No, it's not. Why is "being able to compete and/or belong with the top x%" in any way dependent on money? Europe has world-class universities which are essentially free. You get into them by proving qualification, not wealth.

The original quote was attendance at a "top" school, not just a decent one.

> You get into them by proving qualification, not wealth.

I think the context indicates that we're talking about kids who couldn't get in by proving qualification, so their only way in is wealth. You want your kids to attend Harvard, not because they're smart enough but because you can pay full price tuition? Well, it's going to cost rather a lot.

> The original quote was attendance at a "top" school, not just a decent one.

I realize that.

> You want your kids to attend Harvard, not because they're smart enough but because you can pay full price tuition? Well, it's going to cost rather a lot.

Why is that even an option? The point was that there is no tuition in Europe (at least in the countries I know). If your kid is unqualified, it is unqualified, you don't get to override that just because you have money.

Why is that even an option? Because Harvard likes money. (And Harvard is a private institution, not run by the government.)