Why the “Self-Made” Success Story Is a Myth

Resonates strongly with me. Many of my school friends went to the best colleges in my country - all the time attributing their success solely to "hard work". However, they always seemed to ignore the fact that their parents paid a lot of money for them to attend the best tuition outside of school. I did not have that option and did not get admitted to any of the famous colleges (I am discounting the constant mental tension associated with poverty here). Luckily, I have done quite well for myself (till now) - but I am under no illusion that it was solely due to me. For example, I got my first data science job via a personal contact - without that I would forever be stuck in less paying jobs.

Edit: typos

> So why do millennials act like [financial help from parents] doesn't exist?

I would argue the exact opposite. I would argue that with the rise of socialist tendencies among millennials, and the hyper fixation on gender, racial, and economic privilege, there is almost an outright rejection of the existence of merit at all. I think that the position is so extreme, that many millennials believe the output of an individual belonging to a group they consider to be universally privileged is almost entirely the consequence of their group's privileges or disadvantages.

No person in their right mind wouldn't acknowledge the privileges we can be afforded. You can be tall, attractive, smart, have both parents at home, not need to work jobs to help your parents take care of your many siblings, have parents that don't abuse you, have access to a network of successful people willing to take financial risks on your behalf. These things are inconceivably helpful. There is a reason that the public's reaction to Donald Trump's "with a small loan of a million dollars and [inheriting my dad's business and network]" was almost unilaterally one of repulsion.

Most sane people don't object to the concept of individual privilege (inherent, universal group privileges are a different discussion). What people object to is the disregarding of merit altogether; the extent to which we are divorcing consequence from actions. Where you start matters, but so do the choices you make.

This is such nonsense. First of all, there are absolutely people who come from dirt poverty and become wildly successful. Second of all, plenty of people receive lots of help from their parents and amount to precisely nothing. IMO it's fair to refer to your success as "self made" if you exceed the median success level of your class peer group by a substantial margin.

If you immigrate from Africa with nothing, and you get yourself a law degree and an upper middle class income - that's self made success. If you're born in the US and your entire family is lawyers, maybe that same accomplishment is not "self made success". But if you say, start Microsoft and become a billionaire i'd say that it's fair to call that self-made success.

I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost entirely from people like the author of this article. People who were born with lots of advantages, who still couldn't hack it. They want to justify their own failure to live up to their family's expectations by tearing other people down. Whether or not self-made success is a thing, self-made failure certainly is, and i'd say the author of this article more than qualifies for it.

I think a more interesting question to ask is: Why do we care who is responsible for our success?

Is it so that we know how to engineer more success? Or, is it to validate our egos? And, if the latter, aren't we asking the wrong question?

My first trip out to the valley working for a company out there someone turned to me and asked "So what do people do out there?" I thought he meant "for fun" but he meant regarding jobs or a career.

Despite the fact that I did the same job he did... "out there".