High Achieving Parent With Average/Below-Average Kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, if I was looking at two kids:

1) the quiet, studious valedictorian 2) the outgoing soccer team captain who was a B student

and I had to guess who would end up making a lot of money, I would bet on the B student. No question. Yes, a lot of big law people went to fancy colleges (or at least fancy law schools) but lots of people in finance and other fields are successful by being smart enough and having good leadership/social skills.

I know lots of people in finance in NYC and they all went to top colleges and also were the outgoing soccer team captain or similar and the valedictorian. Their firms don't hire people who did not go to top colleges and the ivies don't take kids who were "just" the valedictorian; the kids who get into those schools have much more than top grades.

That's exactly right. I think there's a misconception here about ivy kids. Most valedictorians never get admitted to Harvard or Stanford--they have their pick of them. They are looking for either the next Nobel prize winner, the next world leader, the next mega billionaire, etc. They typically admit kids with worldclass skills (such as one of the most promising musicians in the world, one of the best athletes in their sport, someone doing groundbreaking academic research, etc), kids of world leaders or mega billionaires (think Obama, Clinton, foreign leaders, etc), and then fill the rest of the class based on optimizing for geographic & ethnic diversity while picking people who are basically BOTH valedictorian & class president types.

Again, probably something like 50% of the people (and I can easily be convinced it's closer to 80%) in wall street went to top schools. Every year Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc recruit new undergrads and grad students to join and they are only recruiting from certain schools--it's certainly possible for someone not from one of those schools to get a job there--it's just much more difficult and unlikely. If you think an alpha investment banker is a former quiet, studious valedictorian then I can't help you. A lot of them were valedictorians who were captain of a varsity sport or class president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, if I was looking at two kids:

1) the quiet, studious valedictorian 2) the outgoing soccer team captain who was a B student

and I had to guess who would end up making a lot of money, I would bet on the B student. No question. Yes, a lot of big law people went to fancy colleges (or at least fancy law schools) but lots of people in finance and other fields are successful by being smart enough and having good leadership/social skills.

I know lots of people in finance in NYC and they all went to top colleges and also were the outgoing soccer team captain or similar and the valedictorian. Their firms don't hire people who did not go to top colleges and the ivies don't take kids who were "just" the valedictorian; the kids who get into those schools have much more than top grades.

That's exactly right. I think there's a misconception here about ivy kids. Most valedictorians never get admitted to Harvard or Stanford--they have their pick of them. They are looking for either the next Nobel prize winner, the next world leader, the next mega billionaire, etc. They typically admit kids with worldclass skills (such as one of the most promising musicians in the world, one of the best athletes in their sport, someone doing groundbreaking academic research, etc), kids of world leaders or mega billionaires (think Obama, Clinton, foreign leaders, etc), and then fill the rest of the class based on optimizing for geographic & ethnic diversity while picking people who are basically BOTH valedictorian & class president types.

Again, probably something like 50% of the people (and I can easily be convinced it's closer to 80%) in wall street went to top schools. Every year Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc recruit new undergrads and grad students to join and they are only recruiting from certain schools--it's certainly possible for someone not from one of those schools to get a job there--it's just much more difficult and unlikely. If you think an alpha investment banker is a former quiet, studious valedictorian then I can't help you. A lot of them were valedictorians who were captain of a varsity sport or class president.

This is a flaw in our culture. Our best and brightest aim for i-banking? SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's exactly right. I think there's a misconception here about ivy kids. Most valedictorians never get admitted to Harvard or Stanford--they have their pick of them. They are looking for either the next Nobel prize winner, the next world leader, the next mega billionaire, etc. They typically admit kids with worldclass skills (such as one of the most promising musicians in the world, one of the best athletes in their sport, someone doing groundbreaking academic research, etc), kids of world leaders or mega billionaires (think Obama, Clinton, foreign leaders, etc), and then fill the rest of the class based on optimizing for geographic & ethnic diversity while picking people who are basically BOTH valedictorian & class president types.

Again, probably something like 50% of the people (and I can easily be convinced it's closer to 80%) in wall street went to top schools. Every year Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc recruit new undergrads and grad students to join and they are only recruiting from certain schools--it's certainly possible for someone not from one of those schools to get a job there--it's just much more difficult and unlikely. If you think an alpha investment banker is a former quiet, studious valedictorian then I can't help you. A lot of them were valedictorians who were captain of a varsity sport or class president.

One of my goals for my kids is for them to NOT become "alpha investment bankers" at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. My kids don't necessarily have to make the world a better place, but I would like for them to not make it a worse one.

[Anonymous]

If you are well off and surrounded by well off friends and family, it is going to be easier for your kid to have those connections to succeed and have opportunities even if they are not that great of students. If they go to lower ranked colleges they still might get a great internship because of connections. If you are well -educated and just middle class and your kid isn't a top student, it is scary to think your kid isn't even going to have the chance to make 85 to 100,000 a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, if I was looking at two kids:

1) the quiet, studious valedictorian 2) the outgoing soccer team captain who was a B student

and I had to guess who would end up making a lot of money, I would bet on the B student. No question. Yes, a lot of big law people went to fancy colleges (or at least fancy law schools) but lots of people in finance and other fields are successful by being smart enough and having good leadership/social skills.

I know lots of people in finance in NYC and they all went to top colleges and also were the outgoing soccer team captain or similar and the valedictorian. Their firms don't hire people who did not go to top colleges and the ivies don't take kids who were "just" the valedictorian; the kids who get into those schools have much more than top grades.

That's exactly right. I think there's a misconception here about ivy kids. Most valedictorians never get admitted to Harvard or Stanford--they have their pick of them. They are looking for either the next Nobel prize winner, the next world leader, the next mega billionaire, etc. They typically admit kids with worldclass skills (such as one of the most promising musicians in the world, one of the best athletes in their sport, someone doing groundbreaking academic research, etc), kids of world leaders or mega billionaires (think Obama, Clinton, foreign leaders, etc), and then fill the rest of the class based on optimizing for geographic & ethnic diversity while picking people who are basically BOTH valedictorian & class president types.

Again, probably something like 50% of the people (and I can easily be convinced it's closer to 80%) in wall street went to top schools. Every year Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc recruit new undergrads and grad students to join and they are only recruiting from certain schools--it's certainly possible for someone not from one of those schools to get a job there--it's just much more difficult and unlikely. If you think an alpha investment banker is a former quiet, studious valedictorian then I can't help you. A lot of them were valedictorians who were captain of a varsity sport or class president.

This is a flaw in our culture. Our best and brightest aim for i-banking? SMH

Absolutely...but that's a different discussion. However, there has been a shift to Silicon Valley over the last 5+ years. The marginal recruit is now going to Facebook or Google instead of Goldman or McKinsey--don't get me wrong though, investment banking is still getting their share of the best and brightest, just now quite as dominant as before. Some of the comments on this board make me think that some people don't understand who goes to Wall Street. I wouldn't be surprised if at the last peak (2006) something like 20% or more of the Harvard undergraduate class was going to either investment banking or strategy consulting (a common feeder into private equity or hedge funds after a 2-3 year analyst position).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's exactly right. I think there's a misconception here about ivy kids. Most valedictorians never get admitted to Harvard or Stanford--they have their pick of them. They are looking for either the next Nobel prize winner, the next world leader, the next mega billionaire, etc. They typically admit kids with worldclass skills (such as one of the most promising musicians in the world, one of the best athletes in their sport, someone doing groundbreaking academic research, etc), kids of world leaders or mega billionaires (think Obama, Clinton, foreign leaders, etc), and then fill the rest of the class based on optimizing for geographic & ethnic diversity while picking people who are basically BOTH valedictorian & class president types.

Again, probably something like 50% of the people (and I can easily be convinced it's closer to 80%) in wall street went to top schools. Every year Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc recruit new undergrads and grad students to join and they are only recruiting from certain schools--it's certainly possible for someone not from one of those schools to get a job there--it's just much more difficult and unlikely. If you think an alpha investment banker is a former quiet, studious valedictorian then I can't help you. A lot of them were valedictorians who were captain of a varsity sport or class president.

One of my goals for my kids is for them to NOT become "alpha investment bankers" at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. My kids don't necessarily have to make the world a better place, but I would like for them to not make it a worse one.

That's certainly admirable. Some people want to make money--e.g. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, real estate. The world certainly needs more care workers, social workers, non-profit volunteers, etc. Hopefully you raise your kids in a lifestyle consistent with that ethos. The point some of the PP were making is that those who have been highly successful academically, make good money, and live a certain lifestyle typically associated with making good money face a problem: raising your kids accustomed to a nice lifestyle without any expectation of academic success is potentially setting your children up for future unhappiness as well (whereas it seems some posters seem to think expecting any academic success is the only problem).

[Anonymous]

I;m the PP who posted about the two students. I agree that the people who go to McKinsey and Goldman tend to be the unicorns who were captain of the team and got good grades at an Ivy. My point is that there are lots of ways to make a lot of money (if that is your goal or your kids' goal) and not all of those paths require going to a top school or having book smarts. It is just that in certain circles in DC I think that is all people are exposed to. But I grew up in the NYC burbs and not everyone's parents went to Harvard and then Goldman. Some had done well in sales or real estate. Same in DC. I work with a lot of people who are successful and make a lot of money (and love their jobs) but didn't go to top schools. it's just a less well-trodden path than Harvard->Goldman. If as a parent you were/are on one of these paths I think you may not see that there are so many other ways to be successful using other kinds of skills (not book smarts).

[Anonymous]

I recruit people for a living. Myth #1 you have to go to a top (Ivy) school to make $$. Myth #2 - you have to be "educated" (go to a really good college or something) to really be educated. Myth #3 - You have to make $ to be happy (need material, comforts, etc) in life.

And now I will use myself as a perfect example on how these are truly myths. I make a really good living and have great flexibility as a contract corporate recruiter (I could if I wanted to make more and get back into search as a headhunter or corporate management). I have a great livelihood yet I hate my job and often wish I hadn't sold out for the $$. Love what you do because life is long and you PP who suggest that your kids will be happier with $$ - yes but how they come to make that $$ will determine how happy the whole of their lives are. With a family, I'm not going to change careers realistically - I am locked into this career. But yes, I've always made a lot of $$. A lot of people would see my life as very successful. I live in a $1M+ house and more or less, I work flex hours and financially, count my blessings. My parents had their own business and made their first million dollars at age 40. The most miserable people I know and divorced with nobody (not even me their only kid because they messed up with me just focused on making money). My parents were you pp who encouraged me to do whatever I could in life to make $. I think they and you are right, having $ is better than not having $. BUT the thing is you have to love what you are doing and find a way to make $ in that career. It's not chasing the $ because at a certain age, even the $ does not sustain. DO NOT set your kids up for what I go through today. I am a firm believer and I've seen this in my professional life - you CAN make a lot of $ and be wildly successful in ANY PROFESSION. In this day and age, there are just so many ways to do that. The more important factor is you truly love what you do or you have a talent that you want to develop and become really really good at that. Be true to yourself and be happy doing what you choose to do. The $ will ALWAYS come. If $ is what you want, you will naturally find a way to make it.

I went to GWU - is it considered a top school? I don't really think so but it's a good school. I interview for a living top MBAs from good schools and top (including ivy) schools. Education is about being well-rounded. It's a feeling that you love to learn and you love to read. Sense is more important than education. If you have sense, you can learn anywhere, anyhow, anytime. Education is great. I'm very pro education. I am not pro formal schooling however. If you were wanting to become an attorney, doctor, engineer then by all means the game requires you to get a top formal education to learn the techniques of the trade. But that again is only technique. If you have little sense about you, I promise no ivy school is going to help you out in life. I had a Harvard MBA give me his 9 page resume filled with very little to do with anything at his job interview with me. That is a case of a smart enough guy who got into Harvard who is a total idiot.

I say again, unless you are wanting a professional career in law, medicine, maybe science/engineering, you don't need an ivy education. I hire people for a living. While it is EASIER to get hired to work for someone else in executive management with a business degree out of a top school, it is not necessary to do so. If you choose to want to go into a top program for the sole purpose of wanting that for your own desire, that's awesome and nothing wrong with it. But you absolutely can do well at a company without a top degree. Retained executive search does look for pedigree and who you know does account for quite a bit of how quickly/easily you can rise to the top anywhere but cream rises to the top no matter what in a manner of speaking

Parents should let their kids be who they are. There is nothing wrong with a kid who naturally has an affinity toward higher education but also nothing wrong with a kid who might want to say go to community college (or trade school as my son will likely do). There's a zillion ways in this day and age to make a career and thus $$ you all know that right? The business model is changing - the large companies are getting larger and there's a zillion smaller companies and moreover, freelance talent out there. This means greater flexibility, entrepreneurship and greater diversity in the work environment. Who your kids is will determine more than anything, how happy and well they do in life.

[Anonymous]

I am sure I will get a lot of pushback on this, but one kid that is low-achieving is possible and normal. But If all your kids are low achieving and you and DH are high achievers, barring any learning disabilities, you may want to look at how you're parenting. They may be accustomed to too easy of a life and haven't developed the drive to want to do better.

[Anonymous]

wow -- just responded in the "are my kids failures" equally interesting line of discussion. I try not to let such thoughts overly influence me but I am unfortunately right there with OP and I am struggling hard to overcome this. It is helpful to read these posts, as this is not something I'm comfortable talking about with my friends/colleagues/husband (worried they would think I'm a bad person or don't love my kids). Appreciate the anonymity. Thanks to the people who took the time to write the advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are well -educated and just middle class and your kid isn't a top student, it is scary to think your kid isn't even going to have the chance to make 85 to 100,000 a year.

Scary? For real? Wow, only in this area would making this salary, or higher, define success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are well -educated and just middle class and your kid isn't a top student, it is scary to think your kid isn't even going to have the chance to make 85 to 100,000 a year.

Scary? For real? Wow, only in this area would making this salary, or higher, define success.

Read the rest of the posts...I don't believe anyone as snarky as you could actually not care much about material success. No parent cares only about money--everyone wants their children to be happy, the question is what is the best approach? This thread is aimed at financially successful people. If you are not financially successful then you may be happier, etc but that's not the point of the thread and you'll never understand it. I know a lot of people are deep down jealous of people who have material success and, to protect their own egos, imagine that financial success must come with some price that they would never pay...e.g. divorce, work all the time, etc. People are people--there are unhappy rich people and unhappy poor people just as there are happy poor people and happy rich people. It's the snarky ones that post stupid general statements that out themselves as jealous and greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recruit people for a living. Myth #1 you have to go to a top (Ivy) school to make $$. Myth #2 - you have to be "educated" (go to a really good college or something) to really be educated. Myth #3 - You have to make $ to be happy (need material, comforts, etc) in life.

And now I will use myself as a perfect example on how these are truly myths. I make a really good living and have great flexibility as a contract corporate recruiter (I could if I wanted to make more and get back into search as a headhunter or corporate management). I have a great livelihood yet I hate my job and often wish I hadn't sold out for the $$. Love what you do because life is long and you PP who suggest that your kids will be happier with $$ - yes but how they come to make that $$ will determine how happy the whole of their lives are. With a family, I'm not going to change careers realistically - I am locked into this career. But yes, I've always made a lot of $$. A lot of people would see my life as very successful. I live in a $1M+ house and more or less, I work flex hours and financially, count my blessings. My parents had their own business and made their first million dollars at age 40. The most miserable people I know and divorced with nobody (not even me their only kid because they messed up with me just focused on making money). My parents were you pp who encouraged me to do whatever I could in life to make $. I think they and you are right, having $ is better than not having $. BUT the thing is you have to love what you are doing and find a way to make $ in that career. It's not chasing the $ because at a certain age, even the $ does not sustain. DO NOT set your kids up for what I go through today. I am a firm believer and I've seen this in my professional life - you CAN make a lot of $ and be wildly successful in ANY PROFESSION. In this day and age, there are just so many ways to do that. The more important factor is you truly love what you do or you have a talent that you want to develop and become really really good at that. Be true to yourself and be happy doing what you choose to do. The $ will ALWAYS come. If $ is what you want, you will naturally find a way to make it.

I went to GWU - is it considered a top school? I don't really think so but it's a good school. I interview for a living top MBAs from good schools and top (including ivy) schools. Education is about being well-rounded. It's a feeling that you love to learn and you love to read. Sense is more important than education. If you have sense, you can learn anywhere, anyhow, anytime. Education is great. I'm very pro education. I am not pro formal schooling however. If you were wanting to become an attorney, doctor, engineer then by all means the game requires you to get a top formal education to learn the techniques of the trade. But that again is only technique. If you have little sense about you, I promise no ivy school is going to help you out in life. I had a Harvard MBA give me his 9 page resume filled with very little to do with anything at his job interview with me. That is a case of a smart enough guy who got into Harvard who is a total idiot.

I say again, unless you are wanting a professional career in law, medicine, maybe science/engineering, you don't need an ivy education. I hire people for a living. While it is EASIER to get hired to work for someone else in executive management with a business degree out of a top school, it is not necessary to do so. If you choose to want to go into a top program for the sole purpose of wanting that for your own desire, that's awesome and nothing wrong with it. But you absolutely can do well at a company without a top degree. Retained executive search does look for pedigree and who you know does account for quite a bit of how quickly/easily you can rise to the top anywhere but cream rises to the top no matter what in a manner of speaking

Parents should let their kids be who they are. There is nothing wrong with a kid who naturally has an affinity toward higher education but also nothing wrong with a kid who might want to say go to community college (or trade school as my son will likely do). There's a zillion ways in this day and age to make a career and thus $$ you all know that right? The business model is changing - the large companies are getting larger and there's a zillion smaller companies and moreover, freelance talent out there. This means greater flexibility, entrepreneurship and greater diversity in the work environment. Who your kids is will determine more than anything, how happy and well they do in life.

Well, it all depends on what you mean by success as a PP wrote. If you are thinking mid 6 figures and $1m+ house that is very successful certainly compared to the average population. However if you are in Manhattan, Westside LA, Bay Area, certain parts of Chicago, Boston, NYC then the fact is that is entry level. It's all perspective. If you are living in the best school districts in the largest most cosmopolitan cities and/or going to private school with 2-3 kids then you're going to have to make more money and you'll probably end up living in a house that's multiple millions...It sounds obscene to the average person but that's unfortunately how big the weatlh gap has gotten. Just look at what an average family home cost in nice neighborhoods all over California--my guess is a home that would cost a few hundred k in a lot of cities will cost $2.5m or so in LA, SD, Bay Area, or OC. Same for other big cities in the US. How do you buy a home like that on $500k in your 30's when you start a family without family money?

So are you saying that all the kids who grow up in Palo Alto, Newport Beach, Bel Air, La Jolla, Scarsdale, Rye, Greenwich, Weston, Medina, Highland Park, Winnetka, etc should never be able to move back into the neighborhood they grew up in? Or, that if they did, they would be raising their families in apartments or condos? Again, I'm not trying to judge who is happier and maybe the point is no one should raise their kids in those communities? But if they grow up there, they are going to probably have to make mid six figures at least--and, then, they are going to be looking at financial pressure/trade-offs that many people who make less living in lower cost areas would take for granted as a part of their lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

I am the PP with the $1M home. I grew up in Winnetka actually What I'm suggesting is that money (and I have always had it in life luckily) DOES in fact make your life easier and happier. I totally believe this and anyone who tells you differently is lying. MONEY does matter. Following that statement, I am also suggesting in this age there are a ZILLION ways to make a lot (or whatever amount of money you want to make) of money. Yes, there is and let me tell you something else as a professional recruiter who hires people to work for others and is the daughter of business owners, you will almost ALWAYS have the opportunity to make more money owning your own business than working for someone else. So after you incur a huge debt getting your Ivy MBA, you will spend most of your income paying that off. The point is, to be HAPPY over the course of one's lifetime, you will likely want to have a vocation you are driven from enjoyment v. money motivated. So hear this: one CAN both find happiness and make a lot of money and be educated without going to a top school or have a great deal of formal education. However, if one has no drive/ambition to want/need money and no sense, then it doesn't really matter what they do in life irregardless of how academically inclined they are. Personally I never wanted to work for anyone else. I wanted to to be my own boss. My parents really wanted me to have a respectable white collar professional career. My daughter who is 6 is breath taking in her sensibilities. I see it now even at this early age. I don't care what she does because as long as she finds her passion, that girl will be so good at whatever she wants to be, she will find a way to make however much she wants to make financially. It won't matter if she goes to college or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, I am admittedly a Type-A overachiever parent, which is both good and bad for a variety of reasons. But I am having some internal struggles because both of my two kids are solidly average or below-average students. Of course, I love them and am proud of their achievements and strengths (the below-average student is artistic and creative. The average student is resilient and athletic). But I also feel some sense of disappointment that they (probably) won't be the kids who go to top notch high schools, private schools, or first or second tier colleges. At least if what I am seeing now holds true. Maybe it's a DC area thing, where test scores and numerical assessments are golden and define a kid - from SOLs to NNAT to COGAT to WISC even before the SSAT, but most of the parents and colleagues in my social/professional circles have kids who are in AAP in elementary or honors in Middle or applying to TJ or Sidwell or have their sights set on UVA or VA Tech or these other high achieving schools. I really want that for my children, because it is what I had, and it opened so many doors for me academically and professionally, but I just don't know if it will be for them. they are in late elementary now, and nowhere near honors or AAP. I am happy they are passing in the general pop. LOL. I'm not sure what I am asking in this post, but I wonder if others have similar experiences and what you are doing to help figure it out? Are you lowering standards? Are you pushing hard with tutors? I haven't done those things yet, because i want them to be happy and well rounded. But they just aren't strong students.

Same situation, but I'm not sure my kid is any more average than I was. The difference is that when I was in elementary school, kids were tracked into smart, middle, and dummy classes. I was in the smart class. Then later honors. We had no AAP. It was a pretty simple system. My elementary kid now is probably much better than I was at most subjects, but we don't have the simple tracking anymore. Now the top few percent (including top pushiest parents) go to AAP centers, and the rest are lumped into mixed classes where the teacher goes the speed of the lowest student. Our elementary school offers some advanced classes, but those in them go to tutoring twice a week at a cost of about 200-300 dollars a month, plus a lot of time. Whereas the old system gave the top third of students the chance to learn up to their potential, the current fcps system gives only the top few percent and the also the richest kids that opportunity. So while my kid is considered average in fcps, by the old standards he would have been above average.