If you went to top schools but your kids are attending a lower tier, are you worried about downward mobility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Oh look. Another post intended to stoke anxiety via elitism, just with a new angle. Have never seen this before.

It's a legitimate question. Clemson isn't even Syracuse or Pitt level.

This level of rankings obsession is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute distances.

I love it when people call out others for being "rankings obsessed" and the others in question have said absolutely nothing about rankings.

DP. Both the OP and the “Clemson isn’t even Syracuse or Pitt level” poster either directly mention rankings or imply them.

Wrong about the Syracuse poster. They could've been talking about any number of factors including reputation amongst non academics, peer quality, endowment, or any number of factors not measured by most rankings. I would say (my opinion) that Virginia Tech is not on Tulane's level and that has nothing to do with rankings (which often rank Virginia Tech above Tulane due to social mobility and other factors like that.)

[Anonymous]

No, because my DC is planning on going to a t14 law school and will hopefully be earning decent money coming out of law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Oh look. Another post intended to stoke anxiety via elitism, just with a new angle. Have never seen this before.

It's a legitimate question. Clemson isn't even Syracuse or Pitt level.

This level of rankings obsession is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute distances.

I love it when people call out others for being "rankings obsessed" and the others in question have said absolutely nothing about rankings.

DP. Both the OP and the “Clemson isn’t even Syracuse or Pitt level” poster either directly mention rankings or imply them.

Wrong about the Syracuse poster. They could've been talking about any number of factors including reputation amongst non academics, peer quality, endowment, or any number of factors not measured by most rankings. I would say (my opinion) that Virginia Tech is not on Tulane's level and that has nothing to do with rankings (which often rank Virginia Tech above Tulane due to social mobility and other factors like that.)

Sure, if you say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strange question. I know Clemson grads who are living very well. It’s not the school- it’s the person that ultimately determines the outcome.

As a percentage of the graduating class, let’s be realistic

This is dcum

Not Reddit SEC

It's fair to say that a high percentage of Clemson grads are living very well. Why on earth would anyone think they are not?

Because they're from the south and southern public grade and high schools are generally terrible... and their grads go to southern public universities such as Clemson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Oh look. Another post intended to stoke anxiety via elitism, just with a new angle. Have never seen this before.

It's a legitimate question. Clemson isn't even Syracuse or Pitt level.

This level of rankings obsession is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute distances.

I love it when people call out others for being "rankings obsessed" and the others in question have said absolutely nothing about rankings.

Okay, I’ll rephrase.

This level of obsession over perceived differences between schools is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute differences.

[Anonymous]

No.

Reversion to the mean is commons

Can’t parent drive and motivation that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Oh look. Another post intended to stoke anxiety via elitism, just with a new angle. Have never seen this before.

It's a legitimate question. Clemson isn't even Syracuse or Pitt level.

This level of rankings obsession is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute distances.

I love it when people call out others for being "rankings obsessed" and the others in question have said absolutely nothing about rankings.

DP. Both the OP and the “Clemson isn’t even Syracuse or Pitt level” poster either directly mention rankings or imply them.

Wrong about the Syracuse poster. They could've been talking about any number of factors including reputation amongst non academics, peer quality, endowment, or any number of factors not measured by most rankings. I would say (my opinion) that Virginia Tech is not on Tulane's level and that has nothing to do with rankings (which often rank Virginia Tech above Tulane due to social mobility and other factors like that.)

Sure, if you say so.

+1
I actually laughed when reading PP's post, especially the last sentence.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Oh look. Another post intended to stoke anxiety via elitism, just with a new angle. Have never seen this before.

It's a legitimate question. Clemson isn't even Syracuse or Pitt level.

This level of rankings obsession is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute distances.

I love it when people call out others for being "rankings obsessed" and the others in question have said absolutely nothing about rankings.

DP. Both the OP and the “Clemson isn’t even Syracuse or Pitt level” poster either directly mention rankings or imply them.

Wrong about the Syracuse poster. They could've been talking about any number of factors including reputation amongst non academics, peer quality, endowment, or any number of factors not measured by most rankings. I would say (my opinion) that Virginia Tech is not on Tulane's level and that has nothing to do with rankings (which often rank Virginia Tech above Tulane due to social mobility and other factors like that.)

Sure, if you say so.

+1
I actually laughed when reading PP's post, especially the last sentence.
DP

Why? Tulane has higher test scores, endowment, wealthier student body, better salary outcomes... laughing at you being dumb!

[Anonymous]

I don't think college matters that much, major matters more as long it's top 100 school. I see so many kids on the college destination instagram pages majoring in random subjects at great schools. I'd rather my kid major in Statistics at Pitt than English at Barnard. I think a lot of those kids will underperform professionally compared to your average, well connected Clemson business grad.

[Anonymous]

I went to a college not in the top 200. When I went there it was even lower ranked. DH went to a T15.

I make more and have more marketable skills.

Obviously, we are not worried about the ranking of our kids’ colleges. We do however emphasize the soft skills — being able to communicate concisely and effectively, working as a team, writing etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Oh look. Another post intended to stoke anxiety via elitism, just with a new angle. Have never seen this before.

It's a legitimate question. Clemson isn't even Syracuse or Pitt level.

This level of rankings obsession is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute distances.

I love it when people call out others for being "rankings obsessed" and the others in question have said absolutely nothing about rankings.

DP. Both the OP and the “Clemson isn’t even Syracuse or Pitt level” poster either directly mention rankings or imply them.

Wrong about the Syracuse poster. They could've been talking about any number of factors including reputation amongst non academics, peer quality, endowment, or any number of factors not measured by most rankings. I would say (my opinion) that Virginia Tech is not on Tulane's level and that has nothing to do with rankings (which often rank Virginia Tech above Tulane due to social mobility and other factors like that.)

Sure, if you say so.

+1
I actually laughed when reading PP's post, especially the last sentence.
DP

Why? Tulane has higher test scores, endowment, wealthier student body, better salary outcomes... laughing at you being dumb!

Someone is extremely insecure ^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Funny that the probability is high that if you had applied today with your “yesterday stats” you would likely not have had the chance to attend your top school…..

Clearly your kid is doomed. Hopefully you set up a nice trust fund so that your kid can benefit from your awesomeness…..otherwise, accept the fact your grandchildren will be working at McDonalds…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Oh look. Another post intended to stoke anxiety via elitism, just with a new angle. Have never seen this before.

It's a legitimate question. Clemson isn't even Syracuse or Pitt level.

This level of rankings obsession is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute distances.

I love it when people call out others for being "rankings obsessed" and the others in question have said absolutely nothing about rankings.

DP. Both the OP and the “Clemson isn’t even Syracuse or Pitt level” poster either directly mention rankings or imply them.

Wrong about the Syracuse poster. They could've been talking about any number of factors including reputation amongst non academics, peer quality, endowment, or any number of factors not measured by most rankings. I would say (my opinion) that Virginia Tech is not on Tulane's level and that has nothing to do with rankings (which often rank Virginia Tech above Tulane due to social mobility and other factors like that.)

Sure, if you say so.

+1
I actually laughed when reading PP's post, especially the last sentence.
DP

Why? Tulane has higher test scores, endowment, wealthier student body, better salary outcomes... laughing at you being dumb!

Ah, the ol’ “you can’t laugh at me because I’m the one laughing at YOU” response. That usually convinces ‘em.
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Oh look. Another post intended to stoke anxiety via elitism, just with a new angle. Have never seen this before.

It's a legitimate question. Clemson isn't even Syracuse or Pitt level.

This level of rankings obsession is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute distances.

I love it when people call out others for being "rankings obsessed" and the others in question have said absolutely nothing about rankings.

DP. Both the OP and the “Clemson isn’t even Syracuse or Pitt level” poster either directly mention rankings or imply them.

Wrong about the Syracuse poster. They could've been talking about any number of factors including reputation amongst non academics, peer quality, endowment, or any number of factors not measured by most rankings. I would say (my opinion) that Virginia Tech is not on Tulane's level and that has nothing to do with rankings (which often rank Virginia Tech above Tulane due to social mobility and other factors like that.)

Sure, if you say so.

+1
I actually laughed when reading PP's post, especially the last sentence.
DP

Why? Tulane has higher test scores, endowment, wealthier student body, better salary outcomes... laughing at you being dumb!

Someone is extremely insecure ^^

And some school (Virginia Tech) is extremely insecure financially with students who will likely face similar financial insecurity. Also test score related insecurity.

[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:How are you handling the real possibility of your kids experiencing downward mobility?

If you went to top schools and are living in a neighborhood/area/house and have a lifestyle similar to the t20->t6->big law partner path or an analogous path in your sector and your kid is going to Clemson, are they aware of the much narrower chance for them to have the same lifestyle as you

Oh look. Another post intended to stoke anxiety via elitism, just with a new angle. Have never seen this before.

It's a legitimate question. Clemson isn't even Syracuse or Pitt level.

This level of rankings obsession is like Zeno’s paradox of increasingly minute distances.

I love it when people call out others for being "rankings obsessed" and the others in question have said absolutely nothing about rankings.

DP. Both the OP and the “Clemson isn’t even Syracuse or Pitt level” poster either directly mention rankings or imply them.

Wrong about the Syracuse poster. They could've been talking about any number of factors including reputation amongst non academics, peer quality, endowment, or any number of factors not measured by most rankings. I would say (my opinion) that Virginia Tech is not on Tulane's level and that has nothing to do with rankings (which often rank Virginia Tech above Tulane due to social mobility and other factors like that.)

Sure, if you say so.

+1
I actually laughed when reading PP's post, especially the last sentence.
DP

Why? Tulane has higher test scores, endowment, wealthier student body, better salary outcomes... laughing at you being dumb!

Someone is extremely insecure ^^

And some school (Virginia Tech) is extremely insecure financially with students who will likely face similar financial insecurity. Also test score related insecurity.

Oh this definitely makes you sound confident.