Perspective on the Madness

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perceived prestige and materialism in this country are through the roof. It's hard to teach your bright kid how not to get sucked into the rat race when their cohort is constantly competing at the behest of their parents. No one seems to be truly happy over a considerable span of time. They achieve something, be happy for a few moments and move on to the next challenge. Not sure what the end game is for everyone? More money? So, they can save for their children's education and groom the next generation for the rat race?
I have all the respect for folks that are trying to get out of poverty and overcome hardships, but can others not be happy with what they already have? It's not a complex concept, but it's just not in the DNA of this country. The transplants like me are infected too after living here for long. I can't imagine going back with a huge pay cut. I'm disappointed in myself.
I just want all the kids to experience unconditional happiness and be resilient when things don't go as planned.

Yeah to all this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my field, all top spots are filled by Ivy grads. It’s going to greatly depend on what field you are in. Most it doesn’t matter, a few select fields it really matters. Stem it doesn’t matter.

+1 we paid for the Ivy because my kid is in one of those fields. Rising college sophomore and the internship and Fall sophomore study abroad at prestigious

European university all are part of it and connections, etc.

Genuinely curious as to the fields where this is still a big thing. Comp lit? 16th Century Renaissance history?

Academia, investment banking, journalism (although you'd better have an Ivy degree AND a trust fund for the latter).

international relations/policy/public affairs/state dept (and add gtwon/gw)

Journalism? ! Ha ha not true at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a no name school, and have a great career. I remember having to teach a new kid on the team from Harvard, how to fill out a timesheet, numerous times. The put a 8 in a box and click enter, was so far beyond his capabilities. I have mentored numerous new hires on various topics, but never on timesheets.

Timesheet jobs are not the jobs that elite kids end up getting. I have never had to fill one out other than the summer i was a server in a restaurant. They are not hard. This Harvard kid was likely a dud compare to most colleagues. There is no way most ivy grads would have trouble.

Went to a state school for undergrad, Harvard grad. LOVE Harvard. But so many of my peers in grad school had no common sense. Exceptionally smart, but not competent in everyday routine tasks/skills.

100% agree with posters noting that top minds/performers come from all different schools. I hire based on analytical skills and savvy. I need people who think and apply themselves. Top 14 (or 30) does not have a monopoly on those skill sets.

One final thought to those dissing timesheets....as an executive in a consulting firm that does gov't consulting, I still fill out timesheets. It's a requirement for all federal contractors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in the midwest- at my DS's private HS there are kids with 1530-1600 SAT scores, grades, etc. (I know this because it's a small school, kids talk, parents talk, etc). If the parents don't have money, the kids go in-state, honors or out of state on schools that offer a lot of merit and financial aid.
A lot of talent doesn't go to the Ivy League or T20- it's too expensive for most families, especially if there are multiple bright siblings.

Ivy League/T20 are need blind.

The top schools may be need-blind, but there are also a lot of affluent UMC families who love their state flagship and aren’t hung up on brand name schools. I noticed that at my kid’s non-DMV private. Plenty of academic stars who opted for our excellent in-state publics.

Especially if they plan to stay in their home state / region and they “just” want a normal professional life and aren’t dreaming to be among the most elite at 17.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in the midwest- at my DS's private HS there are kids with 1530-1600 SAT scores, grades, etc. (I know this because it's a small school, kids talk, parents talk, etc). If the parents don't have money, the kids go in-state, honors or out of state on schools that offer a lot of merit and financial aid.
A lot of talent doesn't go to the Ivy League or T20- it's too expensive for most families, especially if there are multiple bright siblings.

Ivy League/T20 are need blind.

The top schools may be need-blind, but there are also a lot of affluent UMC families who love their state flagship and aren’t hung up on brand name schools. I noticed that at my kid’s non-DMV private. Plenty of academic stars who opted for our excellent in-state publics.

Especially if they plan to stay in their home state / region and they “just” want a normal professional life and aren’t dreaming to be among the most elite at 17.

I think the perception that Ivies will mean elite is flawed. My dh and I both went to Ivies. We are not "elite". We work with people who went to all sorts of colleges. The people we knew in college who are now elite were elite to start, with richer, more connected families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of us parents who attended selective colleges have been hired/mentored/supervised by colleagues who went to less selective undergrad and professional schools? That small group of selective schools doesn’t have a monopoly on talent and workplace readiness. Just some food for thought. Signed, WASP and T-14 law grad with hand raised high.

Sigh. Nobody thinks that selective schools have a monopoly on talent. But they have a disproportionate impact in the business, political, legal world than their size would predicate. If there were 100 bananas and 100 schools, 3 selective, 97 not, the 3 schools don't get all 100 bananas, they get 15. Just some real food for thought. Signed, 6th Grader with an understanding of bananas.

That’s the key. If I’m looking for talent out of college, I’ll find some really smart kids from less prestigious schools, but the odds of finding someone good from a top school is going to be better. The pre-filtering for grades and test scores do matter. For the majority of fields once you get a bit of experience it doesn’t matter that much, and the smart kids from less prestigious schools will rise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not in terms of jobs but in terms of money Musk (UPenn), Bezos (Princeton), Larry Ellison (dropout UIUC), zuck & gates (dropout Harvard), Page (UMich), Brin (UMaryland), Dell (dropout UTA), Ballmer (Harvard), Bloomberg (JHU) have all the bananas.

Steve Jobs (dropout Reed College)
Mark Cuban (University of Pittsburgh college, Indiana University MBA)

Jobs' kids attended Stanford and Harvard. Cuban has a kid at Vanderbilt and a crew recruit daughter going to UCLA.

What does it matter where the kids go? They are nepo babies now. Ofc they'll inherit privilege. It's the schools the parent went to (Mark Cuban) who made the wealth that matters.

Because those same parents when wealthy want their kids to attend top schools...even though it doesn't matter at all where their kids attend college.

Also, as someone else rightly pointed out...it's like a 10-to-1 ratio of elite school grads to non-elite if you are looking at the wealthiest people.

Now do "economic background" for those wealthiest people.

The economic background skews UMC but not wealthy. Zuckerberg’s dad is a dentist…Bezos mom had him in HS and stepdad was a network engineer.

There is no doubt that being UMC or above is a huge leg up, but other than the Walton children that inherited Wal Mart stock (and BTW didn’t really attend elite schools for the most part), the families played little to no role in the ultimate success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not in terms of jobs but in terms of money Musk (UPenn), Bezos (Princeton), Larry Ellison (dropout UIUC), zuck & gates (dropout Harvard), Page (UMich), Brin (UMaryland), Dell (dropout UTA), Ballmer (Harvard), Bloomberg (JHU) have all the bananas.

Steve Jobs (dropout Reed College)
Mark Cuban (University of Pittsburgh college, Indiana University MBA)

Jobs' kids attended Stanford and Harvard. Cuban has a kid at Vanderbilt and a crew recruit daughter going to UCLA.

What does it matter where the kids go? They are nepo babies now. Ofc they'll inherit privilege. It's the schools the parent went to (Mark Cuban) who made the wealth that matters.

Because those same parents when wealthy want their kids to attend top schools...even though it doesn't matter at all where their kids attend college.

Also, as someone else rightly pointed out...it's like a 10-to-1 ratio of elite school grads to non-elite if you are looking at the wealthiest people.

Now do "economic background" for those wealthiest people.

The economic background skews UMC but not wealthy. Zuckerberg’s dad is a dentist…Bezos mom had him in HS and stepdad was a network engineer.

There is no doubt that being UMC or above is a huge leg up, but other than the Walton children that inherited Wal Mart stock (and BTW didn’t really attend elite schools for the most part), the families played little to no role in the ultimate success.

Bezos was given 245k to start Amazon by his stepdad. Zuckerberg's dad gave him 100k. Might seem like nothing to you but this much capital with zero pressure to reimburse it is a huge head start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not in terms of jobs but in terms of money Musk (UPenn), Bezos (Princeton), Larry Ellison (dropout UIUC), zuck & gates (dropout Harvard), Page (UMich), Brin (UMaryland), Dell (dropout UTA), Ballmer (Harvard), Bloomberg (JHU) have all the bananas.

Steve Jobs (dropout Reed College)
Mark Cuban (University of Pittsburgh college, Indiana University MBA)

Jobs' kids attended Stanford and Harvard. Cuban has a kid at Vanderbilt and a crew recruit daughter going to UCLA.

What does it matter where the kids go? They are nepo babies now. Ofc they'll inherit privilege. It's the schools the parent went to (Mark Cuban) who made the wealth that matters.

Because those same parents when wealthy want their kids to attend top schools...even though it doesn't matter at all where their kids attend college.

Also, as someone else rightly pointed out...it's like a 10-to-1 ratio of elite school grads to non-elite if you are looking at the wealthiest people.

Now do "economic background" for those wealthiest people.

The economic background skews UMC but not wealthy. Zuckerberg’s dad is a dentist…Bezos mom had him in HS and stepdad was a network engineer.

There is no doubt that being UMC or above is a huge leg up, but other than the Walton children that inherited Wal Mart stock (and BTW didn’t really attend elite schools for the most part), the families played little to no role in the ultimate success.

Bezos was given 245k to start Amazon by his stepdad. Zuckerberg's dad gave him 100k. Might seem like nothing to you but this much capital with zero pressure to reimburse it is a huge head start.

Both co-invested in larger funding rounds which is quite different than giving the only $$$s.

Bezos worked at DE Shaw (hedge fund) and had far more personal wealth than his parents at the time.

Once more…it is an advantage to be UMC, but the families played little in the scheme of things for ultimate success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not in terms of jobs but in terms of money Musk (UPenn), Bezos (Princeton), Larry Ellison (dropout UIUC), zuck & gates (dropout Harvard), Page (UMich), Brin (UMaryland), Dell (dropout UTA), Ballmer (Harvard), Bloomberg (JHU) have all the bananas.

Steve Jobs (dropout Reed College)
Mark Cuban (University of Pittsburgh college, Indiana University MBA)

Jobs' kids attended Stanford and Harvard. Cuban has a kid at Vanderbilt and a crew recruit daughter going to UCLA.

What does it matter where the kids go? They are nepo babies now. Ofc they'll inherit privilege. It's the schools the parent went to (Mark Cuban) who made the wealth that matters.

Because those same parents when wealthy want their kids to attend top schools...even though it doesn't matter at all where their kids attend college.

Also, as someone else rightly pointed out...it's like a 10-to-1 ratio of elite school grads to non-elite if you are looking at the wealthiest people.

Now do "economic background" for those wealthiest people.

The economic background skews UMC but not wealthy. Zuckerberg’s dad is a dentist…Bezos mom had him in HS and stepdad was a network engineer.

There is no doubt that being UMC or above is a huge leg up, but other than the Walton children that inherited Wal Mart stock (and BTW didn’t really attend elite schools for the most part), the families played little to no role in the ultimate success.

Bezos was given 245k to start Amazon by his stepdad. Zuckerberg's dad gave him 100k. Might seem like nothing to you but this much capital with zero pressure to reimburse it is a huge head start.

Both co-invested in larger funding rounds which is quite different than giving the only $$$s.

Bezos worked at DE Shaw (hedge fund) and had far more personal wealth than his parents at the time.

Once more…it is an advantage to be UMC, but the families played little in the scheme of things for ultimate success.

But the schools they attended did? Bezos didn’t start Amazon until nearly a decade after he graduated. Zuckerberg barely spent time at Harvard though it’s where he found the idea he stole, so that counts for something, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of us parents who attended selective colleges have been hired/mentored/supervised by colleagues who went to less selective undergrad and professional schools? That small group of selective schools doesn’t have a monopoly on talent and workplace readiness. Just some food for thought. Signed, WASP and T-14 law grad with hand raised high.

The graduates of ivy+ are indeed overrepresented in many high- paying "white collar" fields, especially at the top of such fields. Sure there have been people from less selective schools who have been my mentor or supervisor before I was in charge, but they were the minority. Of course there are highly successful amazing people who went to less selective undergraduate programs, but it is less likely.
Some people pick ivy/T20 to increase chances to get into said fields, others pick those schools or steer their kids toward them for the peer group: learning among a majority of highly intelligent students in every class and every club, all with lofty goals aiming to do great things in many different careers is quite special place to be. Startups come out of these schools more often. The highest percentage of grads of these schools go on to get MD or phD or JD, as well as the highest percents who end up in top finance roles. The peers encourage each other by the mere fact of all chasing high goals.
When you have seen first hand one kid at a T50 public and the other at a T15 private the difference is astonishing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of us parents who attended selective colleges have been hired/mentored/supervised by colleagues who went to less selective undergrad and professional schools? That small group of selective schools doesn’t have a monopoly on talent and workplace readiness. Just some food for thought. Signed, WASP and T-14 law grad with hand raised high.

The graduates of ivy+ are indeed overrepresented in many high- paying "white collar" fields, especially at the top of such fields. Sure there have been people from less selective schools who have been my mentor or supervisor before I was in charge, but they were the minority. Of course there are highly successful amazing people who went to less selective undergraduate programs, but it is less likely.
Some people pick ivy/T20 to increase chances to get into said fields, others pick those schools or steer their kids toward them for the peer group: learning among a majority of highly intelligent students in every class and every club, all with lofty goals aiming to do great things in many different careers is quite special place to be. Startups come out of these schools more often. The highest percentage of grads of these schools go on to get MD or phD or JD, as well as the highest percents who end up in top finance roles. The peers encourage each other by the mere fact of all chasing high goals.
When you have seen first hand one kid at a T50 public and the other at a T15 private the difference is astonishing.

I agree as well.
it's an entirely different ecosystem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of us parents who attended selective colleges have been hired/mentored/supervised by colleagues who went to less selective undergrad and professional schools? That small group of selective schools doesn’t have a monopoly on talent and workplace readiness. Just some food for thought. Signed, WASP and T-14 law grad with hand raised high.

The graduates of ivy+ are indeed overrepresented in many high- paying "white collar" fields, especially at the top of such fields. Sure there have been people from less selective schools who have been my mentor or supervisor before I was in charge, but they were the minority. Of course there are highly successful amazing people who went to less selective undergraduate programs, but it is less likely.
Some people pick ivy/T20 to increase chances to get into said fields, others pick those schools or steer their kids toward them for the peer group: learning among a majority of highly intelligent students in every class and every club, all with lofty goals aiming to do great things in many different careers is quite special place to be. Startups come out of these schools more often. The highest percentage of grads of these schools go on to get MD or phD or JD, as well as the highest percents who end up in top finance roles. The peers encourage each other by the mere fact of all chasing high goals.
When you have seen first hand one kid at a T50 public and the other at a T15 private the difference is astonishing.

And some people don’t confuse correlation with causation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not in terms of jobs but in terms of money Musk (UPenn), Bezos (Princeton), Larry Ellison (dropout UIUC), zuck & gates (dropout Harvard), Page (UMich), Brin (UMaryland), Dell (dropout UTA), Ballmer (Harvard), Bloomberg (JHU) have all the bananas.

Steve Jobs (dropout Reed College)
Mark Cuban (University of Pittsburgh college, Indiana University MBA)

Jobs' kids attended Stanford and Harvard. Cuban has a kid at Vanderbilt and a crew recruit daughter going to UCLA.

What does it matter where the kids go? They are nepo babies now. Ofc they'll inherit privilege. It's the schools the parent went to (Mark Cuban) who made the wealth that matters.

Because those same parents when wealthy want their kids to attend top schools...even though it doesn't matter at all where their kids attend college.

Also, as someone else rightly pointed out...it's like a 10-to-1 ratio of elite school grads to non-elite if you are looking at the wealthiest people.

Now do "economic background" for those wealthiest people.

The economic background skews UMC but not wealthy. Zuckerberg’s dad is a dentist…Bezos mom had him in HS and stepdad was a network engineer.

There is no doubt that being UMC or above is a huge leg up, but other than the Walton children that inherited Wal Mart stock (and BTW didn’t really attend elite schools for the most part), the families played little to no role in the ultimate success.

Bezos was given 245k to start Amazon by his stepdad. Zuckerberg's dad gave him 100k. Might seem like nothing to you but this much capital with zero pressure to reimburse it is a huge head start.

Both co-invested in larger funding rounds which is quite different than giving the only $$$s.

Bezos worked at DE Shaw (hedge fund) and had far more personal wealth than his parents at the time.

Once more…it is an advantage to be UMC, but the families played little in the scheme of things for ultimate success.

But the schools they attended did? Bezos didn’t start Amazon until nearly a decade after he graduated. Zuckerberg barely spent time at Harvard though it’s where he found the idea he stole, so that counts for something, I guess.

It's hard to not give credit to Harvard for assembling the group of people that became the FB founders. Literally, this is why elite school alums have such outlier massive outcomes.

I doubt FB would ever have happened if Zuckerberg had attended SUNY Binghamton (he is from Westchester...hence referencing a SUNY).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not in terms of jobs but in terms of money Musk (UPenn), Bezos (Princeton), Larry Ellison (dropout UIUC), zuck & gates (dropout Harvard), Page (UMich), Brin (UMaryland), Dell (dropout UTA), Ballmer (Harvard), Bloomberg (JHU) have all the bananas.

Steve Jobs (dropout Reed College)
Mark Cuban (University of Pittsburgh college, Indiana University MBA)

Jobs' kids attended Stanford and Harvard. Cuban has a kid at Vanderbilt and a crew recruit daughter going to UCLA.

What does it matter where the kids go? They are nepo babies now. Ofc they'll inherit privilege. It's the schools the parent went to (Mark Cuban) who made the wealth that matters.

Because those same parents when wealthy want their kids to attend top schools...even though it doesn't matter at all where their kids attend college.

Also, as someone else rightly pointed out...it's like a 10-to-1 ratio of elite school grads to non-elite if you are looking at the wealthiest people.

Now do "economic background" for those wealthiest people.

The economic background skews UMC but not wealthy. Zuckerberg’s dad is a dentist…Bezos mom had him in HS and stepdad was a network engineer.

There is no doubt that being UMC or above is a huge leg up, but other than the Walton children that inherited Wal Mart stock (and BTW didn’t really attend elite schools for the most part), the families played little to no role in the ultimate success.

Bezos was given 245k to start Amazon by his stepdad. Zuckerberg's dad gave him 100k. Might seem like nothing to you but this much capital with zero pressure to reimburse it is a huge head start.

Both co-invested in larger funding rounds which is quite different than giving the only $$$s.

Bezos worked at DE Shaw (hedge fund) and had far more personal wealth than his parents at the time.

Once more…it is an advantage to be UMC, but the families played little in the scheme of things for ultimate success.

But the schools they attended did? Bezos didn’t start Amazon until nearly a decade after he graduated. Zuckerberg barely spent time at Harvard though it’s where he found the idea he stole, so that counts for something, I guess.

It's hard to not give credit to Harvard for assembling the group of people that became the FB founders. Literally, this is why elite school alums have such outlier massive outcomes.

I doubt FB would ever have happened if Zuckerberg had attended SUNY Binghamton (he is from Westchester...hence referencing a SUNY).

Large, successful companies were founded at all sorts of schools. Dell at the University of Texas, Reddit at UVA. But most college kids are not going to go on and create these sorts of companies. That's true for any school.