If you went to top schools but your kids are attending a lower tier, are you worried about downward mobility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The measure of success after you begin working isn't where you went to college, it's your drive and ability. To that end, the opportunities a top student would get at Clemson with their academic drive could set them up well for that first job/internships. We have a guy in my office who has a masters from Yale and he's one of the biggest dolts I've met. Where you go to school doesn't matter when you can't do basic tasks.

Ok, doing a masters at Yale is NOT the same as attending undergrad.

I’ve worked with someone that attended the Harvard Kennedy School and she was an idiot. But I recognize this says nothing about Harvard undergrad.

Everyone knows that the master programs at these schools are pure cash cows.

There’s many idiots in the undergrad too. Smart people can also be idiots at things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The worry about downward mobility and college is NOT about the education but about the peer group.

This is the worry:
Kid that goes to Duke is going to be generally surrounded by financial-privileged, connected, worldly, and/or highly motivated students. Kid that goes to Radford is going to be generally surrounded by students that have a very narrow view of life, will stay in Virginia, are not worldly, will graduate with loans, have families that drag them down.

I am NOT saying that a Duke graduate can’t be a loafer, or a Radford graduate can’t be a successful CEO or doctor; I’m saying that the those of us with wealth but not generational wealth worry that our kid that goes to Radford will end of downward mobile because of peer group.

*shudder*

The Radford kid will be less of a blowhard.

There are also plenty of sheltered kids in top schools. I would describe few of them as “worldly.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The measure of success after you begin working isn't where you went to college, it's your drive and ability. To that end, the opportunities a top student would get at Clemson with their academic drive could set them up well for that first job/internships. We have a guy in my office who has a masters from Yale and he's one of the biggest dolts I've met. Where you go to school doesn't matter when you can't do basic tasks.

Ok, doing a masters at Yale is NOT the same as attending undergrad.

I’ve worked with someone that attended the Harvard Kennedy School and she was an idiot. But I recognize this says nothing about Harvard undergrad.

Everyone knows that the master programs at these schools are pure cash cows.

There’s many idiots in the undergrad too. Smart people can also be idiots at things.

+1. Don’t kid yourself into thinking there is some separate, superior tier of student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The worry about downward mobility and college is NOT about the education but about the peer group.

This is the worry:
Kid that goes to Duke is going to be generally surrounded by financial-privileged, connected, worldly, and/or highly motivated students. Kid that goes to Radford is going to be generally surrounded by students that have a very narrow view of life, will stay in Virginia, are not worldly, will graduate with loans, have families that drag them down.

I am NOT saying that a Duke graduate can’t be a loafer, or a Radford graduate can’t be a successful CEO or doctor; I’m saying that the those of us with wealth but not generational wealth worry that our kid that goes to Radford will end of downward mobile because of peer group.

After college, some of these peers will not remain friends, lose touch, move, etc. It’s easier now with social media, but college doesn’t guarantee lifelong friendships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The worry about downward mobility and college is NOT about the education but about the peer group.

This is the worry:
Kid that goes to Duke is going to be generally surrounded by financial-privileged, connected, worldly, and/or highly motivated students. Kid that goes to Radford is going to be generally surrounded by students that have a very narrow view of life, will stay in Virginia, are not worldly, will graduate with loans, have families that drag them down.

I am NOT saying that a Duke graduate can’t be a loafer, or a Radford graduate can’t be a successful CEO or doctor; I’m saying that the those of us with wealth but not generational wealth worry that our kid that goes to Radford will end of downward mobile because of peer group.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. There are plenty of high achieving kids from great families at Clemson. There are also kids who go to Duke whose families were not supportive of their academic journey. To boil it down to such generalities is silly and quite frankly you sound insane here. you can't curate who your kids are friends with as adults, may as well start figuring that out now.

You can't curate your kids' friends but you can increase their odds of having their peer group impact their mobility.

p.s. Let's stop using Clemson as the 'downward mobility' school example. Their retention rate is 94% and over half of the students are from outside of South Carolina. Retention rate at Radford is 73%, and 93% are from Virginia. Different odds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clemson is a great school. There are lots of opportunities there. Not everyone can get into T10 or even T25. For those that can well great for them, T10 especially is a huge leg up, but they have to all fight it out with each other to be above a 3.5. There are still good outcomes from Clemson and similarly ranked schools and the benefit is a less stacked group of undergrads to compete against

Even kids who can get into higher ranked schools choose Clemson. It's a great school and a lovely place to spend 4 years.

Same with UNC. My son is a junior and I thought that UNC would make a nice safety school, but I learned that it's almost as hard to get into as an Ivy!
Parents need to let go of what they thought 30 years ago and relearn the landscape.

That’s because you don’t live in NC. That Southern states where the PP says all the schools are terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live in the DC area, but where I am, it seems like it almost a flex for the wealthiest families to not really care where their kids go to school. They just want them to have fun, play their sport, whatever. They know their kids are taken care of, they don’t need to grind away with the climbers and strivers.

+1. I am in NYC, and same. Wealthiest families seem not to care, and I get it. One is pushing their talented son towards Broadway. Another enrolled theirs into a loosey-goosey school I wouldn't send my kids to if it were free, let alone be paying private tuition for. A third one is a grad of Trinity, but said too much pressure and is sending his kids to a small private school in Brooklyn.

This is the biggest piece of absolute nonsense. Go look at the instagrams for Fieldston, Horace Mann, Trinity, etc. where all the wealthiest families send their kids. It's absolutely chock full of top schools. Like by a factor of 10-to-1 kids are attending a top 50 national or top 20 SLAC vs. anything outside that group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clemson is a great school. There are lots of opportunities there. Not everyone can get into T10 or even T25. For those that can well great for them, T10 especially is a huge leg up, but they have to all fight it out with each other to be above a 3.5. There are still good outcomes from Clemson and similarly ranked schools and the benefit is a less stacked group of undergrads to compete against

Even kids who can get into higher ranked schools choose Clemson. It's a great school and a lovely place to spend 4 years.

Same with UNC. My son is a junior and I thought that UNC would make a nice safety school, but I learned that it's almost as hard to get into as an Ivy!
Parents need to let go of what they thought 30 years ago and relearn the landscape.

The greatest thing schools like UNC achieved is convincing OOS applicants it is somehow as selective as an Ivy...when like 45% of in-state applicants are accepted.

Literally, any flagship tomorrow could somehow become incredibly selective for OOS if they passed a law saying only 5% acceptance for OOS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

No this is stupidity unless you sent your kid to a religious based college then ties it matters otherwise stop with the rankings it’s garbage.

[Anonymous]

Please learn math OP you are not bright

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live in the DC area, but where I am, it seems like it almost a flex for the wealthiest families to not really care where their kids go to school. They just want them to have fun, play their sport, whatever. They know their kids are taken care of, they don’t need to grind away with the climbers and strivers.

+1. I am in NYC, and same. Wealthiest families seem not to care, and I get it. One is pushing their talented son towards Broadway. Another enrolled theirs into a loosey-goosey school I wouldn't send my kids to if it were free, let alone be paying private tuition for. A third one is a grad of Trinity, but said too much pressure and is sending his kids to a small private school in Brooklyn.

This is the biggest piece of absolute nonsense. Go look at the instagrams for Fieldston, Horace Mann, Trinity, etc. where all the wealthiest families send their kids. It's absolutely chock full of top schools. Like by a factor of 10-to-1 kids are attending a top 50 national or top 20 SLAC vs. anything outside that group.

Not true about the t50. A large portion matriculate to schools like Case Western, Miami, Tulane, Brandeis, RPI, Northeastern that are outside of the t50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is at an expensive boarding school, so obviously there is selection bias there. We also have a summer home in a wealthy east coast town. The vast majority who are very wealthy, care very much about what school their child attends. It’s not accurate to make these generalizations that very wealthy people don’t care. Unless, it is just an east coast thing.

The stories about very wealthy people paying outlandish sums to college counselors and donating huge amounts of money clearly shows that very wealthy people do care where their kids go to college.

Normal care where their kid goes to college because they want a good fit and a happy kid. The DCUM strivers care where their kids go to college so that they can put a seemingly impressive sticker on the back of their 3 series.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clemson is a great school. There are lots of opportunities there. Not everyone can get into T10 or even T25. For those that can well great for them, T10 especially is a huge leg up, but they have to all fight it out with each other to be above a 3.5. There are still good outcomes from Clemson and similarly ranked schools and the benefit is a less stacked group of undergrads to compete against

Even kids who can get into higher ranked schools choose Clemson. It's a great school and a lovely place to spend 4 years.

Same with UNC. My son is a junior and I thought that UNC would make a nice safety school, but I learned that it's almost as hard to get into as an Ivy!
Parents need to let go of what they thought 30 years ago and relearn the landscape.

The greatest thing schools like UNC achieved is convincing OOS applicants it is somehow as selective as an Ivy...when like 45% of in-state applicants are accepted.

Literally, any flagship tomorrow could somehow become incredibly selective for OOS if they passed a law saying only 5% acceptance for OOS.

Too true

[Anonymous]

No, not at all. They have so many opportunities that I didn't have. I don't even care where they go to school.
Older one is going to community college, and the way I invest, we are in upward mobility.
I'm so done with my own life or my children's lives depending on where they go to school, where they work, how much they make, or who they know.
We going for money. What's done is done. We already have the money, health, and happiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live in the DC area, but where I am, it seems like it almost a flex for the wealthiest families to not really care where their kids go to school. They just want them to have fun, play their sport, whatever. They know their kids are taken care of, they don’t need to grind away with the climbers and strivers.

+1. I am in NYC, and same. Wealthiest families seem not to care, and I get it. One is pushing their talented son towards Broadway. Another enrolled theirs into a loosey-goosey school I wouldn't send my kids to if it were free, let alone be paying private tuition for. A third one is a grad of Trinity, but said too much pressure and is sending his kids to a small private school in Brooklyn.

This is the biggest piece of absolute nonsense. Go look at the instagrams for Fieldston, Horace Mann, Trinity, etc. where all the wealthiest families send their kids. It's absolutely chock full of top schools. Like by a factor of 10-to-1 kids are attending a top 50 national or top 20 SLAC vs. anything outside that group.

Not true about the t50. A large portion matriculate to schools like Case Western, Miami, Tulane, Brandeis, RPI, Northeastern that are outside of the t50.

A large portion do not...some do. So, then it's 8-to-1 kids attending a top 50 national and 10-to-1 kids attending a top 60 national.