" a little too strict" -- I'm trying to be more concise, but my precision hasn't caught up yet.
First, my point was that people don't succeed simply on network entry. I hope this is understood but I don't see it much reflected in the comments.
Second, the point of networks is to reduce the guesswork. The network knows if Joe carried his college workgroups but sucked at tests, or if he aces tests but flakes out. It knows how his sense of commitments and responsibilities matches up against network norms. A lot of people "in the Harvard network" have been _rejected_ by that network b/c it knows them and doesn't like what it sees.
In the Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell said most people are referred by acquaintances, not close ties. Networks give you access to these people and their information is not perfect.
I'm only arguing your first point that networks expand returns on ability. This is just like VC's in the startup world. There are some very good startups that get few meetings with big investors because they have no connections. Even if you have a good product (or are smart), you can go unnoticed. Network expands ability, but the network's vision is limited to the acquaintances of the few people who are in it.
First, my point was that people don't succeed simply on network entry. I hope this is understood but I don't see it much reflected in the comments.
Second, the point of networks is to reduce the guesswork. The network knows if Joe carried his college workgroups but sucked at tests, or if he aces tests but flakes out. It knows how his sense of commitments and responsibilities matches up against network norms. A lot of people "in the Harvard network" have been _rejected_ by that network b/c it knows them and doesn't like what it sees.