Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne'er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.

Holy logic flaws, Batman!  So the 67% poor college grads move up to the top 3 quintiles versus the 51% of rich dropouts who move to the bottom 2 quintiles...... and somehow the story is this 14% vs 16% false comparison... wow... just wow.

Questionable statistics aside, richer children do get more opportunities. I believe that.

of course, but fuckups are still fuckups.  If anything can be taken from this, is that work and merit actually do make a difference most of the time.

and it's just flabbergasting that the _actual_ conclusion from the data is literally the direct opposite of the content. I would call this story liberal bias, but it's way too damn blatant even for bias.. It's plain editorial malfeasance that it was ever published.

All they have is a hammer, so everything looks like a nail.

And agreed that work and merit actually do make a difference most of the time.

And that some poor children can work their way out of being poor.

And that some wealthy children do end up "Rich Kids of Instagram".

"Even poor kids who do everything right don't do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves. "

"But, of course, it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child's formative early years. That's why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardonexplains, "rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class students," and they're staying that way."