How the Rich are Secretly Handling College

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. New money. Bless your heart.

New money has always ruled this country after forcefully grabbing the reins from Old Money--which gracefully gave it up. Time and time again. Money came to me even though I did not chase it, I was chasing something else. I quit and hit financial rock bottom while I was working the start-up. I am grateful for how things turned out.

I do not hate Old Money. You must be neither. The dirty secret is that Old Money and New Money secretly are fascinated by the other. Always has. You should see the eyes they make at each other at charity balls.

Can you at least address my initial post?

Oh honey. Many of us here have been to countless charity balls, grew up going. Old Money is much less fascinated by the nouveau riche than you would think. If you only knew how we talk at the country club when you arent around...

I guess that explains why they are screwing each other all the time and having affairs together.

You've lost the plot...

[Anonymous]

The crazy wealthy can do that. Paris Hilton obviously didn't need college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The crazy wealthy can do that. Paris Hilton obviously didn't need college.

She.Is.Not.Wealthy.

[Anonymous]

As an engineer, I have a hard time imagining STEM fields embracing a whole generation of self-taught individuals who decided to skip school because it wasn't worth $$ to them. I'll agree that I learned mostly theory in school and everything practical afterwards, but employers want to see that I could get into the top-ranked school, pass the courses required to get the degree, maintain a decent GPA, etc. So for all those budding entrepreneurs who can fall back on their parents' wealth, this may very well be an option, but for the future doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc this doesn't seem practical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The crazy wealthy can do that. Paris Hilton obviously didn't need college.

She.Is.Not.Wealthy.

Then what net worth is considered wealthy? She's conservatively got $100 million. To me, that's wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It worked for the family that started Five Guys.

I don't know them. Tell me about that.

They didn't start out wealthy but started the business instead of paying for college with the money they'd saved.
Just read this:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0806/restaurant-chefs-12-five-guys-jerry-murrell-all-in-the-family.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I get the gist of what you're saying. Not sure about the discussion you've anticipated however.

Entrepreneurship and vocational training may very well rise somewhat in step with tuition costs. I'm more interested in what the middle class will do as college gets out of reach for many.

The 1% can fund a small business for their children, perhaps in lieu of tuition. I won't be surprised to others putting whatever support they can offer behind a young person's effort to create something for themselves independent of a college degree.

I wonder about liberal arts. I have already noticed that my liberal arts college (Sarah Lawrence) has moved towards social entrepreneurship, providing a context for learning while encouraging innovation. Not necessarily the middle class there, but I feel like I've caught a glimpse of the future.

College can be more pared down, more efficient, and cheaper. The big issue I see is that financial aid is drying up (so I hear), so the middle (and lower) class are finding less aid to help their children attend. This is a shame, and will be the downfall of higher education. They will get the wealthy kids of middling intellect, and only the super smart children of middle and lower classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So...I am wealthy. Reside in West Coast. Very new money, and also highly educated. I made $$$ with a start-up. I have two children, under 10.

We discuss education with other people. I have noticed that people who are not highly educated, even if wealthy, will enroll their children in very expensive private schools. They generally obsess about "which school are your LO's attending?" The same for highly educated, but of modest means.

However.

The very rich, who are also very, very educated (I am talking Ivy/Ivy-equivalent undergrad, with same advanced multiple degrees) are now secretly espousing the view that education, whether public or private, is a has-been. Information is readily available, and they see it as not worth the money.

What they are discussing doing, is giving their children unconventional educations and experiences from early childhood, and pushing them to create--companies, non-profits, whatever, at an early age. College is a fallback, if other ventures fail. And certainly something to drop very quickly if other ventures flourish. Depending on their location, they may still go private, but some surprising don't. Most do, due to security concerns. But college as in institution is something that this group really despises.

By the time my children are college-age, the truly elite may have moved on to other circles for post-secondary education...and colleges will be another version of public schools. The wealthy/smart money are fleeing institutional education.

I know this because I am part of this circle. And I am posting this because this is an anonymous forum and I think it's something worthy of discussion, depending on what you are seeking for your children.

What do you think?

I reside on the West Coast too - in a highly affluent area. What you say here is complete nonsense. Its the uneducated and those with highly problematic children only who discuss alternative educations. The well educated follow that same well educated route, even if it means sending their children out of the country to do it.

[Anonymous]

I suppose this would hold true if you only value education for what income it will buy you. But there are many non-vocational benefits to a college education. Just because information is available everywhere, it doesn't mean any particular individual knows what to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The crazy wealthy can do that. Paris Hilton obviously didn't need college.

She.Is.Not.Wealthy.

Then what net worth is considered wealthy? She's conservatively got $100 million. To me, that's wealthy.

You don't know how much of that supposed $100 million is her "brand" value, which, heaven knows what she thinks that's worth. I've seen plenty of creative accounting in my day.

She is not $100 million wealthy. It is very common.

The ones you think are wealthy, are not, and vice versa. Your plumber neighbor truly is a millionaire.

Paris Hilton and her ilk are a lot less rich than they want you to believe.

[Anonymous]

You sound like a but, tbh. Kind of unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...I am wealthy. Reside in West Coast. Very new money, and also highly educated. I made $$$ with a start-up. I have two children, under 10.

We discuss education with other people. I have noticed that people who are not highly educated, even if wealthy, will enroll their children in very expensive private schools. They generally obsess about "which school are your LO's attending?" The same for highly educated, but of modest means.

However.

The very rich, who are also very, very educated (I am talking Ivy/Ivy-equivalent undergrad, with same advanced multiple degrees) are now secretly espousing the view that education, whether public or private, is a has-been. Information is readily available, and they see it as not worth the money.

What they are discussing doing, is giving their children unconventional educations and experiences from early childhood, and pushing them to create--companies, non-profits, whatever, at an early age. College is a fallback, if other ventures fail. And certainly something to drop very quickly if other ventures flourish. Depending on their location, they may still go private, but some surprising don't. Most do, due to security concerns. But college as in institution is something that this group really despises.

By the time my children are college-age, the truly elite may have moved on to other circles for post-secondary education...and colleges will be another version of public schools. The wealthy/smart money are fleeing institutional education.

I know this because I am part of this circle. And I am posting this because this is an anonymous forum and I think it's something worthy of discussion, depending on what you are seeking for your children.

What do you think?

I reside on the West Coast too - in a highly affluent area. What you say here is complete nonsense. Its the uneducated and those with highly problematic children only who discuss alternative educations. The well educated follow that same well educated route, even if it means sending their children out of the country to do it.

Well, it may be just pockets who think like me. Are you in tech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You assume going to college is all about passing along certain information. A liberal arts education emphasized skills like creativity and critical thinking, necessary in any field and walk of life.

No. That is what I am telling you. The titans of creativity and critical thinking by any measure are all questioning their college education. Some never completed it, and while in college, attended precious few classes. That's just Kool-Aid talk spouted by the Admissions Office. They were creative and thought critically by the time they stepped foot in college, and it's largely by the enrichment their received outside of school classes.

They used to squawk the same way when classical education was under attack. Whatever happened to that??? Gone, gone, gone...

What type of enrichment encouraged this early critical thinking, in your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The crazy wealthy can do that. Paris Hilton obviously didn't need college.

She.Is.Not.Wealthy.

Then what net worth is considered wealthy? She's conservatively got $100 million. To me, that's wealthy.

You don't know how much of that supposed $100 million is her "brand" value, which, heaven knows what she thinks that's worth. I've seen plenty of creative accounting in my day.

She is not $100 million wealthy. It is very common.

The ones you think are wealthy, are not, and vice versa. Your plumber neighbor truly is a millionaire.

Paris Hilton and her ilk are a lot less rich than they want you to believe.

Now you've really lost me. Since I grew up among plumbers. Out of this thread.

[Anonymous]

OP, it is cachet, not cache. Maybe you should be educating for more formal education, not less. Your writing skills are atrocious.