> Doubtful. The data just doesn't support it. Having connections and the capability to excel in that environment saw them more likely to be accepted into these schools, maybe.

Which data doesn’t support it? The data that we’re talking about that shows that 35% of the richest people went to one of these 8 schools? Or is there some data that you have that shows similarly gifted students that come from similarly “helpful” backgrounds but went to average-or-worse universities, end up at least as wealthy as these students on average?

I get and also believe that these schools probably get more credit than what they actually provide, but I don’t agree that they provide no added value compared to average universities.

> It (university) also doesn't have to have any impact. It can just be a thing off to the side that someone does as a hobby. Just because it costs money doesn't mean it produces economic value. 35% of these people likely also own some kind of exotic sports car, but is the car the reason for their position? Not likely.

At this point I’d like to ask you if you truly think that you are furthering some understanding or if you are just trying to be “right”? I’m not sure how to respond to someone that thinks they’re making a point by saying that owning an exotic car might have the same affect on overall life productively as going to an elite university. :/