The narrative assumes that working hard necessarily creates value for oneself, by investing in oneself as an asset. It makes no claims to one's effort building value for society as a whole.
Exactly. As per my previous comment, the currency of merit being traded in the orator's meritocracy is only defined within the Ivy Leauge-al community. The currency of merit that SHOULD matter is based on the collective suffering of humanity.
That's certainly a valid reading but I doubt that's how liberals would read it. The parent comment points out that the article does much to avoid upsetting a liberal reading-- which is a good point (and I agree)-- but probably not liberals thinking critically of the piece (which they likely won't-- it's a commencement address).