Irresponsible to society is what people are saying. You're making an "is" argument - the ivies optimizing for this "future impact" metric - where others are making an "ought" argument, that ivies ought to be focused on a different more societally beneficial metric.

> Genetics and family wealth

I suspect by "genetics" here you really mean something like "network you are born into", no?

I'm pretty sure they mean that if two parents are of above average intelligence then they're more likely to produce children of above average intelligence.

Really I just meant "who your parents happen to be" which is closer to the GP's point but admittedly I worded it awkwardly.

Agree that has far more predictive power than anything passed on genetically.

Because it's a terrible measure that is short sighted? It goes against everything affirmative action stands for? If we're going to pretend like diversity matters, then why try to justify legacy.

> Genetics and family wealth still have a huge influence on "future impact,"

In what way would genetics have a huge influence on future impact? That sounds like eugenics.

How is it "like eugenics" to state that children inherit genes from their parents, and are often similar in many ways to their parents? That just sounds like biology.

It's not helpful to trivialize terms like "eugenics".

Genetics have no predictive power on future impact to society. Take one of those wealthy children and put them in an orphanage, see if they do the same as their siblings.