"Breakfast is good for you" implies that it has some benefit. In some cases, however, the cost of eating breakfast is greater than its benefit.
For instance, if you have to get to work at 5am, are you better off waking up earlier to eat breakfast? In this case, the cost of lost sleep may be greater than the benefit of breakfast.
The NYT article points out that many of the studies that claim breakfast is good may be flawed. If that's true, then we are likely overestimating the benefit of breakfast. And that means that in many cases where we thought
Who is telling them the terms? Who is telling them they "deserve" something for working hard? Specifically?
Because it doesn't take very much thought to realize "hard work" is not the key to success, it's hard work in an area that is demanded by employers. Spend your 10,000 hours learning underwater basket weaving? Good for you, but good luck getting paid to do it. Spend your 10,000 hours learning a career in demand? Now we're talking.
If "no amount of grit or hardwork" is going to prevent subsistence-level existence, what about all the people who get college degrees in areas with high demand -- electrical engineers, software developers, accountants, chemical engineers -- and get good, quality-paying jobs?
What about the people who start companies making a technology that other companies are willing to pay for?
Likewise, Google penalizes webpages by size. A 3 megabyte page gets a larger penalty than a 1 megabyte, which has a larger penalty than a 1 kB page.
But, they give themselves a free pass, as their own "webpage guidelines" page is 3.4 megabytes long! But, even worse, it has a video on a carousel that repeatedly downloads the video whenever it restarts the video loop.
The whole point of the article is that private schools get away with things because they're private. If they want to make that claim, then they do have a responsibility to make sure that the facts back it up.