Why do people insist that their kid can always "go to an Ivy for grad school?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here with a clueless question. How do PhD programs work? Do you pay tuition or does the school pay you to go to their program? Obviously I've never asked this question. But I have a high schooler who's talking about wanting to get a PhD in Physics or Math. How does one pay for a PhD program?

You normally go for free (so you don't pay tuition), and you use your TA/RA stipend to pay for living expenses.

The stipends are in the $30,000/year range. University of California grad students began going on strike this November. So have Dalhousie, UBC (both in Canada) and Columbia students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

I went to a T5 law school and disagree. Yes, there were 7 kids from Harvard and two others from the T10 I attended. But the vast majority of the class was from schools outside the T30. And they did just fine with the prestigious firms.

That's because the smartest kids don't go to law school. I was just talking to a friend of mine who is a lecturer at a T5 law school (maybe even the same one that you went to), and she told me how her students' academic skills and work ethic have gone down the drain in the past decade as the smartest students all go to tech or finance. She mentioned how in the past decade or so, there have been less and less students from Ivies at her T5 law school as Ivy alumni opt to skip law school to go into finance or consulting.

To state the obvious, I didn’t go to law school in the past 10 years. In fact, I went at a time when law school apps were at record highs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

The CEO of Goldman went to Hamilton.

The managing director at Jane Street went to Arizona State.

The Global Managing Partner at McKinsey went to Stanford.

Looks to me like there are lots of options for securing a position at one of these firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

I don't think anyone is arguing that going to an Ivy and then McKinsey isn't lucrative, which is all you've really shown here. Yes. If your kid does that, they can live in a 3000 square foot house in a tony suburb and pay for private school. If they do something else, they mind end up in a townhouse or an apartment (or a SFH not in the big city metro area) and go to public school. Lots of people live that second life and are very happy.

Exactly. I was laughing at the "would you want your kid to go to an Ivy for a PhD in biology and become a government scientist? That would be awful!" because that's us, baby! Yes, our house is small and our kids go to public school, and one of us has a long commute 1-2x a week because dual careers with PhDs can be challenging that way (the other has a very flexible schedule and can walk or bike to work). AWFUL. JUST AWFUL!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole premise of OP's statement is wrong. It's been demonstrated ad nauseum by many people that top firms want top people, not diplomas from colleges everyone has heard of. Here's a list of references. I'd love to see OP's support for their statement.

Dale and Kruger, a peer-reviewed study of outcomes for college grads comparing elite colleges to their backups.

Less High School Stress (website cited frequently on DCUM with tons of data looking at this from multiple angles.

LinkedIn, on which anyone can do their own research and see from which colleges any firm is hiring.

Harvard Schmarvard (book by Jay Mathews)

Where You Go is not Who You'll Be (book by Frank Bruni)

Numerous DCUM threads.

The big problem is that this is the TOP kids that go to generic schools...not the average kid that goes to the generic school.

Everyone thinks their kid is a top kid, when in fact they may be perfectly average. The average kid at the average school will have an OK outcome.

In other words, it is the top 5% - 10% of Penn State vs. the average Harvard grad. Honestly, I don't know why Dale & Kruger use Penn State as their example because I think that is a relatively strong school, so it almost defeats their point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here with a clueless question. How do PhD programs work? Do you pay tuition or does the school pay you to go to their program? Obviously I've never asked this question. But I have a high schooler who's talking about wanting to get a PhD in Physics or Math. How does one pay for a PhD program?

You normally go for free (so you don't pay tuition), and you use your TA/RA stipend to pay for living expenses.

This is true for STEM. Less true for many other fields. Though the stars of any incoming class will generally receive funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

I am a one percenter. I made next to nothing in my twenties, then ramped up earnings significantly in my 30s. My spouse did the same. I think you way over estimate the impact of early savings. Of course, I lived like a monk while I was paying off debt and we're still pretty frugal (we spend way less than other people at our income level), so if having a brand new car before 30 is important to your kid, YMMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

I'd say that's the case at all colleges, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

The CEO of Goldman went to Hamilton.

The managing director at Jane Street went to Arizona State.

The Global Managing Partner at McKinsey went to Stanford.

Looks to me like there are lots of options for securing a position at one of these firms.

A former global head of McKinsey went to prison.

None of it matters in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

I went to a T5 law school and disagree. Yes, there were 7 kids from Harvard and two others from the T10 I attended. But the vast majority of the class was from schools outside the T30. And they did just fine with the prestigious firms.

That's because the smartest kids don't go to law school. I was just talking to a friend of mine who is a lecturer at a T5 law school (maybe even the same one that you went to), and she told me how her students' academic skills and work ethic have gone down the drain in the past decade as the smartest students all go to tech or finance. She mentioned how in the past decade or so, there have been less and less students from Ivies at her T5 law school as Ivy alumni opt to skip law school to go into finance or consulting.

Lawyers became a dime a dozen. I lived through the period when Howrey and other big firms were laying attorneys off by the boatload.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

I don't think anyone is arguing that going to an Ivy and then McKinsey isn't lucrative, which is all you've really shown here. Yes. If your kid does that, they can live in a 3000 square foot house in a tony suburb and pay for private school. If they do something else, they mind end up in a townhouse or an apartment (or a SFH not in the big city metro area) and go to public school. Lots of people live that second life and are very happy.

Exactly. I was laughing at the "would you want your kid to go to an Ivy for a PhD in biology and become a government scientist? That would be awful!" because that's us, baby! Yes, our house is small and our kids go to public school, and one of us has a long commute 1-2x a week because dual careers with PhDs can be challenging that way (the other has a very flexible schedule and can walk or bike to work). AWFUL. JUST AWFUL!!

I think going into your 30s with almost no savings (as is the case for most PhDs) would be pretty awful. Especially if you're a woman entering peak childbirth age.

Yeah you spent 6-8 years getting that “free” PhD (yay!) and then another 2-4 years at a low-paid postdoc and then you realize you won’t get a tenure track job and you just wasted 8-12 years. Oopsie! But now you can go teach high school or something that you could have started doing ten years ago, woohoo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

Different strokes for different folks. Going to an Ivy is no guarantee of anything!

I’m a poster who subscribes to this belief. I did it and our kids in STEM are doing it. It works for some. Not everyone wants to go into investment banking or management consulting, which frankly do nothing to help our world from what I’ve seen.. For us, mental health trumps academic prestige. The kid has to want it, we’re not going to push it. Life is about so much more.

OP here. So you would be okay with your kid going to an Ivy for a PhD in, say, Biology and then end up as a fed scientist? That would be awful. They would have no earning power in their 20s (as they'd be living on a grad student stipend) and they would top out at an income of $180k. How would they afford housing or childcare in their 30s in the DMV?

Life is more than money, I agree. But money is damn important.

There is more to life than money and a top scientist at a good agency is nice life. It is interesting work, family friendly and good benefits.

-Double fed family, with an nice house in a good school district in NWDC and can afford to send my kid to college full pay.

I assume you have family money. No way can a HHI of ~$300k afford a nice house in NWDC (unless you bought that house in the 90s) and afford another $300k for college. Again, this is talking about young adults right now -- so Gen X anecdotes shouldn't apply here.

NP--EVERYONE I know who works for the feds or local government or doing research, regardless of age, is doing fine financially and enjoys their job enough to stay there despite knowing they could make more doing something else. I've lived in the DC area for decades, so we're talking hundreds of people.

You do you, we'll do us. If you want to believe that being a one-percenter is key to happiness, go ahead and pursue that. Just be prepared for all the stress that comes with that path, and the very large chance that you won't make it and will either end up changing your outlook or will have a very bitter life.

OP here. I think people are really missing my point. A stint (even for just three years) at a top consulting firm, investment bank, or quant trading company will open tons of doors that otherwise wouldn't have opened. Those doors are mostly other high-paying jobs with better work/life balance. It's not like you have to stay at Goldman/Jane Street/McKinsey forever. But just doing a three-year stint right out of undergrad at one of those firms will open the door for high-paying jobs with great work/life balance.

I don't want my kid to be a one-percenter. But because of the way that compound interest works -- as well as the daunting costs of housing and childcare -- I know that it's important for my kids to make a lot of money in their twenties and then ratchet back down in their 30s than the other way around. And going to grad school in History or Biology, even if your PhD is from Stanford, seems like the opposite of a wise financial calculation. You'd be spending all your 20s living on a subsistence wage and the job that you'd get afterwards isn't likely to be high-paying (unless you get a PhD in CS or another hard science).

I don't think anyone is arguing that going to an Ivy and then McKinsey isn't lucrative, which is all you've really shown here. Yes. If your kid does that, they can live in a 3000 square foot house in a tony suburb and pay for private school. If they do something else, they mind end up in a townhouse or an apartment (or a SFH not in the big city metro area) and go to public school. Lots of people live that second life and are very happy.

Exactly. I was laughing at the "would you want your kid to go to an Ivy for a PhD in biology and become a government scientist? That would be awful!" because that's us, baby! Yes, our house is small and our kids go to public school, and one of us has a long commute 1-2x a week because dual careers with PhDs can be challenging that way (the other has a very flexible schedule and can walk or bike to work). AWFUL. JUST AWFUL!!

I think going into your 30s with almost no savings (as is the case for most PhDs) would be pretty awful. Especially if you're a woman entering peak childbirth age.

Maybe the underlying problem is that people who think like this, and aren’t simply trolling, are too stupid to figure out how to survive on less than $150,000 per. Smart people can live well on $150,000 per year because they have the ability to do more with less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have a very narrow view of grad school.

My sister went to Harvard. She went to a large state school for her graduate program because she was looking at the best PROGRAM for her course of study, not name prestige. Within her field, the university she got her PhD from is incredibly well known because the people who run her program are famous in their field.

Not everyone is going to law school or getting an MBA. Some people are actual scholars!

Being an actual scholar is fine and dandy if your research area happens to be in a lucrative field or you have a trust fund. But otherwise it's a terrible decision. I know tons of academics who regret their life.

And everyone I know who worked on Wall Street after graduating Yale HATED IT. They all left to do other things and had a hard time because they went from making huge amounts of money to pennies. But the huge amounts of money weren't worth the 18 hour days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of people on this board myopically insist that undergrad prestige doesn't matter and that their kid can go to an Ivy for grad school. This seems misguided. The top firms only recruit from Ivies and other T20 schools. Going to an HYPSM for undergrad will increase your odds of landing at one of them.

If you go to an elite school and do everything right, you don't even need to go to grad school. The people on here saying that their kids at a state school or some no-name SLAC can "always go to an Ivy for grad school" seem misguided. Not all grad schools pay off. I had a woman in my neighborhood say the same thing -- her daughter went to a selective but not elite SLAC, and her mom insisted that her college education paid off since she's at Columbia for her PhD in History. Ummm.... hello?!!!! A PhD in the humanities is the LAST thing I would want my kid to do.

To each their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have a very narrow view of grad school.

My sister went to Harvard. She went to a large state school for her graduate program because she was looking at the best PROGRAM for her course of study, not name prestige. Within her field, the university she got her PhD from is incredibly well known because the people who run her program are famous in their field.

Not everyone is going to law school or getting an MBA. Some people are actual scholars!

Being an actual scholar is fine and dandy if your research area happens to be in a lucrative field or you have a trust fund. But otherwise it's a terrible decision. I know tons of academics who regret their life.

And everyone I know who worked on Wall Street after graduating Yale HATED IT. They all left to do other things and had a hard time because they went from making huge amounts of money to pennies. But the huge amounts of money weren't worth the 18 hour days.

Did it myself. They own you. One of my colleagues was asked to move her wedding date because it conflicted with work - no joke! Some people think the money is worth it. I did not.