<p>
[quote]
Quote:
Of the staggering wealth that was created in the US over the past few decades, much was made by the ivy league types in ibanking, private equity, venture capital, etc </p>
<p>And much of that staggering wealth was a myth, made up by those very same crooks (ahem, people). Think Ponzi scheme - Madoff won't be the only one...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even if the money was made honestly or if we are using money as a gauge for succes, the Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, & Google founders type still make a lot more money than the investment bankers/hedge fund type. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The difference is in the business models. A hedge fund manager primarily derives his income from fees. The assets of the hedge fund are owned by investors in the fund and only a part of the growth in the value of this asset works towards increasing the net worth of the hedge fund manager. For Mr Buffett, and indeed many entrepreneurs, net worth is primarily determined by the equity stake in the business that they own. Equity ownership lets the business income continue to compound in the business. As the business grows, the net worth of the owner grows correspondingly (the story would have had a different ending if Buffett had kept diluting his stake in Berkshire Hathaway by continually bringing in new investors like a hedge fund does)</p>
<p>Also to note (and a point unaddressed by the FT article) is the effect of taxation. While a hedge fund manager pays taxes each year (capital gains or income, a matter of controversy for sure but not relevant to this analysis), Mr Buffett will only pay taxes if he sells his equity (again, the fact that his charitable actions have helped him avoid taxes altogether is besides the point)
<p>My post was less about who is making the money and more about who ripped off their investors. Technically, they can't be considered money managers by even the loosest of definitions since... well.. they didn't manage squat.</p>
<p>Although I am very much going to take Mr. Buffett's advice and take advantage of some of these low prices in the market. After all.. I love a sale!</p>
<p>It's more of a digression and speaks to how, despite certain doors swinging open, money, legacy and the establishment will still end up having their children attend the top schools. What constitutes a top school has also come under discussion and how do we balance the idea of fit with a desire to attend name brand institutions. The bottom line (I think) is that there are some "conspiracies" that might prove reasonable and others that are a little too cloak and dagger, even for the cynical.</p>
<p>Well, certainly I can't say I'd complain if my kids were fortunate enough to get into Ivys or other top schools, but it wouldn't be because I thought it was a meal ticket to fabulous riches. How gauche. I'd rather them attend top schools to enjoy the intellectual life of the mind and to be stimulated by bright classmates -- and if that turns into a big money career or not, oh well. </p>
<p>Btw, "money, legacy and the establishment" isn't defined solely by the folks in the Northeast, though they may think they are. Plenty of "money, legacy and the establishment" in Dallas send their kids to SMU and an SMU degree would trump the Ivy degree 9 times out of 10.</p>
<p>"Call them provincial, but I see their point. The reputation of these schools was stronger in the regions these people wanted to live in than the reputation of lots of schools in the Northeast, where they didn't want to live anyway."</p>
<p>Um, yes, it's provincial for the family in the midwest to only consider NU and WUSTL and not Cornell (using your example). It's EQUALLY provincial for the family from the northeast not to consider Vanderbilt, Emory, etc. because they're in the south and they think the south is next to Pluto and why-would-they-ever-want-to-live-in-the-south-anyway. They're equally provincial mindsets, IMO. I think it's quite hysterical how Northeasterners often consider the rest of the country provincial when I find them to be just as guilty. I grew up in the Northeast, BTW, and definitely know / get the mentality.</p>
<p>"An equal amount was made in places like Silicon Valley where many never went to any college. I don't think anyone is saying you need to go to a top college to be successful. What is being said is that a top college degree certainly helps in some arenas connected with wealth creation."</p>
<p>Right, but wealth creation isn't the point of college. Or is it? If it is, that's pretty sad, IMO.</p>
<p>I am just going to throw this out there.. .Cornell is absolutely nothing like Northwestern. Cornell in my opinion is in the middle of a comparable cornfield -- although that might have a familiar appeal to a midwesterner on some sort of open prairie kind of way, but in relation to the urban appeal of Northwestern in such a fabulous and fun city as Chicago is nothing like Ithaca. ... frankly, I don't understand why more new englanders dont apply to Northwestern. If anything, their girls lacrosse team has proven that the powerhouses, athletic or otherwise, are not relegated to the NE.</p>
<p>I don't think Cornell is a good enough Ivy for the prestige-whores. Plus, part of it is (gasp) a state school. Cornell, Brown and maybe even Penn are the consolation prize if the big boys don't work out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's quite hysterical how Northeasterners often consider the rest of the country provincial when I find them to be just as guilty.
[/quote]
I was happy to read this statement. I grew up in the midwest and went to any Ivy and was shocked by how provincial the kids were, particularly those from New York. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet, in general, an Ivy league or top 20 university or top 10 LAC education is a golden ticket.
[/quote]
This is a ridiculous statement. Though I suppose there are some provincial New Yorkers who believe it to be true.</p>
<p>Cornell and Northwestern have a number of commmon programs (notably liberal arts- which was what D1s friends were applying for) , and have similar student capability profiles, and in being multi-college universities wich are larger and more diverse than the LAc-type schools.</p>
<p>They are different in location, and in specific programs that one school has but then other doesn't.</p>
<p>Different people prefer different locations to be a student in. whether it be a small upstate city or a suburb of big city, Northeast or Midwest. To each their own. My D2 just transferred from city location to a college in a small city, which she thinks she'll prefer.</p>
<p>Can you please mention a thread on how to package your application. There are so much stuff on this site, I couldn't possible find everything. S is planning to apply ED and thinking of going aboard as summer student exchange this summer. He will not have much time to prepare a killer application without directed focus. Thanks.</p>
<p>I saw 2 very different types at the very pre professional ivy I went to. There were those intent on networking throughout college and beyond to capitalize on the degree in the "golden ticket" sense and others who never thought about or considered it.</p>
<p>There were kids from all over the Country and the world who back then headed to NYC and began the quest to use the network in business, law, etc. And some who moved to DC to do the same thing in politics. The list of destinations has grown to include London, HK, Silicon Valley and other places today. Many stay in NY and others get some experience and then tuck into a company where they want to live.</p>
<p>Then there were kids who simply headed back home. They weren't there to climb any ladders. My freshmen year roommates are a school principal in Nashville and the other runs her family's business in Ohio.</p>
<p>Those who became PhD's and teach went to wherever the jobs were, and I have no idea what benefits they do or don't get from the network.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can you please mention a thread on how to package your application. There are so much stuff on this site, I couldn't possible find everything.
<p>"It's more of a digression and speaks to how, despite certain doors swinging open, money, legacy and the establishment will still end up having their children attend the top schools. "</p>
<p>Let me fix that for you -- money, legacy and the Northeast establishment will still end up having their children attend the top schools as viewed through the lens of the Northeast.
Money, legacy and the Southern establishment will still end up having their children attend the top schools as viewed through the lens of the South. (etc.)</p>
<p>I wouldn't exactly say Harvard (re #394) was a golden ticket for my closest friends. They have nice productive lives, but aren't doing anything earthshaking:</p>
<p>Roommates:
1. environmental consultant in DC
2. prof at a big ten college
3. business that went bankrupt, various online business-y services
4. reverend
5. prof at a LAC (not top 25)</p>
<p>Friends:
1. doctor in a group practice
2. lawyer in far east
3. prof in good university
4. prof at a med school
5. organist
6. Violinist in Boston Symphony
7. priest (Episcopalian)/published author/musician
8. Family practitioner
9. Med school prof/cancer researcher</p>