I'm reminded of the prescient 2005 commentary of George Carlin: "it's a big club and you ain't in it" [1].

Hollywood, in particular, is almost completely nepo baby captured. This is an oft-repeated trend where an industry goes into decline and the children of those who originally succeeded end up dominating it. I think there's a lot of this in politics too, particularly because government jobs (including staffers on campaigns and for representatives) don't pay a lot so you really have to come from an affluent background to afford to live.

It used to be that if you wanted to be a cast member on SNL you had to go to Harvard because of the Harvard Lampoon.

I've seen this issue with the doctor pipeline too. Various analyses show that coming from a high socioeconomic background is a massive advantage, even with med schools trying to provide more opportunities to candidates from a lower socioeconomic background. A few med schools now because of endowments have gone tuition-free but even here it seems (it's early days) like wealthier candidates get more of these opportunities. As a wealthier person you don't need to "waste" time on a job. You can do resume-packing activities (research, volunteering).

So circling back, elite education's role (IMHO) is to be exclusionary. It's to maintain this structure. "Social proof" is extremely important because a lot of opportunities in life aren't about talent or skill but connections and social factors. You go to Stanford and do CS and you get time in front of VCs. You get to know people who will start future unicorns through all their opportunities and connections. You will be one of these people or be an early employee.

If you're an academic, I once heard a friend in academia tell me "you'll never be unemployed in academic with a Harvard undergrad degree". Faculties like to boast about things like this. There's some hyperbole here but again, there's also some truth and it's social proof.

Look at the median age of a US homebuyer, currently 59 [2]. The only young people buying houses are in the upper percentiles of income, come from a wealthy background or their parents are otherwise paying for it because they bought a house in the 1980s and sat on it.

So back to Carlin, a lot of people end up intentionally or unintentionally defending this system through wanting the best for their children but in doing so, society is unravelling. Also, most of the people who prop up the current system just aren't in the club despite what they think.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyvxt1svxso

[2]: https://www.apolloacademy.com/median-age-of-all-us-homebuyer...