You are overthinking it. Real elites, like everyone else, simply like what they know already; and they know those schools because they have been there, or know a lot of people who have been there, so they can evaluate the sort of challenges other pupils went through in a way that makes them more confident.

At its core, this is elitism in the oligarchic/aristocratic sense, not in the intellectual one.

It's not so much an issue of quality as it is brand recognition. I went to a top 20 State school, that is to say top 20 among State schools, and while, to me (if I can say so without sounding self-aggrandizing) that's a pretty good ranking, all told, not once in my life have I heard my school discussed in any media whatsoever as an intellectual powerhouse.

The top 'brands' get the largesse of the praise, and the lesser schools are left to fight for the scraps. I sense the balance shifting somewhat but nonetheless the attitude of 'if it costs more, it must be better' seems utterly pervasive.

I yearn to be proud of my education.

I yearn to be one of the 'cool kids', and I don't think it's because I have no sense of personal worth or that I am self-marginalizing. I simply think there is a crisis of hubris that we overlook in favor of pointing out instances where the 'have nots' do well.

For every kid from the hood who makes good, there are dozens, hundreds, thousands of upper management jobs handed to those who attend schools based on the meritocracy of wealth.

It is astonishing. It is the crux of why our cultural stagnation is reaching critical mass (see current President-elect for more on that topic, I mean seriously, who thinks Donny got into Wharton through acumen and not the bravado wealth affords the ineffably idiotic?).

My point is that your summary resonates hard with my own experience and I appreciate your perspective.