> Only if the person picked via nepotism isn’t competent.
It'd be interesting to know how much this phenomenon would explain the stability of otherwise culturally ossified regimes that stood for four or five centuries before collapsing, where government was built almost entirely out of extreme nepotism in which the ruling potentate had 50 or 60 kids to choose from, and thus had a shot at picking the most capable from the, er, top of the class.
Or the most ambitious /ruthless pick themselves, taking the old man and/or their dangerously competitive siblings out of the picture.
Either way there is a little more competition involved then what we normally think of with a modern family unit.
No drugs at private schools? The machinery catering to wealthy parents is good at 3 things, placatting parents, preventing scandals, creating interelite connections. It's not good at educating, no matter how expensive. There is simply put absolutely no incentives to work
Those seem like pretty critical skills to teach someone in the ruling elite actually.
Doing those things at scale is ‘work’ even if it isn’t what most people consider work.
Learning how to sweat a pipe is useful if that’s what you’re going to need to do to put food on the table.
Learning how to placate powerful sponsors, not get caught doing naughty things, and networking among other power brokers is how you put food on the table as a ruling elite isn’t it? Or at least avoid being burned at the stake.
And not something they’re going to teach effectively at your neighborhood public school.
Which is less likely (one would hope) than via other methods, but the correlation is not as strong as we’d all like.