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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the major and end goal.

Grad school is much easier to get in.

Only stupid people would pay a lot of money for grad school

It depends on the major. Some grad school programs don't have a lot of TA positions.

[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.

I prioritized having my kids (and paying for day care) while building up savings, and bought my first house at 35. You're right, it was absolutely awful, just awful, to be a renter. Awful! My God, I hope no one else must suffer this fate!

[Anonymous]

Hats off to the OP - simply brilliant post and thread of the day! Where do you even start with this artwork?

The crazy straw man - who are these people who insist their kid can always "go to an Ivy for grad school?"

The insane standard for an acceptable life - admission to an Ivy League school.

This is the Reductio Ad Absurdum of DCUM College posts. We can mock the poster but is the poster mocking us?

[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.

OP here. Again, you’re missing my point. You do it for three miserable years after graduation, and you get a better paying job afterwards with better W/L balance. This isn’t possible (or at least very difficult) without the doors that BB IB/MBB open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Again, you’re missing my point. You do it for three miserable years after graduation, and you get a better paying job afterwards with better W/L balance. This isn’t possible (or at least very difficult) without the doors that BB IB/MBB open.

You went to an Ivy. Why aren’t you rich?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Again, you’re missing my point. You do it for three miserable years after graduation, and you get a better paying job afterwards with better W/L balance. This isn’t possible (or at least very difficult) without the doors that BB IB/MBB open.

They open doors… in banking. It’s not like you just work three years for Goldman and then they let you be a fisheries biologist or a graphic designer.

[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.

Of course, undergrad prestige matters a great deal, and it is not elitist to say so.
Not everyone can get into an Ivy League school. There will always be an envy factor for those who fail to gain admittance.

[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: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.

OP here. You don't get it. The comment above you explains this pretty well:

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!

NP--Nope, I'd say the comment above you sums it up much better. $150k/year is plenty for a young couple to live debt-free and also save some each year (even in the DC area) if you don't have expensive tastes. Two salaries in that range is enough to comfortably raise a family on..

[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.

Yes, there are people in most fields who aren't happy for various reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Again, you’re missing my point. You do it for three miserable years after graduation, and you get a better paying job afterwards with better W/L balance. This isn’t possible (or at least very difficult) without the doors that BB IB/MBB open.

No one is missing your point. We're just disagreeing with it strongly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the major and end goal.

Grad school is much easier to get in.

Only stupid people would pay a lot of money for grad school

smart people get free tuition and stipend for grad school (admittedly, still less $$ than market job)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the major and end goal.

Grad school is much easier to get in.

Only stupid people would pay a lot of money for grad school

smart people get free tuition and stipend for grad school (admittedly, still less $$ than market job)

It’s not liveable anymore.

[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 most successful students in my PhD program were those of us who got jobs out of college and worked 3-5 years before going to grad school at a top-10 university with full tuition paid by university plus a stipend for living expenses. We had lived in the real world and made money. We were more mature and completed our PhD's. The US students who came straight from undergrad were more likely to leave after getting Masters degrees. Foreign students were a mix. But the US students that left after Masters were generally able to get decent jobs afterwards and those jobs used the Masters as leverage (They had gained real marketable skills in obtaining the Masters). And, given the fact they had been admitted into such a strong program, they were smart, so once they matured, they were also successful in navigating their careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the major and end goal.

Grad school is much easier to get in.

Only stupid people would pay a lot of money for grad school

smart people get free tuition and stipend for grad school (admittedly, still less $$ than market job)

It’s not liveable anymore.

This depends on the field and the person and how they use their degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the major and end goal.

Grad school is much easier to get in.

Only stupid people would pay a lot of money for grad school

smart people get free tuition and stipend for grad school (admittedly, still less $$ than market job)

It’s not liveable anymore.

This depends on the field and the person and how they use their degree.

The stipend is not enough to live on.