All I'm saying: you claimed that the economic 1% are "by definition" not intellectually mediocre. That's straight-up false. I've met plenty of rich kids-- old and new money, thanks--who are just as intellectually vacuous as your stereotypical ASU student. As for the kids of the 1% being too few to make a difference? First of all, they're influential by virtue of their socioeconomic position, not by virtue of raw numbers. And second of all, my only claim was that they're indicative of a wider societal pressure, which you also identified and criticized.
You're trying to turn an education problem into a class war problem. Not everything is a class war, even though that's en vogue in certain circles right now. You are reading what you wanted to believe I wrote, and not what I actually wrote. 1% by definition are a small segment of the population.
You're projecting. I never claimed that the 1% are the problem. I claimed that at my university, the children of the 1% exemplify a problem that runs through our entire society. I don't read class war anywhere in that claim. What you actually wrote: If my understanding of English syntax is correct, your relative sentence "by definition not the 1%" refers back to the antecedent, "mediocrity."it aims at mediocrity, by definition not the 1%