The insanity of 1%er East Coast parents and college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

Government lawyer too. I went to an Ivy law school but I don’t think even 20% of my colleagues did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

+1. No one will ever convince me that half of these posters are not actually robots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

I don't know about teachers, but my niece is a nurse and I wouldn't say she has a passion for the profession anymore than anyone has a passion for their job.

She actually makes a decent amount ($125k+), but she chose to go to nursing school through community college and down this path because it offers a pretty strong bang for the buck....so I don't know what career you think is available to her that is both easier AND financially more lucrative that she just pivots into without pursuing another degree (that she doesn't want to pursue).

I don't quite know why people throw around the word "passion" so much...she is interested in it, and it affords a good lifestyle.

I doubt her perspective is that unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

I don't know about teachers, but my niece is a nurse and I wouldn't say she has a passion for the profession anymore than anyone has a passion for their job.

She actually makes a decent amount ($125k+), but she chose to go to nursing school through community college and down this path because it offers a pretty strong bang for the buck....so I don't know what career you think is available to her that is both easier AND financially more lucrative that she just pivots into without pursuing another degree (that she doesn't want to pursue).

I don't quite know why people throw around the word "passion" so much...she is interested in it, and it affords a good lifestyle.

I doubt her perspective is that unusual.

OP here. one of my closest, smartest friends is a nurse. Not only does it allow her financial stability but she also does work she enjoys (now doing home nursing care) and also has the flexibility to take a few months off to rehab a fixer upper house in the super lovely small town she moved to (since nurses can work everywhere not just in DC and NYC).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

Government lawyer too. I went to an Ivy law school but I don’t think even 20% of my colleagues did.

not all Ivy League students are working in law. do you know how many people apply for each gov position?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

+1. No one will ever convince me that half of these posters are not actually robots.

please take a look at admissions rate at clinical psychology phd programs and report back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

+1. No one will ever convince me that half of these posters are not actually robots.

please take a look at admissions rate at clinical psychology phd programs and report back

PsyD programs average 40% acceptance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their efforts and activity which you deem insane is the very reason they are 1% and you are not OP. They focus on and do things that you do not.

And I find that completely morally bankrupt.

Elaborate please

because they are exclusively focused on themselves, fail to see how privileged their kids are, resort to griping about how other groups are taking away opportunities from their kids, are totally tone-deaf about other people who don’t have their level of privilege, AND exhibit greed and lack of generosity in other parts of their lives. And oh yeah, seem to be making their kids pretty miserable.

Again, exactly what privileges are you talking about?

The having enough money to attend Top public schools or Private K-12, having parents who get you tutoring the minute you have issues (be it for an AP course or SAT), access to any ECs you want---the money flows, the not needing to hold a job during the school year or during summers so you can train/take summer camps/etc, basically always having the best of everything in life (schools, tutors, etc) and no worries about money or much in life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

+1. No one will ever convince me that half of these posters are not actually robots.

please take a look at admissions rate at clinical psychology phd programs and report back

According to the American Psychological Association, it’s 13 percent. So 13 times the figure that was cited.

https://www.apa.org/education-career/grad/survey-data/2019-admissions-applications.pdf

[Anonymous]

You sound jealous and disgruntled OP.No one cares that your kid went to GMU and that mine went to Yale. You do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

+1. No one will ever convince me that half of these posters are not actually robots.

please take a look at admissions rate at clinical psychology phd programs and report back

According to the American Psychological Association, it’s 13 percent. So 13 times the figure that was cited.

https://www.apa.org/education-career/grad/survey-data/2019-admissions-applications.pdf

PsyD (clinical psychology) is higher than that as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You sound jealous and disgruntled OP.No one cares that your kid went to GMU and that mine went to Yale. You do you.

oh to the contrary - this family is melting down over kid going to GMU equivalent instead of Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

Teaching of all kinds (including coaching sports or teaching music)

Creating a business in your area of passion. For instance (examples of real people I know): starting a successful personal training business that helps people with physical disabilities after getting a degree in physiology; starting a business in landscape design and horticulture after getting a degrees in art history and business and working part time in landscaping; starting a business leading tours in the Southwest US that offer historical and cultural context after getting a history degree focused on the region -- this person's experience as a performer in their college's theater department helped lead them toward a career in public speaking and hospitality.

Many academics who become leaders in their fields obtain undergraduate degrees from less competitive colleges but where their actual area of study is a strength. For instance a good friend of mine has an undergraduate degree in psychology from one of the less competitive UCs. When she applied to PhD programs, she got in at Harvard but their graduate psychology department is not that well regarded -- wound up at a large midwestern state flagship with a world-respected psych department and is now a tenured professor at a different Ivy League school, has written several books on a niche area of psychological research, and is considered the leading expert in her area.

And so on. Now, if you are from an economically disadvantaged background, a degree from a top school makes sense because (1) you will get a lot of financial assistance at most of those schools, and (2) you are likely coming from an environment where you don't have much in the way of a network to help you navigate the working world and open up opportunities. But if your parents are 1%ers, those obstacles don't exist for you and you can easily just go to whatever college or university offers strong faculty and opportunities in your particular interest area. Even in fields where a degree from a "top school" is important, in most cases you are better off getting your graduate degree at the top program and as long as you go to like a T100 program that is reasonably strong in your field for undergrad, you'll be fine. This is even true in fields like law and medicine.

There are vanishingly few career paths where a degree from HYS or similar is necessary for success and this is even more true for people from economic privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

+1. No one will ever convince me that half of these posters are not actually robots.

Is this for real? This is the second or third thread that I've seen mention robots.

[Anonymous]

my point was not that HYP or whatever degree is necessary for success, that is just a straw man and not worth addressing. my point is that professional careers are very competitive and it does not really make your life easier if your child merely wants to be a doctor as opposed to go to an ivy. now you are giving examples of various people you know but there many more top school phds teaching at top schools (harvard psychology has been considered top notch for decades, btw) than there are for any particular obscure school or similarly sized set of such schools. there is a fair number of internationals among faculty as well, but that's a different story.

now business is another animal entirely but planning your future around idea that you are going to start your own business is a big gamble, especially if your child is academically capable.