I think some of you way over idealize the impact that these schools have. The majority of elite college grads aren’t über rich or saving the world or curing cancer. They get up and go to work and come home and mow the lawn like everyone else.
They are also richer and happier than majority of non-elite college grads.
Hey, I’m Joe Ivy League, but even I don’t think the education at even the best colleges is “wildly superior” to the education available at literally hundreds of colleges and universities in the United States.
Also, for what it’s worth, some studies claim that happiness tops out at about $75,000 family income. Being richer than that is not likely to make you happier.
“Everyone intuitively knows that happiness can be bought. But it is not the right thing to say so everyone claims otherwise.”
You’ve got no clue whatsoever about life. Yes, money can ensure that certain problems are never faced - inability to put food on the table, keep the electricity on, etc. But rich families face the same kinds of issues as any other family – family conflicts, abusive situations, addiction situations / behaviors, health crises, Alzheimer’s, loss of loved ones, etc. Do you think it hurts any less when a rich person’s beloved mother dies than when a poor person’s beloved mother dies?
You don’t have a lot of company in that viewpoint these days. Nothing arouses “concern for the poor” like seeing someone who is successful.
“They are also richer and happier than majority of non-elite college grads.”
This is beyond weird. You clearly don’t live in the real world, where plenty of young people trot off happily to Directional State U, enjoy their time there, find a satisfying position, and go on to live perfectly happy and productive lives. You’re in some weird-zone where all those people are flipping burgers at Mickey D’s and bemoaning the fact that they didn’t go to Harvard. Another clue: Most people in this country have zero interest in going to Harvard (or other elite school). Being a “brainaic” and making hand-over-fist amounts of money isn’t of interest. They just want to have nice, ordinary lives. Nothing wrong with that.
“You don’t have a lot of company in that viewpoint these days. Nothing arouses “concern for the poor” like seeing someone who is successful.”
It’s possible to simultaneously have “concern for the poor” but not have to be resentful of those who are rich. If someone earned their money honestly, I’ve got no problem with it, whatsoever. And the estate planning comments are comical - that’s how rich people get and stay rich, they plan what they do with their money and assets.
“There is nothing inherently wrong with estate planning but the fact that it is largely only for people with more than 5.2 mil in savings speaks miles about the types that populate here. The benefits of familial wealth put you miles above your peers. There is the reason the rich kid of the school will go to a better university 90% of the time.”
Just want to comment that this is factually incorrrect. Some states impose estate taxes on estates MUCH lower than 5.2 million. (starting at Dollar One past a very low bar). So estate planning is useful for people of much more modest means. Someone can own a small business and the family may discover that the only way to pay the tax liability is to liquidate the enterprise (throwing nice, modest income folks out of work) because of poor or no planning. Someone who farms and has employees needs to be particularly careful- the land is assessed (it may be more valuable for condos than avocados) and the family is forced to sell off.
Is this what our “damn the rich” poster wants to see happen? I assume no.
Well, he-l-l-o Debbie Downer. 
"Do you think it hurts any less when a rich person’s beloved mother dies than when a poor person’s beloved mother dies? "
Can you give us some idea of the size of the inheritance (in round numbers)?
"There is nothing inherently wrong with estate planning but the fact that it is largely only for people with more than 5.2 mil in savings speaks miles about the types that populate here. The benefits of familial wealth put you miles above your peers. "
What does it say that there are a significant number of people on CC who have estates large enough to require planning beyond “it all goes to junior in the will”? Do you know how these people made their money, or are you just resentful?
And having “familial wealth” doesn’t mean junior gets everything he wants. My kids are fortunate in that, like Hunt’s, they have the benefit of an elite college education without the burden of loans, etc. That’s a huge benefit and I don’t underestimate that in the least. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t going to have to go get jobs just like everyone else, work for their money, do all of those things. They aren’t traveling on private jets or buying Valentino gowns. Anyway, my kids are hard workers and exceptionally grateful for what they have. As are most “rich” people’s kids who go to elite schools.
I was just watching a TED talk about happiness. According to the speaker, beyond a certain level of health and wealth, what most determines whether a person is happy or not is his or level of engagement with other people. I think there’s a lot of truth to this, and my own experience bears it out.
My guess is many of them would get in anyway but having this tag allows the school to solicit lot more money from the parents as well as the students. That endowment needs to keep growing and they keep returning to the same font of wealth aka alumni.
It doesn’t work with me, because whenever our alma mater calls, I tell them that we’re already making a $60K gift this year in the form of son’s tuition, lol. No more room at the inn!
But I think you have to distinguish between plain-vanilla legacy, where the additional donations (if any) will be modest, and development – and of course, with the sums of money in development, it’s irrelevant whether the donor is an actual alum.
Warren Buffett’s sister just gave $100 million to my school (she went there, and I think his grandson did as well). I personally think that level of donation should entitle her to X number of “freebie” admissions for her family and friends, and I’m totally serious. The good that money does for a university …
“They are also richer and happier than majority of non-elite college grads.”
I seriously want to know what is your basis for saying such a thing. Do you think that most all the people at Average State Flagship are just pathetic, unemployed losers who can’t get out of their parents’ basements or something, and are perpetually envious of their classmates who went to elite schools? Do you seriously not get that the vast majority of non-elite college grads never aspired to be elite college grads in the first place?
Fundraising works that way. There will be 100 people giving large amounts, 1000 people giving medium amounts, and 100,000 giving small amounts. What does happen is that 100,000 might be contributing 50% of the over all money even if 1000 of them give nothing and it is the collective amounts that make the difference even if single large donations catch the attention.
Regarding “correlations” with wealth. What is true is that a minimum level of financial security makes possible, but does not guarantee, greater emotional satisfaction. But the reason is that people are not wrapped up in anxiety about survival and additionally have more options – which in turn reduces anxiety because those people are calmer in the face of surprises or setbacks than those in survival mode are. And they have (potentially) more leisure to reduce stress, etc. See Abraham Maslow’s hierarchies.
However, I’ve met many people, and some of them are my customers, who seem never satisfied with the wealth that they do have, no matter how much, and are in a continual state of excitability about that. In addition, they seem never to enjoy the security they do have, but rather live as if any use of electricity and any purchase that is not severely discounted will endanger their economic status.
Hard to make absolute correlations.
Do you mean people who seem to spend all they earn as quickly as possible, so that they are always just one paycheck away from being unable to pay their bills, even at very high levels of income?
No, I mean the opposite. They live as if they have no interest in spending a dime. Yet they have never been “without,” and are quite comfortable, in comfortable surroundings, without major outgo such as putting up a relative in a nursing home or something. (I would understand a mania for hoarding if one had previously suffered perilous hardship or even an extended layoff. These situations are the opposite. We’re talking multiple sources of income.)
Since the vast majority students at elite colleges are full-pay, it would indicate that they were already born on third base.
I see someone hasn’t read the Economist article about happiness and income. It feels good to say that the poor are just as happy as the rich, but facts how otherwise.