Hacker News Reader

Comment by ffn | Hacker News Reader

>The book bares all about how the parenting model worked for her older daughter Sophia, now 17 and heading off to an Ivy League college, but backfired dramatically for her younger girl, Louisa, or Lulu, who is now 14

Why do we associate attending an Ivy League institution as a 17 / 18 year old for an undergraduate education as some sort of metric for success?

I mean, I'm not going to be naive and insist that the worthwhile life doesn't look at results and instead only looks at the journey, but to consider one's parenting model as "working" at age 17 because one's child is going to Ivy league is hilariously short-sighted (unless you're planning for your child to die a lot sooner than most people).

My TL;DR point is follows:

17 years is too short to draw any conclusions on how successful a person's life is so the jury should still be out on Tiger Mothering.

View on HN

Why do we associate attending an Ivy League institution as a 17 / 18 year old for an undergraduate education as some sort of metric for success?

Because, by all accounts, it is one of the most reliable indicators that the child is going to be successful.

but to consider one's parenting model as "working" at age 17 because one's child is going to Ivy league is hilariously short-sighted

Well, at some point you- as a parent- stop being responsible for your child's life. Many would argue that occurs when the child goes away to college and makes their own choices.

> Because, by all accounts, it is one of the most reliable indicators that the child is going to be successful.

Successful as in working for a Fortune 500? Or successful as in growing up to be a self-suficient, happy human being?

suc·cess·ful

/səkˈsesfəl/

Adjective

1) Accomplishing an aim or purpose: "a successful attack on the town".

2) Having achieved popularity, profit, or distinction.

Attending an ivy league school fulfills both definitions, depending on why you went.

Oh good, someone brought out their dictionary.

I could be mistaken, but I do believe the answer to 'successful as in' refers to the definition of the word successful

> Because, by all accounts, it is one of the most reliable indicators that the child is going to be successful.

Happy ≠ successful. Which is more important?

successful. With the fruits of early success you can spend the remainder of your life figuring out what makes you happy, and it wont be limited to the things you can do in your home town for $10.

Hey, if you know the Path to True Happiness...well, quit hogging.

It's pretty easy...stop caring about success!

Attending an Ivy League school as an undergraduate is one of the most reliable indicators that a child is going to be successful?

Are you serious? A student of mine, who is not only exceedingly capable but also very pleasant, with many interests outside college (yes, he is a serious musician) applied to several Ivy League schools for his graduate degree but somehow none took him on. He is now going up to NYU, and he will enjoy it.

I think he will go far in life.

While your student may be headed for success, be aware of the the implications of using anecdotal evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

This is the wrong counter-argument, I think. Top schools get such a number of applicants that they have to turn away a fair number of qualified candidates, and once you are in and are not totally socially inept you can't help but make the connections that will get you set for life. Luck plays a great part at this stage, even though it's anathema to say.

If anyone wants to test the tiger-mother theory they should perhaps look at people who got into decent schools and follow up how they did.

untog didn't say that being successful and going to an Ivy League school are mutually inclusive. Untog said that attending an Ivy League school suggests the individual will be successful. This says nothing positive or negative about other schools.

Does mutually inclusive just mean the same? E.g. If A includes B and B includes A then A = B.

Mutually inclusive means: A implies B, therefor if A, then B.

> Because, by all accounts, it is one of the most reliable indicators that the child is going to be successful.

I don't know of any way to phrase this. What you said is profoundly stupid and factually incorrect, even if you judge success by salary alone:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/do-elite-colleg...

Your own link shows that 5 of the top 10 mid-career median salary schools are Ivy League schools. Only Brown (more arts-focused), Columbia (no clue why this isn't there), and Cornell (only Ivy with public ties, and the largest Ivy) aren't included.

From the parent:

> Because, by all accounts, it is one of the most reliable indicators that the child is going to be successful.

Clearly, it isn't. If it were, the only schools there would be Ivies. They are not.

> Why do we associate attending an Ivy League institution as a 17 / 18 year old for an undergraduate education as some sort of metric for success?

Because, statistically, they're going to earn a lot more money over the course of their careers (especially when you factor engineering students out of the state school equation).

Or when you factor engineering students out of the Ivy school equation.

Completely agree. I find it difficult to comprehend how moving your lifetime earnings potential from 2M to 20M is seen as a horrible thing. You could work 1/10 the amount of your life, have the same amount of money, and figure out what makes you happy with the other 9/10.

I get the feeling most of the people that say money cant buy you happiness have never been dirt poor. I'm not saying money buys happiness, but its damn hard to be happy when you r stressed out over how to pay the rent.

I seriously doubt that graduating college 3-4 years before your peer group results in an $18mm advantage very often.

Also anything above $2mm is gravy where happiness is concerned.

Over 2m? I did some quick extrapolation, which is probably wrong.

Current rent: 1595/mo ~= 19k/yr

Add 2% each year for inflation(probably wrong, but gotta start somewhere) and sum up 42 years (25 to 67) comes to just shy of 1.3M, merely paying your rent. Take taxes out of that 2M and rent+food+retirement is about the only things you can pay for and thats cutting it close.

2M to live in the place I was born just isn't going to cut it. There are of course optimizations, you could buy a condo or marry someone who also works to up it to 4M, but for a quick back of the envelope calculation its close enough.

My original estimation of 20M is probably off by a factor of 2 to 4, depends who you brown nose it with in the ivy leagues.

But basically, every time i think about my current costs and inflation, i realize that the estimated 2M average lifetime earnings potential of my education doesn't get very far.

Sorry, I confused myself. I was thinking of having $2mm net worth upon retirement, not $2mm lifetime earnings. You're right that $2mm lifetime isn't super awesome.

I definitely agree that your estimation of the benefit to graduating 4 years early is off by a few factors, still.

I think you are wrong. Smart people have high earnings regardless of Ivy League or state school.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2...

That's great, assuming your kid is actually smart. What if he isn't? If he can pretend to be smart (and all the other things Ivy League schools look for), then his path through life will be much easier by going to a prestigious school.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com