You're grossly misrepresenting the article, it seems you barely paid any attention to it.
The article says:
>the probability to enter the ENA is multiplied by 330 for someone whose father was in any "grande école"
But you say:
>if you want to enter the ENA your chances are multiplied by 83 if your father was in ENA
Those are very different statements. Firstly, because the article is about the father having done ANY grande école, whereas you're talking about the same grande école. Secondly because the article talks about the probability to enter the institution, whereas you claim to report the probability to enter it IF YOU WANT TO (=if you go through the exam), which are again vastly different quantities.
Your interpretation in terms of "non-existent merit" is also completely silly. Merit is not innate at birth and equally distributed among people by nature. Genetics, education, and favorable conditions growing up all play a large part in whether someone can be meritorious. People whose parents are part of the "elite" (as measured per educational achievement) likely have, on average, a substantial genetic advantage compared to the average person. Furthermore they also have on average a large educational advantage, i.e. their parents educate them better or in better conditions, which makes them more competent, and therefore best suited for the careers that await them after these schools. Finally, these kids likely have an "advantage" in terms of ambition and pressure - people coming coming from high-achieving parents will want to match their parents' achievements (sometimes at the expense of their happiness).
That's not to say that all is pure meritocracy. However, nepotism - i.e. unfair advantages over more competent competition obtained thanks to "special favors" from powerful friends - is only a part of the equation and your methodology has no way whatsoever of detecting what part of this is caused by nepotism, lack public guidance for gifted kids coming from a working class background, or any of the factors mentioned above. The data (which you misrepresent here) doesn't contradict your conclusion but it certainly doesn't support it either.
bulging_cucumber t1_itku7t1 wrote
Reply to comment by pacmanpill in [OC] Chances to attend a "Grande Ecole (Top university) in France. If you want to attend "ENA", the best university in France, you have 330x chances if your father graduated from there. by pacmanpill
You're grossly misrepresenting the article, it seems you barely paid any attention to it.
The article says:
>the probability to enter the ENA is multiplied by 330 for someone whose father was in any "grande école"
But you say:
>if you want to enter the ENA your chances are multiplied by 83 if your father was in ENA
Those are very different statements. Firstly, because the article is about the father having done ANY grande école, whereas you're talking about the same grande école. Secondly because the article talks about the probability to enter the institution, whereas you claim to report the probability to enter it IF YOU WANT TO (=if you go through the exam), which are again vastly different quantities.
Your interpretation in terms of "non-existent merit" is also completely silly. Merit is not innate at birth and equally distributed among people by nature. Genetics, education, and favorable conditions growing up all play a large part in whether someone can be meritorious. People whose parents are part of the "elite" (as measured per educational achievement) likely have, on average, a substantial genetic advantage compared to the average person. Furthermore they also have on average a large educational advantage, i.e. their parents educate them better or in better conditions, which makes them more competent, and therefore best suited for the careers that await them after these schools. Finally, these kids likely have an "advantage" in terms of ambition and pressure - people coming coming from high-achieving parents will want to match their parents' achievements (sometimes at the expense of their happiness).
That's not to say that all is pure meritocracy. However, nepotism - i.e. unfair advantages over more competent competition obtained thanks to "special favors" from powerful friends - is only a part of the equation and your methodology has no way whatsoever of detecting what part of this is caused by nepotism, lack public guidance for gifted kids coming from a working class background, or any of the factors mentioned above. The data (which you misrepresent here) doesn't contradict your conclusion but it certainly doesn't support it either.