English Literature, Theatre, Creative Writing.

And in the 1%

Anonymous wrote:The philosophy major at Amherst then goes to top law school or top business school.

Only the 99% think a philosophy major is useless. It is this way of thinking that keeps them in the 99%.

This is easily $400K. Insult their intelligence all you want, but the 99% don't have that kind of safety net.

Theatre
The 1% major in theatre.

Anonymous wrote:Philosophy majors tend to have the highest IQS and SAT scores.

And business majors tend to attract weaker students, especially softer areas like marketing and general management.

Anonymous wrote:The philosophy major at Amherst then goes to top law school or top business school.

Only the 99% think a philosophy major is useless. It is this way of thinking that keeps them in the 99%.

Philosophy majors tend to have the highest IQS and SAT scores.

George Soros has a masters in philosophy.

Some successful philosophy majors.

http://www.businessinsider.com/successful-philosophy-majors-2014-1?op=1

The philosophy major at Amherst then goes to top law school or top business school.

Only the 99% think a philosophy major is useless. It is this way of thinking that keeps them in the 99%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to be a philosophy major at Amherst, than a finance major at Average State U...

Strongly agree

Without family money? I don't know about that one...

Without family money--i.e., if you are poor, AND you can get into Amherst--you are likely to pay less for a far more prestigious college degree than going to state u. The very top tier of SLACs and universities can offer financial aid packages that give outright grants to its accepted students with demonstrated need.

Well not necessarily poor - just solidly middle class (and not DCUM 300K HHI middle class) and don't have the guarantee of getting a job at your father's firm after graduation.

I am a Political Science/International Relations major. Did not come from a rich family - solid middle class. Now make $231K per year consulting on cross cultural communication, international aspects of doing business and export business planning and implementation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to be a philosophy major at Amherst, than a finance major at Average State U...

Strongly agree

Without family money? I don't know about that one...

Without family money--i.e., if you are poor, AND you can get into Amherst--you are likely to pay less for a far more prestigious college degree than going to state u. The very top tier of SLACs and universities can offer financial aid packages that give outright grants to its accepted students with demonstrated need.

I'm the 20:21 poster, and the interpretations are mostly what I was tying to convey. Don't get me wrong - our house is nice, but this is DC so it is not Kalorama or Foxhall or Potomac "nice" - the manor lifestyle is way out of our league as far as I'm concerned. Would we be approved for a huge mortgage? Absolutely. But it's too much of a gamble and so much stress. Private schools for multiple kids plus donations, camps and trips cost a fortune - and then looking ahead to college and grad school - it really adds up. Being able to cover all educational costs for all of our kids, and perhaps help with grandkids, would be the most extravagant 1% thing I'd like to be able to do. If I have one secret splurge other than travel, it is an occasional piece of artwork and sadly, hair/skin/spa......otherwise your post is dead on - we mostly stay away from all of the other trappings..

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP you're quoting and I totally agree. My point was that there can be a trap for some 1%er's (hate to say, but often when it's newly acquired) that they feel they have to behave a certain way. It's not true for everyone at all. After re-reading my response I agree it didn't really articulate that point well. I blame early morning posting without coffee...mea culpa...

Yes, and for many non-1%ers as well who take out huge mortgages, loans on their Mercedes etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I interpreted as meaning that she doesn't spend money on frivolous things such as designer handbags, clothing, shoes. She doesn't feel the need the maintain a ridiculous routine of "maintenance" (i.e. hair, nails, botox, etc). She probably lives in a modest, albeit nice, home with normal furnishings. It sounds like she simply doesn't need to "keep up with the Joneses" for the daily life, but has prioritized the important things in life such as educating her children and showing them the world.

Of course she can choose to live life the way she sees fit, but her point was that she is paving her own way rather than falling into the trap so many new-money 1%er's do by feeling the need to show off their money for things to simply keep up rather than doing what they really want - no matter what that may be for someone. I'm not sure why that bothers you so much.

Not at all atypical of the 1%. See The Millionaire Next Door.

I'm the PP you're quoting and I totally agree. My point was that there can be a trap for some 1%er's (hate to say, but often when it's newly acquired) that they feel they have to behave a certain way. It's not true for everyone at all. After re-reading my response I agree it didn't really articulate that point well. I blame early morning posting without coffee...mea culpa...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to be a philosophy major at Amherst, than a finance major at Average State U...

Strongly agree

Without family money? I don't know about that one...