Neither of these need to be true. It's a incestuous system where it's easy to believe that people of average IQ have been born into privilege for generations and succeeded only because of their family wealth and connections.

MIT and Caltech are not Ivy League but even then I'm sure they have a lot of students who benefit from private schools, private tutors, and pricy college prep programs. What differentiates the ones who get accepted from the ones who don't?

That wasn't your claim:

> You're assuming that people who are admitted to Ivy League schools a) have higher IQs than average and b) have parents with higher IQs than average.

>What differentiates the ones who get accepted from the ones who don't? At Caltech and MIT?

Possibly the most meritocratic schools in the US?

Idk, .001 on your GPA or a single point on your SAT and AP scores? Or the fact that you didn't win an IOM medal or Intel Talent Search?

>Neither of these need to be true.

As George Orwell said, "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool".

That said, your statement does not follow from your argument. The heritability of IQ is unrelated to whether people's potential is wasted by being denied access to a nepotistic college system. The school system is not a meritocracy either.

There were plenty of studies that popped up; I just picked one. Wikipedia for something controversial like IQ is iffy which is why I didn't link that.

About heritability, that doesn't say that if your parents had an IQ of X you will have an IQ of ~X. It says, two people with "identical" DNA will have IQs that are very similar! There's also the big caveat that many scientists think these studies have confounds that overstate the results. But even if they are real, they don't mean what you think they do.