When I was a kid

 When I was a kid I was trying to figure out how poetry worked. I wasn't a gifted writer, but I was curious about how it worked, kind of like from an engineering perspective, though I would be a sorry excuse for an engineer. I studied it from a college textbook when I was 12, maybe, and then went through the whole Norton Anthology. I just tried to figure it out from the inside. I still wanted to be a poet. 

I went to school with certain poets, figuring them out, like William Blake, WCW. I've done this with Borges, Frank O'Hara. I still do this in music, with Monk. 

I found a place in academia where I could continue this, and rose near to the top of this world. I studied languages, became an expert in my own subfield. 

So if anyone else reading has done this, how can we place a value on work that does not reflect an equivalent level of dedication and training?  How can we say that it also deserves praise?  

Training

 Imagine, then, two people of the same aptitude.  

One reads voraciously, learns languages, trains himself to write, learns about a variety of other subjects, (history, art history) plays music, figures out how to succeed in academia, rises to the top of an academic field.

The other: pursues a non-academic career, does fine. Main hobby is watching sports, maybe.  

The variability is in two factors: the opportunity, usually provided by a certain amount of "privilege" growing up, and the drive to do actually do it. I had both. I could have easily had the same privilege and same aptitude, and done nothing with it. 

The training is about 90% of the academic's value. It is work: training oneself to do all these things at a top level, but also expanding the brain through music and language learning. The non-academic could have done it, but didn't.   

Only a reduced percentage of the population get a doctorate or equivalent.  Even for a smart person it is not easy. 

Of these people, only a few get to research jobs and publish. Of these, a certain percentage is more or less on the top. It is an elite proposition, and it takes a lot. This is why academia, structurally, is elitist.