Why is this board relentlessly focused on ROI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With all due respect, it sounds like you and your spouse went to college and grad schools on full rides. There was no "investment." What if you had taken out loans for all of that? Would you want a way to pay them back?

+ 1
And also they were very low income to begin with. People who are MC and UMC do not want to become poorer because they paid $$$ for college and are only making $ after their education.

OP here. I realize with our HHI that we'd be considered UMC, but I'm fine with my kids having a lower quality of life than the well-off NoVA life that surrounds them (and quite frankly, at some point, disturbs me). If my kids, for example, can't afford a SFH in the DMV and have to move to, say, Richmond and "only" live in a townhouse, I'm fine with that (and I'm guessing my kids would be as well given their frugal habits and lack of materialism). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm fine with my kids going into a lower-paying field that they love instead of going into a career that they only mildly tolerate or somewhat dislike in order to keep up with the Joneses in this area.

But maybe that's just a reflection of me seeing a lot of miserable high earners all day as a psychologist. A lot of these people were pushed into high-paying career fields by their parents and now have significant mental health issues as a result.

I think you’re wildly underestimating how hard it is to be downwardly mobile, and thus not able to give your children the quality of life you had growing up. I’ve known people who experienced it and it’s very painful for them as parents.

That's a good point, and one I wouldn't be all that privy to given that I grew up poor. But like... my kids (who are currently in high school) are just as happy taking camping vacations to the Blue Ridge Mountains as they are with much fancier vacations. They've also never asked me for expensive/trendy clothes/items (even my daughter who goes to a high school with lots of wealthy girls whose parents buy them expensive items). Their favorite activities are all relatively low-cost ones in the outdoors. We don't send them to private school and plan on limiting their college options to in-state VA schools (or any private school that gives enough merit aid to equal that cost).

I don't know. Maybe they've adopted our relatively laid-back, frugal mindset. Maybe they're just a bit more resistant to peer pressure. I do find a lot of the materialism of the DMV to be off-putting.

You’re not responding to what I am saying to you. I am saying it’s painful not to be able to give your kids what your parents could give you. You’re responding that your kids like to go camping. That’s completely, entirely missing the point.

Like you, I’m upwardly mobile. I can give my kids what I didn’t have. And please understand, by that I mean, being able to buy them out-of-season berries and math tutoring, not trips to Europe. In contrast I have downwardly mobile friends whose parents could afford tutors to help them succeed, au pairs/Nannie’s instead of bottom barrel daycares, best school districts instead of struggling ones. THAT is what I mean by it being painful to be downwardly mobile. Feeling like you aren’t doing right by your kids through the lens of your own upbringing.

OP here. I personally believe that you if move out of HCOL areas like the DMV, being able to afford stuff like math tutoring or decent school districts (note -- I'm saying decent school pyramids and not best), and acceptable daycares (not nannies -- those are for rich people) doesn't take a high paying STEM/finance/Big Law job.

And you’re still not listening to what I’m saying. It sounds like you’re sending your kids to a top-notch pyramid (since you said it’s full of rich kids). NOT BEING ABLE TO GIVE YOUR KIDS WHAT YOUR PARENTS GAVE YOU SUCKS. Whatever that is. Whether it’s a middle of the road school or Sidwell; reliable internet connection or fancy tutors. Not being able to raise your kids as well as you were raised sucks. I have friends who are fellow millennials in that situation, who grew up UMC/MC and now are MC/LMC themselves, and feel they’re letting their kids down because they are anchored by the standard of their own childhoods.

New PP weighing in on this subtopic of the thread.....I'd argue that the bigger issue here is value system. If these UMC/MC friends really feel like failures because they lack $$ to live as lavishly as they did when they were kids, the real failure is that their own parents failed to teach them the right values and didn't teach them the appropriate tools to get through life as a happy human being. Bad things can happen to any of us at any time that are out of our control that may impact the ability to live an expensive lifestyle. Raising a kid who then thinks it's important to live as lavishly as they did growing up (or as other do now) is a parent fail. This ALL gets back to what the OP was trying to say at the start. Too many people are focusing purely on $$. Of COURSE $$ is important and getting a job to support yourself (and a family if you want one) is #1 - but you are not limited to STEM, Medicine, CS, Law to have a rewarding life or career. And you do NOT have to be able to afford to live in DMV, NYC, San Fran, LA markets - there are successful (and rich!) people living in far more affordable markets.

+1

But I'd argue that there are some things that are non-negotiable; being able to afford an in-state college for your own kids, for one. Then the cost of daycare and housing in a decent (not great) school district are two tangibles that everyone on this board probably wants their own kids to be able to afford. But things like being able to send your kids to Sidwell (as the PP mentioned) or a nanny are just ridiculous to me.

I"ll PP you replied to - I agree with your non-negotiables...but for some people that may mean not living in DMV. I have a friend who is what this person would call "downwardly mobile" who decided to move from an expensive CA market to a smaller town in the south to be able to live a more comfortable life.

[Anonymous]

Because DCUM is full of insecure new money.

[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:With all due respect, it sounds like you and your spouse went to college and grad schools on full rides. There was no "investment." What if you had taken out loans for all of that? Would you want a way to pay them back?

+ 1
And also they were very low income to begin with. People who are MC and UMC do not want to become poorer because they paid $$$ for college and are only making $ after their education.

OP here. I realize with our HHI that we'd be considered UMC, but I'm fine with my kids having a lower quality of life than the well-off NoVA life that surrounds them (and quite frankly, at some point, disturbs me). If my kids, for example, can't afford a SFH in the DMV and have to move to, say, Richmond and "only" live in a townhouse, I'm fine with that (and I'm guessing my kids would be as well given their frugal habits and lack of materialism). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm fine with my kids going into a lower-paying field that they love instead of going into a career that they only mildly tolerate or somewhat dislike in order to keep up with the Joneses in this area.

But maybe that's just a reflection of me seeing a lot of miserable high earners all day as a psychologist. A lot of these people were pushed into high-paying career fields by their parents and now have significant mental health issues as a result.

I think you’re wildly underestimating how hard it is to be downwardly mobile, and thus not able to give your children the quality of life you had growing up. I’ve known people who experienced it and it’s very painful for them as parents.

That's a good point, and one I wouldn't be all that privy to given that I grew up poor. But like... my kids (who are currently in high school) are just as happy taking camping vacations to the Blue Ridge Mountains as they are with much fancier vacations. They've also never asked me for expensive/trendy clothes/items (even my daughter who goes to a high school with lots of wealthy girls whose parents buy them expensive items). Their favorite activities are all relatively low-cost ones in the outdoors. We don't send them to private school and plan on limiting their college options to in-state VA schools (or any private school that gives enough merit aid to equal that cost).

I don't know. Maybe they've adopted our relatively laid-back, frugal mindset. Maybe they're just a bit more resistant to peer pressure. I do find a lot of the materialism of the DMV to be off-putting.

You’re not responding to what I am saying to you. I am saying it’s painful not to be able to give your kids what your parents could give you. You’re responding that your kids like to go camping. That’s completely, entirely missing the point.

Like you, I’m upwardly mobile. I can give my kids what I didn’t have. And please understand, by that I mean, being able to buy them out-of-season berries and math tutoring, not trips to Europe. In contrast I have downwardly mobile friends whose parents could afford tutors to help them succeed, au pairs/Nannie’s instead of bottom barrel daycares, best school districts instead of struggling ones. THAT is what I mean by it being painful to be downwardly mobile. Feeling like you aren’t doing right by your kids through the lens of your own upbringing.

OP here. I personally believe that you if move out of HCOL areas like the DMV, being able to afford stuff like math tutoring or decent school districts (note -- I'm saying decent school pyramids and not best), and acceptable daycares (not nannies -- those are for rich people) doesn't take a high paying STEM/finance/Big Law job.

And you’re still not listening to what I’m saying. It sounds like you’re sending your kids to a top-notch pyramid (since you said it’s full of rich kids). NOT BEING ABLE TO GIVE YOUR KIDS WHAT YOUR PARENTS GAVE YOU SUCKS. Whatever that is. Whether it’s a middle of the road school or Sidwell; reliable internet connection or fancy tutors. Not being able to raise your kids as well as you were raised sucks. I have friends who are fellow millennials in that situation, who grew up UMC/MC and now are MC/LMC themselves, and feel they’re letting their kids down because they are anchored by the standard of their own childhoods.

New PP weighing in on this subtopic of the thread.....I'd argue that the bigger issue here is value system. If these UMC/MC friends really feel like failures because they lack $$ to live as lavishly as they did when they were kids, the real failure is that their own parents failed to teach them the right values and didn't teach them the appropriate tools to get through life as a happy human being. Bad things can happen to any of us at any time that are out of our control that may impact the ability to live an expensive lifestyle. Raising a kid who then thinks it's important to live as lavishly as they did growing up (or as other do now) is a parent fail. This ALL gets back to what the OP was trying to say at the start. Too many people are focusing purely on $$. Of COURSE $$ is important and getting a job to support yourself (and a family if you want one) is #1 - but you are not limited to STEM, Medicine, CS, Law to have a rewarding life or career. And you do NOT have to be able to afford to live in DMV, NYC, San Fran, LA markets - there are successful (and rich!) people living in far more affordable markets.

You're forgetting that this is DCUM -- a forum full of new money striver transplants obsessed with securing generational wealth for their kids at all costs. The anxiety people have around here into making sure that their kids end up in the top 1% of society sickens me.

DP We're not living lavishly. We take the car instead of a plane for vacations, don't buy designer anything, etc. We value financial security and being able to buy/replace when necessary without worry. And that takes a decent amount of $$$

Yes, but a decent amount doesn't mean the tech/finance/Big Law/medicine/Ivy path that so many people here are obsessed with.

But it makes you $$ so you don't have to worry. What's wrong with having extra to pass down?

There's nothing inherently wrong with going into those high-paying career fields, but when you're forcing your kids into them (see: the number of people on this forum who refuse to pay for a liberal arts degree), you're setting up your kids to be miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s gross and a big part of what’s wrong with higher education. Entitled parents raising entitled kids with zero intellectual curiosity, just money and status obsessed.

Or maybe they just want a decent life for themselves? Judgmental much...

This. I want my kids to have the UC life. UMC isn't what it used to be.

Then you tell your kids to work hard, take school seriously and enjoy all the new information and ideas they’ll be exposed to while they get their degree. Encourage them to take some classes just because they’re interesting or unusual, and teach them to respect their professors. But too many kids show up thinking they’re buying their degree and their $80,000 gets them good grades and a career.

[Anonymous]

Do you want to focus on football or frat party??
Or how the weather is nice?

[Anonymous]

"But if you have the money to save up $300k (or $160k for being full pay at a state school) for college for each kid, isn't that a testament to your own economic privilege?"

What if you don't have that amount of money saved? Contrary to your assumption, not everyone on DCUM does. But, unlike you, we don't get any financial aid, much less a full ride to an Ivy. Is it then okay in your mind to be concerned about ROI?

For someone with a (free) PhD in Psychology, you seem to lack understanding and insight into reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why because I grew up poor. No food.

And while college is expensive it is worth every dime in my opinion. Not saying anyone needs to go to Weslyn at $70,000 or USC etc.

Perfectly fine to go to community college then state four year and then grad school or law school or med school or MS in textiles I don't care.

No substitute for opening your mind. Conservatives or MAGA do not comment on this part you are too stupid to know better.

Would I allow my kids to major in philosophy or art history nope not on my dime? But they could on theirs and I would not be mad. Because then it is a passion and they would work to make a career.

At this point we could afford any college easily we are very lucky. Education got me out of poverty. And no one can take it away.

I don't understand this. The philosophy majors I know (and I was one) have done very well, even without going to grad school. The major is rigorous and really teaches you how to think through a problem -- skills that are valued at any workplace.

+10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why because I grew up poor. No food.

And while college is expensive it is worth every dime in my opinion. Not saying anyone needs to go to Weslyn at $70,000 or USC etc.

Perfectly fine to go to community college then state four year and then grad school or law school or med school or MS in textiles I don't care.

No substitute for opening your mind. Conservatives or MAGA do not comment on this part you are too stupid to know better.

Would I allow my kids to major in philosophy or art history nope not on my dime? But they could on theirs and I would not be mad. Because then it is a passion and they would work to make a career.

At this point we could afford any college easily we are very lucky. Education got me out of poverty. And no one can take it away.

I don't understand this. The philosophy majors I know (and I was one) have done very well, even without going to grad school. The major is rigorous and really teaches you how to think through a problem -- skills that are valued at any workplace.

+10.

My philosophy major DH is doing very well. Just don't go into teaching it.

[Anonymous]

Can you imagine being given a free ride to a well known college and coming out of school w/o that debt? This is an unusual twist of privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s gross and a big part of what’s wrong with higher education. Entitled parents raising entitled kids with zero intellectual curiosity, just money and status obsessed.

Or maybe they just want a decent life for themselves? Judgmental much...

This. I want my kids to have the UC life. UMC isn't what it used to be.

Then you tell your kids to work hard, take school seriously and enjoy all the new information and ideas they’ll be exposed to while they get their degree. Encourage them to take some classes just because they’re interesting or unusual, and teach them to respect their professors. But too many kids show up thinking they’re buying their degree and their $80,000 gets them good grades and a career.

Inheritance is the only sure way to be UC. There are plenty of people who study hard and work hard and the vast majority will never be UC. If that’s the most important thing for your kid, tell them to find a nice boy with a trust fund and forget to take their pill for a few cycles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with STEM, with CS, with Wall Street, with Investment Banking “target schools,” with MBB consulting, with Silicon Valley, with Ivies, with T10s… I don’t get it. I was a first-gen, low-income kid at an Ivy (went for free) and double majored in psychology and philosophy. I never once did a corporate internship in college and worked at an NPO for a few years after graduating. I got a PhD in Psychology afterwards and make around ~$180k/year in private practice.

I met my husband in college (also a poor kid on a full ride), and he double majored in visual arts and English. He went to law school on a large merit scholarship and is now a GS14. Sure, our combined HHI isn’t nearly as high as many people on this board, and a lot of our friends from college who went into more lucrative fields outearn us significantly. But it’s enough to give us a nice life in NoVa and fully fund our two kids’ 529s, retirement, our mortgage, and send some money back to our parents.

So what gives? Why are so many people on this forum obsessed with ROI and making sure that their kid makes as much money as possible?

You apparently learned nothing. People follow their minds/hearts on what they want to do. The maximum options is the best way to proceed. And why would someone not want to make a lot of money? Money is useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with STEM, with CS, with Wall Street, with Investment Banking “target schools,” with MBB consulting, with Silicon Valley, with Ivies, with T10s… I don’t get it. I was a first-gen, low-income kid at an Ivy (went for free) and double majored in psychology and philosophy. I never once did a corporate internship in college and worked at an NPO for a few years after graduating. I got a PhD in Psychology afterwards and make around ~$180k/year in private practice.

I met my husband in college (also a poor kid on a full ride), and he double majored in visual arts and English. He went to law school on a large merit scholarship and is now a GS14. Sure, our combined HHI isn’t nearly as high as many people on this board, and a lot of our friends from college who went into more lucrative fields outearn us significantly. But it’s enough to give us a nice life in NoVa and fully fund our two kids’ 529s, retirement, our mortgage, and send some money back to our parents.

So what gives? Why are so many people on this forum obsessed with ROI and making sure that their kid makes as much money as possible?

You apparently learned nothing. People follow their minds/hearts on what they want to do. The maximum options is the best way to proceed. And why would someone not want to make a lot of money? Money is useful.

What is very odd about the folks on this board, is that they seem to have the "right" way to become wealthy and the "wrong" way to become wealthy.

The right way is to be a drone at an IBank, P/E, Law Firm, Silicon Valley, etc. where it is a "low-risk" proposition in that you are paid well all along the pathway. Of course, many of the kids going this route don't do it because they have any interest or passion for the work (how could you...the work is mindless), but they know it is a path to $$$s and it really is just outlasting the competition. The churn rate is massive during the early years of these professions, so you just have to eat s**t and bear it.

Now, mind you in law, IBank and P/E you get to a level and there are execution partners/MDs who have to do the grunt work of getting the deal done, and there are relationship MDs/Partners who are way more valued because they actually bring in the clients. You will of course be pissed to know that the relationship guys will be the D1 athletes that spent time building the connections and having fun...but that's life. Mind you, the relationship folks probably get paid a factor of 5x the execution folks. Execution people are a dime-a-dozen, but if you can "sell" business you are invaluable.

Even posts regarding Tech sound much more like trying to achieve Middle Management at Initech vs. god-forbid your kid deciding to ditch the corporate life and create a start-up. Does not sound like many future Zuckerberg's are in this group.

I finish with an interesting little story. Girl I knew, yes from an Ivy, was an English major. She was obsessed with Hollywood and screenwriting and quite motivated. Headed out to LA after graduation and started at the bottom with no connections...other than alumni who (no surprise) held some interesting positions and were willing to lend a hand. Fast forward, and she ended up being a Show Runner for a top TV show for many years and getting a piece of the show (and it happened to be one of the shows with multiple offshoots). I would imagine her net worth is in excess of $100MM. I assume that qualifies as UC in everyone's world?

Of course she got wealthy the "wrong" way because there was no safety net and she made peanuts for many years as she clawed her way. If your kid is passionate and has drive and work ethic, then that is worth 1000x just about anything else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with STEM, with CS, with Wall Street, with Investment Banking “target schools,” with MBB consulting, with Silicon Valley, with Ivies, with T10s… I don’t get it. I was a first-gen, low-income kid at an Ivy (went for free) and double majored in psychology and philosophy. I never once did a corporate internship in college and worked at an NPO for a few years after graduating. I got a PhD in Psychology afterwards and make around ~$180k/year in private practice.

I met my husband in college (also a poor kid on a full ride), and he double majored in visual arts and English. He went to law school on a large merit scholarship and is now a GS14. Sure, our combined HHI isn’t nearly as high as many people on this board, and a lot of our friends from college who went into more lucrative fields outearn us significantly. But it’s enough to give us a nice life in NoVa and fully fund our two kids’ 529s, retirement, our mortgage, and send some money back to our parents.

So what gives? Why are so many people on this forum obsessed with ROI and making sure that their kid makes as much money as possible?

You apparently learned nothing. People follow their minds/hearts on what they want to do. The maximum options is the best way to proceed. And why would someone not want to make a lot of money? Money is useful.

What is very odd about the folks on this board, is that they seem to have the "right" way to become wealthy and the "wrong" way to become wealthy.

The right way is to be a drone at an IBank, P/E, Law Firm, Silicon Valley, etc. where it is a "low-risk" proposition in that you are paid well all along the pathway. Of course, many of the kids going this route don't do it because they have any interest or passion for the work (how could you...the work is mindless), but they know it is a path to $$$s and it really is just outlasting the competition. The churn rate is massive during the early years of these professions, so you just have to eat s**t and bear it.

Now, mind you in law, IBank and P/E you get to a level and there are execution partners/MDs who have to do the grunt work of getting the deal done, and there are relationship MDs/Partners who are way more valued because they actually bring in the clients. You will of course be pissed to know that the relationship guys will be the D1 athletes that spent time building the connections and having fun...but that's life. Mind you, the relationship folks probably get paid a factor of 5x the execution folks. Execution people are a dime-a-dozen, but if you can "sell" business you are invaluable.

Even posts regarding Tech sound much more like trying to achieve Middle Management at Initech vs. god-forbid your kid deciding to ditch the corporate life and create a start-up. Does not sound like many future Zuckerberg's are in this group.

I finish with an interesting little story. Girl I knew, yes from an Ivy, was an English major. She was obsessed with Hollywood and screenwriting and quite motivated. Headed out to LA after graduation and started at the bottom with no connections...other than alumni who (no surprise) held some interesting positions and were willing to lend a hand. Fast forward, and she ended up being a Show Runner for a top TV show for many years and getting a piece of the show (and it happened to be one of the shows with multiple offshoots). I would imagine her net worth is in excess of $100MM. I assume that qualifies as UC in everyone's world?

Of course she got wealthy the "wrong" way because there was no safety net and she made peanuts for many years as she clawed her way. If your kid is passionate and has drive and work ethic, then that is worth 1000x just about anything else

For every miracle story like hee, there are a million other underpaid wannabe screenwriters. And I bet a lot of those underpaid, underemployed screenwriters have “passion and drive and work ethic.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The obsession with STEM, with CS, with Wall Street, with Investment Banking “target schools,” with MBB consulting, with Silicon Valley, with Ivies, with T10s… I don’t get it. I was a first-gen, low-income kid at an Ivy (went for free) and double majored in psychology and philosophy. I never once did a corporate internship in college and worked at an NPO for a few years after graduating. I got a PhD in Psychology afterwards and make around ~$180k/year in private practice.

I met my husband in college (also a poor kid on a full ride), and he double majored in visual arts and English. He went to law school on a large merit scholarship and is now a GS14. Sure, our combined HHI isn’t nearly as high as many people on this board, and a lot of our friends from college who went into more lucrative fields outearn us significantly. But it’s enough to give us a nice life in NoVa and fully fund our two kids’ 529s, retirement, our mortgage, and send some money back to our parents.

So what gives? Why are so many people on this forum obsessed with ROI and making sure that their kid makes as much money as possible?

You apparently learned nothing. People follow their minds/hearts on what they want to do. The maximum options is the best way to proceed. And why would someone not want to make a lot of money? Money is useful.

What is very odd about the folks on this board, is that they seem to have the "right" way to become wealthy and the "wrong" way to become wealthy.

The right way is to be a drone at an IBank, P/E, Law Firm, Silicon Valley, etc. where it is a "low-risk" proposition in that you are paid well all along the pathway. Of course, many of the kids going this route don't do it because they have any interest or passion for the work (how could you...the work is mindless), but they know it is a path to $$$s and it really is just outlasting the competition. The churn rate is massive during the early years of these professions, so you just have to eat s**t and bear it.

Now, mind you in law, IBank and P/E you get to a level and there are execution partners/MDs who have to do the grunt work of getting the deal done, and there are relationship MDs/Partners who are way more valued because they actually bring in the clients. You will of course be pissed to know that the relationship guys will be the D1 athletes that spent time building the connections and having fun...but that's life. Mind you, the relationship folks probably get paid a factor of 5x the execution folks. Execution people are a dime-a-dozen, but if you can "sell" business you are invaluable.

Even posts regarding Tech sound much more like trying to achieve Middle Management at Initech vs. god-forbid your kid deciding to ditch the corporate life and create a start-up. Does not sound like many future Zuckerberg's are in this group.

I finish with an interesting little story. Girl I knew, yes from an Ivy, was an English major. She was obsessed with Hollywood and screenwriting and quite motivated. Headed out to LA after graduation and started at the bottom with no connections...other than alumni who (no surprise) held some interesting positions and were willing to lend a hand. Fast forward, and she ended up being a Show Runner for a top TV show for many years and getting a piece of the show (and it happened to be one of the shows with multiple offshoots). I would imagine her net worth is in excess of $100MM. I assume that qualifies as UC in everyone's world?

Of course she got wealthy the "wrong" way because there was no safety net and she made peanuts for many years as she clawed her way. If your kid is passionate and has drive and work ethic, then that is worth 1000x just about anything else

For every miracle story like hee, there are a million other underpaid wannabe screenwriters. And I bet a lot of those underpaid, underemployed screenwriters have “passion and drive and work ethic.”

LOL +100000
I'm pretty sure that most of the people here are college educated with decent thinking skill, yet they come up with - well someone I know, well my husband, well my cousin well my bartender LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s gross and a big part of what’s wrong with higher education. Entitled parents raising entitled kids with zero intellectual curiosity, just money and status obsessed.

This. no creativity either. Or kindness. Money money money money.