Why is this board relentlessly focused on ROI?

[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

I agree with you. Entrepreneurship is a core American value. It’s so weird that folks just want their kids to be line level employees not founders and creators. I think it is largely wealth insecurity of the parents.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

+100

[Anonymous]

Full ride. Ivy. The .001% unicorn giving advice to the masses who have zero in common with their situation.

Sound like a Ivy grad, that's for sure.

[Anonymous]

The premise of the post is wrong. For every poster who focuses on ROI on this board, there are an equal number who criticize them for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You folks must watch Amadeus and your main takeaway is "That Salieri has it all worked out...nice stable job with the emperor". To quote your patron saint:

"Mediocrities everywhere, I absolve you. I absolve you. I absolve you all," he says, allowing others to find glory in inadequacy when excellence is out of reach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone I know who works in medicine, consulting, corporate law, and investment banking is miserable and burnt out.

There are so many careers out there.

And even more likely to be "burnt out" if they were forced into those careers by their parents

[Anonymous]

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.

+1000

Plus people need to learn that 22 year olds should not expect to live exactly like they grew up. We certainly lived very differently straight out of college versus now and we were both STEM majors. It's ok for kids to have a bit less and forge their path in life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Hits the lottery of free elite education and doesn't know what everyone scrimping, saving, and paying off their own loans is so uptight about.*

OP here. I get what you're saying but just wanted to add three comments:

1. I think everything that everything that DH and I accomplished could've been done at a state flagship. The vast majority of my grad school cohort (a fully-funded PhD in Clinical Psychology) came from state schools or SLACs, and I was definitely one of the small handful that went to an Ivy for undergrad. And law/med schools don't care about where you went to college -- only GPA and standardized test scores.

2. Most DCUM children have no loans since this board is predominantly UMC. Graduating debt-free gives your children the liberty to take low-paying jobs that they'll enjoy.

3. Even UMC people I know who never took out student loans are freaking out about ROI and CS and Wall Street. I know tons of people in my neighborhood whose parents paid for their schooling or who went for free (especially if they are immigrants who went to undergrad in their home country for a really low price) who obsess over job placement and STEM majors for their kids.

I just don't get it.

Are you White? We have already established that you can be stupid even if you go to Ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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.

So if you don't have $160K for instate schools (which is high, as most states I've lived in you can do a good state school that is easy to get into for $25k/year currently), then you look at CC and transferring. Or you look at smaller private schools that offer great merit---if your kid is at 90% for many non-elite privates you can get 75%+ paid for with merit. So you think outside the box and find a way to get an affordable education. It can be done---but it requires you to give up the obsession with elite universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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.

So if you don't have $160K for instate schools (which is high, as most states I've lived in you can do a good state school that is easy to get into for $25k/year currently), then you look at CC and transferring. Or you look at smaller private schools that offer great merit---if your kid is at 90% for many non-elite privates you can get 75%+ paid for with merit. So you think outside the box and find a way to get an affordable education. It can be done---but it requires you to give up the obsession with elite universities.

Where in the post did you get an obsession with elite universities?

[Anonymous]

I have a few degrees in the humanities. Teaching was one of them. It was the most thankless, low paying job. Constantly working. Dealing with discipline, parents....it sucks. I would never recommend it to my kid. My husband went into tech. He actually did have his own company for many years. But most people who start their own companies do not even up becoming Zuckerberg. Eventually, it got too difficult and was a lot of stress, and then he worked his way up through the FAANG companies and makes 500k+. It did take work and time. But overall, while there were some stresses working at those jobs, he got to work from home, could take long walks or do errands or whatever. They didn't care about how long he spent working. They just cared about results. Compared to my earning potential and choices, his were MUCH better. Yes. If you don't like programming or tech, obviously don't do it. But if you want a job with good money---doesn't have to be 500K--you could have a very chill job in programming making 150K--you can just do your job and then live your life. I went to "better" schools than my husband, but I was stupid in my choices.

Most of the doctors I know are miserable, including the ones in my family.

My family tried so hard to get me to become a lawyer, and I was young and stupid and resisted. And I may have hated being a lawyer, but this would have opened doors for me that were not opened because I went into teaching instead.

While we technically have the money to pay for college and grad school, full pay at privates would be a stretch even for us. (I am hoping that doesn't happen.) So, no. I would not pay that money for my kid to get a psychology degree or criminal justice degree or even an English degree--like mine. If they wanted to double major or minor in art, that would be fine. But I want my kid to have a degree that allows them to have a good quality of life. If they don't use it--fine. That is not an issue for me, because my kid wants to go into STEM. They are more like their dad in interests. They do like art, and I encourage it and would happy for them to continue it. But you don't need to go to college to be an artist.

I do not think your experience is the average--nor is getting advanced degrees. Only something like 30% of people even go to college in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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.

So if you don't have $160K for instate schools (which is high, as most states I've lived in you can do a good state school that is easy to get into for $25k/year currently), then you look at CC and transferring. Or you look at smaller private schools that offer great merit---if your kid is at 90% for many non-elite privates you can get 75%+ paid for with merit. So you think outside the box and find a way to get an affordable education. It can be done---but it requires you to give up the obsession with elite universities.

Where in the post did you get an obsession with elite universities?

From most DCUM posts. Just pointing out that there are plenty of ways to make college very affordable, just not along the lines of most who post in DCUM. Merit is out there at smaller universities that are not as highly ranked. If you have not been able to save enough for college. I live in a different state and our 2nd large state school (with every major under the sun available) is ranked ~200 and has an amazing honors program and total cost "all in" is $25K per year. If your kid is a good student they will likely get $3-4K in merit (my own 26ACT/3.5 UW GPA student got $3K/year).

A kid could almost fund college themselves if working hard during all breaks and part-time during the school year--as long as they have a place to live (ie with family once they turn 18). Kids can easily net $10-12K in a summer in our area (high min wage). Add in $5K for working part time during the school year and it's only $10K left---take 5.5 in federal loans and have parents hopefully help with $5k/year (or take loans). It can be done. And if you are truly not able to pay that much, then use HS duel entry and graduate HS with your AA for only the cost of books/lab fees (typically less than $500/year). Then you only need 2-3 years at the 4 year university. With planning anyone can affordably attend college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a few degrees in the humanities. Teaching was one of them. It was the most thankless, low paying job. Constantly working. Dealing with discipline, parents....it sucks. I would never recommend it to my kid. My husband went into tech. He actually did have his own company for many years. But most people who start their own companies do not even up becoming Zuckerberg. Eventually, it got too difficult and was a lot of stress, and then he worked his way up through the FAANG companies and makes 500k+. It did take work and time. But overall, while there were some stresses working at those jobs, he got to work from home, could take long walks or do errands or whatever. They didn't care about how long he spent working. They just cared about results. Compared to my earning potential and choices, his were MUCH better. Yes. If you don't like programming or tech, obviously don't do it. But if you want a job with good money---doesn't have to be 500K--you could have a very chill job in programming making 150K--you can just do your job and then live your life. I went to "better" schools than my husband, but I was stupid in my choices.

Most of the doctors I know are miserable, including the ones in my family.

My family tried so hard to get me to become a lawyer, and I was young and stupid and resisted. And I may have hated being a lawyer, but this would have opened doors for me that were not opened because I went into teaching instead.

While we technically have the money to pay for college and grad school, full pay at privates would be a stretch even for us. (I am hoping that doesn't happen.) So, no. I would not pay that money for my kid to get a psychology degree or criminal justice degree or even an English degree--like mine. If they wanted to double major or minor in art, that would be fine. But I want my kid to have a degree that allows them to have a good quality of life. If they don't use it--fine. That is not an issue for me, because my kid wants to go into STEM. They are more like their dad in interests. They do like art, and I encourage it and would happy for them to continue it. But you don't need to go to college to be an artist.

I do not think your experience is the average--nor is getting advanced degrees. Only something like 30% of people even go to college in the US.

I'd argue that even if you have the ability to "full pay" at 80K, if your kid wants to major in something where the average starting salary is $30-40K and the growth potential is not high, then your kid would be better off saving that money/you give it to them when they graduate to get a jump start on life. Graduate debt free and have $150K+ to start life would be a game changer and much better use of money than paying 80K/year.

[Anonymous]

Kid is a studio art major. And I couldn’t be happier and gladly pay the tuition every semester. Kid has been selling their work since high school. Kid enjoys making art, teaching art, and the vast community it offers. I do not worry about roi, and am blessed to have a happy kid who has found their passion. Not much passion felt by those who sit in front of a screen all day.

[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

I agree with you. Entrepreneurship is a core American value. It’s so weird that folks just want their kids to be line level employees not founders and creators. I think it is largely wealth insecurity of the parents.

Hardly anyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur. It’s very very tough and most of them fail numerous times before succeeding. If your kid is not that type of resilient, risk-taking personality they are far better off being line employees.