Do you have any evidence for this theory that credentials are just for show and misdirection? For example hedge funds trying to fall back on the credentials of their employees in the event of failure?
2. Look at what happens when a hedge fund fails. What kind of business decisions are scrutinized (and which are not)? How are decisions justified? Are those justifications founded? (Another long discussion which I’m omitting. The basic theory is that you need to CYA for the inevitable failures. If you CYA and then the fund fails, investors may give you another shot. If you don’t CYA, you get replaced.)
I only save citations about a subject if I’m writing an article. If I were writing an article, I would post from my other account.
36% of Harvard students come from legacy admissions programs, their admission has less to do with their personal merit than their last name. Other Ivy leagues aren't far behind.
A non-zero part of the product these schools sell is the ability to make friends with rich and powerful people. It's not the whole story, I'm not saying they're not good schools, but your average student isn't going to be that much smarter than your average well regarded public school, just a lot more wealthy.
"Harvard’s Class of 2022 is made up of over 36% legacy students, according to The Harvard Crimson. The year before, the share of the freshman class was just over 29%. (CNBC Make It has reached out to both The Crimson and Harvard’s admissions office to confirm these figures.)
As of 2015, legacies were five times more likely to get into the world-famous university than applicants without relatives who went to Harvard.
Stanford University gives legacies a significant advantage as well. “It used to be that every application would be read twice. Now, only one reading is guaranteed, although — thanks, Mom and Dad — every legacy application still gets two sets of eyes,” a 2013 Stanford Magazine article about the school’s admissions process reported."
I'm not sure I agree with 1, but appreciate the clarification regardless.
The idea that observations “contain evidence” is an idea that I’m unfamiliar with. I’m not sure what point you’re making about observations or assertions, or how the distinction between the terms is germane (not talking about the distinction between the concepts).
Asking for evidence is confrontational and a bit gauche. Better to ask someone to elaborate, or ask them what the reasoning is. That’s a good way to continue the discussion because it doesn’t frame the discussion as an argument.
It's germane because the OP (and you) seem to think it's inappropriate to ask if you have any examples (maybe "example" would have been less "gauche" than "evidence")
It's not really important, you've clarified, and even added in some advice on manners.