Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> This is a battle against powerful people

Powerful institutions especially.

USC is the primary political powerbroker in Los Angeles (and by extension Southern California, and thus by extension all of California).

They're the largest land developer and one of the larger employers in Los Angeles (city and county), and both Democrat and Republican mayoral candidates make sure not to cross USC's path, and USC has been caught in LA corruption scandals multiple times due to this [0][1][2][3][4]

[0] - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-11/usc-la-m...

[1] - https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-19/lapd-chi...

[2] - https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/mark-ridley-thomas-foun...

[3] - https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-usc-george-ty...

[4] - https://documents.latimes.com/los-angeles-memorial-coliseum/

-------

Anecdotally, I and my SO seriously considered doing part-time grad programs at USC (something EngMgmt or CS for me and Medical for my SO) because of the legacy+donor boost (specifically donating to the Athletic Fund, Association Chairman Fund, Widney Society, Parent Teacher Circle, and a couple other donor programs) which could help any kids we might have in the future.

It's not "that" expensive to donate to USC to get the donor boost assuming your kid isn't an idiot - it's just a couple million total over a consistent period (5-15 years depending on when your kid is starting).

Glad to see we probably don't need to worry about that anymore, as I expect penalties for offending private schools to become stringent over the next 30 years, as us Latinos and Asians are underrepresented in legacy admissions but are now the plurality in California but also a swing demographic.

We're much happier spending a similar amount in actual philanthropy instead.

> It's not "that" expensive to donate to USC to get the donor boost assuming your kid isn't an idiot - it's just a couple million total over a consistent period (5-15 years depending on when your kid is starting).

That is a staggering amount of money!

> According to research published by the National Library of Medicine and the Social Security Administration, the lifetime earnings of the average U.S. citizen (over 50 years from age 20 to 69) vary substantially, depending on the various factors we will cover in this article, with an overall average median lifetime earnings of $1,850,000 for men and $1,100,200 for women.

https://www.theknowlesgroup.org/blog/average-american-lifeti...

Are you lost? This is a forum basically exclusively for people working in tech, a disproportionate fraction of whom are tech founders. If you're in this line of work and making anything vaguely resembling median income, you've fucked up terribly.

It seems like you are trying to insult me and I'm not sure why. However, I will address the issue you raised regardless. The typical tech worker makes far less than you seem to believe.

For example, The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates median pay for tech workers in 2023 was $104K - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology

His tone isn't great, but he isn't wrong.

HN skews Bay Area.

BLS didn't normalize the above data to show the Bay Area where it's fairly common to break $400-500k TC by your late 20s/early 30s.

Furthermore, at least in the Bay Area Asian American community, both spouses are working these roles (or adjacent high paying roles like Medicine, Dentistry, High Finance, etc).

You must be fun at parties.

Is USC that hard to get into ?

My understanding is that Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech and UCLA are more selective and UCSD has better academics.

If you're a selfmade tech founder millionaire......maybe have some faith in the caliber of your own child ?

Nowadays, all of those schools are hard to get into.

What changed ?

US population is stable, enrollment has increased, and all of these universities have been prestigious for a while.

I understand that UCs have pivoted to pseudo-private school status by increasing tuition and international student admissions have gotten more competitive. CS has gotten harder to get in as a major, but has the university as a whole gotten more selective ?

I can't see why things would suddenly get a lot harder for undeclared domestic students. Has the domestic rat-race intensified to such a degree ?

Several things have changed:

1. The Common Application pervasiveness. When I applied to college (many moons ago), I applied to five schools. Now it's not unheard of for kids to apply to 15-25 schools.

2. While the US population is stable there are more kids going to college than 30 years ago.

3. The "resume" of students is much stronger. As a kid I knew someone who got into MIT whose highest math course was HS Calculus, AB equivalent, but not an AP course -- people weren't surprised at the time. I think you'd be hardpressed to find kids who get in with that now. I know kids who have completed Calc BC as HS freshman. Now that's not common, but it's not super rare either. And what HS kid hasn't created their own non-profit? Or published a paper(s)? The bar just keeps rising. Honestly I don't think its sustainable. HS kids applying to Ivies have better credentials than pretty much all of our country's leaders!

I doubt you have ever worked in an early stage tech startup.

To be fair, good private schools ($60k/yr ) and their associated activities easily add up to a million over 12 years. It's a lot of money, but not unheard of, even among upper middle class families.

At the same time. If you invest 2 million in an index fund when they're 10, then it'll be ~$40 million by the time the kid is 40 yr old. So, donating it to USC might be a pretty bad investment unless 2 million is a genuinely small amount for OP.

…you live in a different world than most of us.

I don’t know if a single k-12 private school that has tuition anywhere near that in the South Bay Area, except Harker for the upper grades only. Presentation, Bellermine, etc. are all half that.

The truly elite private schools in the Bay (Castilleja, Harker, Athenian, Stuart/Convent Hall, Town, Hamlin, Menlo, College Prep, Head-Royce) cost around $60k-90k/yr per student.

> you live in a different world than most of us

Probably.

Benefits of a dual income household with both earners making mid-6 figs base and fairly hefty bonuses (and equity), and both of us reached this point by our mid-20s.

This is a very common household structure in the Bay Area.

Your neighbor might be HNW or UHNW and you wouldn't even know it.

What is HNW?

HNW is High Net Worth Individual

And UHNW is Ultra High Net Worth Individual

High Net Worth. Ultra High Net Worth.

> This is a very common household structure in the Bay Area.

But not typical for startup employees.

> So, donating it to USC might be a pretty bad investment

It is.

Before AB1780 it something we heavily considered only because we're Asian American and Asian American admissions at top private like Yale and Harvard have fallen after the Supreme Court's AA ruling, while legacy admissions skyrocketed.

Now that AB1780 exists, and will most likely have teeth in the next 30 years, there's no reason to partake in that zero sum game anymore.

> 2 million is a genuinely small amount for OP.

It comes out to top Bay Area private school tuition for 2 kids over a 16-20 year timeline.

apologize for the tangent but my cousin and her husband (both asian american, both harvard alumni) chose to move back to our hometown in Seattle so they could send their kids to lakeside, the same school bill gates went to.

i assume to increase their chances of getting into harvard. back of the envelope math works out to be $715k for their 5-12 education which may be more bang for your buck but also the college entrance strategy is not so much based on donor contribution and more on target school selection.

> It's not "that" expensive to donate to USC to get the donor boost assuming your kid isn't an idiot - it's just a couple million total over a consistent period (5-15 years depending on when your kid is starting).

Do you think your kid will need a $2m+ boost to get into USC?

Imho, the degree will largely be wasted on a student not smart enough or not motivated enough to get in without that help.

The folks who already run around in moneyed/connected circles have plenty of less rigorous college options that still provide access to social capital, and it’s trivially easy to get into some masters programs at USC if the student is willing to pay and wants the badge (fwiw, this is largely true at HYPS schools as well).

> Do you think your kid will need a $2m+ boost to get into USC

Before AB1780 - yes. We're Asian American, and Asian American admissions at top privates has declined after the Supreme Court's AA ruling at the expense of legacies.

> Imho, the degree will largely be wasted on a student not smart enough or not motivated enough to get in without that help

Not necessarily. It's easier to make a case for a nepo hire/referral if your kid has a "Good" degree.

If you dig closely in intern and new grad hiring across early career tech roles, I'd say a solid minority (20-25%) were landed due to parents leveraging their professional networks.

With a "Good" degree it makes it easier.

Unethical - yes. But such is life

------------

All of this is moot now with AB1780 and the eventual addition of teeth to it in the next 30 years.

I think legacy admissions will eventually get banned in CA due to the political implications now that us Asians and Latinos are the plurality in California, but severely underrepresented in legacy admissions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com