I think one key point in this discussion -- which is unrelated to $$ -- is the proliferation of information and near universal access to it.

At any station in life now, there is no excuse for not going beyond the assignment, whether in school, the workplace or an area of interest. Successful kids will be curious and not rely on the teacher or professor to tell them everything. Students need to supplement the syllabus -- early, often and continuously.

I first encountered the super-rich when I was around 20. Some went to my (fancy) university. But I think I really understood something about that segment of society when I met one of the kids' fathers and ignorantly asked: "What do you do?" And he sort of had a weird look on his face, as if he didn't quite know how to answer the question (or maybe was puzzled that I asked it), and he said: "I manage the family estate."

It took me a few minutes to let that sink in. What, no profession? No job? Well, no... He moved (or let someone else move) his money around into various tax shelters and investments and lived very, very, VERY well off of that. I think he found it amusing that his daughter wanted to go to university. She studied Art History and Italian, got an internship at Sotheby's, and went on to be a governing board member (or something like that) of some big international museum and worked in the charity circuit.

Not my world. At all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. New money. Bless your heart.

New money has always ruled this country after forcefully grabbing the reins from Old Money--which gracefully gave it up. Time and time again. Money came to me even though I did not chase it, I was chasing something else. I quit and hit financial rock bottom while I was working the start-up. I am grateful for how things turned out.

I do not hate Old Money. You must be neither. The dirty secret is that Old Money and New Money secretly are fascinated by the other. Always has. You should see the eyes they make at each other at charity balls.

Can you at least address my initial post?

Oh honey. Many of us here have been to countless charity balls, grew up going. Old Money is much less fascinated by the nouveau riche than you would think. If you only knew how we talk at the country club when you arent around...

Eeew. I'm embarrassed for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you and theil will rethink things when the current frothy tech bubble bursts. Enjoy.

Totally agree. It's freakin' 1999 out there all over again. I was in SF when the bubble burst the first time. I can't believe people have forgotten so quickly. I kinda enjoyed watching them get their comeuppance the first time, almost wish I was still out there to watch it again. Almost.

The mega rich won't be impacted by this because they know enough to diversify and protect their investments. It's the upper-middle and middle classes, trying to inch ahead in a system that is failing them, who will put their eggs in too few baskets in an attempt to beat the market, that will build up and then take the fall for various "bubbles."

Anonymous wrote:I think you and theil will rethink things when the current frothy tech bubble bursts. Enjoy.

Totally agree. It's freakin' 1999 out there all over again. I was in SF when the bubble burst the first time. I can't believe people have forgotten so quickly. I kinda enjoyed watching them get their comeuppance the first time, almost wish I was still out there to watch it again. Almost.

If the economy continues the way it has been, with the rich getting richer and everyone else getting poorer, it stands to reason that we no longer have a "meritocracy." Instead, the rich will seek to build tall walls around their wealth to contain it. Getting a higher ed degree has little to do with keeping and sustaining mega wealth, because you need to do nothing to "deserve" or "earn" it.

Just make sure that the economic system works to your advantage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do they despise college as an institution?

The information is readily and cheaply available now, due to the digital revolution. You do not have to pay $$$ to stick your child in some stone building and gave him/her a ID card which has access to the Great Libraries...that information can be bought and downloaded/read on your laptop, everywhere.

There is a lot of grumbling that the education itself is stale. What schools are teaching are not helpful in the digital age.

As for mixing with the Right People, colleges have proliferated and being a "college graduate" just does not have the cache it once did. By Right People, I by no means mean race or anything of the sort. It's children that my children can meet and together create wonderful things for this world. A school full of lemmings is not that.

Life is short. Spending four precious years of it drinking and pissing around and being able to vaguely recite a line or two of Hamlet after $500,000 is not what we want for our kids and not how we want to spend our money.

The digital age is a light-speed revolution, and schools are moving too slow.

We just see it as a waste. Basically, if our kids don't get into an Ivy, don't bother. And feel free to drop out of Ivy for the right reasons, Mom/Dad won't be mad. Of course, if they are interested/talented in the arts, that's a whole another story...

OP, you say "the Rich" in the title of your post, but you are referring to a very narrow part of the spectrum of truly wealthy people. In your circle, it may be true that college is a waste of time and money, but you are focusing on people who create technology-based start-ups. How do you know your child won't be interested in becoming a middle-manager at Wal-Mart, or a curator at a small museum, or a physical therapist, or a salesperson at Macy's? Not everyone (even your own child) is cut out to be an entrepreneur, or is interested in technology or engineering or business. If your child wants to be a doctor or a physicist or a writer, s/he doesn't have to go to college, but it would take a very highly self-directed, self-motivated person to power him- or her-self through the education needed to succeed in one of these areas. Your expectations for your children are so narrow -- Ivy or nothing? There are lots of wonderful colleges where children can find themselves, can learn where they fit into the world, and what makes them feel successful. You are assuming that what motivates you will also motivate your children. By depriving them of the opportunity to attend a college that's not an Ivy, you are saying to them that if they can't attain a certain level of success, which you define as an Ivy education or making an insane amount of money through a tech start-up, you won't support them.

I don't think college is about the education for most people. I think it's a transition from home to workplace, and it allows children to grow up. It's not all about learning skills to use in a career. Telling a child who isn't interested in becoming an entrepreneur, or one who is not a self-starter, to go out and make something of themselves without giving them enough time to mature, isn't a recipe for success. Your children are only 10. What do you know about them? What do they know about themselves?

OTOH, I don't think college is necessary or even desirable for many people who go to college now. It's a waste of money and time for those people, no matter what their family's finances.

[BTW, You may have an Ivy education, but you've missed out on basic grammar, which you probably think is obsolete too. In the old school, we use an adverb to modify a verb, e.g. "schools are moving too slowly."]

I agree that college, particularly private college, is far too expensive, and no way is it worth the money any more. I too have an Ivy education, but I am not wealthy. I'm an artist married to a mid-level executive. We can't afford Ivies, so our kids are going to public colleges. I'm not sure those are worth the money either, but I do think the four years my kids are going to spend in college will help them make the transition from home to work. I don't think my kids are ready to tackle the working world at age 18. Your kids might be ready, OP, and if so, skip college. But if "the Rich" as you define them, give up on college for their kids, I don't expect it will have much of an impact on the rest of us middle-class folk.

Anonymous wrote:My daughter recently graduated from a top-rated college and prepared by that institution for exactly bupkus, despite straight A's. She did her major learning in high school, thank heavens, because college was pretty much a waste of time an money from my vantage point. She had classes two or three days a week for a few hours, watched a lot of TV, and took classes with names like "gender roles in Sci Fi" or "crisis in the classroom", "art and activism". Or am I just grumpy? I took Physics, Calculus, Economics, Sociology, World History, Literature, and highly demanding subject area courses, and little time for drinking and zero time for TV-watching.

Why did you pay for her to take those classes? If she wanted to take classes like that, you should have made her pay.

I think you and theil will rethink things when the current frothy tech bubble bursts. Enjoy.

Anonymous wrote:So...I am wealthy. Reside in West Coast. Very new money, and also highly educated. I made $$$ with a start-up. I have two children, under 10.

We discuss education with other people. I have noticed that people who are not highly educated, even if wealthy, will enroll their children in very expensive private schools. They generally obsess about "which school are your LO's attending?" The same for highly educated, but of modest means.

However.

The very rich, who are also very, very educated (I am talking Ivy/Ivy-equivalent undergrad, with same advanced multiple degrees) are now secretly espousing the view that education, whether public or private, is a has-been. Information is readily available, and they see it as not worth the money.

What they are discussing doing, is giving their children unconventional educations and experiences from early childhood, and pushing them to create--companies, non-profits, whatever, at an early age. College is a fallback, if other ventures fail. And certainly something to drop very quickly if other ventures flourish. Depending on their location, they may still go private, but some surprising don't. Most do, due to security concerns. But college as in institution is something that this group really despises.

By the time my children are college-age, the truly elite may have moved on to other circles for post-secondary education...and colleges will be another version of public schools. The wealthy/smart money are fleeing institutional education.

I know this because I am part of this circle. And I am posting this because this is an anonymous forum and I think it's something worthy of discussion, depending on what you are seeking for your children.

What do you think?

I think that this is the attitude our country was founded on and I like the grassroots efforts to bring it back to it's founding ideals. The only obstacle I see if government making it very difficult on start-ups by regulating them out of existence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter recently graduated from a top-rated college and prepared by that institution for exactly bupkus, despite straight A's. She did her major learning in high school, thank heavens, because college was pretty much a waste of time an money from my vantage point. She had classes two or three days a week for a few hours, watched a lot of TV, and took classes with names like "gender roles in Sci Fi" or "crisis in the classroom", "art and activism". Or am I just grumpy? I took Physics, Calculus, Economics, Sociology, World History, Literature, and highly demanding subject area courses, and little time for drinking and zero time for TV-watching.

She choose poorly. (I did the same thing and ended up in law school. I hate it.)

No way will my kid only take those classes. They better get at least one marketable skill out of college.

This is a key consideration. If I'm helping my kid pay for college, he/she needs to come out with a degree that WILL get him/her a job. Accounting/pre-med/whatever. No BS classes like 'art and activism'. He/she can take those later, on his own dime.

Your kid can do both, that's what electives are for. My dad was a brilliant aerospace engineer, and the science fiction and creative writing courses he took at his Ivy helped him in his eventual livelihood every bit as much as his formal engineering education.

I run a fair bit in Thiel circles when I'm out in the Bay Area, so I've certainly met plenty of people who think in the manner that the OP describes, but he's wrong to talk about it as if it's very common; it's still a niche way of thinking among a small segment of rich folks, it's not at all universal or even the dominant way of thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter recently graduated from a top-rated college and prepared by that institution for exactly bupkus, despite straight A's. She did her major learning in high school, thank heavens, because college was pretty much a waste of time an money from my vantage point. She had classes two or three days a week for a few hours, watched a lot of TV, and took classes with names like "gender roles in Sci Fi" or "crisis in the classroom", "art and activism". Or am I just grumpy? I took Physics, Calculus, Economics, Sociology, World History, Literature, and highly demanding subject area courses, and little time for drinking and zero time for TV-watching.

She choose poorly. (I did the same thing and ended up in law school. I hate it.)

No way will my kid only take those classes. They better get at least one marketable skill out of college.

This is a key consideration. If I'm helping my kid pay for college, he/she needs to come out with a degree that WILL get him/her a job. Accounting/pre-med/whatever. No BS classes like 'art and activism'. He/she can take those later, on his own dime.