[epsilonclose]

I don't disagree with your point about admissions (and in fact I came from a family that had good income but both parents never went to college, so had little advice to give).

Still: your family was already well near the 75th percentile nationally for the time. In what sense would that not be wealthy?

[rayiner]

We were certainly in the top 5% at the time. “Rich kids” would be a fair description in my opinion. But to me, “children of the wealthy” as used by the article carries a connotation of having enough wealth to have power and connections. My mom made over $100k/year as the top sales associate at her furniture store, but you don’t meet many Congressmen that way!

[epsilonclose]

That is certainly a real distinction, though I think your point about immigrant families not knowing "the game" is probably the better one. If parents know how the admissions game is played, then they can throw capital (fiscal and/or social) at the problem. A non-tenured biology professor is by no means wealthy, but their daughter will almost certainly have an easier time finding a lab to volunteer at in high school than the child of the owner of a successful car dealership. So wealth is an advantage conditional on knowing the rules of the game, and you've raised an important point: a lot of families don't even know the rules of the game!

[bloodborne]

I would disagree. If you experience poverty you realize that making over 50k is intense. Making over 100k means a lot of power and connection compared to most. You may just be underestimating how many advantages that amount of money truly gives you over everyone else, in terms of opportunity, time, educational resources, guidance, lack of prejudice, and sheer wealth. I would argue the article is taking about "rich kids"