Some people think that success is measured by how much money a person has. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The idea that wealth serves as a measure of success is with what I completely part company for a number of reasons. Firstly, from an academic point of view, how successful one is might be measured by the qualifications they have acquired. While I concede that money has a part to play in some cases like tuition fees, the problem is that widely recognized qualifications require profound knowledge, experience and skills. Take IELTS for example. Candidates are forced to channel much time and energy into obtaining the very aptitude to get to the level where they are considered to be successful. Employment is another indicator of being successful. Many supporters of material possessions may claim that money often leads to a better job. However, I would argue that when candidates are interviewed for a vacancy at a big company, how much money they have are not taken into consideration. What matters for them is how suitable they are for this position, which means they must meet the requirements of the job on offer. So, in many cases, being able to find a well-paid job might be the measurement criterion of success. The final and most important area where success is not measured by how much money a person has is sport. I believe how successful a sportsman is has nothing to do with how much material wealth they have. To succeed in this, they have to train hard to be at their best performance, thus sacrificing their time and energy, not money. Were they to be rich to gain success, most of the globally recognized faces might go unknown. I, therefore, maintain that what athletes achieve contributes to their success. To conclude, although some may consider money as an indication of success, I would argue that degrees and diplomas, highly-paid job, and achievements in sport are true measurements of it.