What's sad is that all this desperate competition by parents to improve their kid's grades is zero-sum: A noisy but pointless rearrangement of positions on the socio-economic ladder.
One kid getting into Princeton means another misses out.
Very little of it results in actual useful learning or eventual public benefit.
> Your skills are more important than the prestige of your school.
I'd disagree slightly. All of Mark Zuckerberg's college roommates are billionaires or half-billionaires - mostly because they were his roommates. Obviously they brought their own skills to the table but there existed other people in the world at that time with those skills too. These specific people got to be in the rocket ship when it was on the ground, because they were at Harvard. Otherwise, they'd (probably) only have very successful careers, instead of their current wealth and status.
I think having a "prestige" school on your resume opens some doors far more easily.
Billionaires are billionaires. They're an elite group, and by definition most people won't be billionaires. But you can be a millionaire after attending a state university, and for most people being a millionaire is a goal worth achieving.
I personally don't think it's worth encouraging people to try to be billionaires. If you do, most of them will end up highly disappointed. It's more worthwhile to encourage people to be the best they can be, the majority of which will fall vastly short of a billion dollars. That's okay.
But it isn't. The question was "X is trying to get into Princeton - an A- isn't going to get her in. What extra credit can she do to make this an A?" Presumably, the extra credit means the student will learn more. Hence, it is not zero-sum. And it actually seem fair to me; the student that works the hardest and scores the highest grades deserves to win the spot.
One kid getting into Princeton means another misses out.
Very little of it results in actual useful learning or eventual public benefit.