I know your type, I came from your world. You are not being truthful.
And even if you are the extreme statistical abnormality of that is nothing you should based a white ranging judgment on.
I'll make this point again. If in the 90s your parents made you take the hard math classes, try for the AP courses, try for the magnet school, try for a good college/major/scholarship, you're on track to earn 350K at baseline.
If this really bothers you, fine - let's talk top 10%. Going from broke-ass to top 10% is an impressive feat. top-10% is under 170K.
Even if it were true, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there was something different about the public school to which those kids were assigned. That's just way too high of a statistical variance to be, "Oh they just thought positively."
> Every one of your friends has a net worth of 6 million or more.
You are intentionally strawmanning. When people say 1% they usually mean income (in my experience) and sometimes are using it as a figure of speech. Your usage of wealth really stuck out to me badly in your original comment - I actually thought you were trolling by choosing an obviously silly figure.
HN rule: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
> I know your type, I came from your world. You are not being truthful.
HN rule: "In Comments: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."
And your strong stereotyping is likely not helpful to you. Perhaps be a little less discriminiating and a bit less judgemental. No one likes to be bucketed. You know nothing about the OP.