The Production of Billionaires

Fenster writes:

So here are the colleges that, according to Forbes, “produce” the most billionaires. The “produce” word suggests cause and effect, with the hint that if your kid can get in ze will absorb some of that magic pixie dust. And true it is that since credentialing is one of the major functions of higher education a degree from one of these places can send a signal. But does the academic program make the difference? Do Cornell, Standford and the rest “produce” billionaires?

For one, a lot of good research nowadays indicates that students, even at the best colleges, do not learn that much or gain much by way of critical thinking skills when at school. Still, you say, these colleges turned out billionaires one way or another while others did not and that counts for something, right?

Maybe but consider two things. First, some of the people mentioned in the article were gifted when they arrived and were gifted when they graduated. Larry Page, Google’s founder, was the son of one of the pioneers of computer science and grew up in a household soaked in academics and science. One suspects that he was likely to do well for himself even if he had not gone to the University of Michigan as an undergraduate.

But if you go through this article and, yes, Google the names that are listed as the billionaires “produced” by these special places you find an even more better explanation for financial success: inherited wealth. Cornell is on the list because three heirs of the SG Johnson fortune went there.  Duke was the college of choice for candy heiress Marijke Mars and J.B. Pritzker, born into one of the nation’s richest families.  Dartmouth’s Leon Black is the son of the founder of United Brands.  There is plenty of privilege in this group.

That is not to say inherited wealth or genes is all.  There are plenty of people on the list who show grit and pluck, though even there a review of backgrounds suggests less by way of rising from modest backgrounds and more by way of backgrounds of moderate wealth and high aspirations—always important keys to success.  And while some on the list are billionaires mainly due to the wealth they inherited a number of the wealthy on the list are highly accomplished in the own right–though, again, the role of the college in producing such accomplishments is to be questioned.

So send your kid to one if you want zir to develop contacts or to absorb the reputational pixie dust or just get a good education.  And since most of these places are well-endowed and offer a lot of financial aid they tend to be bargains on a net basis compared with lower-ranked schools.  But don’t expect one of these to “produce” your kid into a billionaire.

About Fenster

Gainfully employed for thirty years, including as one of those high paid college administrators faculty complain about. Earned Ph.D. late in life and converted to the faculty side. Those damn administrators are ruining everything.
This entry was posted in Education, Politics and Economics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Production of Billionaires

  1. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    Great essay.

    The irony is, only stupid people will be fooled by such false advertising.

    (Which means a lot of people, alas…)

    Like

  2. Trimegistus says:

    What the hell is all this “ze” and “zir” bullshit?

    Like

  3. Miss Conduct says:

    About 10 years ago I worked at a camp in the Sierra Nevada Mtns owned by Stanford. During the summer Stanford undergrads would work there, doing all sorts of menial chores. They actually had competed for the privilege of working at camp. It was my job to teach them how to be kitchen flunkies. Most of them had never even cut a piece of fruit, and were afraid to try. They were nice kids, by and large, but not very prepared to do simple things like feed themselves.

    Like

    • Fenster says:

      That’s kind of touching, actually. I don’t want to bash the current generation of students too much for all this. They are just kids still. Yes, some are weaponized snowflakes but like the Sixties the loudmouths get the press and in fact have an impact but they don’t represent the generation. Neil Howe, one of the guys behind the Fourth Turning generational theory, says the problem with the kids nowadays is mostly that they are low risk types on accounta their parents being overprotective and not letting them out in the world to do real things—like cut a piece of fruit.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s