[nmodu]

> In a age if great socio economic inequality very few people at the top of the society get to have ' significant accomplishment', it is more of an indicator of you socio economic status than your actual capabilities.

The "significant accomplishment" that the interviewer is looking for is one that the interviewee had to work relentlessly towards achieving. Not one that the interviewee "[got] to have" as if it were placed under his christmas tree with a red bow on top.

How does the interviewer know that the interviewee REALLY struggled with the issue? By having the interviewee go into great detail. The author of the article suggested discussing the accomplishment for 15-20 minutes, and he outlined over twenty questions that the interviewer should ask with respect to the accomplishment.

There's a short clip where Elon Musk outlines a similar approach to interviewing applicants:

"...I ask them to tell me about the problems they worked on and how they solved them. If someone was really the person that solved it, they'll be able to answer multiple levels, they'll be able to go down to the brass-tax. And if they weren't, they'll get stuck and you can say 'Oh this person was not really the person who solved it'. Because anyone who really struggled hard with a problem never forgets it."[1]

So, in this sense, I don't believe that the quality of the interviewee's answer hinges on "socio economic status". In fact -in my opinion- the less you have handed to you, the BETTER equipped you are to answer this question in a satisfactory manor.

[1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-job-interview-rule-...