they inherited a ton of cash ya?

TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago

There is absolutely no evidence this is true. There are always a few first generation talents who build empires from dirt and nothing (for values of nothing that usually include war, grift, and slavery). But once an empire is established it becomes largely self-sustaining, and the inheritors get a huge head start over everyone else in their cohort.

zozbot234 2mo ago
Inherited wealth is not self-sustaining at all: if you spend it down, it disappears. Most inheritors of large windfalls will not manage to pass down that wealth in turn; it takes a rare ingrained cultural attitude to make it genuinely "self-sustaining", and even then that really means leaving the wealth as it is and managing it well - not using it to pursue any immediate "head start" in living standards over your peers.

RandomLensman 2mo ago

JD Rockefeller actually went to a public school (in the US, not UK meaning).