Rich Kid Poor Kid

Regarding the Sotomayor nomination, a lot is being made of her story being compelling. I suppose this is the typical rags to riches story and how we are supposed to be so impressed by her ability to have achieved from such humble beginnings to where she is today, a nominee to the supreme court. Yes, this is impressive, but is it any more impressive than someone who came from a more privileged upbringing. I believe that in some ways it is equally or more difficult for the child who has it all to grow up to be successful.

When I was a surgical resident I had the opportunity to be involved in the selection process for applicants in my field. The chairman of the department was very impressed by an applicant who had come from humble beginnings and was given an edge over other equally or more qualified applicants. Although this is anecdotal, I believe that if you come from an advantaged background you are penalized at best or at worst discriminated against. Hard to believe I am proposing bias against the children of the wealthy but I believe the thinking is that since you're parents are rich you don't really need the position. Thus the position is given to the one who supposedly scraped and struggled to get to the same level.

The truth is the poor kid may have received significant advantages along the way to have reached the same level as the rich kid. Affirmative action by definition helps a certain group but this is always at the expense of another group. As fair and noble as it may seem to help a disadvantaged child/person it must always be remembered that it comes at the cost of discriminating against the person who has equal or better credentials but the wrong parents. Yes it is true that the wealthy have connections/money that can and do open doors but this is only reserved for the super wealthy. Most moderately wealthy people do not have this advantage.

The poor child who strives for a better life knows the difficulty and hardship of living with limited means . He/She has a hunger to achieve to attain a better life and rid themselves of that poor lifestyle. The rich kid, on the other hand, has been given everything his entire life and lacks the fire in his stomach. The drive is greater for the poor child.

Similarly, the expectations are lower for the poor child and failing in his/her achievement will result in no change in their standard of living. The pressure on them is low. For the rich kid the pressure is much greater to achieve just to maintain the same living standard. The poor kid hasn't much to lose but the rich kid has alot more pressure on him just to stay even with his parents. Thus the rich kid starts out with less drive and more pressure while the poor kid has a strong driving force with little pressure. In other words, the poor kid has nothing to lose as compared to the rich kid who has much to lose.

Ultimately, a persons upbringing should have no effect on whether he/she is selected for a certain position or job. It is not in one's control to effect this genetic fact. Similarly, selecting someone on the basis of his/her race, sex, religion, age etc. is not fair as it is based on factors that a person cannot control. Proponents of selection based on genes or upbringing will say it provides diversity which is advantageous, but lets be honest about what it really is. It is by definition discriminating against someone or a group that does not possess the correct physical appearance or background.

Somewhere out there is an equally qualified or more qualified white middle aged male judge that was passed over for this nomination because he was neither a Hispanic nor a female. The supreme court has filled its quota for middle aged white men. He was discriminated against due to his genetic makeup and his qualifications were secondary. The country ultimately suffers when it is not the most qualified person who gets the job but the individual who wins the genetic jackpot.