Exactly. This was the point they made in the episode. Instead of helping those who need the resources, they would double down on those who needed the resources the least. (If they're great now, then just think how much greater they could be with even more resources!)

There is always the law of diminishing marginal utility which puts an end to this. There is no such thing as endlessly increasing success, as eating 100 bars of chocolate doesn't bring you 100x more fun than eating 1 bar.

Also, even the kids with all resources imaginable may turn out failures. There are enough examples of rich kids with severe drug and alcohol problems, as well as mental problems like depression and gambling. You could argue that this doesn't matter, as they will always have been handed lucrative positions. But there also is a limit to these positions, as any company will begin to suffer if too many incompetent and useless people are sucking it dry. Someday, somewhere along the way, even the most pampered kid of the most inherited wealth will have to prove itself and will have to bring adequate performance and will fail at that, if it misses the necessary skills.

In general, the whole Ivy League thing is a big scam. The quality of the education there is detoriating fast, maybe even in the law and economics departments. The Ivy League degree has been reduced only to the "club member card" you need to have to be able to apply for the top positions. It doesn't necessarily give you the skills to be successful in your discipline, anymore. But you still need to have marketable and high quality skills to become successful and compete on the job market. If you are not useful and not able to produce decent results, all those fancy degrees and daddy's influence still won't help you.

Exactly. This was the point they made in the episode. Instead of helping those who need the resources, they would double down on those who needed the resources the least. (If they're great now, then just think how much greater they could be with even more resources!)

That kind of thinking is putting the cart before the horse. The upper middle class pays most of the taxes that finance those programs, so you would essentially be giving them their own money back. At that point it makes more sense to simply lower taxes.

In terms of money well spent, giving more money to good students who have good teachers is probably less efficient than using the same funds in poorer neighborhoods. A bad environment can harm the future prospects of students much more easily than a good environment can improve it. In other words: students from well-off neighborhoods are generally already performing at the level that their potential allows, or close enough to it that additional investment in their education likely does not improve outcomes very much.