Anonymous wrote:I would secretly be upset if my child went to a state school. I would not openly freak out like OP is saying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

No one has an issue with achievement. They have issues with the borderline mental breakdown-level of obsession with getting into certain institutions because those institutions are “elite” and convey “status.” And with the lack of perspective, especially amongst the parents who should know better, to understand that there are many, many successful people who didn’t go that route. Because ultimately it is just one small piece of the puzzle.

How do you know someone is having breakdown level obsession around getting into certain institutions? Honestly, it just reads like your own kids are not competitive, you gave up, some other parents and kids are still in the running and that equals mental breakdown. Nobody is breaking down about not getting into Harvard, ok. They will be upset for a few days if they expected it, then they will move on.

OP here. I posted this because I know a family literally claiming to be in crisis and falling apart over a kid who appears to be headed for a state college.

This person likely knows you well enough to show you their raw feelings.

People fall apart over vanity, sports, promotions, anything really.

I wish there were anything actually self-aware about it. I’m just subjected to endless stream-of-consciousness anxious blather.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

No one has an issue with achievement. They have issues with the borderline mental breakdown-level of obsession with getting into certain institutions because those institutions are “elite” and convey “status.” And with the lack of perspective, especially amongst the parents who should know better, to understand that there are many, many successful people who didn’t go that route. Because ultimately it is just one small piece of the puzzle.

How do you know someone is having breakdown level obsession around getting into certain institutions? Honestly, it just reads like your own kids are not competitive, you gave up, some other parents and kids are still in the running and that equals mental breakdown. Nobody is breaking down about not getting into Harvard, ok. They will be upset for a few days if they expected it, then they will move on.

OP here. I posted this because I know a family literally claiming to be in crisis and falling apart over a kid who appears to be headed for a state college.

This person likely knows you well enough to show you their raw feelings.

People fall apart over vanity, sports, promotions, anything really.

I wish there were anything actually self-aware about it. I’m just subjected to endless stream-of-consciousness anxious blather.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, life would be much easier if we lived in bumble town North Dakota and my kid just applied to State U or Directional State U. I am somewhat envious of that.

But we are not there.

What? Are you disgruntled because you are a 1%er with a kid who wants to go to an elite school because of name and thinks their wealth makes them entitled ? Those days were over a generation ago. Mine are at different ivies. We are top3% income ie full pay & make it work because we saved. Most there are on aid. Smart is the new rich. Me and many of my elite college peers went there highly aided in the 90s, now we make enough for our kids to be full pay. Since they are as smart or smarter than we are they got in just fine no hooks (in fact their demographic is a bit of a negative yet they still got in). There are plenty of non elite but still T75 for 1% wealth who are not in the top% of smarts/talent.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, that your kids only got in because they are full pay? And you’re only 3 percent not 1 percent?

The point is that the wealthy families believe their kids are entitled to a spot in elite colleges purely by virtue of their wealth, and are besides themselves when they realize this is not true.

In your view, what makes the supposed "elite colleges" elite today?

They have the highest percent of the smartest kids so they can have a broad collection of truly challenging courses, yet small enough to know faculty. Additionally they have almost unlimited resources for the students, including but not limited to real research and international summer experiences. The mix leads to the best outcomes, provided the student is ready for the competition

The mix is missing Upper Middle Class kids. It's super wealthy and those that get "meets need" funding. Or UMC kids with grandparents paying tuition or parents with inheritances that don't need to save for retirement.

$250k or $300k/year family from NYC (or any other big city w HCOL) with parents in their 40s/early 50s with more than one kid are not spending $90k per year to send one kid to college, because then they can't afford to live (unless they've been at high income level for a very, very long time).

The donut hole is real, and sending their uber smart UMC kids to SEC honors programs (or other lower ranked schools) where they can get big $ scholarships. This changes everything because the best and brightest aren't necessarily at Ivies/T25s, a lot of them are at schools they can afford instead. (And I'd argue that the kid who takes a full ride scholarship to a lower ranked school is "smarter" than one who takes loans and/or drains his parents' savings to attend T25).

Heck, if my kid could get a full ride at a lesser ranked school, I was UMC full pay, and had the $ banked for Ivy or Ivy+ -- I think the smarter choice is taking the full ride to the 100th ranked school and giving the kid the cash to invest -- probably come out WAY, WAY ahead (unless the goal is IB).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

No one has an issue with achievement. They have issues with the borderline mental breakdown-level of obsession with getting into certain institutions because those institutions are “elite” and convey “status.” And with the lack of perspective, especially amongst the parents who should know better, to understand that there are many, many successful people who didn’t go that route. Because ultimately it is just one small piece of the puzzle.

How do you know someone is having breakdown level obsession around getting into certain institutions? Honestly, it just reads like your own kids are not competitive, you gave up, some other parents and kids are still in the running and that equals mental breakdown. Nobody is breaking down about not getting into Harvard, ok. They will be upset for a few days if they expected it, then they will move on.

OP here. I posted this because I know a family literally claiming to be in crisis and falling apart over a kid who appears to be headed for a state college.

This person likely knows you well enough to show you their raw feelings.

People fall apart over vanity, sports, promotions, anything really.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

The only “achievement” you mentioned is wealth.

DP. But what did you achieve? Do share!

Not the PP but I was from a broken single-parent home and went to an elite college on full pell grants and lots of aid. Like a couple other PPs I worked hard to make a better future. I had 99th %ile SAT scores and was Salutatorian, no FGLI boost back then. I have plenty of money, alas based on google I am not the vaunted "1%" income this thread refers to. I am however very wealthy and am full pay for my kids. The $ is not why I am proud. I am proud of what I achieved because I am a doctor and the head of my division. My spouse who was also poor is now a lawyer at a top firm. They worked hard as well to get where they have gotten, but our elite school was a huge part of our success. The support and structured advice we got there was immeasurable. Once we knew our children had the academic capacity and raw intelligence mixed with drive to have a good shot at a T20, of course we moved them to the top private school and encouraged them. Of course they did not need tutors or any fake EC/nonprofit-starting or anything like DCUM people do. Rather we encouraged them to be their own best, put energy into ECs they enjoyed, and be resilient. We did not want elites for $, rather for the same benefits we got: super smart peers, faculty who care and encourage all students, and every door open to them with more resources than imaginable. My kids are at T10/ivies and will likely go into medicine and a phD, which are not top-1% lucrative, and we could not care less. They can teach high school if they want, we do not care! The point is to get the best education and a leg up to get into any career, and the elites provide that. From my point of view elites are about exposure to to brilliance and endless possibilities. Luckily these schools are more socioeconomically diverse and more welcoming places to poor kids these days. Financial aid kids from public schools were a minority back in '91 and '93. There was never desperation on our part, just encouragement to try for the best. We considered anywhere in the T30ish to be a huge win, it was not top10 or bust

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

No one has an issue with achievement. They have issues with the borderline mental breakdown-level of obsession with getting into certain institutions because those institutions are “elite” and convey “status.” And with the lack of perspective, especially amongst the parents who should know better, to understand that there are many, many successful people who didn’t go that route. Because ultimately it is just one small piece of the puzzle.

How do you know someone is having breakdown level obsession around getting into certain institutions? Honestly, it just reads like your own kids are not competitive, you gave up, some other parents and kids are still in the running and that equals mental breakdown. Nobody is breaking down about not getting into Harvard, ok. They will be upset for a few days if they expected it, then they will move on.

OP here. I posted this because I know a family literally claiming to be in crisis and falling apart over a kid who appears to be headed for a state college.

Anonymous wrote:Their efforts and activity which you deem insane is the very reason they are 1% and you are not OP. They focus on and do things that you do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

Teaching of all kinds (including coaching sports or teaching music)

Creating a business in your area of passion. For instance (examples of real people I know): starting a successful personal training business that helps people with physical disabilities after getting a degree in physiology; starting a business in landscape design and horticulture after getting a degrees in art history and business and working part time in landscaping; starting a business leading tours in the Southwest US that offer historical and cultural context after getting a history degree focused on the region -- this person's experience as a performer in their college's theater department helped lead them toward a career in public speaking and hospitality.

Many academics who become leaders in their fields obtain undergraduate degrees from less competitive colleges but where their actual area of study is a strength. For instance a good friend of mine has an undergraduate degree in psychology from one of the less competitive UCs. When she applied to PhD programs, she got in at Harvard but their graduate psychology department is not that well regarded -- wound up at a large midwestern state flagship with a world-respected psych department and is now a tenured professor at a different Ivy League school, has written several books on a niche area of psychological research, and is considered the leading expert in her area.

And so on. Now, if you are from an economically disadvantaged background, a degree from a top school makes sense because (1) you will get a lot of financial assistance at most of those schools, and (2) you are likely coming from an environment where you don't have much in the way of a network to help you navigate the working world and open up opportunities. But if your parents are 1%ers, those obstacles don't exist for you and you can easily just go to whatever college or university offers strong faculty and opportunities in your particular interest area. Even in fields where a degree from a "top school" is important, in most cases you are better off getting your graduate degree at the top program and as long as you go to like a T100 program that is reasonably strong in your field for undergrad, you'll be fine. This is even true in fields like law and medicine.

There are vanishingly few career paths where a degree from HYS or similar is necessary for success and this is even more true for people from economic privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

The only “achievement” you mentioned is wealth.

DP. But what did you achieve? Do share!

Anonymous wrote:I’m in the peanut gallery watching several 1%ers in the college admissions process. It is INSANE. please folks get ahold of yourselves. Your super privileged kids are going to be fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

Even in fields where a degree from a "top school" is important, in most cases you are better off getting your graduate degree at the top program and as long as you go to like a T100 program that is reasonably strong in your field for undergrad, you'll be fine. This is even true in fields like law and medicine.

There are vanishingly few career paths where a degree from HYS or similar is necessary for success and this is even more true for people from economic privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

+1. No one will ever convince me that half of these posters are not actually robots.

Is this for real? This is the second or third thread that I've seen mention robots.

People should stop making such weird comments then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think this is limited to the 1% you have blinkers on.

True but the point is it’s most insane for the 1%ers.

NO. It is easier for 1%. The degree to which it is "most insane" is entirely a dynamic they magic out of their own neuroses and has absolutely ZERO to do with actual limitations on their options.

The 1%ers who choose to go the route of massive donations or spending enormous sums on private school/test prep/college advising/etc. in order to guarantee their kids entry into one of a very narrow range of schools are just being stupid. That's it. It's a stupid game akin to the billionaires who compete over who has the biggest yacht. Only worse because in this scenario their children are the yachts and their educations are being used in a d*ck-measuring contest. Gross. But not actually that hard to opt out of. Just don't.

We are in the top 1% or .5%. I grew up as a poor immigrant kid. I was equally focused, if not more, than my current high school student. Education was my ticket out of poverty. There was no back up plan. My rich kid can go to any school and will probably do fine.

Ambition and striving are popular to put down on DCUM. I wonder if this is what non ambitious say. I hear this in real life from adults who come from family money, but are unimpressive themselves or have unimpressive children. They call the achieving people strivers and look down on them.

I am proud of my achievements. I am proud of my children’s achievements.

As a fellow formerly poor person, I concur. I and my siblings launched from poverty to top schools and are all in or near the top 1% income, providing top education k-12 that we never got. I am proud of my accomplishments as well, and have noted the same “striver” mockery from bitter long-term wealthy families who do not have children smart or driven enough to get in to the same level of elite college they attended.

OP here. The problem is seeing your children as an extension of your striving. While I can appreciate that some kids are talented and self-motivated and strive for a top college, what I’m talking about is the atmosphere of bitter panic at facing the fact that Larlo may not get into as elite a college as they had hoped. Perhaps your attitude and values are better than that because you acknowledge it actually is about working hard, not entitlement or gaming the system or blaming other kids for your kids (actually perfectly acceptable but less elite) college choices.

Our children are our extension. Parents want their children to be better, or at least, not worse, than themselves. Children's success makes them proud. It's the most natural thing in the world.

But if you are already top 1% in terms of wealth and you define success as income or wealth, you are painting yourself into a corner. The expectation that your child will be able to top your financial success is delusional.

Now, if you define success in terms of pursuing a field about which they have passion and then achieving within that field, then you have something. But your kid doesn't have to go to one of a tiny number of elite colleges to do this. Is your child's true passion really "management consulting"? If not, they don't actually have to attend Harvard. If they are a top student and get a bit lucky they can go anyway (especially since you will no doubt have guaranteed them K-12 at a top feeder and access to any extra curricular their heart desires and tutors and test prep) but they don't need to do so in order to be successful. So you can chill.

Ok, I actually don't believe that people worth tens of millions of dollars are pulling hair re: ivy admissions. I just don't buy the facts as OP presented them.

But I also resent this idea of pursuing one's passion as some sort of healthy alternative to striving where, today, it leads to near poverty or failure or some kind of fake/bought for success in a vast majority of cases. Becoming a famous a Harvard employed entomologist is not easier than creating a business worth 20 million dollars. It's not a more modest or loftier goal. It's just a different kind of gamble.

oh they are though.

And unless you’re caught up in this morally bankrupt delusion, you can see the obvious: there’s a massive middle ground between “poverty and failure” and wasting your life as a management consultant.

There is a lot of middle ground, yes, but people there are not pursuing their passions, as you recommended. They might like their job on occasion but very few would do it if they weren't paid for it (ie. if it was their passion).

Also, very few people are in management consulting long-term.

DP but there are a lot of solidly middle class careers that can (and do) easily line up with someone’s passion.

You’re very binary in your thinking: one is either gunning to be CEO or is doomed to be a dumpster diving starving artist, right?

please name those careers and explain how they are totally unrelated to the level of academic success that is needed to be competitive for top colleges.

teacher - psychologist - nurse - government lawyer - etc etc

The fact that you legitimately believe there are no viable careers outside of a narrow list of elite colleges is exactly the issue. it’s insane.

becoming psychologist - very competitive, needs a phd from programs that accept 1% of applicants. harder than getting into ivy
government lawyer - highly competitive, thousands apply for few positions, harder than getting into ivy
teacher - rewarding but exhausting middle class job, closer to blue collar than UMC
nurse - similar to teacher, but a bit above

nobody is a teacher or a nurse out of passion for more than a few years

Have you ever actually met a teacher or a nurse? Because it is quite literally the opposite (i.e. anyone who is a teacher or nurse for more than a few years has a passion for the profession- otherwise they’d do something easier and/or more financially lucrative).

Also, LOL to your completely insane take on becoming a psychologist.

+1. No one will ever convince me that half of these posters are not actually robots.

Is this for real? This is the second or third thread that I've seen mention robots.