Harvard grads earn $81,500 at age 34 – WTF?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it that low? Here’s a link to the study:

https://www.topuniversities.com/where-to-study/north-america/united-states/penn-graduates-are-highest-earners-ivy-league

Some other takeaways:

1. UPenn graduates earn the most ($91,800/year at age 34), while Brown graduates earn the least ($66,900 at the same age).

2. The gender gap still exists, with males earning $110,200 and females $76,400 (I believe this is for UPenn, but the article is not very clear on this).

3. The article was from 2017 but says it was last updated in March 2021. So it’s possible those were the salaries in 2017, but even then, I would’ve thought they would be higher.

What do you think? Maybe we in the DC area have an unrealistic idea of salaries nationwide, but I was still surprised to read that graduates of the most prestigious university in the country can only muster a salary of $81,500 more than a decade after graduation.

"Average" would include non-working trust fund kids with no salary.

Yep—It also includes who are pursuing second incomes or passion careers. My sibling went to hyp and earns probably 80k in academia but the spouse is a big law partner.

She got her MRS degree -- having an Ivy degree gave her the pedigree to attract the Big Law partner (assuming they didn't even meet there)

Men don't care where a women went to school sweetie

This isn’t 1950 anymore. Lawyers don’t marry secretaries.

They don’t care how much money you make or what job you have, they don’t even care what you majored in. But your college pedigree does matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale UG and Harvard PG.

Here’s what you’re missing:

1. Wealthiest people I went to school with either don’t work or they work vanity jobs, like setting up a nonprofit, something in arts, media, etc. Little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

2. Others of the wealthiest people I know are in PE, real estate, partnerships, etc. Again, little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

3. Those in academics, research, medicine, and sometimes law are just short of crossing the threshold to actual money at 34.

4. Plenty of HYPS grads, even if they’re not from Uber wealthy backgrounds like those above, have parents who are doctors and lawyers or whatever and are perfectly comfortable, plus expect to inherent well into 7 figures. So they’re fine choosing “meaningful” work that pays less: they work in museums, or at foundations, or in journalism. They sail around the world on a solar powered boat and make a documentary about.

5. Ironically, it is the poorest of the group—the strivers, first generation college kids, etc.—who bolster those “income” numbers. They are busting their asses in finance, law, consulting because they don’t have the wealth to fall back on. They are generating it to move their kids into one of the above groups.

The US would be far more equitable if regular people could be made to understand that income is for suckers. Income tax fights and other income-based comparisons pit the poor against the MC against the UMC. It all missed the point about the tiny band at the top that doesn’t care about income.

This is it.

Poor and most MC need income from a job. Being indigent with no job is being a loser.

Income is not "for suckers" regardless. Income comes from jobs, investments, business ownership. Unemployed rich trust fund kids should have income. And if their funds or rental real estate or whatever isn't earning income, and they are just depleting principal to live, then they are the suckers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it that low? Here’s a link to the study:

https://www.topuniversities.com/where-to-study/north-america/united-states/penn-graduates-are-highest-earners-ivy-league

Some other takeaways:

1. UPenn graduates earn the most ($91,800/year at age 34), while Brown graduates earn the least ($66,900 at the same age).

2. The gender gap still exists, with males earning $110,200 and females $76,400 (I believe this is for UPenn, but the article is not very clear on this).

3. The article was from 2017 but says it was last updated in March 2021. So it’s possible those were the salaries in 2017, but even then, I would’ve thought they would be higher.

What do you think? Maybe we in the DC area have an unrealistic idea of salaries nationwide, but I was still surprised to read that graduates of the most prestigious university in the country can only muster a salary of $81,500 more than a decade after graduation.

"Average" would include non-working trust fund kids with no salary.

Yep—It also includes who are pursuing second incomes or passion careers. My sibling went to hyp and earns probably 80k in academia but the spouse is a big law partner.

She got her MRS degree -- having an Ivy degree gave her the pedigree to attract the Big Law partner (assuming they didn't even meet there)

Men don't care where a women went to school sweetie

This isn’t 1950 anymore. Lawyers don’t marry secretaries.

They don’t care how much money you make or what job you have, they don’t even care what you majored in. But your college pedigree does matter.

Oh please!!! A broke 20 or 30 something who looks like a 5/10 who can say but but I went to Harvard isn't very marketable at all. You need cash or beauty or amazing personality. Or else your resume is bottom of the pile sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale UG and Harvard PG.

Here’s what you’re missing:

1. Wealthiest people I went to school with either don’t work or they work vanity jobs, like setting up a nonprofit, something in arts, media, etc. Little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

2. Others of the wealthiest people I know are in PE, real estate, partnerships, etc. Again, little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

3. Those in academics, research, medicine, and sometimes law are just short of crossing the threshold to actual money at 34.

4. Plenty of HYPS grads, even if they’re not from Uber wealthy backgrounds like those above, have parents who are doctors and lawyers or whatever and are perfectly comfortable, plus expect to inherent well into 7 figures. So they’re fine choosing “meaningful” work that pays less: they work in museums, or at foundations, or in journalism. They sail around the world on a solar powered boat and make a documentary about.

5. Ironically, it is the poorest of the group—the strivers, first generation college kids, etc.—who bolster those “income” numbers. They are busting their asses in finance, law, consulting because they don’t have the wealth to fall back on. They are generating it to move their kids into one of the above groups.

The US would be far more equitable if regular people could be made to understand that income is for suckers. Income tax fights and other income-based comparisons pit the poor against the MC against the UMC. It all missed the point about the tiny band at the top that doesn’t care about income.

This is it.

Poor and most MC need income from a job. Being indigent with no job is being a loser.

Income is not "for suckers" regardless. Income comes from jobs, investments, business ownership. Unemployed rich trust fund kids should have income. And if their funds or rental real estate or whatever isn't earning income, and they are just depleting principal to live, then they are the suckers.

Another poor talking. In the vast majority of the trusts, you can't touch the principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale UG and Harvard PG.

Here’s what you’re missing:

1. Wealthiest people I went to school with either don’t work or they work vanity jobs, like setting up a nonprofit, something in arts, media, etc. Little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

2. Others of the wealthiest people I know are in PE, real estate, partnerships, etc. Again, little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

3. Those in academics, research, medicine, and sometimes law are just short of crossing the threshold to actual money at 34.

4. Plenty of HYPS grads, even if they’re not from Uber wealthy backgrounds like those above, have parents who are doctors and lawyers or whatever and are perfectly comfortable, plus expect to inherent well into 7 figures. So they’re fine choosing “meaningful” work that pays less: they work in museums, or at foundations, or in journalism. They sail around the world on a solar powered boat and make a documentary about.

5. Ironically, it is the poorest of the group—the strivers, first generation college kids, etc.—who bolster those “income” numbers. They are busting their asses in finance, law, consulting because they don’t have the wealth to fall back on. They are generating it to move their kids into one of the above groups.

The US would be far more equitable if regular people could be made to understand that income is for suckers. Income tax fights and other income-based comparisons pit the poor against the MC against the UMC. It all missed the point about the tiny band at the top that doesn’t care about income.

This is it.

Poor and most MC need income from a job. Being indigent with no job is being a loser.

Income is not "for suckers" regardless. Income comes from jobs, investments, business ownership. Unemployed rich trust fund kids should have income. And if their funds or rental real estate or whatever isn't earning income, and they are just depleting principal to live, then they are the suckers.

Another poor talking. In the vast majority of the trusts, you can't touch the principal.

+1. This person also doesn’t understand the difference between ordinary income on wages, versus passive income, capital gains and appreciation. Let alone securities financing which is the key to tax-free, no work required “income”. Pretty much exactly what the PP was about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale UG and Harvard PG.

Here’s what you’re missing:

1. Wealthiest people I went to school with either don’t work or they work vanity jobs, like setting up a nonprofit, something in arts, media, etc. Little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

2. Others of the wealthiest people I know are in PE, real estate, partnerships, etc. Again, little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

3. Those in academics, research, medicine, and sometimes law are just short of crossing the threshold to actual money at 34.

4. Plenty of HYPS grads, even if they’re not from Uber wealthy backgrounds like those above, have parents who are doctors and lawyers or whatever and are perfectly comfortable, plus expect to inherent well into 7 figures. So they’re fine choosing “meaningful” work that pays less: they work in museums, or at foundations, or in journalism. They sail around the world on a solar powered boat and make a documentary about.

5. Ironically, it is the poorest of the group—the strivers, first generation college kids, etc.—who bolster those “income” numbers. They are busting their asses in finance, law, consulting because they don’t have the wealth to fall back on. They are generating it to move their kids into one of the above groups.

The US would be far more equitable if regular people could be made to understand that income is for suckers. Income tax fights and other income-based comparisons pit the poor against the MC against the UMC. It all missed the point about the tiny band at the top that doesn’t care about income.

This is it.

Poor and most MC need income from a job. Being indigent with no job is being a loser.

Income is not "for suckers" regardless. Income comes from jobs, investments, business ownership. Unemployed rich trust fund kids should have income. And if their funds or rental real estate or whatever isn't earning income, and they are just depleting principal to live, then they are the suckers.

Another poor talking. In the vast majority of the trusts, you can't touch the principal.

Without touching principal or being a "sucker" using income, pray tell you idiot where cash to spend comes from? What did you major in - basket weaving?

I'm an accountant + lawyer, but please, amuse me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale UG and Harvard PG.

Here’s what you’re missing:

1. Wealthiest people I went to school with either don’t work or they work vanity jobs, like setting up a nonprofit, something in arts, media, etc. Little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

2. Others of the wealthiest people I know are in PE, real estate, partnerships, etc. Again, little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

3. Those in academics, research, medicine, and sometimes law are just short of crossing the threshold to actual money at 34.

4. Plenty of HYPS grads, even if they’re not from Uber wealthy backgrounds like those above, have parents who are doctors and lawyers or whatever and are perfectly comfortable, plus expect to inherent well into 7 figures. So they’re fine choosing “meaningful” work that pays less: they work in museums, or at foundations, or in journalism. They sail around the world on a solar powered boat and make a documentary about.

5. Ironically, it is the poorest of the group—the strivers, first generation college kids, etc.—who bolster those “income” numbers. They are busting their asses in finance, law, consulting because they don’t have the wealth to fall back on. They are generating it to move their kids into one of the above groups.

The US would be far more equitable if regular people could be made to understand that income is for suckers. Income tax fights and other income-based comparisons pit the poor against the MC against the UMC. It all missed the point about the tiny band at the top that doesn’t care about income.

This is it.

Poor and most MC need income from a job. Being indigent with no job is being a loser.

Income is not "for suckers" regardless. Income comes from jobs, investments, business ownership. Unemployed rich trust fund kids should have income. And if their funds or rental real estate or whatever isn't earning income, and they are just depleting principal to live, then they are the suckers.

Another poor talking. In the vast majority of the trusts, you can't touch the principal.

Without touching principal or being a "sucker" using income, pray tell you idiot where cash to spend comes from? What did you major in - basket weaving?

I'm an accountant + lawyer, but please, amuse me.

Moreover, first you allege "income" is for suckers. But now, you indicate principal is in fact earning income. So are they suckers? Should they move all funds to a checking account to avoid earning income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it that low? Here’s a link to the study:

https://www.topuniversities.com/where-to-study/north-america/united-states/penn-graduates-are-highest-earners-ivy-league

Some other takeaways:

1. UPenn graduates earn the most ($91,800/year at age 34), while Brown graduates earn the least ($66,900 at the same age).

2. The gender gap still exists, with males earning $110,200 and females $76,400 (I believe this is for UPenn, but the article is not very clear on this).

3. The article was from 2017 but says it was last updated in March 2021. So it’s possible those were the salaries in 2017, but even then, I would’ve thought they would be higher.

What do you think? Maybe we in the DC area have an unrealistic idea of salaries nationwide, but I was still surprised to read that graduates of the most prestigious university in the country can only muster a salary of $81,500 more than a decade after graduation.

"Average" would include non-working trust fund kids with no salary.

Yep—It also includes who are pursuing second incomes or passion careers. My sibling went to hyp and earns probably 80k in academia but the spouse is a big law partner.

She got her MRS degree -- having an Ivy degree gave her the pedigree to attract the Big Law partner (assuming they didn't even meet there)

Men don't care where a women went to school sweetie

This isn’t 1950 anymore. Lawyers don’t marry secretaries.

They don’t care how much money you make or what job you have, they don’t even care what you majored in. But your college pedigree does matter.

Oh please!!! A broke 20 or 30 something who looks like a 5/10 who can say but but I went to Harvard isn't very marketable at all. You need cash or beauty or amazing personality. Or else your resume is bottom of the pile sweetie.

“Sweetie, “ it matters because many of them meet their spouses IN college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it that low? Here’s a link to the study:

https://www.topuniversities.com/where-to-study/north-america/united-states/penn-graduates-are-highest-earners-ivy-league

Some other takeaways:

1. UPenn graduates earn the most ($91,800/year at age 34), while Brown graduates earn the least ($66,900 at the same age).

2. The gender gap still exists, with males earning $110,200 and females $76,400 (I believe this is for UPenn, but the article is not very clear on this).

3. The article was from 2017 but says it was last updated in March 2021. So it’s possible those were the salaries in 2017, but even then, I would’ve thought they would be higher.

What do you think? Maybe we in the DC area have an unrealistic idea of salaries nationwide, but I was still surprised to read that graduates of the most prestigious university in the country can only muster a salary of $81,500 more than a decade after graduation.

"Average" would include non-working trust fund kids with no salary.

Yep—It also includes who are pursuing second incomes or passion careers. My sibling went to hyp and earns probably 80k in academia but the spouse is a big law partner.

She got her MRS degree -- having an Ivy degree gave her the pedigree to attract the Big Law partner (assuming they didn't even meet there)

Men don't care where a women went to school sweetie

This isn’t 1950 anymore. Lawyers don’t marry secretaries.

They don’t care how much money you make or what job you have, they don’t even care what you majored in. But your college pedigree does matter.

Oh please!!! A broke 20 or 30 something who looks like a 5/10 who can say but but I went to Harvard isn't very marketable at all. You need cash or beauty or amazing personality. Or else your resume is bottom of the pile sweetie.

“Sweetie, “ it matters because many of them meet their spouses IN college.

Sweetie, that's not what was stated upthread at all. The statement was the "pedigree" is what lands the spouse. Now, you are changing the story line to merely marrying a college BF or GF. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale UG and Harvard PG.

Here’s what you’re missing:

1. Wealthiest people I went to school with either don’t work or they work vanity jobs, like setting up a nonprofit, something in arts, media, etc. Little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

2. Others of the wealthiest people I know are in PE, real estate, partnerships, etc. Again, little or no “income”, which is for poor people.

3. Those in academics, research, medicine, and sometimes law are just short of crossing the threshold to actual money at 34.

4. Plenty of HYPS grads, even if they’re not from Uber wealthy backgrounds like those above, have parents who are doctors and lawyers or whatever and are perfectly comfortable, plus expect to inherent well into 7 figures. So they’re fine choosing “meaningful” work that pays less: they work in museums, or at foundations, or in journalism. They sail around the world on a solar powered boat and make a documentary about.

5. Ironically, it is the poorest of the group—the strivers, first generation college kids, etc.—who bolster those “income” numbers. They are busting their asses in finance, law, consulting because they don’t have the wealth to fall back on. They are generating it to move their kids into one of the above groups.

The US would be far more equitable if regular people could be made to understand that income is for suckers. Income tax fights and other income-based comparisons pit the poor against the MC against the UMC. It all missed the point about the tiny band at the top that doesn’t care about income.

This is it.

Poor and most MC need income from a job. Being indigent with no job is being a loser.

Income is not "for suckers" regardless. Income comes from jobs, investments, business ownership. Unemployed rich trust fund kids should have income. And if their funds or rental real estate or whatever isn't earning income, and they are just depleting principal to live, then they are the suckers.

Another poor talking. In the vast majority of the trusts, you can't touch the principal.

Without touching principal or being a "sucker" using income, pray tell you idiot where cash to spend comes from? What did you major in - basket weaving?

I'm an accountant + lawyer, but please, amuse me.

No you are not. The cash comes from the income distribution (current year), as the capital gains and principal are not available for distribution - see 26 CFR § 1.643(a)-3. No, applied math undergrad and Sloan Quant MFIN and 3rd generation in the trust. I also have a lot of appreciation for and grew up with arts; unfortunately I'm not creative enough for basket weaving. When (if?) you get to the point of being four generations removed from the trailer, you might start appreciating arts and humanities, but you still have some ground to cover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it that low? Here’s a link to the study:

https://www.topuniversities.com/where-to-study/north-america/united-states/penn-graduates-are-highest-earners-ivy-league

Some other takeaways:

1. UPenn graduates earn the most ($91,800/year at age 34), while Brown graduates earn the least ($66,900 at the same age).

2. The gender gap still exists, with males earning $110,200 and females $76,400 (I believe this is for UPenn, but the article is not very clear on this).

3. The article was from 2017 but says it was last updated in March 2021. So it’s possible those were the salaries in 2017, but even then, I would’ve thought they would be higher.

What do you think? Maybe we in the DC area have an unrealistic idea of salaries nationwide, but I was still surprised to read that graduates of the most prestigious university in the country can only muster a salary of $81,500 more than a decade after graduation.

"Average" would include non-working trust fund kids with no salary.

Yep—It also includes who are pursuing second incomes or passion careers. My sibling went to hyp and earns probably 80k in academia but the spouse is a big law partner.

She got her MRS degree -- having an Ivy degree gave her the pedigree to attract the Big Law partner (assuming they didn't even meet there)

Men don't care where a women went to school sweetie

This isn’t 1950 anymore. Lawyers don’t marry secretaries.

They don’t care how much money you make or what job you have, they don’t even care what you majored in. But your college pedigree does matter.

Oh please!!! A broke 20 or 30 something who looks like a 5/10 who can say but but I went to Harvard isn't very marketable at all. You need cash or beauty or amazing personality. Or else your resume is bottom of the pile sweetie.

“Sweetie, “ it matters because many of them meet their spouses IN college.

Definitely not many, studies estimate 15% which means 85% don’t marry their college sweetheart. Personality, looks, money…probably in that order matter. I don’t remember anyone that’s ever not dated someone because the school they went to was beneath them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia Tech graduates bring in an average salary of $91,500 by that age. Just looked it up online. The average starting salary for a new VT grad is around $74,000. With a lot lower student debt.

So the average VT new 22 year old makes 74k. But their 12-year older peer is at 91.5k.

17.5k for 12 years of experience….kind of sucks when you think about it like that. Not many people make it to even a Manager level I guess.

Crazy, they probably started at 50k 12 years ago and worked up to the 91.5k. But the new grads are at 74k so not much of an increase when you take inflation out.

And for all those commenting about how much their friends kids make, that is typical confirmation bias. They don’t brag about the ones working as a bartender, low paid non profit, or unemployed. You tend to mostly hear the good stories….even from friends and family.

[Anonymous]

8 pages about how a big college like Harvard is for lazy trust fund kids fs who are too wealthy to work for a salary, therefore vast majority become low wage earners?