Anonymous wrote:Kid B may have a better chance of getting into a high ranked college because they “stand out” at a mediocre school but will be less prepared to actually do well in college and may either flunk out or have to switch majors to an easier one.
Anonymous wrote:Both will get in.
Kid B will have a hard time keeping up with Kid A.
Kid A's parent will get Kid A better summer internships.
Kid B will go home for the summer and flip burgers again.
Kid A may have better luck finding a prestige job after graduation.
Kid B will have some trouble getting foot in door but will eventually figure life out.
Kid A will repeat the high-cost, high-intensity parenting they were exposed to. At some point Kid A and or their kid may need mental health meds.
Kid B will have a lower life earning trajectory but will be happier for being kept off a tread mill. Kid B will employ a similar parenting style to parents. As a result, their kid may need to drop down 1 level of college selectivity due to increased application pressure on tippy top schools.
There will be no DCUM by then.
The End!
Anonymous wrote:Kid A gets in.
B is boring and low achieving. Doesn’t have a record of impact.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both will get in.
Kid B will have a hard time keeping up with Kid A.
Kid A's parent will get Kid A better summer internships.
Kid B will go home for the summer and flip burgers again.
Kid A may have better luck finding a prestige job after graduation.
Kid B will have some trouble getting foot in door but will eventually figure life out.
Kid A will repeat the high-cost, high-intensity parenting they were exposed to. At some point Kid A and or their kid may need mental health meds.
Kid B will have a lower life earning trajectory but will be happier for being kept off a tread mill. Kid B will employ a similar parenting style to parents. As a result, their kid may need to drop down 1 level of college selectivity due to increased application pressure on tippy top schools.
There will be no DCUM by then.
The End!
I am LITERALLY Kid B above. I had poor parents, but effortlessly aced high school and crushed the ACT and the LSAT. However, after law school, while my classmates were recruited by BigLaw, I lacked the discipline or social capital to get anything but JD advantage jobs. (I had to do contract doc review at a firm where several law school friends were associates.)
It took my almost 3 decades to get to $300,000, but I don't regret a thing.
I’m so sad about this. Do you think you didn’t have enough FGLI support in college/law school?
What is sad about this? That PP didn’t start earning 300K straight out of law school?
Yes. Like everyone else in class. Hopefully PP had no law school debt. Biglaw partner here who went to T3 firm upon graduation.
This goes to show you that even if you get to these places, all things are not equal.
And this is not the success story you think it is.
Why do you get to judge what a success story is? PP said they didn’t regret a thing. She sounds happy and successful to me.
PPP here (who had to wait 30 years to break $300k, when my classmates did this (in 2024 dollars) in less than 7 years.
I am happy, but financially much worse off than my classmates who probably have much larger retirement accounts. Also, when my parents pass, I will get a funeral bill. When my classmates' parents pass, they will get a 7 or 8 figure inheritance. Growing up poor follows you all of your life (and I'm one of lucky ones).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both will get in.
Kid B will have a hard time keeping up with Kid A.
Kid A's parent will get Kid A better summer internships.
Kid B will go home for the summer and flip burgers again.
Kid A may have better luck finding a prestige job after graduation.
Kid B will have some trouble getting foot in door but will eventually figure life out.
Kid A will repeat the high-cost, high-intensity parenting they were exposed to. At some point Kid A and or their kid may need mental health meds.
Kid B will have a lower life earning trajectory but will be happier for being kept off a tread mill. Kid B will employ a similar parenting style to parents. As a result, their kid may need to drop down 1 level of college selectivity due to increased application pressure on tippy top schools.
There will be no DCUM by then.
The End!
I am LITERALLY Kid B above. I had poor parents, but effortlessly aced high school and crushed the ACT and the LSAT. However, after law school, while my classmates were recruited by BigLaw, I lacked the discipline or social capital to get anything but JD advantage jobs. (I had to do contract doc review at a firm where several law school friends were associates.)
It took my almost 3 decades to get to $300,000, but I don't regret a thing.
I’m so sad about this. Do you think you didn’t have enough FGLI support in college/law school?
What is sad about this? That PP didn’t start earning 300K straight out of law school?
Yes. Like everyone else in class. Hopefully PP had no law school debt. Biglaw partner here who went to T3 firm upon graduation.
This goes to show you that even if you get to these places, all things are not equal.
And this is not the success story you think it is.
Why do you get to judge what a success story is? PP said they didn’t regret a thing. She sounds happy and successful to me.
Anonymous wrote:Kid B may have a better chance of getting into a high ranked college because they “stand out” at a mediocre school but will be less prepared to actually do well in college and may either flunk out or have to switch majors to an easier one.
Anonymous wrote:Here are two parents.
Parent A sent their child to the most rigorous and best regarded private school.
Parent B sent their child to the local public with 5/10 rating.
Both kids take the most rigorous classes. Both get As. But Parent A’s kid has to work very hard, even has to get tutoring in some areas. Parent B’s kid gets As effortlessly, he spends very little time studying.
Parent A’s kid does math team and a varsity sport, competitions and tournaments. They volunteer on regular basis.
Parent B’s kid does school band and spends his free time on video games. In the summer they work a little at a fast food restaurant to make money for video games.
Both kids have the same amount of APs.
Both kids have the same ACT score of 34. But kid A had to slave to prep for it while the kid B just walked in and got it without any prep.
Kid A will doubtfully be on very top of his class because the peers are overachievers and the competition is tough.
Kid B will most likely be on top of his class because it’s a low performing school and his grades are exceptional.
The questions are:
1) Who will get admitted to a selective college, and
2) Why was parent A so stupid to invest so much money and time to get into the right school, find the right tutors, coaches, ACT prep, etc.
Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe I got to page 13 of this without crying for humanity or throwing up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:"Both kids have the same ACT score of 34. But kid A had to slave to prep for it while the kid B just walked in and got it without any prep."
It's incorrect to assume that Kid B is not as "smart" as Kid A just because they didn't attend a private school. Both students take rigorous classes, and Kid B easily scores a 34 on his ACT, while Kid A, despite the struggle, also achieved that 34. Many of you incorrectly assume that because the high school has a "low" rating, there aren't any good teachers or rigorous classes at the school. The only real difference seems to be their activities and Kid B is working.
I don't know what will happen with each of these hypothetical kids, but I don't think Kid B is as bad off as some of you think.
Agreed and this stood out most to be. Kid B sounds naturally bright and seems to be learning well enough to score high on assessments without obsession. This kid might flourish at a university with ample opportunities.
Anonymous wrote:"Both kids have the same ACT score of 34. But kid A had to slave to prep for it while the kid B just walked in and got it without any prep."
It's incorrect to assume that Kid B is not as "smart" as Kid A just because they didn't attend a private school. Both students take rigorous classes, and Kid B easily scores a 34 on his ACT, while Kid A, despite the struggle, also achieved that 34. Many of you incorrectly assume that because the high school has a "low" rating, there aren't any good teachers or rigorous classes at the school. The only real difference seems to be their activities and Kid B is working.
I don't know what will happen with each of these hypothetical kids, but I don't think Kid B is as bad off as some of you think.