It seems that by 'rich' the article referred to professionals with high salary. I am not sure how much I will call rich someone that needs to work on a job to continue having an income. 'Prosperous', 'well off' sounds more accurate, but English is not my mother tongue.
My point is that the rich, the ultra-wealthy, can pass assets and business to their descendants and can pay their children's way into exclusive institutions.
I prefer a society were everybody have a minimum well being guaranteed and better off people just have some more luxuries.
^ people will still fight tooth and nail for the luxuries even if the basic floor of existence keeps rising. It's like that proverb of the dogs, it's not enough that we succeed, cats must fail. I assume it had to do with the competition of passing on your genes.
And you’re saying these people aren’t rich?
I would actually argue that this is a good thing. A society benefits when its most capable members continue to work hard.
and there’s much more people in this elite strata than if you only count the traditional ultra wealthy
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
There is a vast difference between earning mid six figures and “could be earning 7 or 8 figures”. And there is a vast difference in lifestyle between those who can maintain their lifestyle by doing nothing and those who have to grind to maintain it.
Having a for-kids course isn’t bad... forcing your kids into it sure is.
As anyone who has been to one of these Bay Area high schools can tell you, it’s not so much forcing your kids into something that is the problem (plenty of parents do this all across the country for a variety of things). I think the high schools themselves have a massive culture problem where kids who really should just be doing things they find enjoyable in their free time feel like they have to do so many things they don’t enjoy just to keep up with everyone else. Even at 13, I’m sure many kids had drank the kool-aid and truly believed that doing that course was helping them get ahead in life. All this attitude does is create a massive rat-race where kids are just trying to get the best CV for college applications. I honestly think this seriously stunts the development of these kids, as no one is doing something just because they find it enjoyable.
What child, or even young adult, knows what “life” they want?
Children know what they have experienced growing up. Perhaps their family members lives and a few friends, probably in the same social-economic group. And that’s basically it.
They would naturally default to their current experience as a goal if asked, but what life do the kids actually want? The answer takes maturity the children don’t have. So adults step in to try to ensure the kids at least have the option of treading water from a class standpoint. Probably some parent ego in there too. Leads to a hypercompetitive parent-driven child experience for the wealthier classes and had, in the 60s/70s in the US, eventually led to rebellious self-directed life changes (good/bad) by the affluent youth. The idea that the rich kids could and should make their own personal choices with their lives, independent of societal or parental expectations, was a very dominant theme in late 1960s/early 1970s US/Western European culture.
Takes a special type of person to make downward mobility work, but it can be done. Usually faith, spirituality and the arts play a big role, as well as the hide of a rhinoceros. Addictions are another route, but that’s not really making it work in my definition.
Because working your butt off is foolish if the only “space underneath the sun” you eventually earn is a burial plot. As a great truth, the opposite is also true of course.
Economic reasons might be a large factor, but they are not the only one. There is a lot of this even in places where there is much less competition. People want to see their kids succeed, and that alone can trigger a lot of things. I am not completely innocent, although nothing egregious because I know that reacting to your fears will mostly end up being a self fulfilling prophecy. But even knowing this it can get the best of you if you see them failing at something out of laziness too many times. If I have a "job" with my kids, it's to give them an opportunity to find their passion, but this is much more than shipping them off to some practice. On the other hand looking at it as a job is highly likely the wrong way.
A boss is a boss, dominance is dominance.
Sure, if kids can’t cope up with their pressures, either parents have to give up or some of these kids end up committing suicide.
It's almost like this article is a subtle dig as merit based admissions. Back in the day you you could get into an ivy league school because of who you are now those poor kids have to work for it, and it makes them stressed, poor them. Surprised they didn't advocate for getting rid of standardized testing.
Thus in turn, their children are also part of their status as success. Having a child who went to an Ivy League and works at a top NY firm is accorded far more allure of success than somebody who dropped out and travels with a backpack painting landscapes. Even if the latter leads a far happier, healthier, more sustainable life.
It's a high pressure environment.
Everyone trying to fix this, but the perception of everything riding on getting into the good university is a message that is difficult to push against... in this zip code where half of the adults have master's degree or PhD.
