<p>After reading some of the class related comments on threads here, a few of us are wondering how grads of top schools have ended up without good incomes. Is this lifestyle choice? Are we fooling ourselves that anyone who graduates from a top college can have an upper class income if desired?</p>
<p>"Are we fooling ourselves that anyone who graduates from a top college can have an upper class income if desired?"</p>
<p>Yes. Depends on your major, depends on your college record (grades, program), depends on your relevant skills and experiences beyond classroom learning, depends on your effort in finding a good job, depends on your willingness to work.</p>
<p>College can give you a good credential, it can give you good contacts, it can help you to develop skills, but it doesn't find you or guarantee you a job.</p>
<p>We are assuming hard work and willingness of course. Everyone here is a hard worker or would not be here. Maybe this wasn;t the case a generation ago, but it's our impression that it was if you were not a blue blood. So given the native intelligence and hard work that it takes to be at a top 15, we can not imagine needing massive financial aid for our kids or having them be turned off by upper class peers. What are we missing?</p>
<p>You have to be realistic about many things. (1) Schools don't find you jobs. (2) Your major may not be one that leads to a high-paying job. (3) Not all graduates of 'top 15' schools have the kind of character or personal skills or work skills that will allow them to succeed in the working world. (4) A certain percentage of smart, well credentialed people (just like everyone else) have physical or mental health issues .</p>
<p>There is a famous study (will try to find link) done some years ago that shows that "equally qualified" graduates of elite schools and non-elite schools do just as well in the labor market. Bear in mind also that there are a whole lot more graduates of non-elite schools than there are of elite schools. So while there are definitely some tracks or patterns of recruitment that may favor graduates from some schools, the labor market is ultimately very competitive.</p>
<p>I don't think financial success has as much to do with what school you attend as many people believe. Certain professions are more lucrative than others. I agree with everything mackinaw says. </p>
<p>I never went to college and have a six figure salary. Most of my friends from high school went to college and graduate school.....some earn more than me, most earn less. I think everyone is more concerned with being happy than earning tons of money. The only friends I have who make sickening amount of money are surgeons (who are FINALLY making money after training for 15 years) and <em>some</em> lawyers.....</p>
<p>It also depends on what your major is and what your goal is. Some careers are just very unlikely to lead to a high income, regardless of where you went to school. It's also the case that a simple four year degree is not enough (generally speaking) to get you a very high income.
I certainly know graduates of Ivies who are have modest incomes. Some are teachers. A couple are clergy, another is a musician.</p>
<p>This is a heated discussion in the dorm this afternoon. We know some of us will go to top grad professional schools and easily become millionaires. Others will get Ph.Ds, and pursue all kinds of passions. Discounting for those who fall off the track due to illness of some kind, should not all of us have productive careers and be able to save to put our kids through college? Should any child of a highly educated family feel out of place among any peers? Should the government continue to give financial aid, generation after generation, to families who should have gained financial independance?</p>
<p>"Are we fooling ourselves that anyone who graduates from a top college can have an upper class income if desired?"</p>
<p>I think that most people who are bright enough to get into a top college can have a high income -- if they want to. That includes people who are that bright but who don't chose to go to a top college.</p>
<p>It's important to realize that not everyone measures the worth of their lives by whether they make a lot of money. There are plenty of grads of top colleges who choose to go into fields such as the ministry, teaching, community organizing, being a housewife or freelance writer -- fields that may bring them lots of satisfaction, but don't bring in big bucks.</p>
<p>I personally think that parents and students who want to go to top colleges solely because they think that's the path to high incomes would be better off spending their college funds on something like getting training in plumbing and entrepreneurship. They'd probably save both time and money by pursuing such a path to high incomes.</p>
<p>But what is the responsibility of those of us who have had access to the very best in education to stop asking society to subsidize us and their offspring? I'm a Canadian so don't recieve money from the US govt. Many of us here do. Is it just fine for them to pursue low paying passions and ask the govt, to subsidize their children through college? What should be expected of those to whom so much is given? We all like the idea of the govt. subsidizing people who choose helping professions. However, should one be allowed to be a lazy musician Harvard grad and collect financial aid for his children?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Should any child of a highly educated family feel out of place among any peers? Should the government continue to give financial aid, generation after generation, to families who should have gained financial independance?>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Many of these terms are subject to qualification. For example, what is meant by "peers" in this context? or "financial independence"? </p>
<p>Take two Ivy graduates who both want to teach high school and marry. Chances are that their combined income will be around $80k, or even less. If they have two children, they will find it hard to pay for their tuition at their alma mater without some financial aid. If the kids in turn also choose to become high school teachers, the scenario will be reproduced. Of course, one can argue that the parents do not have to send their kids to Ivies. But then, how do we define "peers" given that the parents themselves went to Ivies? And certainly, a family that earns $80k has financial independence, since it earns well above the national median. </p>
<p>I cringe at the idea of "productive careers." What exactly is "productive"? Is that the same as high-paying jobs? Can't one have a productive life yet be poor? </p>
<p>One friend of mine received her Ph.D. in economics from a top school and began teaching in a very well-regarded LAC that paid its faculty very well. A few years after she began teaching, her brother graduated from an Ivy with a B.A. in economics, was wooed by a Wall Street firm with a starting salary that was considerably higher than his sister's. Same major, different levels of education, different career paths. The sister is now a very successful and well-paid academic; the brother is a millionnaire.</p>
<p>So should those who chose low paying professions expect to have the same access to education for their children as those who chose higher paying professions. I think in many cases it is easily argued that higher paying professions require more personal sacrafice. Of course there are exceptions, but if you choose to teach form 8-3 rather than lawyer from 8-12, should your children have the same benefits at private colleges. Many posters here seem to think this should be so. We, as present college students, think our professional choices will effect what we can offer our families. There are just a few slackers among us. Will they be posting that Yale has 60% that are paying and that's unfair in the future? What is fair? What should the govt. be willing to pay for? Pell grants for Harvard grad kids?</p>
<p>So should those who chose low paying professions expect to have the same access to education for their children as those who chose higher paying professions</p>
<p>Live on a few more days and you will find that wealth is not always equated in terms of dollars and cents and money does not buy you happieness , it will just provide you more creature comforts as you wallow in your misery.</p>
<p>You're way off canuckeh......</p>
<p>You asked what is expected from those who received financial assistance for college? They're expected to become valuable contributors to our society and contributors to the common good, not greedy self-absorbed money grubbers who measure their success by the size of their bank account. Thank goodness for the teachers...who, by the way, work much longer hours than 8-3. Meanwhile, most of the laywers I know love to brag about being out of court by 2pm each day.</p>
<p>We're all going to be miserable, rich or poor? Is this just the fate of top school grads or everyone? Poll taken here: 10 out of 10 would rather be miserable with creature comforts. Frankly, no one here sees poor as glam!</p>
<p>"But what is the responsibility of those of us who have had access to the very best in education to stop asking society to subsidize us and their offspring? .... Is it just fine for them to pursue low paying passions and ask the govt, to subsidize their children through college? What should be expected of those to whom so much is given?"</p>
<p>I don't know any Ivy grads whom I would characterize as lazy bums who are allowing society to support them. Ivy grads who choose low paying fields such as teaching, writing, social work, etc. tend to be working very hard and to also be contributing to society a great deal. Even the Ivy grads I know who are housewives do a great deal of major community service.</p>
<p>I don't measure people's societal contributions by the size of their paychecks. I don't think that just because someone has an Ivy education, they somehow have a debt that they need to pay back to society by making a lot of money.</p>
<p>Some of the people whom I know who contribute the most to society are people who don't make a lot of money. Some of the people whom I have seen who contribute the least are people who make lots of money and spend it all on themselves, while also spending no time at all volunteering or doing other things to directly assist other people.</p>
<p>I doubt very much that k-12 teachers work only from 8 to 3. My S's English teacher reported to his class not long ago that he had stayed up late at night correcting papers, but had not made it through his pile (he teaches four classes of 30 students each). He has to juggle preparing lectures for four classes, correcting papers for 120 students, coaching a creative writing class, attending mandatory professional development twice a week, and so forth. </p>
<p>Of course, your professional choices will affect what you can offer your families. But think what kind of society we would have if everyone opted to pursue a career in law, banking or medicine and no-one went into teaching? I doubt that there are many Ivy grad kids who qualify for Pell grants, but I would not be surprised if there were a lot of Ivy grad kids who qualify for some kind of financial aid. I sincerely hope that not all students who attend Ivy colleges think only of the monetary rewards of their degrees. If we want our kids to be well taught, I would hope that some of the graduates from top schools would consider careers in teaching.</p>
<p>"We, as present college students, think our professional choices will effect what we can offer our families. "</p>
<p>Offer in terms of what, money...time....love....? Someone working 8-12 doesn't have much to offer their kids.</p>
<p>"Poll taken here: 10 out of 10 would rather be miserable with creature comforts."</p>
<p>How many of these kids grew up in wealthy families?</p>
<p>No doubt we need people to serve in many capacities, and need to reward them. But where do we draw the line? All of us know people who have taken the easy route, made the decision to do what they want and to be subsidized. Should a well educated mother decide to be a stay at home mother and ask society to subsidize her children's college educations? A poor, uneducated mother wouldn't have this choice in many States. Sure someone working 8-12 doesn't have a lot of time for kids, but the choice her is a middle/upper middle class choice. You have one income that can suffice. So it seems like we are subsidizing middle class educated people? true?</p>
<p>All of us know people who have taken the easy route, made the decision to do what they want and to be subsidized."</p>
<p>What kind of people are you talking about? I actually don't know people who took the easy route and now are, for instance, living off welfare.</p>
<p>I do know people who chose to be stay at home moms, and whose kids will qualify for need-based aid. The SAH moms I know are people who do a major share of volunteer work in the school and in the community. They aren't sitting home eating bonbons.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, though, even most of the people I know with 2 parents working in the home will qualify for need-based aid. College is very expensive now, far more expensive proportionately than when most of us were young. It's hard for even upper middle class families with 2 working parents to afford to pay the full costs of the most expensive private colleges.</p>