You're missing the point, which is that kids who "chose" the right parents get vastly more opportunities than those with less luck at birth, and the lucky ones don't have to work as hard or have as much talent as the unlucky.
Do you think the world would be better off if this effect were eliminated, ie that people could not preferentially help their own children? Or are you simply pointing out that life is not fair?
in most european countries, university is mostly free. and they offer financial support for those who need it (because you still have to pay for food and rent if you can't live with your parents), which effectively does eliminate the ability for parents to help their children get into a good university.
> Do you think the world would be better off if this effect were eliminated
I don't know. I do think the world would be better off if we eliminated homelessness, hunger, student loan debt, medical debt, and political campaign financing. These are some of the worst consequences of economic inequality in society.
> Or are you simply pointing out that life is not fair?
Well, I personally don't think that so-called "meritocracy" is fair or ideal. I was born with some advantages over the majority of people, and my academic talents started to show at a relatively young age (with no "hard work" — it was easy work!), but I don't think I "deserved" to be born that way, nor do I think that I "deserve" more money than other people as a result of my advantages.
I understand capitalistic supply and demand, and that may be a decent economic system. It's not an inherently ethical system, however.
why does everything have to be a dual. in life practically nothing is. I can both be biased towards my children's success, and still understand that as a society we're all much better off giving some opportunity to the generally downtrodden.
