[zhdc1]

> If getting into top (TOP!) universities correlated with education/aptitude alone, the wealthy would pay more to get thier kids educated but the best teachers. But they don't do this, they pay to dollar for their children to get educated by the "best" schools.

Simple! People receive a benefit from peer group connections (status) and quality-based assessments (in economic terms, reputation). If you are well educated and intelligent, on average, you will have access to more resources if you are also associated with high-status institutions, such as prestigious schools and high ranked universities.

The good news is that, under competitive conditions and provided that everything else is equal, being "good at something" (reputation) eventually leads to high-status attainment. So, if you happen to receive a good education but graduate from a less prestigious university, you have an opportunity to eventually recoup the difference in resource availability (on average & assuming that your production translates to the market).

Likewise, if you're a less prestigious institution, providing a superior education and employing people who do "good research" will eventually increase your prestige.

[tibbetts]

It can be difficult to overcome initial conditions and shine if you are locked out of the best opportunities. The bimodal outcomes for law school graduates are a good example. That’s not how the whole economy works, but it is a potential failure mode.

https://www.biglawinvestor.com/bimodal-salary-distribution-c...

[zhdc1]

> That’s not how the whole economy works, but it is a potential failure mode

There are others. E.g., if you're line of work doesn't allow for high-status recognition (e.g., a blue collar job), being good at what you do will likely not allow you to benefit from reputation -> status transfer.